Geithner: Taxes on 'Small Business' Must Rise So Government Doesn't 'Shrink'...

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to "shrink the overall size of government programs."

The administration's plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year—including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do.

Geithner's explanation of the administration's small-business tax plan came in an exchange with first-term Rep. Renee Ellmers (R.-N.C.). Ellmers, a nurse, decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 after she became active in the grass-roots opposition to President Barack Obama's proposed health-care reform plan in 2009.

"Overwhelmingly, the businesses back home and across the country continue to tell us that regulation, lack of access to capital, taxation, fear of taxation, and just the overwhelming uncertainties that our businesses face is keeping them from hiring," Ellmers told Geithner. "They just simply cannot."

She then challenged Geithner on the administration's tax plan.

"Looking into the future, you are supporting the idea of taxation, increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 or more. Those are our business owners," said Ellmers.

Geithner initially responded by saying that the administration's planned tax increase would hit "three percent of your small businesses."

Ellmers then said: "Sixty-four percent of jobs that are created in this country are for small business."

Geithner conceded the point, but then suggested the administration's planned tax increase on small businesses would be "good for growth."

"No, that's right. I agree with that," said Geithner. "But just to put it in perspective, it's important to recognize why are we doing this. You know, our deficits are 10 percent of GDP, higher than they've been since any time in the postwar period really. We have a big hole to dig out of, and we have to figure out how to do that in a way that's balanced, good for growth, fair to people as a whole."

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect "finance" what he called a "tax benefit" for those people.

"We're not doing it because we want to do it, we're doing it because if we don't do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don't think I can justify doing that," said Geithner.

Not only that, he argued, but cutting spending by as much as the "modest change in revenue" (i.e. $1 trillion) the administration expects from raising taxes on small business would likely have more of a "negative economic impact" than the tax increases themselves would.

"And if we were to cut spending by that magnitude to do it, you'd be putting a huge additional burden on the economy, probably greater negative economic impact than that modest change in revenue," said Geithner.

When Ellmers finally told Geithner that "the point is we need jobs," he responded that the administration felt it had "no alternative" but to raise taxes on small businesses because otherwise "you have to shrink the overall size of government programs"—including federal education spending.

"We're not doing it because we want to do it, we're doing it because we see no alternative to a balanced approach to reduce our fiscal deficits," said Geithner.

"If you don't touch revenues and you leave in place the tax cuts for the top 2 percent that were put in place by President Bush, if you leave those in place and you're trying to bring our deficits down over time, then you have to do exceptionally deep cuts in benefits for middle-class Americans and you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country," said Geithner.

"So to do a balanced approach to reduce our deficits you have to make modest changes in revenues," he said. "There's no realistic opportunity to do alternatives to doing that."

According to historical budget tables published by the White House Office of Management and Budget, federal spending has climbed from $2.89 trillion in 2008—the year President Obama took office—to $3.82 trillion this year, an increase of approximately $930 billion.

Meanwhile, according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, although federal education spending in inflation-adjusted dollars has jumped from $71.64  billion in 1995—when Bill Clinton was president--to $163.07 billion in 2009—when Barack Obama was president—federal spending still accounted for only 8.2 percent of spending for public primary and secondary education in America in the 2007-2008 school year. Historically and presently in the United States, local and state governments have  funded the cost of public education.

Read more >>

DELTA flies anti-semitic skies: New venture won't fly Jews...Bibles 'may be confiscated'...

JERUSALEM — Jews and Israelis, or passengers carrying any non-Islamic article of faith, will not be able to fly Delta Air Lines flights from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia under Delta's new partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines.



Although Delta announced in January that the Saudi airline would join its SkyTeam network next year, the implications of the deal only came to light recently, according to people who have scrutinized the details.

Saudi Arabia, which is governed by strict Islamic law, requires citizens of almost every country to obtain a visa. People who wish to enter the country must have a sponsor; women, who must be dressed according to Saudi standards of modesty, must be met at the Saudi airport by a man who will act as a chaperone.

