Friday, December 21, 2012

Restricting Our Rights is Not the Answer - Pt. 2

About this time one week ago, the news about a shooting at an Elementary school in the small town of Newtown, Connecticut was first breaking. At the time, no one but those who were there and the first responders truly knew the magnitude of the situation.

One thing was for sure though – gun control would become the topic of discussion very soon.

Hardly did I or anyone else know, within moments of the news breaking worldwide, liberal pundits and those who are pro-gun control began to spin a terrible tragedy into a few political shenanigans as they blamed the guns for killing innocent people.

However, it wasn’t the guns that were used. It was a 20 year-old man named Adam Lanza – a very crazed and abnormal man.

Needless to say, America was about to surcome to the narrative that we had faced each and every time a tragedy of this magnitude occurs.

Gun Control.

Oh, how I hate the term gun control. I hate that people want to blame the guns for killing 27 innocent people, I hate that the president wants to take our guns away and in doing so, he has created a task force to “solve the problem of gun violence in America” headed by none other than the magnificent Joe “I’m a walking gaffe” Biden.

Let’s get a few things straight, shall we?

First, it wasn’t guns that murdered 27 innocent people; it was a single man with free-will to do so. We all should be blaming him, and not the guns. It’s called personal responsibility – something our society lacks to a great deal.

Secondly, every shooting tragedy that I can remember has happened in a gun-free-zone. Now, shouldn’t this tell us something?

Criminals who are dead set on going on a shooting rampage aren’t going to go shoot up a police station. Why? Because THEY ALL HAVE GUNS AND WILL DEFEND THEMSELVES.

A gun free school would make a perfect target because no one on campus has a gun, especially if it’s a place like an elementary school where resource officers are not likely to be present unlike at a Middle or High School.

Let me be clear: Saturday afternoon when the reports of the heroics of the staff at the school were first surfacing, it was told that the principle of the school and the school psychologist were the first two people to make contact with Lanza.

Now, if either of them would have had a weapon and were properly trained on how to use that weapon to defend themselves and the children at the school, I strongly feel like the only person who would have died at that school would have been Lanza himself.

So what am I proposing?

I would like teachers at every school in the country to be packing heat. Not every teacher of course, but possibly something like one handgun and one assault rifle per 50 students. Also, it would have to be known that the campus is not a gun free zone. Most likely this would probably deter any possible shootings at schools ever again.

Now, my AP European teacher told me that he wouldn’t feel comfortable carrying a weapon at school, because there is a possible chance that students could jump and disarm him. I offered him a very simply solution: If you are conceal carrying correctly, no one but you should know that you are carrying. Therefore, the likelihood of you being jumped for your weapon is very, very low. It would be like playing Russian Roulette with the teachers.

I said in part 1 that I wouldn’t be discussing the ramifications of gun control in our country, and I have stuck to that. I offered a solution to the problem of gun violence in American schools, and I wish that a narrative like the one I have offered would be discussed more than gun control.

My next column will probably be on gun control in America. However, I am leaving today to head out to New Mexico to spend time with family that I so rarely see. This being said, my next column will probably not be for another 10 days.

If this is the case, I would like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas. I hope that joy is brought to each and every one of you this Christmas season.

God Bless you, God Bless Newtown and God Bless America.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Restricting Our Rights is Not the Answer - Pt. 1

It’s been a week since my last column was published. In that respect, I have been a bit lazy. Since my last column, an unspeakable, heartbreaking event occurred, and this is going to be my first column commenting on the event, and my second will be published tomorrow.

My iPhone alerted me of what had happened a little after 10:30 in the morning last Friday. At that time, I and America was unaware of the magnitude of the shooting, and the effects it would have on our country in the days following.

I had absolutely zero words to say after I found out that little children had been murdered. The only emotion that would come out of me, were tears. Tears for the kids, teachers, staff, and tears for America, because I knew the discussion that would quickly follow.

Gun Control. Just hours after the news had been broken, liberal pundits were already speaking out that guns had caused this tragedy, and that we should have stricter gun control.

