They Confiscate Then Redistribute/Waste Your Money

Jun 5 at 8:15 AM
They Confiscate Then Redistribute/Waste Your Money

“Washington, of course, aside from being one of the most mismanaged, crime-ridden cities on the planet, is a place where 535 federal legislators and about 38,000 lobbyists work at confiscating and redistributing the incomes of the American people.”

Charley Reese (1937-2013) American syndicated columnist, Conservative Chronicle, Sept 20, 1995

Obama Gets Low Marks For Handling Of VA Scandal

Just 29% think President Obama has done a good job managing the VA in the wake of the department’s patient-care scandal, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll, while 43% surveyed say he’s done a poor job and 22% rate his performance as only average.  Meanwhile, 63% say Obama was either disengaged (29%) or that he “knows more than he claims” (34%) about the scandal

The public also overwhelmingly rejects the notion that money was the chief reason for the VA scandal.

Fully 70% of those surveyed in the June poll say poor management of available resources was the main problem at the VA; just 20% believe it was lack of money. These views hold true across the entire demographic and ideological range surveyed in the poll…

The scandal has also raised concerns among the public about government-run health care in general. More than three-quarters of those surveyed (76%) say they are concerned about “a government health system in light of news stories about the VA situation.” Even among Democrats, 58% say the scandal raised concerns

Just 39% are satisfied with the direction of the country, down from 41% in MayOnly 17% say past discrimination justifies preferential treatment of one race over another.

John Merline, Investor’s Business Daily
June 3, 2014

Federal Regulations Drive Up Consumer Prices

The 36 economically significant regulations issued by the Obama administration increase consumer prices by more than $11,000, according to a study from Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum.

Regulations are deemed economically significant if they carry annual economic impacts greater than $100 million. Batkins looked at more than 50 rules that were determined to impact consumers, 36 of which quantified those impacts. The study added together the consumer price impact of those 36 regulations, dividing the price increases into six categories and estimating the increased cost that a single American consumer would pay due to the regulations.  The regulations were found to increase prices for vehicles, household goods and food, thus having profound implications on the broader economy. For just one consumer, the regulations increased the prices of the following consumer items:

•• Vehicles: $9,150
•• Household consumer products: $1,639
•• Mortgage: $362 annually
•• Energy: $135 annually
•• Health Care: $108 annually
•• Food: $14 annually

Regulations have the largest impact on the prices of vehicles due to the combined effects of fuel efficiency, safety and emissions standards, in addition to regulations on combination trucks. Recently, the EPA issued fuel efficiency regulations, concluding that a one percent increase in vehicle prices results in a one percent decrease in sales. A $3,100 vehicle price hike, writes Batkins, could decrease vehicle sales by 10 percent, costing jobs and billions of dollars in sales revenue.

While the study finds a total $11,000 in higher consumer prices, it looked at just 36 rules and used federal agency-provided data. Outside estimates of regulatory costs are even higher.

National Center for Policy Analysis
June 2, 2014

Universal School Choice: A Reform For the 21st Century

In his seminal work, “Free to Choose,” Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman outlined his case for universal school choice, advocating for robust voucher systems for elementary and secondary education that “would give parents at all income levels freedom to choose the schools their children attend.” (emphasis added)   Friedman’s work laid the foundation for the broader school choice movement. He knew there would be opposition to his proposal departing from the one-size-fits-all status quo. But he also knew, as he wrote in Free to Choose, that school choice options such as vouchers would “keep emerging with more and more support.” He was right.

The school choice movement is proliferating like never before. States traditionally have worked to ensure children most at risk of being underserved by their neighborhood schools are prioritized in accessing school choice options – children from low-income families and children with special needs, for example. But today, states have the opportunity to think bigger about educational freedom—for all children, from all levels of income As of 2014, there are 40 private school choice programs in 24 states and the District of Columbia. In 2011, Arizona passed the nation’s first education savings account option, advancing the notion of “School Choice 2.0.”  … More

School choice raises all boats, for all children. As University of Arkansas professor Jay Greene writes, “Suburbanites need education reform for the sake of their own children and not just for the poor kids in the big cities. If suburban elites commit to education reform for their own children, we may finally get improvement for low-income kids in the cities as well.” Broader educational opportunity creates competitive pressure on public schools, which in turn benefits children who choose to attend

Friedman’s vision for school choice was not confined to a particular demographic or geographic area. Rather, he knew expanding opportunity across income levels would help both the poor and the affluent alike by creating a healthy competitive pressure on public schools and by empowering the ones who know their children best—parents—to choose the best educational options for their children. Research shows parents are more satisfied with their child’s education when they have the power to choose.

School choice options should be designed to give every child an opportunity to receive the best education possible. That is a 21st century vision for education reform.

Brittany Corona, The Heritage Foundation
June 2, 2014

The Real Roots Of The Veterans Scandal

How on earth did America ever end up mistreating its beloved military veterans? There’s something aberrant afoot where the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned, say some close observers. One of them is Oscar-winning producer Gerald R. Molen, who won a best picture award for “Schindler’s List” and applause for “Jurassic Park” and other blockbusters. He is now directing concerned citizens toward the odd, unfamiliar culture that has evolved since the not-so-fabulous 1960s.

Where did this culture of contempt for our men and women in uniform come from? This story is a part of a much larger narrative — a story of the last 50 years of American history and how we changed as a people,” Mr. Molen writes in The Wrap, a film industry news site. “When American troops returned from World War II, they were hailed as heroes. When they returned from Vietnam, they were spat upon, ridiculed, shamed, derided, mocked and taunted. What changed? We did, because we began to listen to a new narrative about America and we believed it.”

The producer adds, “A half-century later, those who spat upon our troops — both figuratively and literally — are now in positions of power and influence in Hollywood, Washington, in academia and yes, maybe even in the offices of VA administrators, and their ethos rules. Their actions and inaction speak louder than words.”

Perhaps a few of them were at recent college commencements acting out in the name of political correctness. Incidentally, Mr. Molen’s upcoming film “America”, written and directed by Dinesh D’Souza, will be in theaters July 2.

Mr. Molen isn’t the only one who faults our impaired culture.  The Government Accountability Office investigative interim report released this week “confirmed that the dysfunction of the VA extends well beyond poor patient care. A perverse culture — in which patient data are purposely falsified — has taken hold of the institution whose sole mission is to provide medical care for those who defended our freedom,” says Rep. Scott Rigell, Virginia Republican. “No organization can excel when this type of culture takes root.”

