Once again…just like Obama goes into campaign mode when his “plans” are questioned by rational individualistic thinkers…he also likes to dunk a pail into the “race baiting” well to confuse and confound people from looking closely at his failed agenda.

Latest controversy to take our minds off of the health care debacle going on?

Gates.

Obama even after admitting he had no knowledge of all the facts, decided to open his big lips yet again to “weigh in on race” and stepped in it.

And while a lot of people may quibble with this young woman about her stances and beliefs…ones things for sure…she’s telling truths in this video that more of my black folk need to wake up to.

The problems in this country have more to do with class-ism than racism.

Uppity Blacks vs. Blue Collar Whites

A hilarious look at Canadian healthcare.

Well hilarious up to the point of the chick’s mother having both her legs removed because of bureaucracy.

ObamaCare

Supreme Court nominee flees from President Obama’s “empathy” standard and her own record

What if John Roberts had declared in his nomination hearing for Chief Justice of the United States that rather than being an umpire-like judge calling balls and strikes, he intended pitch? Does anyone believe that President George W. Bush wouldn’t have immediately withdrawn the apostate before the Senate consented to appoint him the starter on opening day?

Obama’s Gold Standard for Judging: Empathy

Long time constitutional law professor, Barack Obama declared, on the occasion of his announcement of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination, and many times over a long period of time that the most important qualification for a judge is that they have sufficient “empathy” for the poor and minorities and that a judge must follow what is “in their heart” when the law and the facts don’t lead them to a just result.

Judge Sotomayor herself has, variously and over the past 20 years, expressed similar views:

“I am willing to accept that we who judge must not deny differences resulting from experiences and heritage, but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

Yet, in response to questioning from Senator Jon Kyle (R-AZ), she denied believing her own words:

No, sir. That’s — I don’t — I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging.

Sotomayor was standing less than three feet away from the President (pictured above) when he declared she was most qualified to be his chief empathizer on the nation’s highest court. She appears not to be hearing-challenged. She had expressed similar views on empathy in the past.

Why the denial at the nomination hearing of her previously expressed views? And why not a peep from the Nominator-in-Chief?

I would hope that the Steelers would beat the Gators

On at least seven occasions, Judge Sotomayor stated the following or words of a similar construction:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

I am unaware of any non-castrated former white males that have lived the life of a woman. Not sure what form of Michael Jackson-like skin treatment could also infuse Latino ethnicity. But I do know a lot of wise Caucasians, Blacks, Asians and male Latinos with rich experiences.

The Democratic chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) when asked on Sunday about the nominee’s “wise Latina” remark, expressed his hope that Republicans judge Sotomayor on what is said in the hearings. Now we know why.

Apparently we can only know what the words of liberal Democrats mean when they are under Oath in judicial nomination hearing, as yesterday, under relentless questioning from the Ranking Member of the Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sonia finally succumbed:

It was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that’s clearly not what I do as a judge. It’s clearly not what I intended in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young Hispanic, Latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process.

I suspect that the white supremacists of past centuries also used such views to inspire their youth.

Fund-raising Puerto Rican PAC Board membership as slavery

The resume of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge is filled with references to her memberships in numerous womens’ and Hispanic organizations, with none more prominent than the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund (PRLDF). The nominee was extensively questioned about her participation in the political action committee. An excerpt:

GRAHAM: OK. Are you familiar with the position that the fund took regarding taxpayer-funded abortion? The briefs they filed?

SOTOMAYOR: No, I never reviewed those briefs.

GRAHAM: Well, in their briefs, they argued, and I will submit the quotes to you, that if you deny a low-income woman Medicaid funding, taxpayer funds, to have an abortion, if you deny her that, that’s a form of slavery. And I can get the quotes. Do you agree with that?

SOTOMAYOR: I wasn’t aware of what was said in those briefs. Perhaps it might be helpful if I explained what the function of a board member is and what the function of the staff would be in an organization like the fund.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) repeatedly tried to get Sotomayor to express her opinion on the PRLDF’s exoansive definition of slavery, but all we “learned” was that this Wise Latina spent years raising money for an organization she knew next to nothing about.

