Thursday, November 20, 2014 was an important day in this nation's history. It was the day that our President flagrantly violated the balance of power as established in our Constitution. It was the day his usurpation of executive power was on display for all to see, in a blatant act of indifference to the framework of our government, as laid out by the Founders. It was the day he announced that it would be his way or the highway, and that if Congress couldn't agree wholeheartedly with what he wanted in immigration reform, he would do it anyway. It was the day he gave America the middle finger.
While the president talked of compasssion for hard-working people, families who want to be reunited, and parents who want a better life for their children, this was merely an attempt to win over the hearts and minds of the populace.
Did it work? It didn't work for those who know that no one should jump our fence or sneak into our country, and that as a sovereign nation we have borders that should be respected; it didn't work for those who believe that everyone who comes here should abide by our laws and go through the legal pathway to citizenship; it didn't work for those who question where the money will come from for the education and healthcare of these new citizens who will be 'entitled' to these services; it didn't work for the immigrants who spent thousands of dollars and years of effort to legally become citizens, only to have millions of people cut in front of them on line; it didn't work for those who worry about new and once obsolete diseases in this country, now being re-introduced into our society and presenting health threats to the population; it didn't work for those who are concerned for our national security, knowing that dangerous people can very easily cross over, since nowhere in this plan is the promise of securing our borders; it didn't work for those who know that this is just the beginning, that this is an incremental first step, and that there are millions more ahead to be given this amnesty. But all of this is irrelevant.
Because all of this, had nothing to do with compassion, and everything to do with politics. The granting of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants was designed to add Democrats to the voter rolls, and to insure that Democrats will retain power in this country in perpetuity.
However, given all of this, the reason November 20, 2014 will be remembered, is because that was the day our president acted alone to accomplish this.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Dems Need the Stupid Voters
Nothing illustrates the Democrats' reliance on uninformed voters quite like the new video clip of Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare, speaking on the subject. His admission unequivocally states that they deliberately deceived Americans in order to pass the transformative bill. In fact, he admits that "the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage." He went on, "and basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass." These comments were caught on camera at an event from October 2013 and were posted on YouTube by conservative group American Commitment.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/11/10/obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law
This stunning revelation reinforces Nancy Pelosi's comment that "we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." The Democrat politicians obviously were aware that what they were about to foist onto the American public was problematic, and would be seen that way if the public were informed of its true content. Let's remember, that every Republican in Congress voted against this bill, and that it was passed with backroom deals and questionable tactics by the Democrats.
Ironically though, since the Republican/Conservative electorate had analyzed the various aspects of this bill over the course of a year and took up opposition to Obamacare, (and actively opposed, as the Tea Party was largely born from its rejection of this massive overhaul of our health care system and subsequent intrusion into our lives), it means that those voters were not too stupid to know. They were informed. Apparently, it was the Democrats' own voters they were fooling, and fool they did.
The arrogance of the progressive Left knows no bounds. And while we already know that this elitism exists by the very intrusive laws and regulations that are passed 'for our own good', it is vindicating to hear from their own lips what we always suspected: they rely on the uninformed voter to support their policies, and they believe the ends justify the means.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/11/10/obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law
This stunning revelation reinforces Nancy Pelosi's comment that "we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." The Democrat politicians obviously were aware that what they were about to foist onto the American public was problematic, and would be seen that way if the public were informed of its true content. Let's remember, that every Republican in Congress voted against this bill, and that it was passed with backroom deals and questionable tactics by the Democrats.
Ironically though, since the Republican/Conservative electorate had analyzed the various aspects of this bill over the course of a year and took up opposition to Obamacare, (and actively opposed, as the Tea Party was largely born from its rejection of this massive overhaul of our health care system and subsequent intrusion into our lives), it means that those voters were not too stupid to know. They were informed. Apparently, it was the Democrats' own voters they were fooling, and fool they did.
The arrogance of the progressive Left knows no bounds. And while we already know that this elitism exists by the very intrusive laws and regulations that are passed 'for our own good', it is vindicating to hear from their own lips what we always suspected: they rely on the uninformed voter to support their policies, and they believe the ends justify the means.
Friday, November 7, 2014
Midterm 2014: An Election For the History Books
This midterm election can be seen as an historic election.
Tim Scott, Republican Senator-Elect from South Carolina, is the first black American elected into the Senate from a southern state since Reconstruction.
Mia Love, U.S. Representative-Elect from Utah, is the first Republican black (Haitian) female elected into Congress.