Jennifer Harper, Inside the Beltway
May 29, 2014

The Day Obama’s Presidency Died

Almost nobody in Japan heard about the Battle of Midway until after the war. The Emperor Hirohito, upon hearing of the debacle ordered a comprehensive cover-up. The wounded were isolated on hospital ships. All mail was censored. Surviving enlisted men and officers were held incommunicado until they could be shipped off to distant battlefields from where it was hoped they would never return. The sunken ships themselves were gradually written off over the course of the war until their loss blended in with the general demise of the imperial fleet. In order to coordinate this effort Hirohito created a special office of cabinet rank.  It worked perfectly. If the US had not won World War 2 Midway would never have existed in Japanese history

Cohen and Gooch propose that all military failures fall into three basic categories: failure to learn from the past, failure to anticipate what the future may bring, and failure to adapt to the immediate circumstances on the battlefield. They further note that when one of these three basic failures occurs in isolation (known as a simple failure), the results, while unpleasant, can often also be overcome. Aggregate failures occur when two of the basic failure types, usually learning and anticipation, take place simultaneously, and these are more difficult to surmount. Finally, at the apex of failure stand those rare events when all three basic failures occur simultaneously-an event known as catastrophic failure. In such an occurrence, the result is usually a disaster of such scope that recovery is impossible

The curious thing about September 11, 2012 — the day of the Benghazhi attack — is that for some reason it marks the decline of the Obama presidency as clearly as a milepost. We are told by the papers that nothing much happened on that day. A riot in a far-away country. A few people killed. And yet … it may be coincidental, but from that day the administration’s foreign policy seemed inexplicably hexed. The Arab Spring ground to a halt. The Secretary of State ‘resigned’. The CIA Director was cast out in disgrace. Not long after, Obama had to withdraw his Red Line in Syria. Al-Qaeda, whose eulogy he had pronounced appeared with disturbing force throughout Africa, South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Almost as if on cue, Russia made an unexpected return to the world stage, first in Syria, then in the Iranian nuclear negotiations.

Worse was to follow. America’s premier intelligence organization, the National Security Agency, was taken apart in public and the man who took its secrets, Edward Snowden, decamped to Moscow with a laptop full of secrets. But it was all just a curtain raiser to the dismemberment of Ukraine and the disaster in Eastern Europe…  And still there’s no acknowledgement of anything being fundamentally wrong.  As with the Japanese at Midway, we’ve all felt a change in the beat of the engines; a difference in the progress of the hull. One person who might understand why the Obama boat is sputtering is fleeing the scene while avoiding an explanation is Hillary… But since the NYT is offering a conjecture of surpassing thinness, why not offer another, so long as it is understood that it is merely guesswork. Here goes: the day the Obama presidency died.

Benghazi had its roots in an alternative theory of foreign policy formed in Obama’s team at around the time of the Surge in Iraq. From that experience, Obama’s advisers persuaded him that it would be possible to “turn” America’s enemies by taking control of them instead of fighting them. It was a dazzling prospect which offered victory on the cheap.

It was to be built on three pillars: covert action, targeted assassinations and diplomacy. The idea was simple, instead of relying on the regular military, the Obama administration would take over the most dangerous jihadi groups through intelligence agencies. Through this mechanism they would become their patrons and cement the relationship with diplomatic deals with their Gulf funders. Drones and hunter killer squads would be employed to promote chosen intelligence assets — American agents — to positions of responsibility in the terror cells. The drones would clear the way for designated jihadis to rise within the ranks. Eventually America would own the jihad and neuter it from within… Don’t tell anyone and conduct a secret foreign and counter-terrorist policy, which when it succeeded could be unveiled as proof of Obama’s genius

So let me insert a guess into the field. Suppose Benghazi was the night when the administration’s secret policy fell apart. In one devastating attack Obama — and Hillary — realized they had been double crossed and their whole theory had been a dream. In an instant it was plain they could not control the jihad from the inside…  Because they had pursued the policy secretly and possibly illegally. Because of 2012. Because like Hirohito, Obama could do no wrong, so there was nothing but to protect the Throne of Heaven from the accusation of fallibility and the guilt of cover-up. So they lied… He went and committed all three categories of failure…

Suppose Benghazi was a catastrophic failure, made all the more dangerous by the possibility that Russia had a hand in it. If Putin, having studied how Reagan used the Jihad to bring down Soviet Union, played the same game on Barack Hussein Obama, it would explain many otherwise inexplicable things. The role of Snowden. The disgrace of Petraeus. The exile of anyone and anything to do with Benghazi. The kid-gloves treatment of the Ansar attackers. The strange enmity between Hillary and Obama. Each is bound by the same secret. Each lives in fear of the same smoldering fire burning in the bowels of the administration.

The lie is much more dangerous than the truth. America can live with an Obama mistake. But it can’t live with an Obama who cannot acknowledge his mistakes.

Richard Fernandez, Free Republic
May 11, 2014

Uncertain Trumpet, Or: The President Sounds Retreat

Our president went to West Point this week, looked over all his works in shaping American foreign policy and the world in general … and pronounced it good. “This is American leadership,” he concluded. “This is American strength.”

Gentle (and unbiased) Reader can look around at the results of this president’s decisions, or rather non-decisions, and judge the truth of that conclusion for himself… Once upon a similar time, when another celebrated leader was proclaiming Peace in Our Time to applause and acclaim, a lone voice was heard daring to speak truth to power as he leveled with the people of a soon to be embattled island. For appeasement would soon enough produce not peace but the most awful war in man’s history:

“I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which nevertheless must be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat. … And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and make our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” –Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, October 5, 1938.

Who now will speak such home truths to the American people? Not this president, as his self-satisfied and self-celebrating address to the cadets at West Point demonstrates. All his policies must be working just fine, for he says so.

But it is not Barack Obama’s purblind view of a world collapsing all around him and the rest of us that was the saddest part of his rhetorical performance this week, with its straw arguments against straw men and its smug dismissals of anyone who can see further than all his happy-talk. No, it is not what he said but what he didn’t that represents the greatest danger to both world peace and America’s sense of honor, which are inextricably bound together.

What saddens most about Mr. Obama’s rhetoric is the absence of the kind of moral vision that other presidents have shown in the face of all too real and all too growing threats. Where is the spirit of Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan and all those other leaders who understood how wrong, and how dangerous, the old siren songs of American isolationism can be? They advocated rearmament not just in the material sense but moral rearmament. America will yet regain her old spirit. And her old vision. For we all live in hope. But hope is no substitute for policy.

This is no time to go wobbly.

Paul Greenberg [Editorial Page Editor, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette], TownHall
May 30, 2014

American Exceptionalism In The Time Of Obama

I’m ready to concede that President Obama believes in American exceptionalism — his own version, in which American does things so perverse that no other country in history would even contemplate them.  Any country might do a prisoner swap, even if it meant freeing very bad people. But only an exceptional country would swap five leading terrorists in exchange for a deserter.  Any second-rate county might screw up in providing medical treatment for its veterans. But only an exceptional country would do so while at the same time providing a sex change operation for an ex-soldier who betrayed his country.

