AMERICA'S EXPLODING BUDGET DEFICIT.

Over at Townhall.com, Mike Needham has a clear message for the GOP:

"BE BOLD, OR GO HOME."

"Over thirty years ago, in 1978, the United States government ran an annual deficit of $59 billion. In that year, a fiscally conservative legislative strategy might have been to cut $2 billion a week for the last seven months of the year. These “multiple bites at the apple” would have eventually, by year end, eliminated the deficit and actually resulted in a small surplus.
Much as the presidency of Barack Obama resembles that of Jimmy Carter, we are not in 1978. Our nation is at a tipping point and our fiscal situation is bleak. Today, we have a projected $1.65 trillion deficit. $61 billion is a mere drop in the bucket of red ink our nation is piling up literally by the minute.

Today, multiple $2 billion bites at the apple are woefully insufficient for the times we live in. Yet, according to Politico, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “are considering pushing forward a series of short-term continuing resolutions with targeted spending cuts that would be difficult for Democrats to oppose.”

Getting the $61 billion in cuts is an important trust-building measure between the American people and Washington – and the tea party activists and the Republican Party – since neither Washington nor Republicans have any credibility after the last ten years on the issue of spending. It is not, however, the only policy battle we must win this year.

Shortly, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) will release the Republican budget for fiscal year 2012. It is vital this is a bold budget and conservatives must fight for boldness in the appropriations battles that will follow.

Sometime this spring, there will be a fight over whether to raise the debt limit. Conservatives must fight to have transformational policies attached to any legislation which raises the debt limit. Einstein’s definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. We cannot have another clean increase of the debt limit this year, which would be the sixth such increase in the last four years.


....


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said the Senate needed more time to consider H.R. 1 – the House spending bill which would cut $61 billion – since it was sent to the Senate on a Saturday. The question of time to consider H.R. 1 is a funny one considering the Senate’s first move after the House passed that legislation was to take a one-week vacation.

Last week, Senator Reid released an alternative that offered only a token $6 billion in cuts. It appears Senator Reid doesn’t have a real plan to cut spending. Enter Joe Biden. As you may recall, President Obama claims “Nobody messes with Joe.” Vice President Biden was tapped by President Obama to broker a deal between the House and Senate on the budget. With two weeks left on the clock until the next budget showdown, what does Joe do? He leaves for a five-day trip to Europe. I guess it’s tough to mess with him there.

There seems to be a pattern developing. In Wisconsin, when Democrats want to stall what Governor Walker is trying to do, they flee. Two weeks ago, faced with a continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives, the Senate went on vacation. Today, Vice President Biden, tapped with brokering a compromise, leaves for Europe.

The House of Representatives has passed a modest $61 billion in spending cuts. These cuts pale in comparison to $474 billion in spending increases just since 2008. Now is not the time to be fouling off pitches. America demands and deserves bold leadership in Washington...."

In his first year in office, Obama oversaw a tripling of the already huge budget deficit from 459 billion US$ to 1.4 trillion US$, mainly as a result of the much-vaunted stimulus bill (ARRA), the takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the Wall Street bailout and the Omnibus spending bill.

The budget deficit in 2010 was 1.294 trillion US. Together with interests this lifted the exising public debt from 11.9 trillion US$ to 13.8 trillion US$.

The 2011 budget deficit was scheduled to be around 1.48 trillion US$, as the federal budget foresaw expenses of 3.708 trillion dollar while revenues were expected to be 2.228 trillion US$. This would mean that at the end of 2011 the public debt would reach well beyond 15 trillion US$.

However, when in February of this year Obama released his 2012 Federal Budget, it appeared the projected 2011 deficit had been updated to 1.645 trillion US$, or around 165 billion dollars more.

The bipartisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) itself projects significant debt increases as it sees only comparable budget deficits ahead - adding "give and take" something in the neighborhood of 1.3 trillion US$ on average to the national debt every year for the coming decade. This means that already in 2015 the debt will have reached the colossal level of 20 trillion US$.

It is only when you ponder these gigantic numbers that the folly of Boehners 61 billion dollar cuts becomes apparent. As for Harry Reid's 6 billion dollar cuts...