Senator Leahy, other Democrat Senators and Sotomayor herself, when confronted with such extreme past statements and associations, repeatedly resort to directing sceptics to her record as an Appeals Court judge. But Appeals Court judges are bound by precedents of the Court on which she aspires to serve. That court is bound by no higher power save the Oath they take to uphold the Constitution and service during “good behavior.”

Sadly, Congresses have either approved of bad behavior or considered gross violations of the Oath to be good behavior, as it hasn’t impeached a judge for calling white, black based on a living Constitution judicial philosophy for over 200 years. So, if she can get four other justices to agree on the PRLDF’s definition of slavery, then it will be the law.

Accurate Quotations of Democrats as Defamation

So, what are we to believe, the plain and obvious meaning of Sotomayor’s statements, associations and record of the past twenty years or her characterizations of same over the past twenty hours of testimony?

The Democrats would have us apply the same standard we applied to the 20-year pew-parked butt in Reverend Wright’s Hate G-D America Church friend of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. They would have us again be hear no evil, see no evil monkeys.

Judge Sotomayor has remained as coldly calm during her cross-examinations as her Empathy for Black Panther voter intimidators President. Earlier we rhetorically asked if a President Bush wedded to judges as umpires only would let a nomination go forward if that nominee renounced umpiring. And of course he would not.

So, why doesn’t President Obama withdraw his supposed un-empathetic apostate? The answer is obvious. The typical liberal game that cries libel and slander when their obvious views are recited back to them.

They wink at each other knowing they have to obfuscate their views to pass muster when in the glare of public examination lest they ignite a firestorm across the Fruited Plain.

Their radical liberal views can’t stand the light of day, so they turn down the lights….and lie, and lie and lie.

Judge Sotomayor aka Toto-deny-or of her past, now plays Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts in an effort to wink her way to the bench.

But given her embarrassing deconstructions at the hands of relentless white male Senators I would not be surprised to see them in 2010 and 2012 campaign ads when Democrats, partially as a result of these hearings, are denied the opportunity to appoint more Toto-deny-ors that could define away more of their Liberty by calling it slavery.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

Democrats should own race-based injustice label after Supreme Court nomination hearing

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution demands equal protection for all persons. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed of a society based on character content judgments and supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination against individuals based on race or sex in a wide variety of areas in public life, including employment.

Monday’s start of the Senate hearing for President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace the retiring Justice David Souter presents the Republican Party and DeVine Gamecock Law (pictured) with a rare opportunity to expose the Democratic Party’s long-practiced opposition to a blindfolded Lady Justice in favor of race and gender based injustice, that they call “social justice”.

Blind Justice vs. Race/Sex-based Injustice

Given the starkly racist statements of Judge Sonia Sotomayor coupled with the replacement of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, there is every reason to believe that the political landscape in 2010 and 2012 will finally include a more informed American electorate on the perils to their Liberty from Democratic party judicial nominees.

Homey don’t play dat

This is a hard issue to crystallize for voters, but it appears the sheer toxicity of the nominee’s “wise Latina” remark has already taken a dramatic toll on her reputation as the most recent Rassmussen poll recounts:

In a poll conducted May 26–27 Rasmussen found that likely voters wanted to confirm Sotomayor by the margin of 45% to 29%. This was an underwhelming margin, to be sure, given all the laudatory media coverage, and may have been an early warning sign that Sotomayor could be vulnerable.

A month later that 16-point advantage has disappeared. Rasmussen’s June 29–30 survey found that support for her confirmation has fallen 8 points, to 37%, while opposition has risen 10 points to 39%.

The cross tabs tell an interesting story. The biggest movement against Sotomayor comes from the following voter groups:

Women: In the May poll women supported Sotomayor’s confirmation 45% to 24%. Now they oppose it 31% for to 40% against. Feminists take note. That’s a dramatic, and unexpected, 30-point turnaround.

Age 30-39: In May this age group supported her confirmation by a two to one margin (49% to 24%). Now these 30-somethings oppose her promotion to the High Court – only 29% support her now while 47% oppose her – a decisive 43-point negative shift.

Independents: (Note: Rasmussen refers to unaffiliated voters as “other.” I’ll refer to them here as Independents.) In May, Independents gave Sotomayor about the same level of support as the country as a whole (41% to 29%); now they oppose her by more than a two-to-one margin, 23% to 49%, a 38-point turnaround for the worse.