Saudi Arabia bans anyone with an Israeli stamp in their passport from entering the country, even in transit. Many Jews believe the kingdom has also withheld visas from travelers with Jewish-sounding names.

Religious items such as Bibles that are not related to Islam may be confiscated at the airport.

Colby M. May, senior counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal group founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, said his office is trying to determine if the agreement runs afoul of U.S. law.

"The very idea that there is a common carrier airline service that would deny an American citizen in America access to their services because they are Jewish or have religious items such as a yarmulke, a cross or a priestly collar, is deeply disturbing," May said.

May said he is "trying to get answers" from Delta.

"They have not responded in a way that answers the question," he said. "Hopefully they'll do so."

In a statement to Religion News Service on Thursday, Delta said it "does not discriminate, nor do we condone discrimination against any protected class of passenger in regards to age, race, nationality, religion, or gender."

The airline, which did not deny the new policy, insisted that it has no control over who may fly to Saudi Arabia.

"Delta must also comply with all applicable laws in every country it serves," adding that passengers are responsible for obtaining the necessary travel documents required for entry.

"If a passenger travels without proper documents, the passenger may be denied entry into that country and our airline may be fined," the statement said.

The Jan. 10 agreement allows Saudi Arabian Airlines to become a member of SkyTeam in 2012 after "fulfilling all membership requirements," according to a SkyTeam statement. The Saudi airline is SkyTeam's first member from the Middle East.

The policy has deeply angered U.S. Jewish groups, especially since Delta is an American carrier.

"Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, should be strongly condemned for its despicable discrimination against Jews," said Kenneth Bandler, a spokesman for the New York-based American Jewish Committee.

"For an American company, our nation's values should trump narrow business interests. Delta should be the first to reject Saudi airlines as a SkyTeam member."

Dan Diker, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, said he hoped "Delta will not be complicit with what appears to be a demonstrably anti-Semitic and racist policy by Saudi Arabian Airlines."

Read more >>

DEBT TALKS BREAKDOWN; TAX BUST

The two Republicans participating in bipartisan budget talks headed by Vice President Joe Biden said they were pulling out due to an impasse over taxes that only President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner could resolve.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) said he wouldn't be attending Thursday's scheduled meeting of the deficit-reduction leadership group because he believed it was time for the talks to move to a higher level. After Mr. Cantor's remarks, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) also withdrew from the talks, and the Thursday meeting was canceled.

"We've reached the point where the dynamic needs to change," Mr. Cantor said in an interview. He described Wednesday's session with Mr. Biden as contentious. "It is up to the president to come in and talk to the speaker. We've reached the end of this phase. Now is the time for these talks to go into abeyance."

From the start, Democrats have insisted that some form of new revenue or tax increases would need to be part of the solution, given the goal of a deficit-reduction package of $4 trillion. At the same time, Republicans have been equally staunch in opposing the idea as negotiations progressed. Messrs. Cantor and Kyl have been the GOP representatives in the negotiations for the past six weeks.

On Thursday, Mr. Cantor said there could be no agreement on an overall package without bridging the divide on taxes. Mr. Kyl said in a statement that "The White House and Democrats are insisting on job-killing tax hikes and new spending."

Still, Mr. Cantor remained optimistic about the prospects for a deal. He said the group had already made progress and had identified more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. "The groundwork has been laid, the blueprint is there, we have a vision of the agreement," he said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney later said the deficit negotiations would continue. Mr. Carney said Mr. Obama met with Mr. Boehner, an Ohio Republican, at the White House Wednesday night, but wouldn't address what was discussed. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said that in light of Messrs. Cantor and Kyl's decision to abandon the talks, it would now be up to the president, speaker and himself to move the negotiations forward.

Mr. Cantor's move marks a turning point in the negotiations to craft a deficit-reduction agreement that would be tied to an increase in the federal debt limit before Aug. 2. Most participants had expected the talks would eventually be passed off to Mr. Obama and higher-level congressional leaders, but Mr. Cantor's move may force the shift sooner than many expected. Mr. Boehner said he understood Mr. Cantor's frustrations, and added that he remains willing to talk with the president.