These columns, comments, and opinions seriously angered me.

In America, do we not have enough decency to not make everything into a political battle? Can some things not have any political spin to them?

These were the questions I was asking myself, my friends, and all of my twitter followers.

I was absolutely appalled and disgusted that such a horrible and tragic event could be turned into political shenanigans in a matter of hours. Did these people not have respect, knowledge, and decency for what had just happened?

It was a reality that no American, young or old, wanted to face. Many, many innocent people including small children had just been murdered in what should be the safest place for them. On top of that, not one person murdered had warranted any reason for their death, yet in a matter of seconds their lives would be so selfishly taken from them.

However, it is a reality that we must face, whether we like it or not.

In our society of “normalcy”, there are abnormal people. Abnormal people do things that you and I cannot comprehend because we process events on a rational level.

The man pulling the trigger was not normal. There was something wrong with him, but there were no real outward signs that anything was wrong, and preventing this massacre was almost impossible. There is only one rational way I could see this massacre being prevented, but we’ll discuss that in tomorrow’s column.

Saturday afternoon, the Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner discussed what he had seen at the scene, and with those of the dead. He told America that each of the children that he had completed an autopsy on had been shot anywhere from 3 to 11 times.

This man, Adam Lanza, wanted these children, teachers, and staff members dead.

For what reason? We will probably never know, and quite frankly, I don’t care to know why. All I know is, there must be some drastic action to take place, so that something like this never happens again, and that’s what we’ll discuss in the column tomorrow.

However, I hate talking about this. It is sad. It makes me cry, and I wish the media would leave the town of Newtown, Connecticut alone.

Also, I do not think it is appropriate for anyone to be speaking of this tragedy in political terms, that’s why tomorrow I will be offering a future solution to this problem, and I will continue to condemn those on both the right and the left that turned this unspeakable act into a political hotbed.

I pray every night for the children, staff, teachers, and all of the innocent lives that were lost because of a single man’s actions. This event has affected me, not like any other, because I am still in school, and I still remember what it was like as a first grader.

I hope we can find it in ourselves to stop the political spinning of this tragedy, and just leave the town alone so they can mourn their losses.

America is mourning with them.

God Bless You & God Bless America.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

The War on Christmas - First Amendment Style

With Christmas now less than two weeks away, the attacks on Christmas and the first amendment are in full swing – this is nothing really out of the norm in modern America.

The Christmas tree is now the “Holiday Tree”, and you are no longer allowed to display your nativity scene without some Atheist group filling a lawsuit because it “offended” them.

This is where I draw the line, and I am glad that Bill O’Reilly has too.

Celebrating Christmas was a staple of American culture. But now, if you celebrate Christmas you are not being tolerate of others feelings, concerns, or religions.

This is more than wrong and it is just not rational.

What hurts just as bad as Christmas and Christianity being demonized, is the first amendment is always used as the lefts’ argument against Christmas. “Separation of Church and State,” they will always say.

But let’s get one thing right: Legally, there is no such thing as separation of church and state. It completely doesn’t exist. The first amendment reads:
“..Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, nor preventing the free exercise thereof..”
I didn’t see the Separation of Church and State Clause, did you?

The first amendment doesn’t say anything about Ten Commandments in the public square, nativity scenes on public property, or even that the government cannot favor a particular religion. The first amendment clearly says that Congress cannot establish a religion.

But, what does this mean?

This means that Congress cannot make a law declaring Christianity the official religion of the United States, and if you don’t openly practice Christianity you could be prosecuted for treason.

However, this also means that Congress and governmental level cannot tell a man that he cannot openly practice his religion, even if it means having a nativity scene, a Christmas Tree, or displaying the Ten Commandments.

The actual meaning of the first amendment has long been lost in translation, and most Americans don’t actually know what the first amendment says, nor what it means.

If I told the average American that there is no “Separation of Church and State Clause,” they would probably argue to the death with me that there is such a thing.

