PoliticalAction.com Blog

11 reasons why the elections in 2010 will be the most important in the history of the United States of America.

What would you say if I gave you 11 reasons why the elections in 2010 will be the most important in the history of the United States?

1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America’s largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?

Would you have said, ” C’mon that will never happen in America.”

2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in two of the US Big-Three automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO’s of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?

Would you have said, “C’mon that will never happen in America.”

3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 21 Czars, without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.

Would you have said, “Cmon that will never happen in America.”

4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency – with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion – triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama’s $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010. That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.

Would you have said, “Cmon that will never happen in America.”

5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan. That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. That some of our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.

Would you have said, “Cmon that will never happen in America.”

6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.

Would you have said, “Cmon that will never happen in America.”

7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America’s past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America.

Would you have said, “Cmon that will never happen in America.”

8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new “Fairness Doctrine.” That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of those who may disagree with his policies via internet blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most major network television and most newspapers will only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?

Would you say, “Cmon that will never happen in America.”

9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that does not require the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That Obama’s Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.

Would you say, “Cmon that will never happen in America.”

10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen.

Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come. That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran. (And maybe under review by ACORN.)

I know – I know what you will say. That will never happen in America.

Hopefully you realize the significance of taking the census away from the Commerce Department and placing it under the White House, where Acorn has been given broad authority to manage it.
If we don’t do everything in our power to stop this madness in 2010 and 2012, may God have mercy on our souls. Pass this on to every freedom loving American you can.

by: Brent De Leo, Pennsylvania

I was never too involved in politics; never really thought political battles affected my life too much. I basically thought that the system of checks and balances that our government was based on would take care of things and that even if someone got into office that I didn’t agree with, it would all be corrected 4-8 years later as the country ping-ponged between democratic and republican leaders. What I didn’t realize until later is that the reason we ping-pong between parties is because neither party actually satisfies us and gives us what we want. They entice us with “good” and then we find that our liberties are taken in order to architect the “good” their way.

I had watched George W. Bush trample on the Constitution with the Patriot Act, spend far too much money on an endless war of occupation rather than defeat, and I watched him grow the size of government, the control of government, and our country’s debt by leaps and bounds. I, too, wanted change. But, I wasn’t sure what change I was looking for and during the 2008 election cycle, no one really ever talked about what the change was going to be, just that we needed some change.

I wanted a change in politics, but I didn’t want to fundamentally change America. This country is great – the only country with real freedom and a system of government that is based on the notion that the people are in charge. Any unhappiness I have about my country is about the leaders that overstep their bounds, not the governmental structure that our founders put into motion. In order to understand what a government “by the people” means, we must ask ourselves a question. Where do our freedoms come from? If the answer is that our government gives them to us by laws, then that means that our freedoms can be taken away by our government with new laws. Or, do we believe that our freedom comes from our Maker, whomever you believe your Maker is? Do we believe that humans were placed on this earth with a purpose and that the mere fact that we are human gives us the freedom of expression, the freedom of thought, and the right to be ourselves and control our own destinies? A set of laws cannot provide for our freedom – liberty is part of who we are, not who we are allowed to be.

So, America voted for change. Did we get it? If you are anything like me, the main grievances with George W. Bush were the unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act, the endless spending on an endless war “on terror”, the increasing power of the federal government, and an out of control debt. So, what has changed? President Obama has renewed the Patriot Act, has continued the war with no noticeable decrease in spending, has increased the size of the federal government, and has dramatically increased our debt. Somehow, amidst the cheering, balloons, and chants for change, we ended up with more of the same.

On the surface you might be tempted to say that we have voted in another George W. Bush and can expect 4 years of the same Bush-like policies. But, that is only true if those four things I mentioned are the things that “change” is being measured against. Obviously, those are not the things that Barrack Obama was speaking of when he promised us “change we could believe in”. Therefore, it should be no surprise that those four things didn’t change – the Patriot Act continues, the endless war continues, the federal government control is increasing (even faster now), and our national debt is spiraling out of control.

