Obama, GOP and Sequestration

Obama, of course, tried to make a big pont about "sequestration" in the last debate, as if he had nothing to do with it (a really bad habit of his).  Obama made a SPEECH PRAISING THE DEAL that resulkted in this looming, automatic "sequestration".  It was OBAMA'S DEAL  But Obama now says, in the last debate (although White House "backed off" on this) that: Sequestratin will not happen.'  See the upcoming blog article on the DISHOENST Labor Department taking this positon in LETTERS to American businesses, incluidng defense contractors.  But for uroses of this article, realize that this is yet another case where this blog was RIGHT, in FORESIGHT. 


lSequestratin was part of the SHAM DEAL that ended the ARCE of a "fight" over raising the debt ceiling.  The problem was, as I told you at the time, that the "debt ceiling' is the SYMPTOM, and not the CAUSE.  The cause of our DEBT is SPENDING, and what we need to do is TIE the debt ceiling to SPENIDN GBILLS.  Otherwise, we jsut invite Congress, and the President, to commit FRAUD on the Amrican peole by not directly informing us, at the time of the spending bills, exactly how much voting for the spending bills will REQUIRE the debt ceiling to be raised.  Yuo know that the GOP is not serious abut spending because they keep pushing the SAME FRAUD as the Democrats: the idea that they can VOTE FOR spending (as they have, as the GOP House has had to vote for EVERY DIME of spending since the middle of 2010), as if that is not a vote for increasing the debt ceiling.  ONce lyou votre for the spending, you are a HYPOCRITE if you make a big issue out of the debt ceiling. 


As I said at the time, the GOP and Obama compounded the FRAUD I refernce above with a SHAM "deal' on sequestratin:  the idea that IF Congress could not come up with a final "deal" on the budget for the next ten years (lol--Soviet 5-yuear plan, expanded by 5 years), then thre would be (relatively small) "automatic cuts" in both domestic spending and defense spending.  Obma and Democrats insisted on the automatic cuts in DEFENSE spending, while the GOP insisted on the "atutomatic cuts" in "domestic spending".  Yes, tthese "automatic cuts" could be avoided by a later "deal" on an even bigger SHAM:  that ten-year plan that Obama and the gOP failed to agree upon at the time of the "debt ceiling" SHAM DEAL.  No, there ws never any chance that there would be a "big deal", no matter how much some GOP establishment types may have been wilng to do some sort of SHAM "big deal".  The reason is obvius:  Obaama WANTED "taxes on the rich" to be an ISSUE in this electin.  The GOP politiicans had almost all PLEDGED (Grover Norquist, I thank you, even though such "pledges" are absurd) not to raise taxes.  Obama was NEVER gonig to agree to any REAL spending cuts.  The GOP was actuallyl willing to do SHAM  "spending cuts", and gimmicks, but the gOP could NOT (politically) agree to the tax increases on the "rich" that Obma intended to use as his main campaign issue.  No chance.  That left the "automatic cuts".


But, I told you so.  I told lyou at the time that the "automatic cuts" were a SHAM as well.  The theory was that Democrats would make a "big deal" to avoid the domestic cuts, while the GOP would make a "big deal" to avoid the "defense cuts'.  Never going to happen, and it did not.  But I further told you at the time that the "automatic cuts' were ALWAYS A SHAM, too, just as much as the idea of some Sovietstyple "ten-year plan.   Obama, AND the members of Congress, ALL expected that the "automatic cuts' would NEVER go into effect, because Cngress and the President would "change their minds."  What Obama did in the last debate was let the CAT OUT OF THE BAG.  Obama is a DIHSONEST man (the most dishoenst ever to be President, at least in my ifetime).  He never had any intentino of the "automatic cuts" happening.  Neither did members of Congress. It was all a LIE.  What should the American peole do to politicians that LIE this obivusly?  Right.  DEFEAT THEM ALL.  In this case, any member of Congress who voted agaisnt this "deal", which was SIGNED BY OBAMA, is jsut as "guilty" as the ones who voted for it.  DEFEAT THEM ALL (every incumbent).  I told you that way back at the time of the "deral", in the summer of 2011.  And I told you WHY:  exactly the same reason I am telling yu now.  This "deal", and the "automatic cuts", were always a DELIBERATE LIE.  How can we STOP lies on things this important--lies this blatant and obvius?  Only one way;  DEFEAT THEM ALL. 


