BluegrassBulletin.com

HOPE & CHANGE UPDATE: Welfare Rolls Take Big Jump In 2009

Whether by design, as the conspiracy theorists might suggest, or as a by product of a serious decline in the economy, those signing up for government benefits under various welfare programs, including food stamps, took a dramatic jump upward in 2009.

Welfare rolls rose in 2009 for the first time in 15 years, but the 5% increase was dwarfed by spikes in the number of people receiving food stamps and unemployment insurance.

The cash-assistance program that once helped more than 14 million people served an average of 4 million in the 2009 fiscal year, up from 3.8 million in fiscal 2008. By comparison, there were more than 37 million people receiving food stamps in September, an increase of 18% from the year before. The number receiving unemployment benefits more than doubled, to about 9.1 million.

No matter what he reads off of the teleprompter tonight, THIS is the state of our Union.

Nude Photos Of YOU From Airport Body Scanners Online?

The incredible ignorance of the Politically Correct dipsticks who run this country may result in much more than their own a$$es hanging out.  It might result in some form of nude photo of YOU being available online.  And to think, these same people put our military in jail for posting nude photos from Abu Ghraib.

A privacy group says the Transportation Security Administration is misleading the public with claims that full-body scanners at airports cannot store or send their graphic images.

The TSA specified in 2008 documents that the machines must have image storage and sending abilities, the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) said.

That requirement leaves open the possibility the machines -- which can see beneath people's clothing -- can be abused by TSA insiders and hacked by outsiders, said EPIC Executive Director Marc Rotenberg.

EPIC, a public-interest group focused on privacy and civil rights, obtained the technical specifications and vendor contracts through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The written requirements also appear to contradict numerous assurances the TSA has given the public about the machines' privacy protections.

"The machines have zero storage capability," the TSA Web site says.

And the TSA has distributed numerous news releases with similar language as it lobbies for public acceptance of the machines as a less intrusive alternative to pat-downs.

Pat downs?  How about this.  Keep your eyes off of our wives undressed bodies, keep your damned hands to yourself and don't be afraid to profile.  All in favor, say "AYE".

January 7, 2010 Was An Historic Day

EDITORIAL

January 7, 2010 was a day which history should remember.  On that day the President of the United States publicly admitted that he is incapable of executing the duties of commander in chief which place as his number one priority, the protection of the people of the United States.

Many people expressed serious doubt about the ability of Barack Obama to serve effectively as president.  Pointing to his lack of experience with government, his lack of experience with the military and his record which was completely devoid of any serious work except as a philosopher for the left, many were concerned that Barack Obama was unfit for duty.

Yesterday he stood before the American people and admitted that he had failed.  He admitted that the protection of America is his primary responsibility, and he failed.  He admitted that he and his staff had ample warning in advance of the Christmas day terror attempt to have prevented it, but didn't.  He admitted that the breakdown in his administration is his fault. 

While the president was on vacation, while the Director of the CIA was on vacation, while Americans were celebrating Christmas in the safety and security of their own homes, our enemies were plotting to kill us.  On January 7, 2010 President Obama admitted that he failed us.

Does this mean he is now forgiven?  Hell no.  Does this mean he will now do better?  Maybe, but what it does mean is that despite all of the assurances from this administration that they will "take care" of us, through a myriad of socialist programs, in reality they can't.

January 7, 2010 was an important day because it was the day on which the Socialist in Chief admitted that he is a failure.  The message should be loud and clear.  Government cannot protect you.  You have to take care of yourself.

Thank you Mr. President for giving us a day of remembrance when the fraud of socialist leaders was exposed for all the world to see.

Congress Votes To Raise Debt Ceiling To $12.4 Trillion!

Scrooge and Marley are at it again in Washington DC.  We now must find a way to earn enough money from our own labors to pay for the extravagant spending habits of greedy, corrupt politicians.  In the end, they have connived a way to keep their jobs as millions of Americans do without this Christmas.

May we pledge to do one thing next year, together, as a nation?  Let us increase the unemployment rolls by 435 Congressmen and 30 Senators and then quickly vote to terminate their retirements and their benefits.  We should follow that up by doggedly pursuing criminal prosecutions designed to put the worst of them in prison for the rest of their lives.

At the very least, let us begin the new year committed to paying closer attention so this cannot happen again.

How The Democrats Have Scrooged Detroit

It's not the cold, gray, damp environment of the old Soviet Union where multiple families huddled in one apartment, barely able to get heat, standing in line for food and fearful most of the time.  But it's damned close.  It's Detroit.

Despite an official unemployment rate of 27 percent, the real jobs problem in Detroit may be affecting half of the working-age population, thousands of whom either can’t find a job or are working fewer hours than they want.

Using a broader definition of unemployment, as much as 45 percent of the labor force has been affected by the downturn.

And that doesn’t include those who gave up the job search more than a year ago, a number that could exceed 100,000 potential workers alone.

“It’s a big number, and we should be concerned about it whether it’s one in two or something less than that,” said George Fulton, a University of Michigan economist who helps craft economic forecasts for the state.

Mayor Dave Bing recently raised eyebrows when he said what many already suspected: that the city’s official unemployment rate was as believable as Santa Claus. In Washington for a jobs forum earlier this month, he estimated it was “closer to 50 percent.” [Detroit News]

To my liberal democrat friends please take note:  Democrats have ruled in Detroit for a very long time.  If you continue to believe in doing things in the way of liberal thinking, then perhaps the you should view the article above as a vision offered by the "Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come".

White House Regulatory Czar Calls For Censorship Of Conservative News

In case you haven't heard, the White House has hired a man with some very dangerous philosophies and put him in charge of government regulations.  His name is Cass Sunstein.  He has now called for the censorship of conservatives who criticize the president.  In his latest book he argues for changing the law to make suing them easier.

Websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors,” argued Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar.

In his recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.” [Gateway Pundit via FoxNation]

Here are a few more of Sunstein's quotes which should give you some idea of how dangerous he could be with the power he holds:

    *  Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The        view  is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds.

 

    * “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine.

 

    * "We ought to ban hunting"

 

* In short, the law should impose further regulation on hunting, scientific experiments, entertainment, and (above all) farming to ensure against unnecessary animal suffering.

 

* If we understand "rights" to be legal protection against harm, then many animals already do have rights, and the idea of animal rights is not terribly controversial

 

    * “We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are

      persons, or that they are not property.

 

* To the extent that they weaken the power of the general interest intermediaries and  increase people’s ability to wall themselves off from topics and opinions that they would prefer to avoid, emerging technologies, including the Internet, create serious dangers.

 

* A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.

 

    * I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law.

 

    * A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not

      necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.

 

* “In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Without  taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day.

 

* Much of the time, the United States seems to have embraced a confused and pernicious  form of individualism. This approach endorses rights of private property and freedom of contract, and respects political liberty, but claims to distrust “government intervention” and insists that people must fend for themselves. This form of so-called individualism is incoherent, a tangle of confusions.

 

* No institution in the executive branch, moreover, is currently responsible for long-range research and thinking about regulatory problems. It would be highly desirable to create such an office under the President, particularly for exploring problems whose solutions  require extensive planning, Some entity within the executive branch, building on the ombudsman device, should be entrusted with the job of guarding against failure to implement regulatory programs. Such an entity would be    especially desirable in overcoming the collective action and related problems that tend to defeat enforcement. [Sunstein Quotes]

(Sorry about the formatting issues.  Copied from a .pdf file and couldn't fix it.)

Obama's Commie Like Purge Of Republicans From The Civil Service

Reports coming out of Washington DC have the Obama administration seeking to impose, retroactively, a new rule allowing him to purge from civil service jobs, any person hired during the administration of George W. Bush, in other words, republicans.

Via Instapundit comes word that the federal government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to purge the federal government of Republican civil servants all in the name of purify the federal bureaucracy.

You can read the OPM memo here. [RedState]

Well here is what Rush had to say about this nasty little move:

“The memorandum goes on to apply this change to civil servants who were political appointees in the last five years, in effect freezing these employees out of other positions, denying them promotions, and forcing them out of their jobs.” This is what Marxists do. This is a purge. This is typical of Marxist regimes, totalitarian regimes. I’ll tell you what. I hope the next Republican administration learns this lesson, because there are going to be thousands of Maoists sleazing their way into the bureaucracy after whatever number of years that Obama is in the White House. The bureaucracy is being polluted with these people. And just as the Democrats and Obama are going to purge all Republicans from the civil service, you know, some people might say, “Well, you have a class-action suit on this.” [Gateway Pundit]

Did Nancy Pelosi Just Say That "It's fair" To Send People To Jail For Not Buying Health Insurance?

Obviously ignoring her oath to preserve and defend the constitution of the United States Nancy Pelosi responded to a reporters question by saying that she thinks it is "Very fair in this respect" that those who don't buy health insurance could be sent to jail under her legislation.

Get ready America!

Redistribution Of Wealth Is Real

It is being reported that the health care bill under consideration this week in Washington DC will provide substantial benefits for the poor and be funded by a huge tax increase on the wealthy.

The bill is funded largely from a 5.4 percent tax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million, starting in 2011. The tax increase would hit only 0.3 percent of tax filers, raising $460.5 billion over the next 10 years, according to congressional estimates.

But unlike other income tax rates, the new tax would not be indexed for inflation. As incomes rise over time because of inflation, more families — and more small business owners — would be hit by the tax.

"Twenty years from now, we're going to see more and more small businesses ensnared into paying higher taxes," said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.[Yahoo News]

Socialism by any other name stinks just as bad.

How Green? Make Room For Soylent Green

Futuristic horror films from the sixties and seventies predicted a world so far out that their premise was never taken seriously.  Well, maybe we should have taken them more seriously. 

It is easy to believe that the "Green Movement" of our time is perhaps named after the concept of a lush green healthy planet.  Maybe that's what they want you to think. 

But perhaps the choice of that name is more a mockery of our own gullibility than the description of planetary health.

As you read the article linked below, you might want to revisit the story line in the movie "Soylent Green" for a moment and then ask yourself, are we being duped by people with a dastardly agenda?

The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO_² every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government's target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately.

And if that makes sense, why not start cutting population everywhere?

It is certainly true that "fewer people equals a greener planet" is simplistic. In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today's standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.

As a result, NGOs such as Oxfam, for whom I've just written a report on climate change's impact on humans, insist that dealing with consumption in the rich world is much more important than tackling population growth. According to the International Energy Agency, if the whole world moved over to clean electricity, the CO_² savings would offset the emissions of up to 2.8bn poor people, easily accounting for the entire extra population forecast for 2050.

But what if we can't reform the way we produce and use energy? The most worrying of climate change's impacts – food and water shortages,

The NGOs believe it hypocritical to target the poor for having lots of children. It is one of the universal coping mechanisms of poverty; So why ask them to pay in unborn children for our profligacy?

Under normal circumstances, it takes perhaps a generation for the birth rate to drop with increasing wealth, whereas carbon emissions go up very quickly. As people get richer, they buy cars, use air conditioning, consume more calories and start to swap their vegetables for meat.

So the richer a country gets, the more pressing the need for it to curb its population. The only nation to have taken steps to do this is China – and the way it went about enforcing the notorious one child policy is one of the reasons the rest of us are so horrified by the notion of state intervention. Yet China now has 300-400 million fewer people. It was certainly the most successful governmental attempt to preserve the world's resources so far. [UK Guardian]

Forget the Frankenstein costume this Halloween.  If you REALLY want to scare people, just dress up like a liberal.

Oh, and check your children's beggars bags.  Don't want them eating any of those little green wafers now do we?