What Obama really believes in, of course, is his own exceptionalism. This belief is fully justified.  Some might point to Jimmy Carter as proof that Obama isn’t all that exceptional. Indeed, Scott refers to this stage of the time of Obama as “the killer rabbit phase,” a reference to the Carter presidency. But the perverse spectacle Obama provides goes far beyond Carter’s laughable ineffectualness.   For example, the spectacle involving the Bergdahls transcends anything Carter could have concocted (at least during his presidency). Any president can botch a complicated rescue mission, as Carter did. Only an exceptional one could produce the Homeland meets Manchurian Candidate production that Obama has delivered by securing the release of Bowe Bergdahl.

Nearly all of the exceptional elements of Obamaism are present. The president appeases a deadly enemy (recall his statement that he hopes through the exchange to gain the trust of the Taliban); makes life more dangerous for an ally we are about to abandon (Afghanistan will bear the brunt of the terrorism unleashed by the five Taliban commanders); and disregards American law (which required him to consult with Congress). Moreover, he does all of this on behalf of an anti-American deserter and his jihadist-sympathizing father.  You couldn’t make this up.

Jimmy Carter had a knack for putting himself in absurd and humiliating circumstances. But I doubt that Carter could have staged anything like the White House photo opportunity with Bergdahl’s parentsThere was Obama, embracing the Taliban’s number one American sympathizer. And there was that sympathizer, breaking into Pashto, the dialect of southern Afghanistan.  Pretty exceptional. I suppose we should be grateful that Obama didn’t respond in Pashto.

As Bill Otis says, I’m not sure what more Obama can do to damage this country, but I’m sure we’ll soon find out.

Paul Mirengoff, PowerLine
June 3, 2014

Unions Slam Obama EPA Rule

Labor unions criticized the Environmental Protection Agency’s new regulations on carbon emissions from power plants on Monday, highlighting growing tensions between the environmentalist and working class arms of the Democratic Party.  Those tensions have come to the forefront as leading Democrats embrace environmentalist policies backed by billionaire political donors that are generally opposed by members of the party’s rank and file base.  Some labor unions, groups generally considered loyally Democratic, rebelled on Monday after the EPA released its new regulations, which studies have suggested will carry hefty economic costs.

United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) president Cecil Roberts blasted the proposal, saying it would leave tens of thousands of the union’s members unemployed.  “The proposed rule … will lead to long-term and irreversible job losses for thousands of coal miners, electrical workers, utility workers, boilermakers, railroad workers and others without achieving any significant reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions,” Roberts said in a statement.

According to a UMWA analysis, Roberts said, the rule will cause 75,000 job losses in the coal sector by 2020, rising to 152,000 by 2035.  “When a U.S. government economic multiplier used to calculate the impact of job losses is applied to the entire economy, we estimate that the total impact will be about 485,000 permanent jobs lost,” Roberts said…

The regulations also drew fire on Monday from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), which warned they “focus solely on the environmental aspect of public policy at the expense of balancing our nation’s economic and energy needs.”  The IBEW cautioned against attempts to reduce carbon emissions “at the expense of a balanced energy portfolio capable of meeting the demands of modern society.”

“The jobs of thousands of working men and women and the well-being of their communities are also worthy of saving,” the union said.

IBEW has previously split with President Barack Obama on key aspects of his energy policy agenda, including the Keystone XL pipeline, which the president has repeatedly refused to approve.  The union has called Keystone “a vital project that would create 20,000 construction and manufacturing jobs, generate $585 million in state and local taxes plus another $5 billion in property taxes and strengthen North America’s energy independence.”…

Some unions have blasted the president’s apparent political motives in delaying the pipeline, most recently in mid-April.  “It’s clear the administration needs to grow a set of antlers, or perhaps take a lesson from Popeye and eat some spinach,” the president of the Laborers International Union of North America said at the time.

Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Press
June 2, 2014

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

They Are Worth Defending And Must Be Defended

They Are Worth Defending And Must Be Defended

“The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.”

Samuel Adams (1722-1803), was known as the “Father of the American Revolution.”

Are We A Nation Of Idiots?

Most people would respond to the question “Are you an idiot?” with a strongly negative answer, and depending on the specifics of the situation (and their blood alcohol level), might punctuate that response with a roundhouse shot to the questioner’s nose. Yet your government acts every day with the expectation that your answer to that very same question would be in the affirmative, and not only agreeing with them that you are an idiot, you would also beg them to make decisions for you.

And the response of most people would be something along the lines of: “What? That’s ridiculous! Why no one would admit to being an idiot, even if they actually were an idiot. Their self-respect alone would demand that they deny any such implication!” Really?

What other reason could explain the fact that Progressive/Democrats control the levers of power in the nation’s Senate and White House as well as many state and city governments? What other reason could governments accept the abysmal performance of our public school system while rewarding unionized teachers for what is observably sub-standard performance? What other reason could a majority of voters, in some places a large majority of voters in places such as New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boulder, and Chicago have to vote for governments that do things that are not simply idiotic, but border on the insane.

What other reason, other than idiocy, can explain the election of governments that determine that baby formula should be kept under lock and key to encourage new mothers to breast feed their infants because clearly those mothers aren’t able to choose for themselves? How about governments that demand that all restaurants explain to their patrons just how unhealthy their preferences in food really are? Or governments threaten a seven year-old little girl for the heinous act of daring to set up a lemonade stand? What of governments and elected officials that harp on “global warming” in the face of the fact that the planet hasn’t really warmed up in the past sixteen years? Each example shows what these governments obviously think of their citizens’ intellectual abilities…

It would then also seem that the days of our Republic are numbered.

Jim Yardley, Canada Free Press
July 7, 2013

Unemployed, Discouraged, Underemployed Rate Jumps To 14.3%

While the Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report released this morning showed unemployment unchanged at 7.6 percent, the broadest measure of unemployment, the U-6 rate (seasonally adjusted), jumped to its highest level since February 2013, from 13.8 percent to 14.3 percent.

The U-6 rate includes “all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons,” including discouraged and underemployed workers, as well as the unemployed. The rate is only a half-point lower than the 14.8 percent rate a year ago in June 2012.

Jeryl Bier, The Weekly Standard
July 5, 2013

71% Say Private Sector Employees Work Harder Than Government Employees

Americans continue to believe private sector workers work harder for less money and have less job security than government workers do. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of American Adults think workers in the private sector work harder than government workers, the highest finding to date. That’s up from 67% in February. Just five percent (5%) think government employees work harder, but one-in-four (24%) are not sure.

Rasmussen Reports
July 5, 2013

The Obamacare Big City Bailout

Bloomberg reports this week on the latest Obamacare trend sweeping across the country: Cities and states may soon attempt to unload unsustainable health costs on the federal government by dumping employees and retirees onto exchanges. Both Chicago and Detroit have explored using the exchanges to reduce massive budget shortfalls, and it could set an example for others. Bloomberg quotes one expert from the Rockefeller Institute of Government: “We can expect other cities to pick up on this.… I expect [employee dumping] to mushroom.”