Mr. Cantor said Wednesday's session stalled over the tax issue. This was unlike past meetings, when Mr. Biden kept the talks focused a possible spending-cut agreement and sidestepped the divide on taxes.

"At each meeting, it has become a little more difficult to ignore that divide," Mr. Cantor said.

Mr. Cantor said the $2 trillion in spending reductions identified include savings both from the discretionary and the mandatory side of the federal budget. Discretionary spending accounts for roughly a third of the budget and is set each year by Congress, while the mandatory spending is renewed automatically each year without action by lawmakers.

Without discussing specifics, Mr. Cantor said spending cuts had been broadly agreed to across the budget, including health-care programs. He said the group had yet to agree on a mechanism to control future budgets, such as setting firm spending caps for example.

One proposal under consideration would be use a variation of the Consumer Price Index to adjust a variety of federal programs for inflation. The other measure, called the chained CPI, better accounts for people's changing spending habits when prices jump. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the change could decrease projected federal spending by as much as $300 billion over the next decade due to slower growth of benefits, such as Social Security, while raising revenue from resulting changes to tax brackets. Mr. Boehner said Thursday the idea "has merit."

The nation's $14.29 trillion debt limit was breached on May 16, though Treasury officials have said they can delay a possible U.S. debt default until Aug. 2. If the U.S. is unable to pay its creditors, the country could lose its AAA credit rating, which could in turn push up U.S. borrowing costs and erode the value of the U.S. dollar.

Read more >>

Lone wolf terrorist threat increasing, say security experts

by Jim Kouri

 

The most significant domestic terrorism threat over the next five years will be the lone actor, or "lone wolf" terrorist. They typically draw ideological inspiration from formal terrorist organizations, but operate on the fringes of those movements.

 

With the Muslim world in turmoil, terrorist organizations are likely to find more and more recruits for their organizations. At times their recruits are unknown to terrorist leaders and commanders, but present a threat to nations throughout the world especially the United States and European Union members.

 

Terrorism is the most significant threat to our national security bar none. In the international terrorism arena, over the next five years, it's believed that the number of state-sponsored terrorist organizations may decline, but privately sponsored terrorist groups will increase in number.

These terrorist groups will increasingly cooperate with one another to achieve desired ends against common enemies. These alliances will be of limited duration, but such "loose associations" will challenge the government's ability to identify specific threats. Al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah, and their affiliates will remain the most significant threat over the next five years, according to security expert Mike Snopes who runs a protection firm and served as a New York City police commander.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation forecasts that sub-national and non-governmental entities will play an increasing role in world affairs for years to come, presenting new "asymmetric" threats to the United States, according to a report submitted to the National Association of Chiefs of Police and other law enforcement and security organizations.

Although the United States will continue to occupy a position of economic and political leadership -- and although other governments will also continue to be important actors on the world stage -- terrorist groups, criminal enterprises, and other non-state actors will assume an increasing role in international affairs. Nation states and their governments will exercise decreasing control over the flow of information, resources, technology, services, and people.

The most significant domestic terrorism threat over the next five years will be the lone actor, or "lone wolf" terrorist. They typically draw ideological inspiration from formal terrorist organizations, but operate on the fringes of those movements.

Despite their ad hoc nature and generally limited resources, they can mount high-profile, extremely destructive attacks, and their operational planning is often difficult to detect. An excellent example of this is the lone gunman — a Muslim — who entered a Jewish center in Seattle and killed one woman while wounding five others.

Globalization and the trend of an increasingly networked world economy will become more pronounced within the next five years. The global economy will stabilize some regions, but widening economic divides are likely to make areas, groups, and nations that are left behind breeding grounds for unrest, violence, and terrorism.

As corporate, financial, and nationality definitions and structures become more complex and global, the distinction between foreign and domestic entities will increasingly blur. This will lead to further globalization and networking of criminal elements, directly threatening the security of the United States.