Elise Stefanik, as a 30 yr old Republican, is the youngest woman ever to get elected to Congress and just turned District 21 in New York from blue to red.
These candidates were all supported by the Tea Party. Oh wait, the Tea Party and the Republicans are supposed to be racist and sexist...how can that be? As Glenn Beck pointed out, no one even realized the historic nature of these candidates until after the election. That is the true mark of a non-racist, non-sexist Republican electorate...the candidates were elected on merit. It wasn't trumped up at all, like the way it was when Nancy Pelosi was facing the prospect of being the first woman Speaker, or the way Obama was going to be the first black president when the media made huge deals of the gender and skin color of these candidates.
Other noteworthy election results:
The Republican gains in the Senate and the House were significant, and they will now control both houses of Congress.
There is now a solid majority of states in the hands of Republican governors and state legislatures.
In Arkansas, Republicans now hold every congressional seat in the state for the first time in 141 years.
Congress will have 100 female members for the first time in history.
Lots of interesting stories coming out of this midterm election, and yet, the liberal media chose not to give attention to some historic wins. Pity, they're still playing identity politics.
Tim Scott, Republican Senator-Elect from South Carolina, is the first black American elected into the Senate from a southern state since Reconstruction.
Mia Love, U.S. Representative-Elect from Utah, is the first Republican black (Haitian) female elected into Congress.
Elise Stefanik, as a 30 yr old Republican, is the youngest woman ever to get elected to Congress and just turned District 21 in New York from blue to red.
These candidates were all supported by the Tea Party. Oh wait, the Tea Party and the Republicans are supposed to be racist and sexist...how can that be? As Glenn Beck pointed out, no one even realized the historic nature of these candidates until after the election. That is the true mark of a non-racist, non-sexist Republican electorate...the candidates were elected on merit. It wasn't trumped up at all, like the way it was when Nancy Pelosi was facing the prospect of being the first woman Speaker, or the way Obama was going to be the first black president when the media made huge deals of the gender and skin color of these candidates.
Other noteworthy election results:
The Republican gains in the Senate and the House were significant, and they will now control both houses of Congress.
There is now a solid majority of states in the hands of Republican governors and state legislatures.
In Arkansas, Republicans now hold every congressional seat in the state for the first time in 141 years.
Congress will have 100 female members for the first time in history.
Lots of interesting stories coming out of this midterm election, and yet, the liberal media chose not to give attention to some historic wins. Pity, they're still playing identity politics.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Influencing the Election Outcome
The following reports are coming in regarding the upcoming elections across the country:
Some voting machines in Maryland and Illinois were switching votes from Republican to Democrat.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/10/28/voting-machine-in-maryland-changes-votes-for-republicans-to-votes-for-democrats-n1910991
In Arizona, a liberal activist was caught on video stuffing a ballot box with hundreds of ballots.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1572639/2014-election-results-democrat-voter-fraud-caught-in-arizona-maryland-and-illinois/
Reports of thousands of illegal immigrants voting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/01/driver-licenses-id-cards-for-illegal-immigrants-causing-voting-concerns/
Promises of 'no photo ID required' on signs outside of polling places.
Recent data has shown there was massive voter fraud in North Carolina in 2012 - 765 people voted in NC and voted in another state (name, DOB and SS# matched up). As many as 35,000 people matched up with name and DOB but not SS# (that needs further investigation).
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/10/dick-morris/dick-morris-theres-proof-over-1-million-people-vot/
In an egregrious attempt to acquire more 'favorable' votes, Colorado has just instituted some very troublesome laws for voting.
1. Every eligible voter is receiving a ballot in the mail (this is done in Oregon and Washington state too). Once they are filled in, they need not be mailed back, they can be walked back. But the precarious element to this, is that one individual can collect the ballots of up to 10 people to deliver. This has spawned ballot harvesting groups, who go around door-to-door, looking to collect ballots. Of course, who will know if that 'harvester' will drop off the ballots they collected?
2. The state has instituted same day registration, which has no photo ID requirement to vote; only signatures are required, however, there are no assurances that the signatures being provided are valid.
3. Every registered voter will get a ballot, whether or not they have voted in many years. There have been reports that voters have received ballots for people who have never lived at that address.