The incentives for cities—or even states—to dump their workers onto exchanges are significant. Bloomberg notes that reducing retiree health costs could save Detroit approximately $150 million per year—at a time when the city faces a $386 million budget deficit and $17 billion in long-term debt. Of course, these budgetary maneuvers aren’t really “savings”—they merely represent a shift of unsustainable costs from cities and states onto the backs of federal taxpayers. If more individuals than expected—particularly retirees, who are likely to be older and sicker than the population as a whole—require federal exchange subsidies, the cost of Obamacare could rise by trillions. And if cities and even states set an example by dumping their health care obligations on the federal government, private-sector employers could well follow suit.

The spokesman for Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel called the city’s retiree health system “fiscally unsustainable,” but merely shifting that responsibility to Washington may be about as effective as moving deck chairs on a budgetary Titanic.

Meanwhile, like other Americans losing their coverage due to Obamacare, retirees themselves appear none too keen on getting dumped onto the exchanges. Bloomberg quotes one retired Detroit police officer expressing his outrage: “Imagine if they said tomorrow your Social Security, your Medicare is going away and you’re going on Obamacare.… How would you feel?” Many Americans may soon find out.

Chris Jacobs, The Heritage Foundation
July 6, 2013

Common Core: In Pursuit Of the New Soviet Man

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a federal initiative designed to homogenize diverse state educational curricula. It is also the latest example of destructive federal overreach into the education system. Like its predecessor No Child Left Behind, Common Core will not produce vibrant, inspired thinkers eager to tackle the world.

Instead, Common Core is designed to churn out young people who will be educated enough to work, consume, and pay taxes, but who are not encouraged to be creative, or to use critical thinking, or to develop anything remotely characteristic of those who possess superior minds and the ability to achieve great things. Common Core proponents seem more interested in producing what Russian communists called “New Soviet Men” — people who are selfless, moderately educated, and stripped of all nationalist sentiment — than they are in delivering the next Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, or Steve Jobs…

Instead of further centralizing our education system with programs such as Common Core, the education of our children should be returned to where it belongs: the family and local communities. Common Core instructs our children not to grow, achieve and reach for the stars, but to keep their heads low, and their expectations even lower. “Lowest Common Denominator” is a far more apt name for it.

Glenn Jacobs, The Daily Caller
July 4, 2013

Will Obamacare Survive?

Once it’s passed by Congress and signed by a president, even the most controversial legislation acquires a shield — an appearance of inevitability. Americans may not like the new tax regs, or the plum for federal workers, or the costly farm bill, but hey, it’s now the law. Adding that protective shield to the health care overhaul known as Obamacare was a core goal of its Democratic godfathers and godmothers in Congress and the White House: Its details, and the political hustle that rammed it into law, were less important than the sense of inevitability and public acceptance that they thought were sure to follow.

More than three years after its passage, though, whatever sense of inevitability Obamacare initially possessed is on life support. And the public acceptance? Public opinion pollsters continue to find majorities of Americans opposed to what they understand of the massive law’s consequences for their health care. Tuesday’s stunning disclosure that the Obama administration will delay enforcing a key provision of the law is the latest evidence that Obamacare risks collapsing less because of its foes’ sabotage than because of its own enormous ambitions…

Republicans want to kill it, not rescue it. With this fresh blood in the water, they’re even better armed to criticize Obamacare in future budget fights and election cycles.

More telling is the silence elsewhere. After Tuesday’s demure news from the administration — via blog posts, not press conferences or speeches — did you see all those national Democrats racing to microphones with ideas to make the law they championed a rousing success? Neither did we.

Editorial, Chicago Tribune
July 5, 2013,0,324356.story

From The Constitution To Pandora’s Box

During the presidency of Barack Obama, we’ve learned something about our Constitution that we did not know: The president can simply refuse to enforce whatever laws he doesn’t like. Not as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, mind you, but in general, as to whole categories of people…The Obama administration’s approach to executive power makes a mockery of constitutional process. His supporters appear totally oblivious to the precedent they’ve set, and to how sorry they could be one day.

What if future presidents do exactly the same thing? What if a future president announces that he will no longer enforce any aspect of the Fair Labor Standards Act and that the minimum wage will no longer be enforced? What if a future president decides to stop collecting income taxes on his supporters? If a conservative president did anything like that, liberals would be crying “Dictatorship!” Yet they cheer when Obama does it. By establishing the precedent that the president can ignore the law whenever it suits him, the Obama administration has struck a grievous blow against the Constitution he is sworn to defend.

Mario Loyola, National Review Online
July 5, 2013

The War For Economic and Energy Freedom Is On

“America is fortunate. We have economic freedom. We have the ability to thrive due to energy freedom. But like so many of our other freedoms, these, too, are slipping away. Anti-fracking fomenting is threatening access to our abundant resources and Middle Eastern countries have demonstrated a willingness to go to great lengths to maintain control of the world’s oil supplies. As our brave soldiers show us every day, freedom isn’t free—it is something that must be fought for. It is something worth fighting for. The battle includes economic freedom and energy freedom.”

Marita Noon [Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great], TownHall
July 7, 2013

Iran In Latin America: State Department Ignores Allies

The State Department recently released a report to Congress assessing the threat posed by Iran in the Western Hemisphere. Regrettably, it seems that the State Department neglected to consult with U.S. allies in Latin America and ignored research that contradicted their assertions. Indeed, the report paints a rosy picture, suggesting that Iran’s influence in the Western Hemisphere is in decline. This narrative is contradicted by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s testimony last year warning about Iranian ambitions to establish operations in the Americas and strike the continental United States.

Additionally, the general prosecutor of the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) bombings in Buenos Aires, Alberto Nisman, issued a report that directly conflicts with the State Department’s narrative. An intense multi-year investigation went into Nisman’s report, which detailed how Iran and Iranian agents have used their assets in the Western Hemisphere to conduct terrorist actions against the United States and its friends and allies. For example, the AMIA building in Buenos Aires was destroyed in 1994 by Iranian-backed terrorists. In 2011, Iranian intelligence agents attempted to coordinate with Mexican drug cartels to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States on American soil.

Nisman’s report painstakingly details how Iran has also been engaged in a widespread effort to infiltrate governments and public institutions throughout the Western Hemisphere. These outposts work toward radicalizing individuals across Latin America, destabilizing U.S. allies in the region, andinfluencing regional governments. Sadly, Nisman’s years of research appear to have been ignored entirely by the State Department…

The State Department’s report would be good news if it were true, but it appears it is not. Instead it seems to fit the Obama Administration’s narrative of a war on terrorism that is winding down as conflict recedes across the globe—in spite of research to the contrary. The Department of State has a responsibility to talk to U.S. allies and consider all information in its reports to Congress if the U.S. is to have informed, effective foreign policy.