So, what was the change that our new president was speaking of? I’ll be honest, I’m not quite sure yet. We see glimpses of what he was talking about by watching the political moves that his administration makes, but we can’t quite see the whole picture of what he is trying to accomplish. I’m not going to speculate on where we are headed, for I am not qualified to make that assessment. But, I’m not sure that the destination is as important as what we can see in HOW we are getting there – the methods. Our forefathers recognized that the freedoms of the individual outweighed any goal of the government. Thomas Jefferson once said, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”. Go back and read it again – the Constitution and Bill of Rights spell out what the federal government cannot do to the citizens of this country and the small number of things that the federal government was established for. It was written this way on purpose so that it was clear that the government was not to control our lives, to take care of us, or to tell us how to live.

Some may disagree with me that the destination itself is less important than the methods, so let me explain. We all strive for peace and want people to get along, right? So, what if we placed armed militia in every neighborhood and public square and if anyone disagreed with the official sanctioned opinion adopted by the government (on any issue) they were immediately jailed? This would certainly create peace, would it not? There would be no disagreements, no passionate marches, and no arguments in the public square – so, yes, we’d have peace. Does the destination of peace justify the methods of obtaining the peace? No, it does not. Individual liberties are more precious than obtaining any end result – ever! My point? Even if President Obama’s destination is good – healthcare for all Americans, reduction of greenhouse gases, social justice for minorities and disadvantaged groups, bailouts to reduce layoffs, etc. – that doesn’t mean that the methods are always justified. The good of the “collective” does not outweigh the rights of the individual. If we accomplish these goals, but lose democracy, liberty, and individual rights, what have we gained? But, this isn’t about the difference between Democratic policies and Republican policies. Democrats want policies and laws that dictate their ideals. Republicans want policies and laws that dictate their ideals. I, and likely most of you, want policies and laws to be removed so that liberties are given back to the individual; so that we can once again be a nation of the people and for the people. Our federal government was formed to protect the people of this great Nation, not to implement laws that tell us how we should live. Have we forgotten about the 10th amendment? “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

My mother always told me to pick my friends carefully, that who I associate with says a lot about who I am. This isn’t a new or obscure notion. George Washington, our first President, once said, “Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company”. So, while we might not be able to make concrete statements about President Obama based on who he associates with, certainly reason would tell us that it indeed tells us something about him, the type of company he enjoys, and something about his belief system. Let’s just look at some of his czar and advisor appointments. Some of them are very radical-thinking people that do not fall into the mainstream of America at all and certainly don’t agree with the core ideals that America was founded on. They are people that have clear socialists ties, want major government power, are admitted communists, think that putting sterilizing agents into the drinking water is a good way to control the population, believe in forced abortions for population control, believe that all capitalism is bad and have a desire to de-develop America, and are part of very radical groups that, under the disguise of “green jobs” want to shake up the American system of capitalism, turn it on its head, and re-shape America. I’ve heard some people explain that the czars and advisors don’t have any real power, so it is all harmless. While they don’t have a vote into legislation, what do we think they are managing and advising about? Do we realize that the Apollo Alliance, a “green job” radical organization, actually wrote the stimulus bill and that several in the White House are connected to them, including admitted communist and founding member of the Apollo Alliance, Van Jones. Have you ever wondered why all the stimulus dollars don’t seem to help you or put money into your pocket and unemployment rates continue to rise? If a radical “green jobs” group wrote it, I wonder where their allegiances are; it doesn’t seem like actually getting unemployment down is part of their plan. These examples are simply to show who President Obama is surrounding himself with. People naturally surround themselves with people they agree with – even if they don’t agree with everything. If the current administration is looking to restore American freedoms, economic position, and jobs, why would he hire people that have socialist, communist, and radical views that seem to directly conflict with what Americans is. It makes me wonder – What is his end game here?

But, we can’t simply blame politicians or the current administration; we’ve been heading down this path for quite some time. Sure, if we don’t agree with the current direction of the country, we have an obligation to stand up, voice our opinions, and change the leaders in Washington. But, we need to reexamine our own priorities. Do we want to be right? Or, do we want individual liberties? Do we want someone in office that will force the country down a path that we agree with? Or, do we want individual liberties so that we can all live our own lives the way we want? Are we satisfied with the ping-pong from left to right as we are continually disappointed with the leaders that we put in charge of our country?

Power, prestige, and ideology have clouded our judgement and perspective. We have long forgotten the sting of tyranny and have enjoyed the comforts of liberty to the point in which we can no longer see the beauty of our republic, yet only the stains. Denying the ability to lose the freedom that our forefathers were willing to die for, we have given in to the harlot’s enticement and allowed new pleasures to be more noble than freedom.