These new election laws have been passed by a Democratically controlled state legislature. Will these new laws make a difference in election results? Certainly in a tight race it can.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/31/colorado-new-controversial-ballot-system/
For years now, we've heard Democrats complaining that voter ID laws are racist, and that poor minorities can't get access to photo IDs. But the Democrats simply choose to ignore the necessity of requiring legitimate identification of the individual who is about to cast a vote. Without the ID, the vote is open to all kinds of fraud, including impersonation, voting by non-citizens or felons, and multiple registrations in multiple jurisdictions. But to say that minorities can't get photo ID is not only untrue, it is quite condescending to them...one may even say it's racist.
The following are some of the things a photo ID is needed for:
driver's license
union voting
library card
passport
auto insurance
traffic stop
public school entrance
court
benefits like unemployment insurance
banks
credit card
buying certain OTC medications
boarding a plane
and many more....
http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/
As an ironic sidenote, a photo ID was needed at a recent NAACP convention.
These examples are only some of the disturbing trends going on during election cycles. Seriously, who can argue that requiring a valid ID isn't necessary to maintaining the integrity of an important American right? For those who do argue, we must believe it is they who must be looking to influence the outcome.
Some voting machines in Maryland and Illinois were switching votes from Republican to Democrat.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/10/28/voting-machine-in-maryland-changes-votes-for-republicans-to-votes-for-democrats-n1910991
In Arizona, a liberal activist was caught on video stuffing a ballot box with hundreds of ballots.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1572639/2014-election-results-democrat-voter-fraud-caught-in-arizona-maryland-and-illinois/
Reports of thousands of illegal immigrants voting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/01/driver-licenses-id-cards-for-illegal-immigrants-causing-voting-concerns/
Promises of 'no photo ID required' on signs outside of polling places.
Recent data has shown there was massive voter fraud in North Carolina in 2012 - 765 people voted in NC and voted in another state (name, DOB and SS# matched up). As many as 35,000 people matched up with name and DOB but not SS# (that needs further investigation).
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/10/dick-morris/dick-morris-theres-proof-over-1-million-people-vot/
1. Every eligible voter is receiving a ballot in the mail (this is done in Oregon and Washington state too). Once they are filled in, they need not be mailed back, they can be walked back. But the precarious element to this, is that one individual can collect the ballots of up to 10 people to deliver. This has spawned ballot harvesting groups, who go around door-to-door, looking to collect ballots. Of course, who will know if that 'harvester' will drop off the ballots they collected?
2. The state has instituted same day registration, which has no photo ID requirement to vote; only signatures are required, however, there are no assurances that the signatures being provided are valid.
3. Every registered voter will get a ballot, whether or not they have voted in many years. There have been reports that voters have received ballots for people who have never lived at that address.
These new election laws have been passed by a Democratically controlled state legislature. Will these new laws make a difference in election results? Certainly in a tight race it can.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/31/colorado-new-controversial-ballot-system/
For years now, we've heard Democrats complaining that voter ID laws are racist, and that poor minorities can't get access to photo IDs. But the Democrats simply choose to ignore the necessity of requiring legitimate identification of the individual who is about to cast a vote. Without the ID, the vote is open to all kinds of fraud, including impersonation, voting by non-citizens or felons, and multiple registrations in multiple jurisdictions. But to say that minorities can't get photo ID is not only untrue, it is quite condescending to them...one may even say it's racist.
The following are some of the things a photo ID is needed for:
driver's license
union voting
library card
passport
auto insurance
traffic stop
public school entrance
court
benefits like unemployment insurance
banks
credit card
buying certain OTC medications
boarding a plane
and many more....
http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/
As an ironic sidenote, a photo ID was needed at a recent NAACP convention.
These examples are only some of the disturbing trends going on during election cycles. Seriously, who can argue that requiring a valid ID isn't necessary to maintaining the integrity of an important American right? For those who do argue, we must believe it is they who must be looking to influence the outcome.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
What Is The President's Agenda for Ebola?
With the new appointment of the Ebola Czar, it is now official that the concern for this President regarding the deadly virus is purely political. Ron Klain is a lawyer, a long-time lobbyist and former Chief of Staff to VPs Joe Biden and Al Gore. Klain has zero medical background/knowledge, and yet he is to be the spokesperson for calming the Ebola panic that's running through the country. When trust in the government is at an all time low, Obama brings in a political hack to ease our fears. Can the trust go even lower?
The government is still sticking to its plan not to enforce any travel bans from Ebola-stricken countries, even as 30 something countries around the world have done so (including countries in Africa - are they racist too?) And, more importantly, the majority of Americans want a travel ban. In fact, there are tens of thousands of signatures on a petition to the White House to do just that. All this is being ignored by this President.