Jessica Zuckerman & Franklin Holcomb, The Heritage Foundation
July 5, 2013
Well, we don’t have an ‘effective foreign policy’ and it looks like they have ‘infiltrated’ our government at the highest levels! Don O’Nesky

Police Chief Killed With Rifle Lost in ATF Gun-Tracking Program

A high-powered rifle lost in the ATF’s Fast and Furious controversy was used to kill a Mexican police chief in the state of Jalisco earlier this year, according to internal Department of Justice records, suggesting that weapons from the failed gun-tracking operation have now made it into the hands of violent drug cartels deep inside Mexico. Luis Lucio Rosales Astorga, the police chief in the city of Hostotipaquillo, was shot to death Jan. 29 when gunmen intercepted his patrol car and opened fire. Also killed was one of his bodyguards. His wife and a second bodyguard were wounded.

Local authorities said eight suspects in their 20s and 30s were arrested after police seized them nearby with a cache of weapons — rifles, grenades, handguns, helmets, bulletproof vests, uniforms and special communications equipment. The area is a hot zone for rival drug gangs, with members of three cartels fighting over turf in the region…

Hundreds of firearms were lost in the Fast and Furious operation. The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed illegal purchasers to buy the firearms at the Lone Wolf store in the Phoenix suburb and other gun shops in hopes of tracing them to Mexican cartel leaders… The ATF declined to discuss the matter; officials said they are still compiling an inventory of all the lost firearms for a complete account of the Fast and Furious operation…

Richard A. Serrano, Los Angeles Times
July 5, 2013,0,2692834.story?track=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The Insiders: Who’s In Charge At The White House? The Clear-Eyed Realists Or The Delusional Obamaphiles?

Much has been said about the shrinking Obama presidency. And as we approach the Sunday shows, I’m eager to hear what Obama insiders and allies have to say about the events and revelations of the last few days. The White House can’t regain momentum unless it can admit there is a problem. But it remains to be seen if this White House is detached and self-aware enough to see itself clearly or if it is so insular and fanatically devoted to President Obama that no one can see that the presidency and the country are drifting… So who is in charge?

Ed Rogers, The Washington Post
July 6, 2013

What Would Patriots Of The Past Say/Do About The Obama Change?

…The people who came here to escape the kind of government that would try to tell them how they are allowed to worship and what their moral values should be would not believe that the nation they fought a bloody revolution to free has fallen back into the hands of a government who would try to force the church and believers to go against their heartfelt convictions.

The ragtag Continental Army that stood against the mighty British Empire with little more than squirrel rifles and guts would never accept the fact that the nation they fought so hard to rescue from a tyrant would prop up dictatorships, support despots and arm nations who would eventually turn those arms against America.

The pioneers who crossed the mountains and settled the western parts of this nation, living off the land would never accept a government, which wants to disarm them.

The men who stood up on the floor of the legislature and pledged their lives and their fortunes to winning independence would be appalled at the panty waisted loudmouths of today who care for nothing but their own political image and the next election.

The brave ones who stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day would never accept a president who would leave their brothers at arms to be slaughtered in a Libyan Consulate without even attempting to send help.

The brave men who fought at the Alamo would never have envisioned that one day the border they died to establish would be nothing more than an imaginary line in the sand to be crossed with impunity by whoever wants to walk across to be rewarded with citizenship by vote greedy politicians.

The pilgrims who placed a cross on the beach when they arrived in America would have a hard time believing that such symbols of belief are forbidden in public places and even the mention of the name of the God they served is not allowed to be spoken in public schools.

Would Ronald Reagan be able to deal with the fact that after destroying the Iron Curtain and tearing down the Berlin Wall that Russia is again building up their military and becoming belligerent and disrespectful, and that the military he worked so hard to make the finest in the world is being systematically weakened by the current administration and that the Internal Revenue Service is being used to settle personal political vendettas and the Justice Department has become such an ineffective and corrupt agency? Would he have left men behind? I think not.

Charlie Daniels, Charlie Daniels Soapbox
July 4, 2013

Obama’s Approval Index Rating Is -20

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove. These figures include 22% who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president and 42% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats Strongly Approve, while 76% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 13% Strongly Approve, and 44% Strongly Disapprove.

Rasmussen Reports
July 7, 2013

It’s Time Christians Told Those Who Seek To Silence Them, ‘Yeah, Right’

Two weeks ago a Sonoma State University student was ordered by one of the Seawolves’ lunatic supervisors to remove her cross necklace because some tender moron, who goes to that liberal madrasa, might get their panties in a wad. Yep, the overseer thought the cross accoutrement was vulgar. This is the same school that, with their easily offended students, put on The Vagina Monologues last March 9th, 2013.

Let me see if I have this right: a pretty gold cross necklace on a blonde co-ed is nasty and a yarbling, six-foot feminist yapping about rape, mutilation, masturbation and orgasms is “funny, poignant, intelligent and courageous”? Well, color me purple…

The secularists on the Left want Christians to hide their faith, to back down and essentially be ashamed of whom they believe in and what the word of God says… As a Christian, I’m personally tired of seeing Christians being cowed by culture and the state. If someone can wave a flag that they love anal sex from someone of the same sex or scream “hail Satan” in praise of killing pre-born kids, then I think a Christian soldier should be able to say, “God bless you”, when someone sneezes, without being kicked out of the Army as an aggressive proselytizer…

Doug Giles, TownHall
July 7, 2013

HHS Gives Up On Obamacare’s Anti-Fraud Measures

One of the biggest administrative hurdles facing Obamacare was the ambitious plan to verify the income and insurance status of applicants for federal health coverage subsidies. In theory, on Oct. 1 of this year, a prospective beneficiary of Obamacare was supposed to be able to visit a website like Orbitz, enter basic information, and wait as multiple state and federal government databases communicated with one another to confirm in real time the applicant’s income level, and then display the level of subsidy to which the applicant was entitled, if any. It was a level of technological sophistication unlike anything ever attempted by the government. Now, with less than three months to go before Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges are set to begin enrolling applicants, Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services is throwing up its hands. Just as it did with the employer mandate, the administration has announced it would delay the implementation of these anti-fraud procedures due to the administrative difficulty.

In a regulation released Friday and flagged by Washington Post reporters Sarah Kliff and Sandhya Somashekhar, the administration will now rely on self-reported data. You read that correctly. A man who earns $50,000 per year and gets insurance through his employer could log on to the new government website and say he earns $20,000 and gets no insurance through his employer, and the government would not even attempt to confirm that the information is accurate before forking over generous taxpayer subsidies. It’s a recipe for rampant fraud, which is already widespread in Medicare and Medicaid…

With this news coming after the employer mandate delay announcement, the Obama administration has now openly conceded that it is in way over its head when it comes to implementing this unworkable law. Thus, the new strategy is to simply set up a mechanism to feed taxpayer subsidies to as many Americans as possible so that even if Obamacare is a complete train wreck, it will make enough people dependent on government to make repeal politically impossible. Republicans should seize on this immediately, and force the administration to defend a policy that would open the floodgates to fraud.

