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

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Biggest Threat To The American People: The Federal Government!

  1. Pingback: OMFG! The Omniscient Obama Narrative! It’s CRUMBLING!!! | akula51 dot net

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s