Now, according to the Washington Examiner, Obama is working on plans to bring non-American Ebola infected persons HERE to treat them? This is incomprehensible. If that is true, what is his agenda?
Between the refusal to impose a travel ban and the plan to treat non-Americans here, this all begs the question: WHY DOES OBAMA WANT INFECTED AND VERY CONTAGIOUS PEOPLE TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY? There's no other way to look at this right now.
The government is still sticking to its plan not to enforce any travel bans from Ebola-stricken countries, even as 30 something countries around the world have done so (including countries in Africa - are they racist too?) And, more importantly, the majority of Americans want a travel ban. In fact, there are tens of thousands of signatures on a petition to the White House to do just that. All this is being ignored by this President.
Now, according to the Washington Examiner, Obama is working on plans to bring non-American Ebola infected persons HERE to treat them? This is incomprehensible. If that is true, what is his agenda?
Between the refusal to impose a travel ban and the plan to treat non-Americans here, this all begs the question: WHY DOES OBAMA WANT INFECTED AND VERY CONTAGIOUS PEOPLE TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY? There's no other way to look at this right now.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Say No To 'Fighting' Ebola
There are already about 350 American troops in west Africa, sent to help contain the Ebola outbreak there. More troops are getting ready to go. Funny. I don't recall learning that our military were to be used to stop the spread of disease in far off countries. I'm pretty sure our military is to be used to defend this country from its enemies, to fight wars, and to fend off threats to our national security. I thought the military were trained to be warriors.
Now one may argue that the deadly Ebola virus does threaten our national security by threatening our national health. However, an agency like the World Health Organization handles responsibilities like containing a virus in other parts of the world and they have already been on the scene there.
So I must take exception to this latest order from the Commander in Chief. Doesn't sending our troops to west Africa threaten our national security by exposing them to this virus? Doesn't it put them in harm's way of a very different nature? Will troops who go there contract the virus? Will it then spread to infect other troops and their families? Why is our President asking them to go and handle this? I think it's an extraordinarily inappropriate use of our troops and a sacrifice that no family should have to put up with. Ebola is not an American problem. It's a worldwide medical problem. Let the medical professionals from WHO and other agencies handle this. I don't think our military should abide by this order. Tell your Commander in Chief "hell no, we won't go."
Now one may argue that the deadly Ebola virus does threaten our national security by threatening our national health. However, an agency like the World Health Organization handles responsibilities like containing a virus in other parts of the world and they have already been on the scene there.
So I must take exception to this latest order from the Commander in Chief. Doesn't sending our troops to west Africa threaten our national security by exposing them to this virus? Doesn't it put them in harm's way of a very different nature? Will troops who go there contract the virus? Will it then spread to infect other troops and their families? Why is our President asking them to go and handle this? I think it's an extraordinarily inappropriate use of our troops and a sacrifice that no family should have to put up with. Ebola is not an American problem. It's a worldwide medical problem. Let the medical professionals from WHO and other agencies handle this. I don't think our military should abide by this order. Tell your Commander in Chief "hell no, we won't go."
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Deadly Virus Becomes Political
The insidious Ebola virus, once restricted to a few countries on another far away continent, has stepped foot into the United States. One traveller from Liberia, came here asymptomatic on the flight, but revealed symptoms shortly afterward. Released from a Dallas hospital when he went there with a high fever, Thomas Duncan evidently was misdiagnosed and sent home with an antibiotic. After coming in contact with approximately 100 people since his arrival, Duncan soon succumbed to the deadly virus. Many people are now claiming that it was due to racism that Duncan didn't get proper treatment. Jesse Jackson says it was due to his race and lack of privilege which kept him from receiving the proper care.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/9/jesse-jackson-dallas-lawmaker-blame-racism-for-ebo/
We've heard time and time again over the last couple of weeks, by CDC Director Tom Friedan, that banning flights from west African countries would not only not make a difference in stopping Ebola from coming in, but may make it worse. That sealing the borders would not help because it would be harder to get medical supplies and personnel in to fight it. That isolating these countries would enable the virus to spread further over there, thereby making it tougher to get a handle on it. According to Anthony Fauci, head of another government agency, it would then cause those countries to panic and lead to unrest, possibly the fall of their governments. So now the concern shifts to the governments of these African countries and away from the safety of the American citizens?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/06/CDC-Chief-Frieden-on-Ebola-Sealing-Borders-Increases-People-s-Distrust-of-Government
Here'a a little known fact about this administration - in 2010, after opposition by the ACLU and other groups, Obama very quietly scrapped proposals by the CDC to impose stricter regulations to detain sick travellers and to require more reporting from airlines to better track sick people. These new regulations were "critical" according to the Centers for Disease Control. Now the administration is silent on that decision, and naturally, so is the supportive liberal media. According to Media Research Center (MRC) most TV networks won't even inquire as to whether the government is doing enough to stop the disease from coming in.