By race: Though blacks still support her by a solid margin, 57% to 13%, that margin is down from 71% to 4% in May, a 23-point drop. Similarly, the racial group Rasmussen calls “other” (which presumably includes Hispanics and Asians) supported her 48% to 25% in May but now opposes her confirmation 32% to 43%, a negative swing of 34 points.

Rasmussen also picked up a negative movement in her favorability ratings. In May, a few more voters checked the “very favorable” box (20%) than the “very unfavorable” one (17%). By late June, she was upside-down on this important measure, with only 14% very favorably disposed toward her and 24% very unfavorably disposed.

What happened as Earth tilted past its Summer solstice? Americans learned of one of the hottest opinions of the first Hispanic nominee to the nation’s highest court:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

The vast majority of Americans are repelled by such bigoted ideas anathema to what America stands for, especially given what we have achieved to overcome our segregated past. The disgust is multiplied exponentially when such ideas are brought to bear against one’s ability to earn a living by working hard and playing by the rules.

Obama’s hubris and Over-Ricci

So it should come as no surprise that the Sotomayor is so unpopular given the revelation of her Second Circuit Court of Appeals vote to deny promotions to non-white firefighters earned via testing because no black firefighters passed the test.

Thankfully, the court to which Judge Sotomayor aspires reversed the Ricci case. Now the only question is whether the white dyslexic fireman will be “Borked” or subjected to another Democratic Party “high-tech lynching” ala Clarence Thomas, when he testifies.

Un-Hatched Sessions

The President surely knew the nominee’s record and racist statements but nominated her anyway. No doubt he was counting on a beleaguered GOP to resort to the old “Hatch” strategy that treats life-time appointees to the Third Branch of government like deputy Agricultural secretaries since “elections have consequences.”

But Jeff Sessions’ election to lead the opposition will also have a consequence as the junior senator from Alabama reveres the Constitution he and Supreme Court nominees swear an Oath to uphold more than ABA ratings and co-starring guest spots on Sunday Shows.

There will be no Hatch-like boasting years from now about near unanimous GOP votes for judicial activists like Sotomayor’s soulmates, Breyer and Ginsburg. Sessions has been eloquent in recent floor debate concerning the solemnity of the Oath and disqualifying judicial philosophies that treat the Constitution as no more binding than the European public opinion that the nominee has cited as proper authority for making policy from the bench.

The experienced trial lawyer that spend most weekends in Alabama instead of the Georgetown cocktail circuit knows how make witnesses own their own words in a very pleasant, Southern gentlemanly sort of way, and has the courage to do so.

Judicial activism defined

The Democratic chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) when asked recently about the nominee’s “wise Latina” remark, expressed his hope that Republicans judge Sotomayor on what is said in the hearings.

This comment is quite revealing of the general modus operandi of Democrats as well as their “living Constitution” judicial philosophy that allow them to re-invent the world each day to suit their agenda.

In other words, they lie. In fact, most times when you hear them speak of how “smart” or “intelligent” is one of their own (Bill Clinton comes to mind), it is usually a euphemism for their ability to obfuscate their true positions, i.e. lie.

It takes a barrage of words to pass off oligarchical usurpations of power as constitutional, that is, when they even bother to mention the world’s oldest governing document. For just as they want Sotomayor judge solely by her hearing script explanations of her past rather than the plain meaning of her past utterances, so do they also exalt their modern, enlightened social preferences over the plain meaning of words ratified two centuries ago. Hence their denial and projection even over the meaning of the term “judicial activism”:

Anyone who believes that only “liberal” judges are “activists” should read Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in last week’s Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.

If an activist is a judge who wants to use the power of the courts to substitute his preference for the will of the people’s elected representatives, then Thomas fits the definition.

Astounding the new found liberal exaltation of the preferences for majorities given that their resort to judicial re-writings of the law was necessitated by their inability to persuade majorities to endorse their loony views, but I digress…or do I. Maybe the ObamaDem hubris and overreach is informed by their belief that the mainstream America that elected Obama has come around to their view. As we pointed out above, Rassmussen indicates another reality.