While we venture toward “social justice” in the name of equality, we’ve turned away from the liberty we thought we were in search of all along. While we so quickly embraced wanting what wasn’t ours, we’ve neglected to see that the same tyrant we fought against is the one that is now coordinating our demise and deciding how the people of this nation will divide our labors among us all. In our folly, we looked to our government to give us comfort, to give us meaning, to give us boundaries, and to tell us how to live – fear not, we have gotten for what we asked, with no request denied.

We have come to believe that our desire is not merely the pursuit of happiness, but rather happiness itself. Make no mistake, when we are no longer willing to pursue our own happiness, we have given in, let down our guard, shackled our own feet, and given this experiment of a republic back to the king from which we revolted. For the great and oppressive tyrants in Washington will more than oblige to give us happiness without the tiresome pursuit, yet it will not be a happiness that will easily be recognized and will certainly not satisfy. We have misunderstood the plight of our forefathers and have come to believe that they wanted financial equality for all, forgetting that they simply wanted freedom from oppressive rule and control so that they could be free.

We have turned a blind eye on liberty for the comforts of today, for a hand-out from our leaders, for the luxury of an unearned check, for not having to pay our own rent, for not having to save our own money for retirement, and even to not have to learn from our own mistakes and failures. We are even joyous when we receive a “tax credit” from our leaders; money that was ours in the first place and was taken from us. And, in these concerning economic times, we gladly toss liberty to the wind, hold out our hands, and thank our kind leaders for the job we now believe we deserve even without the pursuit. Yes, we have been given the choice between liberty and comfort – we unabashedly chose comfort. Some may exclaim that liberty was stolen from us!! But, history proves this theory to be but a mirage, one carefully crafted by politicians on both sides of the aisle as they entice us to follow them further down the rabbit hole of complete dependence.

It is now self-evident that liberty was ours! She had been given to us by our Maker, through the blood of our fathers, and we held her firmly in our hands. With eyes wide open, we followed other ideals other than liberty, we decided to rely on our government instead of ourselves, and we gave liberty away. All is not lost, however. She can be repurchased -yes, repurchased. It isn’t too late. But, it will cost us. Make no mistake, it will cost us. We cannot pretend that we didn’t give her away willingly, we cannot pretend that someone stole her from us while we weren’t watching, we cannot pretend that we hadn’t indeed forgotten the sting of tyranny and let down our guard. For, if we make way for new leaders and then beg them to find our liberty for us and bring her back to us, then our dependence on government will continue – have we not learned anything?

We, on our own, let liberty go – only we can get her back. We, on our own, held out our hands in complete dependence on our government and watched liberty disappear into the night. Once again, we must rise up like our forefathers. We, the people, must seek out liberty, fight for her with integrity and peace, and bring her back home safely.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”

Liberty – change I can believe in.

The man that brought you Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone is now america’s food safety czar.

The person who may be responsible for more food-related illness and death than anyone in history has just been made the US food safety czar. This is no joke.

Here’s the back story.

When FDA scientists were asked to weigh in on what was to become the most radical and potentially dangerous change in our food supply — the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods — secret documents now reveal that the experts were very concerned. Memo after memo described toxins, new diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and hard-to-detect allergens. They were adamant that the technology carried “serious health hazards,” and required careful, long-term research, including human studies, before any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could be safely released into the food supply.

But the biotech industry had rigged the game so that neither science nor scientists would stand in their way. They had placed their own man in charge of FDA policy and he wasn’t going to be swayed by feeble arguments related to food safety. No, he was going to do what corporations had done for decades to get past these types of pesky concerns. He was going to lie.

Dangerous Food Safety Lies

When the FDA was constructing their GMO policy in 1991-2, their scientists were clear that gene-sliced foods were significantly different and could lead to “different risks” than conventional foods. But official policy declared the opposite, claiming that the FDA knew nothing of significant differences, and declared GMOs substantially equivalent.

This fiction became the rationale for allowing GM foods on the market without any required safety studies whatsoever! The determination of whether GM foods were safe to eat was placed entirely in the hands of the companies that made them — companies like Monsanto, which told us that the PCBs, DDT, and Agent Orange were safe.