Most experts believe that technological innovation will have the most profound impact on the collective ability of the federal, state, and local governments to protect the United States. Advances in information technology, as well as other scientific and technical areas, have created the most significant global transformation since the Industrial Revolution. These advances allow terrorists, disaffected states, weapons proliferators, criminal enterprises, drug traffickers, and other threat enterprises easier and cheaper access to weapons technology.

Technological advances will also provide terrorists and others with the potential to stay ahead of law enforcement countermeasures. For example, it will be easier and cheaper for small groups or individuals to acquire designer chemical or biological warfare agents, and correspondingly more difficult for forensic experts to trace an agent to a specific country, company, or group.

In the 21st Century, with the ready availability of international travel and telecommunications, neither crime nor terrorism confines itself territorially. Nor do criminals or terrorists restrict themselves, in conformance with the structure of our laws, wholly to one bad act or the other. Instead, they enter into alliances of opportunity as they arise; terrorists commit crimes and, for the right price or reason, criminals assist terrorists. Today's threats cross geographic and political boundaries with impunity; and do not fall solely into a single category of our law.

To meet these threats, we need an even more tightly integrated intelligence cycle. We must have extraordinary receptors for changes in threats and the ability to make immediate corrections in our priorities and focus to address those changes. And, we must recognize that alliances with others in law enforcement, at home and abroad, are absolutely essential.

The global Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) threat to the United States and its interests is expected to increase significantly in the near term. We expect terrorists to exploit criminal organizations to develop and procure WMD capabilities. Globalization will make it easier to transfer both WMD materiel and expertise throughout the world. The basic science and technologies necessary to produce WMD will be more easily understood. Similarly, raw materials will be more available and easier to obtain.

Violence by domestic terrorists will continue to present a threat to the United States over the next five years. The number of traditional left wing terrorist groups, typically advocating the overthrow of the US Government because of the perceived growth of capitalism and imperialism, have diminished in recent years. However, new groups have emerged that may pose an increasing threat. Right wing extremists, espousing antigovernment or racist sentiment, will pose a threat because of their continuing collection of weapons and explosives coupled with their propensity for violence.

The threat from countries which consider the United States their primary intelligence target, adversary or threat either will continue at present levels or likely increase. The most desirable US targets will be political and military plans and intentions; technology; and economic institutions, both governmental and non-governmental. Foreign intelligence services increasingly will target and recruit US travelers abroad and will use nonofficial collection platforms, including increasing numbers of students, visitors, delegations, and emigres within the United States.

Foreign intelligence activities are likely to be increasingly characterized by the use of sophisticated and secure communication technology to handle recruited agents and to be more likely than in the past to occur almost anywhere in the United States.

 

Jim Kouri, CPP, formerly Fifth Vice-President, is currently a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, an editor for ConservativeBase.com, and he's a columnist for Examiner.com.  In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc. 

Read more >>

Obama gives nation a rundown on the Afghan war drawdown

by Jim Kouri

 

Speaking to the American people from the White House Wednesday night in a televised speech that lasted about 15 minutes, President Barack Obama revealed no surprises when he announced the drawdown of the "surge" in Afghanistan during his much-anticipated speech.

Reminding viewers of the 2009 coalition military surge in which he deployed an additional 30,000 American troops into Afghanistan, President Obama also reminded viewers of his commitment to start withdrawing troops in July 2011.

"Starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer, fully recovering the surge I announced [ during a speech] at West Point," stated the President.

While polls show a majority of Americans are tired of the lengthy military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, national security experts continue to debate the wisdom of what some call "retreating in the face of victory."

"We've never really defined the Afghan mission," said former U.S. Marine and NYPD police detective Sidney Franes. "Is it a counterinsurgency? Or a counterterrorism mission? If it's a counterinsurgency, then we are talking about a substantial number of troops. If we are out to kill and capture terrorists, then that would entail small special operations units sometimes working independently."

A source in Washington, D.C. told the Public Safety Examiner that the President's decision went beyond the advice of military experts and civilian officials who warned that a significant drawdown at this moment lacked strategic logic and would endanger the progress the surge has accomplished over the last eighteen months.