I am absolutely tired and more than disgusted with people who infringe on my rights given to me by our founding fathers, because they think I’m infringing on theirs.

But, let me ask a question.

If having a nativity scene in a public square infringes on your rights because you aren’t a Christian, does it not infringe on my rights to not be able to have it placed there? If you don’t like it, go ahead and place your Buddha statue or crescent moon next to it, and I’ll shake your hand and call you my fellow brother. 

The Progressive left, I think, is doing the absolute opposite of the first amendment.

I think they are trying to demonize all Christians, and establish a Secular Humanist religion in America. But that’s just me, what do I know?

America used to be the land of the free, and home of the brave. Now we are America the land of the lawsuit, and home of the coward. It’s sickening.

I hope we can rediscover the true meaning of the first amendment and Christmas for that matter. Those are two long lost things that used to make American exceptional.

Merry Christmas and God Bless you!

Thursday, November 29, 2012

You Know You're A Communist When..

Here’s a simple question: At what point do you know you’re a communist?

As a strongly principled Conservative/Libertarian, I feel like I could easily recognize other strongly principled Conservatives and Libertarians because their views fall similar to mine.

Using this logic, shouldn’t one communist be able to identify another communist? Better yet, wouldn’t someone who lived through Communism be able to identify a communist leader?

I think the answer is yes, and there is some frightening (only if you haven’t realized it yet) proof.
Recently an opinion article appeared in Pravda, a Russian Newspaper, by a relatively unknown writer, Xavier Lerma.

Let me start out by saying that after doing a little research on Xavier, I have found that he is not a Communist, Socialist, or Marxist. He is a Conservative, but Russian standards of course, with a true love for Vladimir Putin. If you read the column, you would catch on quickly to his favorable bias towards Putin.

While the column contains extreme spin and favorability towards Putin, everything that Xavier said about American and Obama is true – well, mostly true.

“Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.”

What about this isn’t true? Except for the ‘illiterate society’ comment, this paragraph expresses some of my feelings with the reelection of Obama to a tee.

Why do we study history?

We study history in attempt to learn from it, and to the best of our ability, not commit the same mistakes twice. However, we almost never learn from history and we always commit the same mistakes twice.
Xavier gets history though. He has learned from the past of the nation that he holds near and dear to his heart, and he is strongly against Russia committing those same mistakes twice.

Xavier knows that communism doesn’t work, nor does socialism. Xavier knows that low taxes are the way to go, and finally Xavier knows that faith, morals, and strong principles are the key to prosperity.

History tells us these things, and this is why Xavier is able to exploit all of Obamas mistakes. Not only is Obama and his administration not learning from history, but they are going in the direction of a “Soviet Plan”, something of which we know does not work. History tells us this.

The American media should be covering this story – its news. But they aren’t going to, that’s why you probably haven’t even heard about it, because American media doesn’t report the news anymore.

However, when Glenn Beck says something that is deemed to be “politically incorrect”, he is persecuted by the media.

What’s the difference between Beck’s thoughts on America and Xavier’s?
Nothing, and that’s why the media isn’t covering this story.

I suggestion you click on the link and read the column. It could do without all of the favorability towards Putin, but Xavier’s views about Obama and the current state of America are Right. On. Point.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Just Let It Happen Boehner

Following the reelection of Barack Obama, the rhetoric coming off of Capitol Hill concerning the “Fiscal Cliff” has been extremely high, but what’s all of the commotion really about?

The Fiscal Cliff is a series of automatic spending cuts to all levels of the federal bureaucracy (mostly defense) in addition to automatic tax increases. You may have also heard of the fiscal cliff as a sequestration.

The Democrats in Congress want to resolve the “crisis”, by raising taxes on the upper tier of tax payers in order to raise revenue. The Republicans, however, do not want to raise taxes on any American, while they would like to make reforms to entitlement programs, but have offered no real solution to the revenue shortfalls in their plans.