GMOs were rushed onto our plates in 1996. Over the next nine years, multiple chronic illnesses in the US nearly doubled — from 7% to 13%. Allergy-related emergency room visits doubled between 1997 and 2002 while food allergies, especially among children, skyrocketed. We also witnessed a dramatic rise in asthma, autism, obesity, diabetes, digestive disorders, and certain cancers.

In January of this year, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, one of the world’s top biologists, told me that after reviewing 600 scientific journals, he concluded that the GM foods in the US are largely responsible for the increase in many serious diseases.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine concluded that animal studies have demonstrated a causal relationship between GM foods and infertility, accelerated aging, dysfunctional insulin regulation, changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system, and immune problems such as asthma, allergies, and inflammation

In July, a report by eight international experts determined that the flimsy and superficial evaluations of GMOs by both regulators and GM companies “systematically overlook the side effects” and significantly underestimate “the initial signs of diseases like cancer and diseases of the hormonal, immune, nervous and reproductive systems, among others.”

The Fox Guarding the Chickens

If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely infamous role in human history. That person is Michael Taylor. He had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto’s vice president and chief lobbyist.

This month Michael Taylor became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America’s food safety czar. What have we done?

The Milk Man Cometh

While Taylor was at the FDA in the early 90’s, he also oversaw the policy regarding Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH/rbST) — injected into cows to increase milk supply.

The milk from injected cows has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, more insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a huge risk factor for common cancers and its high levels in this drugged milk is why so many medical organizations and hospitals have taken stands against rbGH. A former Monsanto scientist told me that when three of his Monsanto colleagues evaluated rbGH safety and discovered the elevated IGF-1 levels, even they refused to drink any more milk — unless it was organic and therefore untreated.

Government scientists from Canada evaluated the FDA’s approval of rbGH and concluded that it was a dangerous facade. The drug was banned in Canada, as well as Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. But it was approved in the US while Michael Taylor was in charge. His drugged milk might have caused a significant rise in US cancer rates. Additional published evidence also implicates rbGH in the high rate of fraternal twins in the US.

Taylor also determined that milk from injected cows did not require any special labeling. And as a gift to his future employer Monsanto, he wrote a white paper suggesting that if companies ever had the audacity to label their products as not using rbGH, they should also include a disclaimer stating that according to the FDA, there is no difference between milk from treated and untreated cows.

Taylor’s disclaimer was also a lie. Monsanto’s own studies and FDA scientists officially acknowledged differences in the drugged milk. No matter. Monsanto used Taylor’s white paper as the basis to successfully sue dairies that labeled their products as rbGH-free.

Will Monsanto’s Wolff Also Guard the Chickens?

As consumers learned that rbGH was dangerous, they refused to buy the milk. To keep their customers, a tidal wave of companies has publicly committed to not use the drug and to label their products as such. Monsanto tried unsuccessfully to convince the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to make rbGH-free claims, so they went to their special friend in Pennsylvania — Dennis Wolff. As state secretary of agriculture, Wolff unilaterally declared that labeling products rbGH-free was illegal, and that all such labels must be removed from shelves statewide. This would, of course, eliminate the label from all national brands, as they couldn’t afford to create separate packaging for just one state.

Fortunately, consumer demand forced Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell to step in and stop Wolff’s madness. But Rendell allowed Wolff to take a compromised position that now requires rbGH-free claims to also be accompanied by Taylor’s FDA disclaimer on the package.

President Obama is considering Dennis Wolff for the top food safety post at the USDA. Yikes!

Rumor has it that the reason why Pennsylvania’s governor is supporting Wolff’s appointment is to get him out of the state — after he “screwed up so badly” with the rbGH decision. Oh great, governor. Thanks.

Ohio Governor Gets Taylor-itus

Ohio not only followed Pennsylvania’s lead by requiring Taylor’s FDA disclaimer on packaging, they went a step further. They declared that dairies must place that disclaimer on the same panel where rbGH-free claims are made, and even dictated the font size. This would force national brands to re-design their labels and may ultimately dissuade them from making rbGH-free claims at all. The Organic Trade Association and the International Dairy Foods Association filed a lawsuit against Ohio. Although they lost the first court battle, upon appeal, the judge ordered a mediation session that takes place today. Thousands of Ohio citizens have flooded Governor Strickland’s office with urgent requests to withdraw the states anti-consumer labeling requirements.

Perhaps the governor has an ulterior motive for pushing his new rules. If he goes ahead with his labeling plans, he might end up with a top appointment in the Obama administration.