Reiterating his commitment to end the wars, Obama concluded, "Let us responsibly end these wars, and reclaim the American Dream that is at the center of our story. Get together to unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industry, while living within our means."

"We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy," said Obama.

"I noticed that Obama quickly moved the subject of his short speech from Afghanistan to his pet projects such as spending more taxpayer money on programs that fail to create jobs or that create jobs at a cost of close to a million dollars each," said political strategist Mike Baker.

After Obama's address to the nation, his former opponent in the 2008 presidential race, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) criticized the President's speech on the drawdown.

Displaying a solemn demeanor, McCain complained "that the withdrawal plan that President Obama announced tonight poses an unnecessary risk to the hard-won gains," McCain said, "This is not the 'modest' withdrawal that I and others had hoped for and advocated."

"Though I disagree with the President's withdrawal plan, I nonetheless believe that America's interests in Afghanistan are far too important for us to give up the fight and walk away, as many in Congress and elsewhere now advocate," said the Arizona Republican, himself a former decorated military officer

At the same time, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told Fox News Channel that Obama's order for a significant troop reduction is badly timed. He stressed that now through the month of October is the warm weather in which the enemy will be active. 

 

Jim Kouri, CPP, formerly Fifth Vice-President, is currently a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, an editor for ConservativeBase.com, and he's a columnist for Examiner.com.  In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

 

He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

Read more >>

Letter From An Agnostic

Chuck Baldwin

I couldn't count how many times I've heard a sincere Christian say to me, "Chuck, all we have to do is elect more Christians to public office." I wish it was only that easy! The fact is we have been electing "Christians" to public office for decades. In fact, when is the last time you voted for someone who did NOT proclaim to be a Christian? Most everyone in public office claims to be a Christian. In my whole life, I never remember a candidate for public office saying, "Vote for me; I'm an atheist." Do you?

Richard Nixon claimed to be a Christian; Gerald Ford claimed to be a Christian; Jimmy Carter claimed to be a Christian (he even taught Sunday School and took alcohol out of the White House); Ronald Reagan claimed to be a Christian; Bill Clinton claimed to be a Christian (how many times did we see Clinton on his way to church with his giant-print Bible under his arm?); George Bush I and II claimed to be a Christian. Bush II held prayer meetings in the White House we are told. Even Barack Obama claims to be a Christian. Ditto for virtually every congressman and senator ever elected. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, men and women, whites and blacks: they all claim to be Christians. If electing "Christians" was all we needed to do, we should be in the Millennial Kingdom by now!

Of course, I can hear many Christians now saying under their breath, "But we need REAL Christians in public office." And, of course, the people saying this are the ones who are qualified to know which ones are REAL Christians and which ones aren't. Right?

In speeches all over America, I have surprised many Christian people when I say, I would rather vote for an unbeliever who would preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution, than vote for a believer who would NOT preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitution.

When a civil magistrate assumes public office, he or she does not swear an oath to be a "good Christian," or to be a "good conservative," or to read their Bible and pray everyday. What they do swear to, however, is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the US Constitution.

The reason why it doesn't matter to a hill of beans whether we elect Republicans or Democrats, or liberals or conservatives, or Baptists or Catholics, etc., is because, for the most part, none of them cares one iota about honoring their oath of office to be faithful to the Constitution! But holding our elected officials to the Constitution should be the primary focus of any public servant's constituents. Forget the rhetoric! Forget the label! Forget the religious piety! If our public servants do not submit themselves to the Constitution to which they swore an oath before God and men, they are liars and frauds and should be treated as such!

But, because the vast majority of Americans do not themselves understand, appreciate, and value fidelity to the Constitution, they are content to let their politicians routinely ignore and trample constitutional government. Therefore, Christian Democrats cheer the unconstitutional, loathsome policies and decisions of "Christian" Jimmy Carter, and Christian Republicans cheer the unconstitutional, loathsome policies and decisions of "Christian" George W. Bush.

And, as Sonny and Cher sang, "The Beat Goes On." And the rush toward bigger and bigger government, less and less freedom, and more and more socialism goes on–all these "Christians" in public office notwithstanding.