On November 9th, the President’s first address to the media following his reelection, he declared that he would veto any legislation offering tax cuts to those making more than $250,000. This means the President doesn’t want to extend the Bush Tax Cuts any further.

The President’s position has put Republicans in between a rock and a hard place. They don’t want to raise taxes on the wealthy, but the President is basically giving them no other options.

For the past three Sundays, Bill Kristol has insisted that the Republicans in Congress should compromise with the President and submit to raising taxes on the wealthy. Remember now, this is the same man that thinks the Muslim Brotherhood is a moderate political party and the Arab Spring wasn’t real.

Bill Kristol is by all accounts a dope, and no one on Capitol Hill should heed his “advice”.

However, I do have a suggestion for the Republicans – just let the President lead America straight off of the fiscal cliff.

By coming to any agreement, the media will portray the President as the hero, and the Republicans the enemy – it’s a lose/lose for the Republicans, so just let it happen.

The facts of the matter are that no matter what happens and no matter what deal is agreed upon, America will head over a fiscal cliff.

Any freshman macroeconomic major will confirm that when you raise taxes on those who already fund the government the most (excluding China of course), you are asking for more problems than you ever originally bargained for.

Raising taxes on the wealthy may lead to short term gains, but it will create bigger problems in the long term.

If the Republicans let the President have his way, I can see two good things that come from that, aside from the many bad things.

First, every single tax paying American will feel the effects of the Presidents arrogance and liberal bias. As long as you’re a tax paying America, your taxes will be going up. Americans don’t like their taxes going up, so that will not bode well for the President.

Secondly, there needs to be spending cuts in the government. This fiscal cliff is the only foreseeable way that spending will be cut. Instead of having politicians examine the budgets of every department of the federal government, having across-the-board style cuts will force the bureaucrats to cut spending in wasteful areas.

Finally, I just don’t understand why the President doesn’t negotiate going back to the Clinton era economics. After all, the Clinton era was so magical and there were no problems then, right? All we’d need to do is raise taxes across-the-board and cut federal spending beyond any level that is currently perceived to be possible.

Either way, the next month or so left before the sequestration is to take place is going to be a quite divided time for America, aside from the Lame Duck session of Congress.

I don’t want to see taxes raised on any American, but sadly is looks likely. And for that, we should all thank Barack Obama, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and Nancy Pelosi.

Monday, November 12, 2012

What Exactly Is Hope?

The mantra of the Obama campaign in 2008 included the slogan: Hope and Change. Barack Obama promised the American people that he would bring them hope by bringing them change.
He promised Americans that if he was elected, he would make sure that by the end of four years, our nation’s growing debt would be sliced in half. However, if something sounds too good to be true, it normally is – and this was no different.
During his four years in the White House, he promised and promised and promised, but rarely did he go through with his promises.
Guantanamo Bay is still open, the economy is still in the dumps, unemployment is still high, the stock market isn’t doing well, people receiving welfare is extremely high – but hey, none of that matters, because now we have socialized health care! Woopeeee!!
What’s the point?
Barack Obama and his campaign promised hope and change. With his excellent teleprompter reading skills, he somehow delivered hope to America, but what about the change? What kind of change was he actually talking about?
When I think of change, I think about the federal government becoming less powerful, the states becoming more power, less spending, less taxes, balanced budgets, and more liberty and freedom.
But something tells me that this isn’t the change Barack and his minions have in mind.
Obama brought larger government, more taxes, more regulation, more corruption, smaller military, fiscal cliffs, high unemployment, economic instability, and socialized health care.
Sure, a lot of this was change, but it’s not the change that was promised, it’s not the change that America needs, and it’s not the change that is going to better America.
Waking up Wednesday morning, I was completely at a loss for words, because Barack Obama had won reelection.
I didn’t understand four years ago how a man who promised to bring ‘hope and change’ could become the most powerful leader of the free world. What kind of plan is hope and change? It’s not a tangible plan, and isn’t the slogan ‘hope and change’ straight out of Frank Marshall Davis’ playbook?
I didn’t understand that then, and I’m even more confused now. Obama ran on the exact same planks and platform that he ran on four years ago. What he promised four years ago, he’s promising again. If he promised it then, shouldn’t it be completed? Why does he have to promise it again?
The point is that this is an extremely dark period for America. America was ignorant enough to elect a man whom they knew nothing about four years ago, and they were ignorant enough to reelect him to a second term, when all he did was run on the exact same promises that he did four years ago.
Obama isn’t going to follow through with his promises this time, just as he didn’t his entire first term.  It’s even going to be worse this time around, because honestly, who is he answering to? No one.
America really messed this one up.
“Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God.” – George Washington