But we shouldn’t be surprised when a liberal defines judicial philosophies without any reference to the Nation’s Governing Document. For them, it is merely a obstacle they must navigate in imposing their policy preferences no matter is they subvert the will of super-majorities ratifying Constitutions and their amendments; referenda by We the People or statutes passed by legislators.

Judicial activism has one meaning and one meaning only: intentional subversion of the written law thru misinterpretations. It is the re-writing or amending of the Constitution from the bench, rather than via the required amendment process.

Finally we have a stark example of what liberals and Democrats have been doing to subvert the Rule of Law on an issue and in a forum in the fullness of time that promises to change the political landscape.

Even most liberals resent being denied the fruits of their hard earned labor. Most Americans are not racist and eschew race-based decisions. They can read the English language and had thought that Democrats and judges were as literate. They also revere the courts. But now, they catch a glimpse of what liberal judges mean by “interpret the law” as applied to a law they know well, i.e. the Constitution’s blood-drenched demand that the law be color blind.

ObamaDems are playing with fire and should soon learn the wisdom of their past stealth nominees as they get burned with an un-wise Latina.

And getting burned does not require that Sotomayor’s nomination be defeated. In fact, they would probably get charred less if she were defeated because then they could re-habilitate themselves a bit with a stealth nominee as a replacement that could denounce Sotomayor’s record.

No, the GOP understands that no matter who Obama nominates, they will rule the same from the bench. The burning, which appears to have already begun, is from the publicity of Sonia’s racist views and actions. The Democrats will finally reap the racial seeds of poison they have sown for the past 40 years.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed

Is the real coup in the Americas being engineered by the Secretary of State against a 3am challenged White House?

Three weeks ago Hillary Clinton spent 72 hours to finally convince the Non-Meddler in Chief to denounce the Islamist Junta in Iran for the violent repression of hundreds of thousands of voters protesting an obviously fixed Presidential “election.”

In the immediate aftermath of the election, President Barack Obama had rushed to make clear to Iran’s “Supreme Leader” that he was still anxious to deal with the tyrants no matter how they treated their own citizens.

Then two weeks ago, the President, newly liberated from meddlesome meddling bans abroad, rushed to echo Venezuela’s previously elected dictator, Hugo Chavez in denouncing the removal of the Honduran President from office by its Supreme Court and Attorney General as a “coup.” The military had carried out the order to stop the former President from wreaking havoc in the streets leading a mob in an illegal referendum to allow him to serve for life.

Now, it appears the grown-up former First Lady has rescued the boy president admirer of despots and American values once again:

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton said today that Costa Rican president Oscar Arias will serve as international mediator in the Honduran political crisis.

Clinton made the announcement at the US state department after meeting privately with Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, who was forced into exile on 28 June. She said Zelaya as well as the politician who took over as Honduran leader, Roberto Micheletti, agreed to the Arias role as mediator. She said Arias would work on the problem from Costa Rica, not in Honduras.

Clinton noted that Arias won the Nobel peace prize in 1987 for helping broker an end to central America’s civil wars. She said she spoke to him earlier today.

“He is the natural person to assume this role,” she told reporters, adding that while the Obama administration continues to support the efforts of the Organization of American States (OAS) to resolve the crisis, she felt it was necessary to also name a specific mediator.

Clinton also called on all parties to refrain from further violence in an effort to resolve the political crisis.

She said her meeting with Zelaya was productive. “I reiterated to him that the United States supports the restoration of the democratic, constitutional order in Honduras,” she said.

Presidents Obama, Chavez and Castro had called for the restoration of Zelaya to the Presidency and for onerous OAS sanctions. But as the details of the affair came out, it has become clear that no military coup has occurred and that nearly the whole of the Honduran people would not abide the return to office of the real coup leader.

It appears to this observer that Secretary of State Clinton has produced a device for her President to save face via a mediation that merely supports the restoration of democracy, which is already effected given the return to civilian rule within minutes.

I would expect that the mediation will restore the former President’s cherished photos of Chavez and spare pajamas and urge the OAS not to punish the Banana industry for rejecting dictators for life.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

“They want us to surrender.”