... I wonder how it is possible to even mention that and still be able to walk home without having taken a tar bath and plastered over with feathers? Just watch this video:





Check out that idiot Harry Reid. But the most "memorable" moment is of course the clip where CBS's Charles "Chip" Reid asks Obama "the total over those 10 years, the total debt is $7.2 trillion on top of the $14 trillion we already have. How can you say that we’re living within our means?"

And the reply from the POTUS is... is.... is......


"Well here, he,he,he,he here's a, let me be clear on what I am saying because, um, I'm not suggesting that we don't have to do more."


MY.

GOD.

Who killed the guys who insisted Bush was an idiot?


MFBB.

MARK STEYN ON THE FRANKFURT SHOOTINGS.

Mark Steyn sheds light on the killing of two US servicemen at Frankfurt Airport by a muslim. From the OC Register, March 6, 2011:

"According to Bismarck's best known maxim on Europe's most troublesome region, the Balkans are not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier. Americans could be forgiven for harboring similar sentiments after the murder of two U.S. airmen in Germany by a Kosovar Muslim.

Remember Kosovo? Me neither. But it was big at the time, launched by Bill Clinton in the wake of his Monica difficulties: Make war, not love, as the boomers advise. So Clinton did – and without any pesky UN resolutions, or even the pretense of seeking them. Instead, he and Tony Blair and even Jacques Chirac just cried "Bombs away!" and got on with it. And the Left didn't mind at all – because, for a modern Western nation, war is only legitimate if you have no conceivable national interest in whatever war you're waging. Unlike Iraq and all its supposed "blood for oil," in Kosovo no one remembers why we went in, what the hell the point of it was, or which side were the good guys. (Answer: Neither.) The principal rationale advanced by Clinton and Blair was that there was no rationale. This was what they called "liberal interventionism," which boils down to: The fact that we have no reason to get into it justifies our getting into it.

A decade on, Kosovo is a sorta sovereign state, and in Frankfurt a young airport employee is so grateful for what America did for his people that he guns down U.S. servicemen while yelling "Allahu akbar!" The strange shrunken spectator who serves as president of the United States, offering what he called "a few words about the tragic event that took place," announced that he was "saddened," and expressed his "gratitude for the service of those who were lost" and would "spare no effort" to "work with the German authorities" but it was a "stark reminder" of the "extraordinary sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are making ..."

The passivity of these remarks is very telling. Men and women "in uniform" (which it's not clear these airmen were even wearing) understand they may be called upon to make "extraordinary sacrifices" in battle. They do not expect to be "lost" on the shuttle bus at the hands of a civilian employee at a passenger air terminal in an allied nation. But then I don't suppose their comrades expected to be "lost" at the hands of an army major at Fort Hood, to cite the last "tragic event" that "took place" – which seems to be the president's preferred euphemism for a guy opening fire while screaming "Allahu akbar!" But relax, this fellow in Frankfurt was most likely a "lone wolf" (as Senator Chuck Schumer described the Times Square Bomber) or an "isolated extremist" (as the president described the Christmas Day Pantybomber). There are so many of these "lone wolves" and "isolated extremists" you may occasionally wonder whether they've all gotten together and joined Local 473 of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves and Isolated Extremists, but don't worry about it: As any Homeland Security official can tell you, "Allahu akbar" is Arabic for "Nothing to see here."

Bismarck's second best-known maxim on the region is that the Balkans start in the slums of Vienna. The Habsburg imperial capital was a protean "multicultural society" wherein festered the ancient grievances of many diverse peoples. Today, the Muslim world starts in the suburbs of Frankfurt. Those U.S. airmen were killed by Arid Uka, whose Muslim Albanian parents emigrated from Kosovo decades ago. Young Arid was born and bred in Germany. He is a German citizen who holds a German passport. He is, according to multicultural theory, as German as Fritz and Helmut and Hans. Except he's not. Not when it counts.

Why isn't he a fully functioning citizen of the nation he's spent his entire life in? Well, that's a tricky one.