Election Day Shenanigans

I woke up wholeheartedly believing that by day’s end, America would shine red and Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama and become the next president of the United States –but boy, I was more than wrong.
“All Romney needs is Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, New Hampshire, and Hamilton County, Ohio – and he’ll take the White House.”  That’s what I told everyone who asked how I thought the night would turn out. In the end, Romney only won North Carolina, while losing the others.
Midday Tuesday, before any election results started to come in, I tweeted, “Hamilton County in Ohio will decide the election. #election2012,”, and in the end I was right.
What’s so significant about Hamilton County in Ohio? Well, for starters, in the last four elections, the outcome of Hamilton County ended up being the outcome of the nation. More importantly, the only difference in Ohio between 2004 and 2008 was that Hamilton County went from red to blue. Subsequently, in 2004 George Bush took Ohio, but while in 2008, Obama won Ohio. One county, that holds one of Ohio’s largest cities (Cincinnati), decided the outcome of Ohio alone.
Is this really fair? Well, no, however it is the system that has worked for over 200 years, and it’s the system we have until we decide to do something about it, i.e., amending the Constitution.
I’ve never really had a problem with the Electoral College before, but the downfalls of the system were really exploited Tuesday night.
If you look at an Electoral map of the United States, the first thing you’d notice is that it’s mostly red. Well, if the map is mostly red, then why did Obama win Tuesday night? For starters, because Obama was the Democratic candidate, and because Obama is more liberal and progressive, he won cities.
Well how do the two connect?
The obvious answer would be that cities have a larger population. Even so, there is a deeper, more underlying reason as to why this occurs: Cities are inevitably more progressive and liberal – and they have been ever since large cities arose during the Industrial Revolution.
Cities are filled with minorities and the poor, more so than the rural areas. Demographically, minorities and the poor are more likely to vote for a Democrat than they are a Republican. Ergo, Obama wins the election because the majority of his voting blocs live in cities.
The Electoral College has its flaws, but until someone thinks of a better way to elect the leader of a free republic, I am more than content with the system that we currently use.
In the end, Barack Obama won reelection fair and square. That is if you take into account some voter fraud here and there.
After many months of reputation bashing, tax evasion accusations, and flat-out lies from David Axelrod and the Obama Campaign, it took one heck of a man in Mitt Romney to congratulate Obama.
I still have one remaining question: What exactly is this hope and change thing the President keeps mentioning?

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

Rand Paul Sponsors Legislation Which Privatizes Airport Security

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said that there is “great bipartisan support” for this bill, which would privatize airport security across the country. Paul sat down with about two dozen policy experts and small business owners Wednesday afternoon on Capitol Hill to discuss the bill.

Last January, Paul grabbed news headlines after his father, Rep. Ron Paul tweeted that his son had been detained by a TSA agent at the Nashville, Tennessee airport. The tweet reported that Rand Paul was being “detained by the TSA for refusing a full body pat-down.”

After the incident, Congressmen and Congresswoman on both side of the aisle empathized with Paul. “Every Democrat said hello to me,” after the incident Paul said. “They said, ‘We’ve got to do something about the TSA.’”

Senate Bill 3303 would largely force federal employees to step down from being the enforcer of airport security, and it would “require that screening of passengers at airports be conducted by employees of a private screening company.”