In the midst of all this duplicity and chicanery come honest, freedom-loving, constitutionalists of all stripes, shapes, and sizes: men and women from all persuasions, backgrounds, and education who understand the principles of constitution government enough to be truly considered a friend of freedom. That's why I have often said, not all Christians are our friends, and not all unbelievers are our enemies.

Case in point: I recently ran across this blog from a professing agnostic. Before reading it, please understand that countless numbers of our "Christian brethren" have routinely lambasted, lampooned, and laughed at constitutionalists such as myself, Congressman Ron Paul, Sheriff Richard Mack, former gubernatorial candidate Chelene Nightingale, Pastor John Weaver, author and researcher Joel Skousen, former congresswoman Helen Chenowith, former gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina, former Vice Presidential candidate Ezola Foster, etc., etc.

So, with that said, here is the quotation from a professing agnostic's blog about yours truly:

"Some reading this have already picked up on the fact that I'm pretty much atheist. Well, I am perhaps agnostic.

"Pastor Chuck Baldwin–call him Dr if you prefer, call him Chuck, call him almost anything but a 'hypocrite'–it's the underlying message that keeps me reading to the end of his articles.

"His message is Freedom–he preaches from God's side but his message is Freedom for all men, not just his own flock, not just those that profess to be Christians at large, not just those which agree with him, not just those which will follow his ways–but freedom for all men; let them by their own actions be judged here and in the there-after. There is actually rather few ways one can live in a civil, sane, safe and FREE society–it has darned little to do with one's faith; it has everything to do with one's character.

"If the preacher–a person who professes to stand for the works of Jesus and his father, God–is unable to minister without kow-towing to the State, if he is unable to speak the truth without risk of persecution, then he should not be silent, nor should he find himself standing alone in his trials. If he is speaking the truth of all men–that freedom does not come at gun point, and it's not a brand name and trademarked by the political idols of the age–it makes no difference if he says 'Praise the Lord' or 'Viva la Revolution.'

"But today, the preachers who'd speak the truth of what's harming his people can be persecuted by the same corrupted system as any other time–they are the same dog, only the leg movement and dress code varies era to era. He will find his congregation is more concerned for their own hide and possessions than they are for the truth. They merely mouth the words of their Savior and mean none of it to apply to themselves.

"Chuck Baldwin, the Freeman, happens to hold his Bible as his crutch where others do not. He preaches of his religion and the views he's formed from his belief, and he sometimes p*#@ me off because he's rather conservative whereas I'm not so much–but even if I will not follow his religion or his God–I will follow his lead as a Freeman. I don't mind if he's not exactly the same as me in thoughts and ideals, nor do I care if his politics are a little far to the right for my personal tastes because he's not bothering me with those things. He is calling for all humanity to rise, as Freemen united, and be shed of the tyrants that would enslave every man, every woman and every child to their whim.

"It is true that the Pastor and I would have significant differences in opinion over time–but for so long as one can say to the other: if you come in peace as a Freemen and harm me not by your ways, you are welcome at my table–then there are at least two volunteers for the battle against tyranny standing shoulder to shoulder calling for other Freemen to join us. We need not concern ourselves with the slaves. By default, they'll become Freemen when their masters flee under the wrath of the Freemen arisen. Courage in their convictions is their shield, and truth, justice, and honor their code."

(Name withheld)

The understanding, wisdom, and character that is represented in the above blog is rarely demonstrated in any church, from any churchman, or from any pastor! I would sooner share a foxhole with this agnostic (and try to win him to the Lord at the same time) than with many professing Christians.

When did we Christians lose our character? When did we lose our honor? When did we forget what it means to be Freemen? When did we forget the principles of constitutional government? When did we lose our understanding of Natural Law and Natural Rights?

It seems to me that all over America "the stones are crying out," because men and women of the Covenant are sitting back fat, happy, and dumb!

No, electing "Christians" is not all that is needed! If we don't start looking past party labels and Christian profession, and start getting serious about preserving the fundamental principles of Natural Law, constitutional government, and freedom, this land of liberty is going to quickly disappear!