Philip Klein, The Washington Examiner
July 7, 2013
Elephant Pride Daily News Letter By Don O’Neskey

Primary Email:
Home address:
Venice, FL United States

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Biggest Threat To The American People: The Federal Government!

There is a Difference–June 5, 2013

Delete Reply Reply to All Forward Move Spam Actions Next Previous
Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:48 AM
Jun 4
Message starred
FROM TO 1 recipient
There is a Difference–June 5, 2013
Show Details



The Biggest Threat To The American People: The Federal Government!

“The biggest threat to the American people today lies with the United States government. … [T]he long-term solution is to dismantle, not reform, the iron fist of the welfare state and the controlled economy. This includes the end (not the reform) of the IRS, the DEA, the BATF, the SEC, the FDA, HUD, the departments of HHS, Labor, Agriculture, and energy, and every other agency that takes money from some and gives it to others or interferes with peaceful behavior.”

Jacob G. Hornberger, American author, journalist, politician, founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation

Eric Holder’s Long History Of Lying To Congress

Before he lied to Congress while under oath about what he knew about targeting reporters, he lied about Fast and Furious. As early as the New Black Panthers case, Eric Holder had a problem with the truth. That the House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on Department of Justice (DOJ) surveillance of reporters comes as no surprise. People have forgotten about the New Black Panther case, perhaps the most clear-cut case of voter suppression and intimidation ever. On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther Party members in military garb were videotaped intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia polling place.

The slam-dunk prosecution of these thugs was dropped by Holder’s Justice Department. When asked why, Holder, on March 1, 2011, testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies that the “decisions made in the New Black Panther Party case were made by career attorneys in the department.” Holder lied, for the decisions were made by political appointees. J. Christian Adams, a former career DOJ attorney in the Voting Rights Section, testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it was Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama political appointee, who overruled a unanimous recommendation for prosecution by Adams and his associates.

Documents obtained by Judicial Watch and a ruling by Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in response to a suit brought by the group show that “political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case.”

Fast forward to Fast and Furious, the Obama administration’s program to “walk” guns across the border and into the hands of Mexican drug cartels in furtherance of its gun control agenda. “When did you first know about the program officially I believe called Fast and Furious? To the best of your knowledge, what date?” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa asked Holder in sworn testimony on May 3, 2011. “I’m not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks,” was Holder’s response.

Holder lied: A July 2010 memo shows Michael Walther, head of the National Drug Intelligence Center, told Holder that straw buyers in Fast and Furious “are responsible for the purchase of 1,500 firearms that were then supplied to the Mexican drug trafficking cartels.” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said other documents indicate Holder began receiving weekly briefings on the program from the National Drug Intelligence Center on or before that date.

In an exchange with Sen. Pat Leahy on Nov. 8, 2011, Holder admitted his May 3 testimony was inaccurate when he said he knew about Fast and Furious for a “few weeks.” He later changed that to a “couple months.” But the memo from Walther referring to Fast and Furious in detail was sent directly to Holder on July 5, 2010 — not a “couple months” before he testified in May.

No surprise then on May 15, 2013, before the House Judiciary Committee, Holder lied when he said: “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, this is not something I’ve been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.” He personally signed off on James Rosen’s warrant. Holder’s defenders say the statement is technically correct because he never meant to prosecute Rosen, only to find the leaker. If so, then he lied to a federal judge.

Similarly, Holder’s testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that he had recused himself from the Associated Press leak investigation that led to the blanket seizure of call records is not backed up by a formal recusal letter, which is required under such circumstances.

So we have at least four counts of lying to Congress by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. When did the lies begin? Looks like right after he took the oath of his office.

Editorial, Investor’s Business Daily
May 31, 2013

The Rich And Famous At The Farm Bill Trough

Congress is considering the renewal of massive agriculture subsidies that proponents characterize as a crucial “safety net” for struggling family farms. In fact, most of the taxpayer support is actually pocketed by the well-to-do, including former President Jimmy Carter, the current Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the families of members currently serving on the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. Subsidies flowing to the likes of Carter, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, and other relatively wealthy farm owners demonstrate just how incoherent the subsidy regime has become. New legislation in both the House and the Senate would eliminate some long-standing “direct” payments, but both bills would also establish new, potentially more costly revenue and price “protections.”

Despite record-high farm income and record-low debt, farm-state politicians and agriculture lobbyists insist that taxpayers continue to forfeit their earnings to highly successful agricultural enterprises such as Carter’s Farms, Inc., of Plains, Georgia. According to government data compiled by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the farm owned by former President Carter and his family collected $272,288 in subsidy payments from 1995 through 2012.

During that same period, Vilsack received $82,874 in USDA benefits for his 592-acre farm in Davis County, Iowa. And USDA Under Secretary Michael T. Scuse owns 20.8 percent of a farm in New Castle County, Delaware, upon which taxpayers have lavished $1,051,107 from 1995 through 2012. There are no farms in Manhattan, but residents there have collected subsidies totaling nearly $9 million in the past seven years. Recipients also include Mark F. Rockefeller ($356,018) and David Rockefeller ($591,057). Yes, the Rockefeller family (Standard Oil, Chase Manhattan Bank, etc.)…

These examples are not exceptions but the norm. The USDA’s Economic Research Service reports that two-thirds of the farms with income exceeding $1 million annually received government payments averaging $54,745 in 2011. Meanwhile, just 27 percent of farms with income of less than $100,000 received payments—averaging just $4,420 in 2011.

The top recipient of subsidies in the EWG data base is Riceland Foods, Inc., self-described as “the world’s largest miller and marketer of rice.” It collected $554,343,039 between 1995 and 2012. According to news reports, Riceland reported sales of $1.16 billion during 2011–2012, the fifth consecutive year of billion-plus revenues for the company…

Diane Katz, The Heritage Foundation
May 29, 2013

Evidence Suggests Obama Directly Involved In IRS Scandal

Emma Bull said: “Coincidence is the word we use when we can’t see the levers and pulleys.” In our modern society, we take so much for granted. We sit back on our couches, watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and act as if we are informed regarding what’s going on in the world. Even when we watch legitimate news, we accept everything at face value. We no longer care to dig for information; to understand why things are the way they are. We take in what we are told by CNN, regurgitate, and repeat. Now, more than ever, we are blinded by the daily barrage of stories to the point that obvious factual inaccuracies don’t matter. For example: the number of times the IRS commissioner visited the Obama White House.

With all of the Press swirling around Eric Holder regarding the IRS’ targeting of Conservative groups, the President has been virtually untouched. Obama has claimed ignorance on the issue; and despite common sense telling us otherwise, Americans seem to believe him. According to

“IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman visited the Obama White House a total of 157 times in the three years and four months beginning September 16, 2009 and ending on January 31, 2013…The total number of Obama White House visits made by Mr. Shulman is likely to be greater than the 157 reported by the Daily Caller…During the 3 year and four month period beginning September 16, 2009 and ending January 31, 2013, Shulman visited the Obama White House almost twice as many times as any other current or former member of the Obama cabinet.”