Paul said the idea behind this proposal was to rid the TSA and to provide “simple security oversight”, for private industry to compete for airport security jobs all across the country with the idea that private industry can do a more effective and efficient job than the federal government.

The TSA has previously conducted two studies, finding that private security screeners were 17.4 and 3 percent more expensive than the current government system. However, the GAO, or Government Accountability Office, has challenged the factors and the methods used in each of those reports.

The panel of members and Paul, both agreed that the introduction of a frequent flyer system, where travelers that travel quite frequently could be “fast-passed” based on their established low security safety record was needed to improve congestion at airport security.

“My point all along has been we’re less safe by treating everyone equally as a terrorist,” Paul said Wednesday.

The roundtable was hosted by Business Coalition for Fair competition and attendees discussed other issues that were relevant to the government “competing” with private businesses as well as some potential legislation that would limit the travel expenditures of lobbyists, which is currently unlimited. However the main goal of the panel yesterday was to discuss how to get the bill out of committee and onto the Senate Floor for a vote.

Paul added that he is confident about the possibilities and outcome of the bill, because he has received a high number of letters from his constituents about the TSA, and has discussed the issue thoroughly with his colleagues.

“All you have to do is be a frequent traveler and you’re in favor of doing something about the TSA,” he said. “I think the bill could pass.”

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Katherine Sebelius Violated Her Hatch Act

Monday morning the government watchdog, Cause of Action, declared that President Obama should fire Health and Human Services Secretary Katherine Sebelius, or at the very minimum, suspend her for 30 days without pay. Sebelius is being accused of violating her Hatch Act. Rumors of the possibility of impeachment are swirling around Washington if the President doesn’t act quickly.

Last Wednesday, the U.S Office of Special Counsel issued a statement claiming that Sebelius violated the law when she endorsed the President’s reelection campaign, and the campaign of North Carolinian Lieutenant Governor Candidate Walter Dalton during a tax-payer funded public event on February 25th, 2012.

Generally, the penalty for violating the Hatch act is termination from office. However, the White House suggested that President Obama would offer Sebelius ‘special treatment’ which would allow her to keep her job.
According to the Counsel:
“Any employee who violates the Hatch Act shall be removed from their position, and funds appropriated for the position from which removed thereafter may not be used to pay the employee or individual.”
Federal employees, who are not politically appointed by the President and confirmed by the senate, are generally allowed to have their penalties lessened:
“If the Merit Systems Protection Board finds by unanimous vote that the violation does not warrant removal, a penalty of not less than a 30-day suspension without pay shall be imposed by direction of the board.”
The executive director of Cause of Action, Dan Epstein said this concerning Sebelius:
“Thus the point is that by close of business on Sept. 12, 2012, the president has been informed of a Hatch Act violation and yet has decided not to fire Sebelius. The president has therefore decided to overlook the improper political activities of his appointees when in their official capacities. He has effectively said it is okay to politicize the executive branch.”
Cause of Action also declared this when issuing their statement:
“In an unprecedented situation like the present one, the President takes ‘appropriate action’ by substituting himself into the role of the MSPB – in other words ‘appropriate action’ means that the president must suspend Secretary Sebelius for at least 30 days or remove her from office.” 
“By taking neither option, the President has, in effect, sent a message to the public that his Cabinet is superior to the law and that either his ethics pledge was a farce or that Sebelius is exempt from complying with the Executive Order,” the memo continues. “Moreover, Secretary Sebelius, in her letter to the OSC, disagreed with the conclusion that she committed a Hatch Act violation. It would appear that Secretary Sebelius is openly opposed to following the high standards of ethics she took an oath to the President to follow. Alternatively, the President has sanctioned her activity.”
The memo states that Congress can step in and push for accountability if it is determined that the President “fails to take ‘appropriate action’ to punish Secretary Sebelius” and “Secretary Sebelius fails to acknowledge that she violated the law.” The memo concludes that Congress can decide to impeach Sebelius if they so deem it is so the appropriate action.