My dear agnostic friend, you're welcome in my foxhole any day!

Read more >>

STUDY: State, local gov'ts must raise taxes $1,400 a year for 30 years to fund pensions...

U.S. state and local governments will need to raise taxes by $1,398 per household every year for the next 30 years if they are to fully fund their pension systems, a study released on Wednesday said.



The study, co-authored by Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester, both of whom are finance professors, argues that states will have to cut services or raise taxes to make up funding gaps if promises made to municipal employees are to be honored.

Pension funding in U.S. cities and states has deteriorated in the wake of the 2007-2009 economic recession as investment earnings dropped, and some states, such as New Jersey and Illinois, skipped or reduced required payments.

The issue has sparked heated debates, from the streets of Wisconsin's capital, Madison, where thousands demonstrated over public employees' rights to bargain, to New Jersey, where lawmakers are expected to give final approval this week to a plan that will scale back benefits for public sector workers.

Wall Street rating agencies and investors in the $2.9 trillion U.S. municipal bond market are increasingly focusing on unfunded pension liabilities as they weigh the credit-worthiness of state and local government debt.

Rauh and Novy-Marx have previously stirred up the debate over state pension obligations, including the dire prediction that existing pension liabilities total around $3 trillion, if expected returns on investments are not counted.

Other studies have estimated the shortfall as far less. The Pew Center on the States, for example, found the pension shortfall for states could be $1.8 trillion, or as much as $2.4 trillion based on a 30-year Treasury bond.

The study issued on Wednesday said contributions will far outstrip gains in revenue.

"To achieve fully funded pension systems within 30 years, contributions would have to rise today to the levels we calculate and then continue to grow along with the economy," Rauh said.

New Jersey will need to increase its revenue by the largest margin, requiring $2,475 more from each household per year, according to the study.

The contribution requirements may be higher for states that already have a significant amount of debt on their books and "cannot tap municipal bond markets as easily for large contributions," the report said.

Illinois, for example, which has the lowest funded ratio of any state pension system, sold billions of dollars of pension bonds over the last two years to make its pension payments.

Read more >>

DEM FIX: MORE SPENDING!

Democratic leaders called on Wednesday for new spending and tax cuts to boost the sluggish U.S. economy, setting up a fresh hurdle for bipartisan efforts to head off a government debt default this summer.

At the same time, a new report warned that the country could face a European-style debt crisis unless Washington cuts spending or raises taxes.

The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office adds urgency to the work of negotiators, led by Vice President Joe Biden, who are trying to find trillions of dollars in savings as part of a deal that would allow Congress to sign off on new government borrowing before the U.S. runs out of money to pay its bills.

As the group faces competing demands for stimulus and austerity, some have suggested that it may not be able to get a deal done in time to head off a debt default in early August.

Senate Democrats want the deal to include a payroll tax cut, more money for highway construction and clean-energy subsidies to bring down the 9.1 percent unemployment rate.

"Get the recovery right before you get in this deficit-cutting mode," Assistant Senate Democratic Leader Dick Durbin told reporters. "Get people back to work."

Republicans said that idea is not likely to go far in the Biden-led talks, which have largely focused on spending cuts.

"They're not talking about spending money in there," said Ryan Patmintra, spokesman for Senator Jon Kyl, one of two Republicans participating in the talks. Many Republicans view President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus package as an $830 billion failure and say spending cuts would help the recovery.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke questioned that approach. "I don't think that sharp, immediate cuts in the deficit would create more jobs," he told reporters. "In the short run ... fiscal tightening is at best neutral and probably somewhat negative for job creation," he added.

PRECARIOUS FINANCES

As the United States struggles to emerge from the deepest recession since the 1930s, rising health costs and an aging population pose a longer term threat.

The CBO report found that public debt will exceed the size of the economy by 2021 unless lawmakers raise taxes or scale back benefits.

President Barack Obama is due to meet with Biden and top Democrats from the House of Representatives on Thursday morning to discuss the talks, the White House said.