Yes, the LOGIC of my positoin, as I have told yo in the past, is that I shuld vote for ROMNEY--Obma being the incumbent who was part of this sham deal.  Well, I was never gong to votge for Obama, but I gag on voting for a "politics as usual", GOP establishment guy like Romney. So I endoresed Gary Johnson. However, the Benghazi terrorist attack happpened, and Obama proved himself more disnonest than even I had believed he, or any Presdient, culd be.  Obama now wants to be President over 4 American BODIES that he regarded as a POLITICAL PROBLEM to be handled POLITICALLY.  I could not stand that, and I have now endorsed Romney.  Note that now puts me in a CONSISTENT position . I told yo previusly, AT THE TIME, to vote AGAINST EVERY INCUMBENT, based in part on this SHAM "debt ceiling" debacle (and other dishonesties of similar nature).  I repeat that advice:  DEFEAT EVERY INCUMBENT--GOP or Democrat, including President Obama.  Tea Party?  Does nto matter.  DEFEAT THEM ALL.  As I have said there MAY be as many as 10 (not 10%) members of Congress worth saving.  Too hard to determine which ten.  DEFEAT THEM ALL. 


Agai President Obama--Liar-in-Chief--lurched into the turth when he said that "sequestratin will never hapen".  That is exactly what he INTENDS--now and THEN (at the time of the deal), and NOT because he really intended to "compromise" on some "deal" to "cut spending' so that the "automatic cuts" did not happen.  Ova always intended that he would RUN on the "issue" of class warfare (taxing the "rich").  Unless the GOP CAVED (which politically he knew they could not) on taxes, there would be NO "deal" on the "atutomatic cuts' until after the 2012 electin.  What Obama is counting on, of course, is WINNING the electin, and then getting a "big deal" with REAL TAX INCREASES, and SHAM "spending cuts".  Obama's idea is that the GOP, after LOSING an electin, will be FORCED to go along. Obama is counting on the pressure of the "fiscal cliff" to EXTORT a "deal" out of the GOP, beofre the end of the year, that will only provide a "fig leaf" (at best) for the GOP.  Obama MAY be right.


Does this mean that the "atutomatic cuts" won't happen?  Not necessarily. Depending on how cloes the elecitn is, and the results in races for CONGRESS, the GOP MIGHT still not be willing to go along with a "big deal" that obviusly is really ONLY about "tax increases for the rich".  And, if the GOP wins, the FRUSTRATED Democrats might decide that they will give the GOP some of what Democrats regards as heir own medicine, and NOT COOPERATE with eithe extension of the Bush tax cuts (all of them, unless taxes are increased on the "rich"), and Democrats may REFUSE to enter into any "big deal" that REALLLY (lol) "cuts spending".  In either case, the "automatic cuts' MIGHT go into effect, even though NO ONE (and I mean that literally) intended for that to happen, even if there wsa no "bigdeficit deal'. 


You see why I jsut can't stand "politics as usual"?  You should.  DEFEAT THEM ALL.  And I mean it.  You should vote for NO Fedeeral incumbent:  GOP or Democrat, includng Obama.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). Oh,, I said back at the time of the sham "debt ceiling deal" that I, personally, would insist that Congress LIVE WITH ITS DEAL.  I fully expected that NO member of Congress would actually stand up and say that, and they have not.  Oh, there may be some members of Congress who are "quietly" saying something like this, but it is likely a SHAM. And I am not sure there are ANY.  I have not heard anyone taking this positon: that the "atutomaitic cuts" should HAPPEN, because there is no otehr way to start enforcing HONESTY in Congress and the White House.  No, I do NOT think the (not enough)) "cuts" will really destroy the country, although I don't faovr the "dfense cuts'.  But I don't think "defense" should be IMMUNE from scrutiny, and ONE YEAR of seeing how these "atutomatic cuts" work would not be a bad thing. (but see future article on the Labor Deaprtment and my brother, who may be at risk for his job).  However, I admit many will find this merely "vindictive" on my part.  Maybe so. But that merely emphasizes:  DEFEAT THEM ALL.  Unless we do SOMETHING (and we won't, this year), we will see history rpeat over and over again.