Cause of Action also acknowledged that Sebelius violated President Obama’s “Ethics Pledge.” The group says that all of Obama’s political appointees were required to sign the pledge, “concerning lobbying activities while also seeking consensus from his political appointees that they understood the federal ethics rules.”
“Secretary Kathleen Sebelius signed this pledge,” Cause of Action said in their memo. “Secretary Sebelius did not receive a waiver from the restrictions agreed to by signing the pledge. And yet on February 25, Secretary Sebelius, using her official position, engaged in direct lobbying when she supported the defeat of North Carolina’s Amendment One. While this statement does not violate the Hatch Act, it would appear to be inconsistent with Secretary Sebelius’s ethical promise to the President.”
At least one member of Congress has publically called for the president to treat Sebelius as any other Hatch Act violator – with termination from her position. It’s time for President Obama to stand up and play the man–either he abides by the ethics code, or ignores it at his own risk. But Congress can’t let him get away with doing nothing.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

THSC: Office of Mangement and Budget Offers Insight into the Sequestration

Friday, the White House released a report describing budget cuts under a possible sequestration. The report seems to be troubling, considering how specific the cuts are, and will likely leave many on Capitol Hill scratching their heads.

The Office of Management and Budget reports, that under a law signed by President Obama in August which came with partition support and blamed Republicans for bipartisan Budget Control Act which formed the sequester last year, have since called Republican plans to replace it with entitlement cuts, “irresponsible.”

“Members of Congress should work together to produce a balanced plan that achieves at least the level of deficit reduction agreed to in the BCA that the President can sign to avoid sequestration. The Administration stands ready to work with Congress to get the job done,” the introduction reads, adding later that a balanced compromise solution would make the top two percent of earners in the U.S. pay “their fair share.”

The long 394-page report outlines specific line-item cuts. However, the introduction of the report clearly state that the numbers are purely preliminary, and are not final. In turn, this makes is more difficult for law-makers to use this report in future legislative purposes.

“If the sequestration were to occur, the actual results would differ based on changes in law and ongoing legal, budgetary, and technical analysis,” the document states.

The new report addresses all of the cuts that will be made in Fiscal Year 2013 alone. All of the cuts add up to a whopping $110 billion in both non-defense spending and defense spending. In the report most non-military programs are estimated to take an 8.2 percent budget cut, while military budgets will face deeper cuts – an estimated 9.4 percent cut.

And of course, many federal departments will not be facing any cuts. Most mandatory spending, Veteran Affair operations would not face cuts, with Medicare facing a mere 2 percent budget cut with the sequester. The salaries and benefits of all members of Congress are not projected to be cut; however, many of the Congressional Staff may be facing a pay cut according to the report.

Defense Health Programs are projected to face a $3.27 billion cut, along with Department of Defense Operations and Maintenance being assessed a $3.8 billion cut, and the Navy’s shipbuilding budget will be reduced by $1.4 billion according to the report.

A statement released Friday afternoon by Buck KcKeon, the House Armed Services Committee Chairman, criticized the White House and Obama Administration for paying for ‘lip services’ to Congress’s request on the details on how the possible sequester would affect the DoD, and DoD spending.

“The report does reveal a shocking lack of planning on the part of a White House that brought sequester to the table in the first place,” KcKeon said. “With just over 3 months until a second half-trillion dollars in cuts are imposed no proposal from the President to avert them, and no predictability on how OMB will apply the cuts – the Commander in Chief appears to be willing to leave the military without either resources or strategy.”

Following the attacks across the Middle-East on American embassies last week, one might be worried that the report notes that embassy security would be cut by $136 million. NASA also stands to lose $1.4 billion with the sequester.

However, the report outlines more than just defense cuts. Many federal education programs stand to be cut; $1.3 billion from special education and $256 million from federal student aid.

Overall, sequestration is reported to cut more than $1 trillion from federal spending over the next ten years, unless a replacement plan is agreed upon. Last Thursday night, the House of Representatives passed an alternative to sequestration, but will likely be vetoed by President Obama if it even reaches the White House.