The Biden group, which includes six Republican and Democratic lawmakers, is racing to complete a deal by next week but negotiators are at odds over the big-ticket items.

Republicans say they will not consider tax increases, while Democrats have said they won't back cuts to expensive health care benefit programs.

The group aims to reduce budget deficits by $4 trillion over the next 10 years to give lawmakers the political cover to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by a large enough increment to cover borrowing needs through the 2012 elections.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that the country could default on its loans if Congress doesn't act by Aug. 2, a scenario that could push the country back into recession and upend financial markets.

Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Washington, want the Biden group to wrap up its work next week to give them time to hammer out the final details. Any stimulus efforts could enter the discussion at that point, a congressional aide said.

The deal would then have to win approval from the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate -- a tough task for party leaders. Many Republicans have said they won't back a deal unless it includes immediate spending cuts and advances a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, which would be unacceptable to Democrats.

Democratic and Republican leaders in the Senate say Congress may have to pass a short-term fix if the Biden group fails to reach a deal soon.

Durbin said Congress could pass a "serious down payment on the deficit" followed by more work on long-term savings.

Many in Congress do not want to focus on the issue longer than necessary. Senator Max Baucus, a Democrat involved in the talks, said a short-term fix was unlikely. "There will be an agreement," he said.

Investors say a temporary fix would likely cost the United States its coveted AAA credit rating, raising borrowing costs and hurting the fragile economic recovery.

Moody's main analyst for the United States Steven Hess told Reuters in an interview that a modest rise in the debt ceiling could be a sign that Washington's final budget agreement will not be enough to meaningfully cut the U.S. deficit.

Read more >>

USA 'TO FALL BEHIND INDIA' IN WORLD TRADE

In less than 40 years India will overtake the US as the world's second-largest trading nation, pushing today's superpower into third place and Europe in to the little leagues, according to a new report by Citi.



"According to our projections, world trade in goods and services will grow from $37 trillion in 2010 to $149 trillion in 2030 and $371 trillion in 2050," Citigroup's William Buiter and Ebrahim Rahbari wrote in a research note released on Thursday.

"But at least as interesting as the growth in world trade that we forecast are the changes in its composition that we expect over the course of the next four decades, with today's emerging markets set to gain much more prominence in world trade relative to advanced economies," they added.

The report predicts that trade between emerging markets will overtake that between advanced economies in just four years in a clear sign that the world's major economies of Europe and North America are set to lose relative importance to the global economy.

The big winner according to the report will be Asia. "Developing Asia accounted for 24 percent of world trade in 2010, but its share is expected to reach 42 percent by 2030 and 46 percent by 2050," said Buiter and Rahbari.

This will be more or less in line with the world's population and see Europe and North America's importance to global trade ebb over the next four years.

"Western Europe on the other hand, in 2010 by far the largest region in terms of trade with 34 percent of world trade — already down from 48 percent in 1990 — is expected to account for 19 percent of world trade by 2030 and 15 percent by 2050," they wrote.

India Rising

"Similar declines in relative trade shares as for Western Europe are projected for North America and Japan, despite healthy increases in absolute levels of trade projected for each one of these regions," the report added.

China is expected by Citi to become the world's biggest trader by 2015 but it is India's rise that could come as a surprise to many, according to Citi's analysis.

"In terms of the largest countries by trade, we expect China to overtake the US to become the world's largest trader by 2015 and to remain in the top spot for the rest of our forecast horizon," the report said.

"India, which does not even feature in the top 10 of the world's largest traders in 2010, is expected to be the world's second-largest trader by 2050, with the US in third place," the report predicted.

"In 2010, only two countries from Developing Asia featured in the top 10 (China and Korea), while five European countries were among the ten largest traders in the world. In 2050, we expect seven out of the ten largest traders in the world to hail from Developing Asia, with Germany the only remaining European constituent," the Citi analysts wrote.

Relative loss of influence does not mean there will not be opportunity for today's advanced economies, according to Citi.

"New trade routes have the potential to create new winners, be they products, services, cities, companies, industries, or economies," said Buiter and Rahbari.

Read more >>