That is a direct quote from a mostly non-political observer I met during my recent vacation who confessed confusion with the mostly opposite takes of economic, foreign and other political events found on Fox News Channel vs the Drive-Bys (CNN, NBC, et al).

Yet, this non-ideological victim of the Great Recession reaches a quintessentially conservative conclusion succinctly reduced to layman’s terms: The ObamaDems want Americans to surrender their independence for dependence on government.

Stimulants vs. Depressants

What else can we conclude, given their obvious definition of stimulants that makes depressants obsolete?

During this gamecock’s respite from announcements of dawns, President Barack Obama and surrogates have floated a “second stimulus” trial balloon.”

A second stimulus? Yes, I remember the nomenclature of the first $780B bill accompanied by breathless demands for immediate passage lest unemployment reach as high as 7.9% before Christmas on the way to the eventual collapse of the American economy inherited from the Bush Administration. No mention of a Democratic Party-controlled Congress since 2007 that, with then Senator Obama’s votes, passed the budgets and the Fall of 2008 Housing/Credit Crunch bailout bill, but I digress.

The “Recovery Act” aka Stimulus was essential to arrest the “worst recession since the Great Depression” (never mind the worse numbers in 1981-2 about which we have more to say below) and, we were told, would “save or create” two million jobs. Congress passed it with but three Republican votes on a Friday. The President signed in 72 hours later. Guess “immediately” has a different meaning in Obama-tongue?

Weeks after the passage of the first stimulus, in an effort to stop the precipitous tanking of the stock market, the Obama Administration said that the economy wasn’t as weak as previously thought. Yet, in recent weeks the President follows Vice-President Joe Biden in blaming the skyrocketing unemployment rate and post-Bernanke printing press mini-rally, fall in the DOW on underestimating the severity of the inherited recession.

Dizzy yet?

Republicans warned at the time that the Stimulus would not live up to its name unless one meant to stimulate government by creating new, permanent federal bureaucrats to regulate what remains of a ravaged private sector and save state government jobs.

Republicans must quit saying the Stimulus has not created nor saved jobs. It has. The problem is that the jobs are those that taxpayers will have to fund in perpetuity and not the kinds that produce taxpayers with real jobs in the private sector.

Second? Obama has sold five bills as stimuli

That was the first stimulus, but we have been scared into accepting a monstrous budget that threatens to destroy the currency with a $1.8 trillion deficit in Obama’s first year as compared to Bush’s worst deficit of less than $450B. And oh yeah, the few shovel-ready jobs were mostly postponed until the second half of the next election year (curious) when the gardening implement more likely to be needed will be wheel barrows as inflation-adjusted wallets.

We have been told that the budget, the $400 Omnibus Spending bill, Cap and Trade (and tax and tax and tax…food and energy aka necessities that is a direct assault on the poor), and Nationalized Health Care are ALL necessary for recovery. Stimuli by other names stink the same, but do increase in price.

So, what do we conclude about the need for a second stimulus bill?

1980-82 vs. 2008-10: what works and what doesn’t

I’m waiting on the first one.

In 1980-1, Ronald Reagan inherited an economy from a filibuster-proof Democratic confess and President with inflation, unemployment and interest rates all worse that the one inherited by Obama from Bush and the Dems in 2008-9. President Reagan was able to get a real stimulus passed by a Democratic Congress. We know it was real because of the unprecedented, historic 25-year recovery that followed.

The private sector was stimulated by tax-rate and regulation cuts. Reagan’s party actually suffered Congressional losses in 1982 due to the drastic steps required to rein in inflation via restrictive monetary policy, but won a landslide in 1984 and later took over Congress for the first time in 40 years ushering in a conservative era that even Bill Clinton had to embrace.

It seems that the post-Clinton Democratic Party doesn’t prefer that “kind” of stimulus, as they have yet to even try to encourage small business formation. Rather, they demonize entrepreneurial producers and investors and continue policies that have kept them on strike, where they have been since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007 with promises not only of no more tax cuts but, rather, tax increases on those that actually stimulate the economy.

I favored the extension of unemployment benefits and would have loved to see more shovel-ready highway projects funded in 2009 to relieve suffering, but those provisions were a minuscule portion of the trillions in debt we have incurred to save and create jobs for government growthulus.