http://www.mrc.org/bias-numbers/ebola-networks-91-confident-travel-screenings-are-sufficient
Anyone from the political Left, please explain. Our country, and the world, are facing the prospect of a pandemic from a deadly virus. Since we know from which countries the virus originates, the common sensical action would be first to ban flights from the Ebola stricken countries (notwithstanding the shipment of medical supplies and personnel). Banning passenger flights would be a good first step (despite what the government is trying to convince us of) and already a few European countries have done that. One liberal commentator even went so far as to suggest that we owe it to Liberia to keep travel open, since America, a few hundred years ago, imported slaves from there. How can we turn our backs on them now, he said? If this isn't completely warped, I don't know what is.
Secondly, close our borders. This seems too obvious to even mention, and yet, this administration refuses to do so. Why? And to add further injury, some are speculating that if Ebola enters into Central America, those citizens will be making their way into the United States, through our open borders, by the thousands, looking for treatment. The implications for keeping it under control then are frightening.
So, to those on the political Left: why is wanting to keep our own citizens safe, racist and incompassionate? Above all, why is this political?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/9/jesse-jackson-dallas-lawmaker-blame-racism-for-ebo/
We've heard time and time again over the last couple of weeks, by CDC Director Tom Friedan, that banning flights from west African countries would not only not make a difference in stopping Ebola from coming in, but may make it worse. That sealing the borders would not help because it would be harder to get medical supplies and personnel in to fight it. That isolating these countries would enable the virus to spread further over there, thereby making it tougher to get a handle on it. According to Anthony Fauci, head of another government agency, it would then cause those countries to panic and lead to unrest, possibly the fall of their governments. So now the concern shifts to the governments of these African countries and away from the safety of the American citizens?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/06/CDC-Chief-Frieden-on-Ebola-Sealing-Borders-Increases-People-s-Distrust-of-Government
Here'a a little known fact about this administration - in 2010, after opposition by the ACLU and other groups, Obama very quietly scrapped proposals by the CDC to impose stricter regulations to detain sick travellers and to require more reporting from airlines to better track sick people. These new regulations were "critical" according to the Centers for Disease Control. Now the administration is silent on that decision, and naturally, so is the supportive liberal media. According to Media Research Center (MRC) most TV networks won't even inquire as to whether the government is doing enough to stop the disease from coming in.
http://www.mrc.org/bias-numbers/ebola-networks-91-confident-travel-screenings-are-sufficient
Anyone from the political Left, please explain. Our country, and the world, are facing the prospect of a pandemic from a deadly virus. Since we know from which countries the virus originates, the common sensical action would be first to ban flights from the Ebola stricken countries (notwithstanding the shipment of medical supplies and personnel). Banning passenger flights would be a good first step (despite what the government is trying to convince us of) and already a few European countries have done that. One liberal commentator even went so far as to suggest that we owe it to Liberia to keep travel open, since America, a few hundred years ago, imported slaves from there. How can we turn our backs on them now, he said? If this isn't completely warped, I don't know what is.
Secondly, close our borders. This seems too obvious to even mention, and yet, this administration refuses to do so. Why? And to add further injury, some are speculating that if Ebola enters into Central America, those citizens will be making their way into the United States, through our open borders, by the thousands, looking for treatment. The implications for keeping it under control then are frightening.
So, to those on the political Left: why is wanting to keep our own citizens safe, racist and incompassionate? Above all, why is this political?
Monday, September 1, 2014
Dear Prez: Your Helping is Not Helping
Please stop helping me save money. Every time you come up with a plan to 'cut energy costs' for the consumer, it actually ends up costing me more. Also, every time you make claims that whatever it is will be better for the environment, or will cut down on the use of fossil fuels, the opposite usually happens.
Thanks to Boss Obama's new and aggressive climate plan, the Dept of Energy is implementing lots and lots of new standards for just about every home appliance, from refrigerators to furnaces to lamps, and everything in between. And while the administration is promising it will stimulate the economy, industry groups say it will slow the economy. Businesses will need to invest in new technologies that will emit less energy - that will be expensive for them, which will then increase costs for we the people.