To hear what America is saying about GMOs and to add your voice, go to our new non-GMO Facebook Group.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods from Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa-surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

By Vision America , Restoring Christian Values – 3 Hours Ago

Originally, the word “czar” referred to an autocratic ruler with despotic powers – the very antithesis of democracy.

That’s the way Obama’s czars operate,” said Vision America President Rick Scarborough. “His czars are unelected and unaccountable. They have too much money and power, and are remaking America in ways none of us could have imagined.”

Scarborough noted that whereas most of his predecessors had one or two “czars,” President Obama has 34 and counting. Each is paid over $172,000 annually plus benefits and has a staff of 10 or more.

“Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg (who’s 31-years-old, drives a foreign car and has no executive experience) can set the pay of executives at any company that receives bailout money.

“Science Czar” John Holdren once supported compulsory population-control, including forced-abortion, to fight what’s termed over-population.

“Obama is afflicted by Czar-mania, “Scarborough said. “By appointing these czars, often with powers exceeding those of cabinet-level officials, the president has avoided the Senate confirmation process, as set forth in Article II, Section 2.”

In this regard, Scarborough shares the concerns of ranking Senate Democrat Robert Byrd, who also questions the constitutionality of whole the czar-ist system.

Scarborough noted that Representative Jack Kingston (R-GA) has filed a bill requiring confirmation of Obama’s czars and withholding funding from their bureaucratic empires until that happens.

Vision America President Rick Scarborough is also the moderator of a growing STOP Obama Coalition, dedicated to maintaining Constitutional government.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe,
we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the
government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

‘I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.’
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

www.chinaview.cn 2009-06-15
By Jing Zhao Cesarone

CHICAGO, June 14 (Xinhua) — Taking issue with the Obama Administration’s contention that the economy is showing signs of recovery, Peter Schiff, a well-known American economic commentator, firmly believes that this economy will never recover unless the government changes its policies of taxing, spending and expanding the government.

Schiff, currently serving as president and chief global strategist of the brokerage firm Euro Pacific Capital Inc, told Xinhua during an exclusive interview on Saturday that “the things the government is doing with the economy only put us into deeper debt and deeper trouble. All they will probably do is buy us time, interfere with the current situation and postpone the unpleasant consequences in exchange for more damage in the future.”

Regarding recent numbers showing slight growth in retail sales and a dip in first-time jobless claims, Schiff said, “they’re depending on that to reign in the massive deficits they’re creating. But they aren’t doing anything that will lead to recovery; they’re doing the opposite!”

As an expert on money, economic theory, and international investing, Schiff is best known for his prescient predictions of the economic crisis of 2008. He is one of the few investment advisors to have correctly called the current bear market before it began.

He said, “the Obama Administration will be like Jimmy Carter’s. They’re going to tell everyone to ‘sacrifice’ to support a government that is just too large and too powerful. Regarding interest rates, Schiff noted, “We may have reduced interest rates now, but with higher inflation, we will have to raise them in the future. Then, we will have recession, rising prices, and no available credit. This will smother any potential for recovery.”

Turning to the unemployment rate, Schiff pointed out, “the current headline unemployment rate of 9.5 percent does not truly capture the situation on the ground because it ignores those who are ‘marginally attached’ to the workforce; 16 percent is more realistic representation of the situation, and I estimate about a 20 percent unemployment rate by the end of this year.”

Commenting on the government’s stimulus plan and its effect on job creation, Schiff said: “The kind of jobs created by the government stimulus are not productive and viable for the economy, but the private sector is forced to subsidize them. Not only are they a drain on the real economy via taxation, they also divert human capital from private businesses.”

Then what should the government do to bring the economy back on track? Schiff advised: “If the government changes its policies, the economy will start to recover immediately. But the symptoms will get worse before they get better. It’s like ripping off a band-aid — they’re so worried about the pain that they’re pulling it off slowly. If they just ripped it off, it might hurt a lot for a second, but then it would be over and we could move on.”

Schiff criticized the Federal Reserve as the ultimate culprit in this crisis. He said, “in response to the dot-com bust, Alan Greenspan kept interest rates artificially low to stimulate the economy. The only thing he stimulated was an artificial boom in real estate and stocks. Now, we’re paying for that with a recession.”