OK, why is a Muslim who wants to kill Americans holding down a job at a European airport? That's slightly easier to answer. Almost every problem facing the Western world, from self-detonating jihadists to America's own suicide bomb – the multi-trillion dollar debt – has at its root a remorseless demographic arithmetic. In the U.S., the baby boomers did not have enough children to maintain their mid-20th century social programs. I see that recent polls supposedly show that huge majorities of Americans don't want any modifications to Medicare or Social Security. So what? It doesn't matter what you "want." The country's broke, and you can vote yourself unsustainable quantities of government lollipops all you like, but all you're doing is ensuring that when, eventually, you're obliged to reacquaint yourself with reality, the shock will be far more devastating and convulsive.

But even with looming bankruptcy America still looks pretty sweet if you're south of the border. Last week, the former director of the U.S. Census Bureau, Steve Murdock, told The Houston Chronicle that in Texas "it's basically over for Anglos." He pointed out that two out of every three children are already "non-Anglo," and that this gap will widen even further in the years ahead. Remember the Alamo? Why bother? America won the war, but Mexico won the peace. In the Lone Star State, Murdock envisions a future in which millions of people with minimal skills will be competing for ever fewer jobs paying less in actual dollars and cents than they would have earned in the year 2000. That doesn't sound like a recipe for social tranquility.

What's south of Europe's border? Why, it's even livelier. In Libya, there are presently one million refugees from sub-Saharan Africa whose ambition is to get in a boat to Italy. There isn't a lot to stop them. Between now and mid-century, Islam and sub-Saharan Africa will be responsible for almost all the world's population growth – and yet, aside from a few thousand layabout Saudi princes whoring in Mayfair, they will enjoy almost none of the world's wealth. Niger had 10 million people in 2000, and half-a-million of them were starving children. By 2010, they had 15 million, and more children were starving. By 2100, they're predicted to hit 100 million. But they won't – because it would be unreasonable to expect an extra 90 million people to stay in a country that can't feed a population a tenth that size. So they will look elsewhere – to countries with great infrastructure, generous welfare, and among the aging natives a kind of civilizational wasting disease so advanced that, as a point of moral virtue, they are incapable of enforcing their borders.

The nations that built the modern world decided to outsource their future. In simple economic terms, the arithmetic is stark: In America, the boomers have condemned their shrunken progeny to the certainty of poorer, meaner lives. In sociocultural terms, the transformation will be even greater. Bismarck, so shrewd and cynical about the backward Balkans, was also the father of the modern welfare state: When he introduced the old age pension, you had to be 65 to collect and Prussian life expectancy was 45. Now life expectancy has near doubled, you get your pension a decade earlier, and, in a vain attempt to make that deformed math add up, Bismarck's successors moved the old East/West fault line from the Balkans to the main street of every German city.

Americans sometimes wonder why, two decades after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the U.S. Army still lives in Germany. The day is approaching when they will move out – if only to avoid any more "tragic events" "taking place."

©MARK STEYN"

Now that I've got you in the mood - hopefully - you may want to check out the following video:






To cut a long story short, on the one hand the left has been waging a decade-long war to make whites reduce their fertility, either by:

* instilling in people's minds the phony worldview that humans are destroying the planet
* instilling in people's minds the false notion that whites are Earth's oppressors and that to atone for that, we must cede dominance to other races
* actively promoting non-reproductive forms of relationship
* actively promoting abortion


... while at the same time, they have successfully exported their non-workable political and economical theories across the globe.


* the political theories have led to the world's most oppressive regimes
* the economical theories have caused massive poverty, which in turn has led to overpopulation - the causal correlation between poverty and high fertility is well established


In short, had rightwing theorems on how to govern a state and how to run an economy been dominant, the world would have been a far, far better place. For instance, the great mass of African countries that now applied afrosocialism would have gotten richer and its populations would long since have stabilized.


The accomplishments of leftist ideologies can be summed up as follows: spreading unfreedom and poverty around, thereby contributing to overpopulation. Subsequently causing migration towards rich countries, which are predominantly white. After that, in all these countries facilitating the immigration influx from exactly those poor, unfree countries, at the expense of the economy of the rich ones.