With this information in mind, we can form a logical through-line:

1. The number of visits the IRS Commissioner made to the White House is extraordinarily high. With 157 or more meetings between the President and Shulman, something of importance was clearly going on between the head of the IRS and the White House. That much we know for sure.

2. The Commissioner didn’t make nearly as many visits to previous Presidents; which means that he and Obama were very close. According to Shift Frequency, from 2003 to 2007, the acting IRS Commissioner visited the Bush White House only a single time.

3. This information begs the questions: why were they so close? Why did they have so many meetings?

4. 157 visitations, our recent discovery of the IRS’ targeting of Conservative groups, and Obama’s open disdain of the Right, points to a collusion between the President and the IRS Commissioner. The pieces all fit together.

Can we conclude with this information that Obama is directly responsible for the IRS scandal? I say yes. The probability of these incidents occurring independently of one another is very low. Therefore, the only conclusion is that our President was directly involved in this breach of ethical bounds.

That being said, given Obama’s power, it appears as though Eric Holder will take the fall—if anyone. Claiming ignorance seems to be the go-to move for the Obama administration; but now we’ve seen the levers and pulleys, and ignorance is no longer a viable excuse. Coincidence doesn’t exist in politics. If you dig deeply enough, you can find the rotting roots of the Obama administration. We just found them.

Frank Camp, The Last Resistance
May 31, 2013

ObamaCare’s California ‘Home Run’ Still A Strikeout For Young, Healthy

Under ObamaCare, modest-wage earners face a choice: Pay premiums they probably can’t afford or pay a bit less for policies with deductibles so high it makes them queasy. The good news is that the initial ObamaCare premiums for the California market, heralded by state officials last week as “a home run for consumers,” do appear to be somewhat lower than outside actuaries had warned. The bad news is that the design of ObamaCare’s subsidies still threatens to keep the young and healthy uninsured, driving up premiums for everybody else.

Consider the options for a 20-something single individual who earns 250% of the poverty level, or about $29,000. Under the cheapest silver-level plan, that individual would have to pay $181 per month (after a subsidy of $34) on after-tax monthly income of about $2,050. Though the silver plan is meant to be affordable, it’s hard to see how such an individual could spare such a sum after rent, food and gas, medical bills and other necessities. Yes, medical bills. That’s because the standard silver plan in California comes with a $2,000 deductible.

The law’s crafters were smart enough to realize that not everyone will find a silver plan affordable, so they created the bronze option. For a bit less, $137 a month (after subsidies), a 21-year-old can get bronze coverage. Yet while the price is more realistic, the deductible of $5,000 may be so high that young people wonder whether the price is worth the sacrifice. More good news: Those under 30 will have yet one more option, buying catastrophic coverage. These policies come with an even higher deductible of $6,400, but they are less expensive.

But here’s the final piece of bad news: Because such policies come with no federal subsidies, workers earning 250% of the poverty level would pay the exact same $137 a month out of pocket for the cheapest catastrophic coverage as they would for the cheapest bronze-level plan. That, in a nutshell, is the biggest problem with ObamaCare’s subsidy structure. There are no subsidies for young people to buy the coverage that they really need and can possibly afford. As a result, many may opt out and be stuck paying a tax penalty.

Jed Graham, Investor’s Business Daily
May 31, 2013

Obama Administration To Blame For Jailing Of Hero Bin Laden Doctor, Says Pakistani Report

It was the Obama administration that sealed the fate of the Pakistani doctor jailed for helping nail Usama Bin Laden, by divulging key details after the fact and dooming any chance Shakil Afridi’s cover story could win his freedom, according to a confidential Pakistani report.

When former Secretary of Defense and ex-CIA Director Leon Panetta publicly acknowledged Afridi’s role in the ruse which helped the CIA pinpoint Bin Laden’s presence in an Abbottabad compound, any chance that Pakistani authorities could help him get out of the country vanished, according to what some have called Pakistan’s version of the 9/11 Commission, a 357-page report from an independent body set up to probe the aftermath of the 2011 raid by Navy SEALs in which the Al Qaeda leader was killed.

“The statement by the U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who was the CIA Director when May 2 happened, confirming the role of Dr. Afridi in making the U.S. assassination mission a success, rendered much of what Afridi told the Commission very questionable if not outright lies,” states the report, which has not been released, but which has viewed.

“The lesson from the Afridi episode is, if it suits the political purpose of the Obama administration, you’ll be exposed and placed in jeopardy.” – Thomas Fitton, president of Judicial Watch

Indeed, Panetta and others in the Obama administration were sharply criticized domestically for discussing the raid and efforts involving Afridi to obtain DNA from the compound’s occupants by posing as a medical team offering vaccinations. Nearly five months before Afridi’s sentencing, while the doctor was being held and interrogated by Pakistan’s shadowy intelligence agency , Panetta spoke on record in an interview to CBS “60 Minutes” confirming Afridi’s role in late January 2012. The statements came after Afridi had testified to the commission, and sharply contradicted his story…

The U.S. intelligence community was alarmed at the Obama administration’s loose-lipped attitude toward the raid, according to New York Times reporter David Sanger’s book “Confront and Conceal,” which claimed leaks prompted then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to angrily confront Obama’s National Security Advisor Thomas Donilon. “I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend,” Gates is quoted as telling Donilon. “Shut the f@*k up!”

Sib Kaifee, FOX News
May 31, 2013

Louisiana State Senator Switches Party, First Black Republican Since Reconstruction

More Democrats need to realize that their party has gone very liberal and get out. “On Friday, Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory switched his party affiliation from the Democrat to the Republican party, becoming the first black Republican in the Louisiana legislature since Reconstruction. “I am as of this day joining Frederick Douglass as a Republican,” he said.”… In his speech at the @Large Conference in Baton Rouge, Guillory repeatedly referred to the Democrats as ‘the party of disappointment.” He brought up his growing disgust with Democrats over issues like abortion, Benghazi, and immigration.

He accused Democrats of advocating policies that encourage a high teen birthrate, a high unemployment rate, and a high incarceration rate in the black community. He told the audience of black conservatives and their supporters that black Americans need to lead “by not putting all our eggs into one basket.”

Guillory, a practicing attorney, was known as a conservative Democrat and had been wooed by the Republican party for months.

Lee Stranahan, Breitbart
June 1, 2013

Rand Paul: GOP Can Turn California Red

President Obama and national Democrats hope to turn the Republican stronghold of Texas into a battleground state, but Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., suspects that Republicans have the capacity to turn California red.