We need to repeal most of the five stimuli passed or proposed and pass a real stimulus that cuts tax rates and regulations; and which encourages expanded oil exploration and the building of oil refineries and nuclear power plants, all of which have been on hold for 31 years.

But then again, if ObamaDems were to do that, they would be surrendering their Utopian vision of a government-directed economy and populace to the old run of the mill, historically-tested means of stimuli that have come to be known as conservatism’s favored Free Market Capitalism.

The only question remaining is will the ObamaDems surrender due to election-prospect realities before too many recession-ravaged Americans surrender to Big Brother.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.

wideawake123 @ YouTube had these comments:

“Growth and Progress”…”New ways”…”unique opportunity”- empty catch-phrases that hide the agenda. The more unemployment and chaos the easier to sieze power. “Never let a good crisis go to waste”. “…encouraging their efforts” = raising taxes on small independant oil companies doing offshore exploration. He’s lying and the media is lapping it up. An 11 YO kid just created an math app. for the I-Phone and will make millions. That’s more than Obama has created in his entire life. Empty Suit.

And

To replace the millions of jobs we lost since you took power? “We are deeply concerned” with the fact that you are an empty suit “celebrity” POTUS who’s showing that “Hope” and “Change” were as hollow as the man who offered them as his plan to “fix” this great country. Well he’s “fixing” us all right…unemployment at a 25 year high, and all he can do is blame Bush, who’s unemployment average was 5.19% for 8 years. How about creating the jobs you promised instead of excuses. “Blame Bush” is BS.

Barack Obama told an audience on Wednesday that the stimulus is working.
Back in February he said the stimulus must be passed or the unemployment rate would reach 9.0%.
The unemployment rate is at 9.4%.

Thanks Barack.

“Tyrannosaurus Debt” ~ Schoolhouse Rock

The Lyrics:

TOUR GUIDE: To your left, folks, is the Washington Monument, to your right, the White House. And over there, just beyond the Capitol, is the National Debt!

TOURISTS: Oooo! Wow!

There’s something huge Red, white, and blue That’s grazing in D.C. It’s gobbling up the taxes That are paid by you and me It doesn’t seem to notice We really can’t afford The billions that it’s costing us To pay its room and board

It doesn’t roam But seems content To dwell on Capitol Hill As long as trucks keep pulling up With tons of green-back bills We’ve got to feed the big guy We really can’t forget It has an awesome appetite Tyrannosaurus Debt

TOUR GUIDE: The debt was born in 1790 when our new government took over 75 million the colonies spent in the Revolutionary War.

We’ve got to feed the monster So it doesn’t get upset It’s got an awesome appetite Tyrannosaurus Debt

TOUR GUIDE: Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury (he’s on the 10, you know), wanted a federal debt to provide a reason to establish taxes to support our new nation.

The debt was young, they kept it small They didn’t know back then In 1812 another war would make it grow again By ‘66 the Civil War had cost the nation millions The government in Washington now had a debt of billions

TOUR GUIDE: The Civil War ran up a debt of almost three billion dollars that still wasn’t paid off by World War One.

We’re spending money we don’t have Or so it would appear The deficit is that amount we overspend each year Though congressmen and senators Make vows to cut its size Despite their honest efforts The debt just seems to rise

TOUR GUIDE: Now the debt’s over 4 trillion dollars and still growing…

A balanced budget would be great To spend within our means To stop the monster in its tracks Before we bust our seams It feeds on just the interest Its appetite is whet It never, ever stops to rest Tyrannosaurus Debt

TOUR GUIDE: And this is the U.S. Treasury. It sells Treasury Bonds, bills, and notes, and savings bonds to finance the debt. The U.S. government promises to pay the owner interest plus the value of each bond at a future date.

We’ve got to try to tame the debt And bring it down to size To let it grow unchecked like this Is certainly unwise The debt’s a monster problem That we really can’t ignore I guess we should be grateful That it’s not a carnivore We’ve got to keep on servicing Our trillion dollar pet It’s got a monster appetite Tyrannosaurus Debt

A fiscal misadventure With trillion dollar dentures Tyrannosaurus Debt

TOUR GUIDE: Feeding time is ALL the time.