No matter which way you turn it, whatever the left touches... goes wrong. Whatever they do, whatever they promote... goes wrong. Wherever leftist thoughts are applied or enforced... it goes wrong. Nazi Germany, mass starvation in Ukraine, the "Great Leap Forward", the Killing Fields, afrosocialism, nationalizations from Bolivia to Egypt, unsustainable welfare states, killing in the womb, freedom of speech under fire in courts from Canada over The Netherlands to Austria and beyond....

... whatever the left does, or proposes, or implements...


goes WRONG.


Its guilt for humanity's woes is DEVASTATING.



MFBB.

SATURDAY NIGHT THE WATERBOYS, ELASTICA.

The Waterboys with The Whole of the Moon.





Lead man Mike Scott is, afaik, the only consistent member of the band, and must have burned through a couple of tens of musicians. The Whole of... must be their archetypical early Waterboys song.


Elastica with Waking Up.




UK alternative rock band, London based. Frontwoman is Justine Frischmann, ex-Suede. Waking Up is from the debut album Elastica, released in 93.



MFBB.

SOME NEWS TIDBITS TO CHEW ON...

Still haven't noticed a certain pattern? Do you live on Phobos? Are you a horse? Or have you got Alzheimer?

Primo. From the New York Post:






Segundo. From FOX News:





A stepfather by the name of Mohammed Khan huh? Must be a coincidence.


Tertio. From Mail Online:





Uncle sez he was a devout muslim huh? Just like that? Is uncle laughing in our faces mayhaps?


Say out loud together with Outlaw Mike: islam is an insane, rotten, inhuman politico-religious totalitarian doctrine that makes monsters of men and women alike. And mohammed was a heinous paedophilic murderer. You're not speaking out loud with me? Then you must be either a follower of mohammed the heinous paedophilic murderer, or else you're at this very moment watching the inside of your rectum.


Meanwhile, on airports all over the globe:





Stole the pic over at Mike's America. Thanks Mike. Mike.



MFBB.

FIRST PRODUCTION F-35 TAKES TO THE AIR.

On February 25, 2011, the first production F-35 made its maiden flight:




The West's prime new tactical fighter, the fifth generation F-35 aka Lightning II, will come in three variants:






First there's the CTOL (Conventional Take-Off and Landing) variant, the F-35A, meant to replace ageing third generation fighters in the USAF and other air forces. It is the smallest of the three variants, yet it is the only one equipped with an internal cannon, the GAU-22/A. This is a 25 mm cannon, a development of the GAU-12 which is mounted on the USMC's AV-8B Harrier II, and which is primarily meant to engage ground targets.

Somewhat surprisingly for such an expensive aircraft, the F-35A is only expected to "match" the F-16 in maneuverability and instantaneous and sustained high-g performance. It should however vastly outperform it in stealth, payload, range on internal fuel, avionics, operational effectiveness, supportability, and survivability. It will have built in the functionality of the sniper pod, a device which today is mounted under the fuselage of, typically, third generation fighters like the F-16. The F-35 A variant is mainly intended to replace the USAF's "Fighting Falcon", beginning in 2013. Plans are that it should replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II starting in 2028, which not only seems impossibly far-fetched to me but also strange, since I cannot fathom how the slender airframe of the Lightning II could ever be capable of either operating from rugged airfields, or sustain the same battle damage an A-10 can take (and still be able to fly).


The F-35B is the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. It's similar in size to the A, and as such, equipped with a VTOL system as quaint as it is original, has less internal volume for fuel storage, armament, or avionics to detect and engage the enemy. Lift power is provided by a huge fan directly behind the cockpit, and a jet thrust that can be rotated downwards at the back:





This is how it works:





Plans are that the United States Marine Corps will purchase 340 F-35Bs to replace all current F/A-18 Hornet models (the A, B, C and D-variants), as well as its AV-8B Harrier II's.


Finally there's the F-35C, the Carrier variant. It has larger wings with foldable wingtip sections, stronger landing gear for not getting crippled on pitching flight decks, and larger wing and tail control surfaces for enhanced low-speed control. Of course a tailhook will be provided. With twice the range on internal fuel as an F/A-18C Hornet, the F-35C will be a worthy successor to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

The United States Navy intends to buy 480 F-35Cs to replace its F/A-18A, B, C, and D Hornets, and backup the Super Hornets.



Nite.



MFBB.