“One of the reasons I come to California is that the Republican Party seems to have given up on California, and my message to those in California is that we’re going to compete nationally as a party, and that includes California,” Paul told Wired Thursday as he traveled to meet with Silicon Valley executives. “And the way we’re going to compete is by running people for office who can appreciate some issues that attract young people and independents: civil liberties, as well as a less aggressive foreign policy, not putting people in jail for marijuana, a much more tolerant type of point of view. If you have Republican candidates like that then I think all of a sudden you’d find California back in play.”

Paul cited broad-based support for his email privacy bill, which would require the government to get a warrant in order to read private emails, as evidence that “a libertarian-leaning Republican can have an appeal in California, not only for Silicon Valley folks but voters in general.”

His comments might be just so much political braggodocio, but Paul seems to think he can peel off some Democrats frustrated with President Obama’s record on civil liberties (pointing out that Obama has continued or expanded Bush national security policies such as the drone program can’t hurt in that effort). Will it work? I imagine Paul will keep his eye on the Michigan Senate race if Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., decides to run for Carl Levin’s seat.

“This whole notion that libertarians can appeal to disaffected Democrats is talked about a lot but it hasn’t yet been tested anywhere in the country,” Michigan-based GOP consultant John Yob, who worked for John McCain’s 2008 campaign during the Republican primary, said on the local talk show Off the Record. “So, if Mr. Amash chose to run — and I think he’d be a strong candidate — the big question nationally would be, does he have the potential to win those disaffected Democrats based on libertarian issues? And I think that would have big ramifications nationally, not just from here, but also for Rand Paul’s presidential campaign.” Yob said an Amash victory suggests that Paul is a strong candidate, but an Amash defeat might bode poorly for Paul’s presidential bid.

Joel Gehrke, The Washington Examiner
May 31, 2013
All of us hope he is right, but doubt the odds makers in Las Vegas would see turning California red at this time as a good bet. Don O’Nesky

Obama Was Pushed By Clintons Into Endorsement Of Hillary In 2016

President Obama made a secret deal to support Hillary Clinton when she runs for president in 2016, campaign sources say, payback for the support her husband gave him in 2012. Bill Clinton’s animosity toward Obama is legendary. A year before the last election, he was urging Hillary to challenge the sitting president for the nomination — a move she rejected.

According to two people who attended that meeting in Chappaqua,aga Bill Clinton then went on a rant against Obama. “I’ve heard more from Bush, asking for my advice, than I’ve heard from Obama,” my sources quoted Clinton as saying. “I have no relationship with the president — none whatsoever. Obama doesn’t know how to be president. He doesn’t know how the world works. He’s incompetent. He’s an amateur!”

For his part, Obama wasn’t interested in Bill Clinton upstaging him during the presidential campaign. He resisted giving him any role at the convention. But as last summer wore on, and Democrat enthusiasm waned, chief political strategist David Axelrod convinced the president that he needed Bill Clinton’s mojo. A deal was struck: Clinton would give the key nominating speech at the convention, and a full-throated endorsement of Obama. In exchange, Obama would endorse Hillary Clinton as his successor.

Clinton’s speech was as promised; columnists pointed out the surprising enthusiasm in which he described the president. It also lived up to Obama’s fears, as more people talked about Clinton’s speech in the weeks following than his own. But after his re-election, Obama began to have second thoughts. He would prefer to stay neutral in the next election, as is traditional of outgoing presidents.

Bill Clinton went ballistic and threatened retaliation. Obama backed down. He called his favorite journalist, Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes,” and offered an unprecedented “farewell interview” with departing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The result was a slobbering televised love-in — and an embarrassment to all concerned. It is just one of the debacles that have marked Obama’s second term, from Benghazi to the IRS scandal. While he was effective on the campaign trail, once in the Oval Office, he becomes a different person, one who derives no joy from the cut and thrust of day-to-day politics and who is inept in the arts of management and governance.

Obama has made a lot of promises — and nothing ever happened. He once boasted that he’d bring the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table and create a permanent peace in the Middle East. Nothing happened. He said he’d open a constructive dialogue with America’s enemies in Iran and North Korea and, through his special powers of persuasion, help them see the error of their ways. And nothing happened. He said he’d solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and put millions of people back to work. And nothing happened.

He may yet try to back out of his promise to Hillary Clinton. But as Obama’s presidency sinks deeper into scandal and inaction, the question is — will Clinton even still want his endorsement?

Edward Klein, New York Post
June 2, 2013

Illegal Immigrant Mother Of Seven Given Food Stamps, Meds, Housing, And Social Security — For 20 Years

Fox News reports Maritha Nelson’s $240 in food stamps has run out, leaving her $9 in cash and seven people to feed. The 50-year-old single mother, who entered the U.S. by swimming across the Rio Grande, has government funded housing, medication, and $700 a month in Social Security. She’s been on assistance for 20 years, and wants others to know that help is available. Florida is teeming with food stamp recruiters…who have a goal: increase federal aid to Florida by $1 billion a year.

FOX News
May 32, 20131
And we ask what is wrong in this country, well this is a perfect example! Don O’Nesky

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

We need to repeal this monstrous health care law

We need to repeal this monstrous health care law and give back the choice of health care to the American people. Pass a law that provides Americans the ability to have greater choice. Buying health insurance across state line will create a larger market and more competition and bring down premiums to affordable levels and give greater choice of services from which to choose in their policies. Doctors of course will need a clearing house much like banks have for incoming checks to log into in order to be paid for their services. Insurance companies will need to be part of that clearing house for billing purposes and for insurance availability checks when admitting patients.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Involuntary Servitude

To Every American

If this healthcare bill is passed by the congress, we will all be owned by the United States Federal Government and essentially enslaved to the United States Federal Government. We will no loner be a free society of free people. We will now be forced to labor to pay for health insurance or have the wrath of our new slave masters come down upon us.

If we choose to live free of our government we will be fined and/or shackled like slaves and put into cages by our new slave masters the United States Federal Government.

Last I heard there was a law against slavery and that President Lincoln had signed into law the emancipation proclamation freeing all slaves from there slave owners.

So how can this bill be legal I ask all of you now free people of these United States?

How can we enslave ourselves to our very own Federal Government that finds slavery unconstitutional? Involuntary servitude, I am a free man I cannot and will not be owned by anyone!

I say stand up and fight the tyranny of this congress and the oppression for which they are trying to bestow upon the free citizens of these United States of America.

Where is our Supreme Court? Do the Justices not see the unconstitutionally of this?

Why have they not challenged this? Why must they let this become law before acting? Why do they not intercede to question the constitutionality of passing such a bill into law?

The biggest question then is once this becomes law where does the line get drawn for anything else the United States Federal Government wants to impose on this free society?

It seems to me the government has trespassed it self so far in to the lives of the American people that there is no freedom left in any aspect of our lives. We are not able to truly own anything in our lives anymore. The Federal Government now has control of every aspect of our daily lives.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment