Obama Budget Adds $5.2 Trillion To Deficit

The real numbers are actually much higher than $5.2 trillion, and as usual the CBO will revise their numbers upwards, once they get more accurate information and not just relying on the phony numbers which the corrupt Obama administration provided.

With the IRS-Gate Scandal, Benghazi-Gate Scandal, and the AP-Gate Scandal, Obama has shown that he and his cronies cannot be trusted in any facet of running the government. Now that some of the media has started pulling their heads out of Obama’s ass, maybe we will soon start learning about all of the laws that the Obama administration have been breaking.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget would add $5.2 trillion in deficits over the next ten years and contains nearly $1 trillion in new taxes.

The Obama budget, which was delivered two months after the legally-required deadline, is larded with accounting gimmicks that count as savings war and disaster contingency funds that were never going to be spent. Obama’s budget also assumes sequester-related cuts will all be restored.

But Obama claims his budget is devoid of budgeting tricks.

“The numbers work,” says Obama. “There’s not a lot of smoke and mirrors in here.”

Congressional Republicans are not buying it.

“This new [CBO] report shows that the President’s budget doesn’t come close to solving the problem,” said House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI). “The federal government will take in a record haul over the next ten years. And the President wants yet another massive tax hike. But under his plan, we’ll keep adding to the debt—at an alarming rate.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) defending the Obama budget and said the plan offers taxpayers a “big and balanced approach.”

“This is an important validation of the President’s and Democrats’ efforts to restore fiscal discipline through a big and balanced approach while maintaining our ability to invest in a competitive economy and a growing middle class,” said Hoyer.

Obama’s past budgets have resulted in politically embarrassing defeats. In 2011 and 2012, the Senate Democrats and Republicans unanimously rejected Obama’s proposed budgets.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org

Nasty, angry liberal skank Sheila Jackson Lee spent most of her time asking Eric Holder about human trafficking, instead of the matter that he was there to answer questions about.

Then when someone actually wanted Holder to answer real questions regarding the Obama administration’s IRS Scandal, partisan liberal skank Sheila Jackson Lee felt the need to interrupt Darrel Issa to ask about the authentication of a tape that was played as evidence to the committee, helping to bolster the coverup of the Democrats on Obama’s IRS Scandal.

Sheila Jackson Lee had to be schooled on the rules of the committee, and in the committee way told her to shut her mouth unless it’s her turn to talk.

Jackass Mel Watt spent his time asking about copyright infringement and corralling his grandson,

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org

HA!!! The Obama administration “record on transparency” is actually the least transparent, most secretive, closed, and corrupt administration in the history of the United States.

Fucking crazy! Part 1 has some nutty parts as well. Carney must think the American people are stupid, and he is certainly hoping that they can get the media back on their side. Otherwise, the rest of this scandal-ridden administration’s term may be cut very short.

Jay Carney reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister, Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, who denied that the United States Military was near Baghdad as US tanks were basically rolling by him. “We are winning this war and we will win the war”

Ah the good old days..

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org

Northwestern “Diversity and Inclusion Post” Not Open to White People – Not So Diverse – Not So Inclusive

Definition of DIVERSITY
1: the condition of having or being composed of differing elements : variety; especially : the inclusion of different types of people (as people of different races or cultures) in a group or organization
——————————————

Diversity means different races and cultures, not just minorities or gay people.
If you don’t have a white guy, then you’re just a bunch of bigoted angry minorities practicing racism against white people..

A Northwestern University student was rejected for a “diversity and inclusion post” in student government because he is a white, heterosexual male, resulting in a sharp rebuke from the university’s student newspaper.

Northwestern University’s Associated Student Government rejected the nomination of Stephen Piotrkowski for associate vice president of diversity and inclusion last week. The student-run committee “oversees diversity initiatives that stem from the undergraduate student body.”

Piotrkowski’s nomination sparked a heated discussion during an ASG meeting – described by a student reporter as “contentious.”

“This university is not ready, in any capacity, for a heterosexual white male to be in charge in any way of diversity and inclusion,” said Ian Coley, a member of the diversity committee. “I don’t know if any university is.”

ASG president Ani Ajith refused to answer questions about the matter. When asked by Fox News if he agreed with Coley’s remarks, Ajith hung up his phone.

“Piotrkowski was rejected on the basis that he is a white, heterosexual male,” the Daily Northwestern editorial board charged in a staff editorial.

A spokesman for Northwestern University told Fox News the ASG is a student organization and as such “it would not be appropriate for the university’s communication office to speak on their behalf.”

The outgoing vice president for diversity and inclusion had endorsed Piotrkowsi as the best candidate for the job – noting that he identifies with a religious minority and has a sister who is gay.

And Campus Reform reported that he had previously served as a member of the Northwestern Inclusion Task Force – created last year to help advocate for campus diversity.

“The fact that senators did not take Piotrkowski’s relevant experiences into consideration and rejected him on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation symbolizes a step backward for our community in diversity conversations,” the newspaper noted.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org

Illegal IRS Terrorizing of Conservatives Came Directly From Obama’s White House

Obama probably didn’t actually pick up a phone and ask someone at the IRS to start targeting conservatives. All he had to do was give the “wink and a nod” to someone else, and that person took the ball and started the ball rolling on the illegal use of Obama’s Goose-stepping IRS Gestapo to terrorize conservative American Citizens.

We have seen 3 huge scandals come out in the last 3 weeks, all of which were put together in order to scare enough people into either voting for Obama, or not voting or donating to Romney. We all know about the usual voter fraud, and the corruption and waste that has happened since Obama was elected, but what other crimes did his team commit in order to win the election?

Was the White House involved in the IRS’s targeting of conservatives? No investigation needed to answer that one. Of course it was.

President Obama and Co. are in full deniability mode, noting that the IRS is an “independent” agency and that they knew nothing about its abuse. The media and Congress are sleuthing for some hint that Mr. Obama picked up the phone and sicced the tax dogs on his enemies.

But that’s not how things work in post-Watergate Washington. Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.

Mr. Obama now professes shock and outrage that bureaucrats at the IRS did exactly what the president of the United States said was the right and honorable thing to do. “He put a target on our backs, and he’s now going to blame the people who are shooting at us?” asks Idaho businessman and longtime Republican donor Frank VanderSloot.

Mr. VanderSloot is the Obama target who in 2011 made a sizable donation to a group supporting Mitt Romney. In April 2012, an Obama campaign website named and slurred eight Romney donors. It tarred Mr. VanderSloot as a “wealthy individual” with a “less-than-reputable record.” Other donors were described as having been “on the wrong side of the law.”

This was the Obama version of the phone call—put out to every government investigator (and liberal activist) in the land.

Twelve days later, a man working for a political opposition-research firm called an Idaho courthouse for Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records. In June, the IRS informed Mr. VanderSloot and his wife of an audit of two years of their taxes. In July, the Department of Labor informed him of an audit of the guest workers on his Idaho cattle ranch. In September, the IRS informed him of a second audit, of one of his businesses. Mr. VanderSloot, who had never been audited before, was subject to three in the four months after Mr. Obama teed him up for such scrutiny.

The last of these audits was only concluded in recent weeks. Not one resulted in a fine or penalty. But Mr. VanderSloot has been waiting more than 20 months for a sizable refund and estimates his legal bills are $80,000. That figure doesn’t account for what the president’s vilification has done to his business and reputation.

The Obama call for scrutiny wasn’t a mistake; it was the president’s strategy—one pursued throughout 2012. The way to limit Romney money was to intimidate donors from giving. Donate, and the president would at best tie you to Big Oil or Wall Street, at worst put your name in bold, and flag you as “less than reputable” to everyone who worked for him: the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department. The president didn’t need a telephone; he had a megaphone.

The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, claiming that it “reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests” (read conservative groups).

The president derided “tea baggers.” Vice President Joe Biden compared them to “terrorists.” In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. “Nobody knows who’s paying for these ads,” he warned. “We don’t know where this money is coming from,” he intoned.

In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: “All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don’t have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation.”

Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having “failed to address” the “problem” of groups that were “improperly engaged” in campaigns. Because guess who controls that “independent” agency’s budget?

The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president’s “animosity” toward Citizens United, might he have “appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . .” Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with “That’s a preposterous assertion.”

Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is “outraged” and “angry” that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to “operate with absolute integrity.” Even when he does not.

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy – usbacklash.org