“Instead of allowing this restructuring to happen, Ben Bernanke has dropped interest rates to near-zero and started intervening directly in the market. He’s ‘monetizing’ Treasury debt to make up for a drop in foreign demand. These policies will lead to a collapse in the dollar, which will be much worse than the current crisis,” he added.

Schiff is a supporter of the Austrian School of Economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and was an economic adviser for Ron Paul’s campaign in the 2008 Republican Party primaries, through which Schiff also expressed support for sound money, limited government, and free market capitalism.

Hear, hear Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R) MN-6

You Rock Mrs. Bachmann

“Call it for what it is” indeed

Obama and his gangsters. Taking over
everything, impoverishing Americans, demoralizing citizens into surrender for
handouts.

Watch the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXyhKXUP7PM

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writers,
Jun 8, 2009

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama assured the nation his recovery plan was on track Monday, scrambling to calm Americans unnerved by unemployment rates still persistently rising nearly four months after he signed the biggest economic stimulus in history.

Obama admitted his own dissatisfaction with the progress but said his administration would ramp up stimulus spending in the coming months. The White House acknowledged it has spent only $44 billion, or 5 percent, of the $787 billion stimulus, but that total has always been expected to rise sharply this summer.

“Now we’re in a position to really accelerate,” Obama said.

He also repeated an earlier promise to create or save 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer.

Neither the acceleration nor the jobs goal are new. Both represent a White House repackaging of promises and projects to blunt criticism that the effects haven’t been worth the historic price tag. And the job estimate is so murky, it can never be verified.

The economy has shed 1.6 million jobs since the stimulus measure was signed in February, far overshadowing White House announcements estimating the effort has saved 150,000 jobs. Public opinion of Obama’s handling of the economy has declined along with the jobs data.

For the first time, the administration admitted the economic forecasts it used to sell the stimulus were overly optimistic.

“At the time, our forecast seemed reasonable,” Vice President Joe Biden’s top economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, said Monday, explaining that the White House underestimated the scope of the recession. “Now, looking back, it was clearly too optimistic.”

By now, according to earlier White House economic models, the nation’s unemployment rate should be on the decline. The forecasts used to drum up support for the plan projected today’s unemployment would be about 8 percent. Instead, it sits at 9.4 percent, the highest in more than 25 years.

Some analysts believe the White House is still not being realistic, that Obama will be lucky if any real job creation from his recovery effort is seen by the end of the year, let alone the employment explosion he predicts.

“I think these estimates are overly optimistic,” said Arpitha Bykere, a senior analyst with RGE Monitor.

Obama spoke Monday about “modest progress” in the economy, citing fewer jobs lost last month than expected. He said he hopes to build on that in the months ahead with stimulus programs.

“We’ve done more than ever, faster than ever, more responsibly than ever, to get the gears of the economy moving again,” he said.

But he acknowledged, “I’m not satisfied. We’ve got more work to do.”

Americans apparently agree. Obama’s disapproval rating on the economy has risen from 30 percent in February to 42 percent, according to a Gallup poll completed May 31. Sensing weakness on a signature issue of Obama’s presidency, congressional Republicans are renewing their criticisms that the stimulus plan has not shown results, only mounting debt.

“This is President Obama’s economy, and his administration must provide results and specifics rather than vague descriptions of success that seem to change by the week,” House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia said. “The administration looks dramatically out of touch as they highlight the creation of temporary summer employment in the face of job losses unseen in decades, record unemployment and massive deficits.”

By any measure, spending $44 billion in less than four months — and with unprecedented openness — is an uncharacteristic feat in Washington. But the expectations have been even higher.

Several economists said Monday the economy is unlikely to see much boost from the stimulus before next year.

“It takes time to organize projects, to get the bids in, the funds out and the work started,” said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight.

Obama answered his critics Monday by announcing a list of stimulus projects, including many already previously outlined, saying the work will have a huge affect on the economy this summer.

There is money for expanded health services in local clinics; improvements in national parks and medical centers for veterans; money for police and school jobs; and more than 1,800 public works projects.

Without naming names, Obama shot back at skeptics during the Cabinet meeting.

“Now, I know that there’s some who, despite all evidence to the contrary, still don’t believe in the necessity and promise of this recovery act.”

“And I would suggest to them that they talk to the companies who, because of this plan, scrapped the idea of laying off employees and, in fact, decided to hire employees. Tell that to the Americans who received that unexpected call saying, ‘Come back to work.'”