The director of government affairs for Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International Don Melchi, says "there are a lot of folks in the business community who don't believe the benefits are as good as the Energy Department says they will be and that the agency is using flawed data to tip the scales in favor of more stringent regulations."
Even a DOE spokesperson admits it will be a disadvantage for lower income people, as appliances will necessarily cost more; as a result they will likely use older appliances.
These new standards will also apply to business appliances, such as commerical refrigerators and walk-in freezers. Steve Yurek, President and CEO of Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute is challenging two rules in federal court. He's concerned that these new regulations could force as much as 40% of the industry out of business. http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/216186-obama-pushes-green-standards-for-everything-but-kitchen-sink
So, Mr. Obama, I know that 'climate change' is a big priority for you - (we won't look at the horrifying events happening around the world), but your efforts are not good for us. And once again, you have proven that your concerns are not our concerns (environmental issues rank low on a list of 'worries' for the American people). Now that you are pushing for a global treaty addressing 'climate change', you have distanced us even more from our ability to have a voice in how we are governed.
I have a suggestion. Book another round of golf and stop 'helping' us so much.
Thanks to Boss Obama's new and aggressive climate plan, the Dept of Energy is implementing lots and lots of new standards for just about every home appliance, from refrigerators to furnaces to lamps, and everything in between. And while the administration is promising it will stimulate the economy, industry groups say it will slow the economy. Businesses will need to invest in new technologies that will emit less energy - that will be expensive for them, which will then increase costs for we the people.
The director of government affairs for Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International Don Melchi, says "there are a lot of folks in the business community who don't believe the benefits are as good as the Energy Department says they will be and that the agency is using flawed data to tip the scales in favor of more stringent regulations."
Even a DOE spokesperson admits it will be a disadvantage for lower income people, as appliances will necessarily cost more; as a result they will likely use older appliances.
These new standards will also apply to business appliances, such as commerical refrigerators and walk-in freezers. Steve Yurek, President and CEO of Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute is challenging two rules in federal court. He's concerned that these new regulations could force as much as 40% of the industry out of business. http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/216186-obama-pushes-green-standards-for-everything-but-kitchen-sink
So, Mr. Obama, I know that 'climate change' is a big priority for you - (we won't look at the horrifying events happening around the world), but your efforts are not good for us. And once again, you have proven that your concerns are not our concerns (environmental issues rank low on a list of 'worries' for the American people). Now that you are pushing for a global treaty addressing 'climate change', you have distanced us even more from our ability to have a voice in how we are governed.
I have a suggestion. Book another round of golf and stop 'helping' us so much.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Without Congress, Once Again
Forget Congress. Why have Congress? After all, as we have seen over the last six years, when the President wants something done legislatively, he tells Congress what he wants done. If they don't agree with him, he states that he'll do it without them. In fact, some might consider that Obama prefers it when Congress won't pass the legislation he wants. Then he knows he can pull out his pen, sign an executive order, and voila, it's done. No fuss. No mess. Do some object to this sleight of hand? Sure, many do. And some very loudly. But it doesn't seem to matter, does it, because no one will impeach him. Ever.
So what's the big surprise when he announces that without Congress, he is working on a "sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=1
Oops. Only thing is, according to our Constitution, (remember that document Mr. Obama, the one you swore to uphold?) a legally binding treaty must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. But, not to worry, he has that figured out... here comes the sleight of hand. Our President will modify a treaty signed in 1992, one which was already ratified by the Senate. See? It's like magic. And although the science behind climate change is very sketchy, no matter, the politics are just as sketchy...if the President wants it done, the President will get it done.
So what's the big surprise when he announces that without Congress, he is working on a "sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html?_r=1
Oops. Only thing is, according to our Constitution, (remember that document Mr. Obama, the one you swore to uphold?) a legally binding treaty must be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. But, not to worry, he has that figured out... here comes the sleight of hand. Our President will modify a treaty signed in 1992, one which was already ratified by the Senate. See? It's like magic. And although the science behind climate change is very sketchy, no matter, the politics are just as sketchy...if the President wants it done, the President will get it done.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Celebrity Lies
Why do we cringe when celebrities voice their political opinions publicly? Aren't they entitled to their opinion just as everyone else is? The answer is yes. But the answer is also no. Yes, they are entitled to voice opinions, no they are not entitled to voice lies. And because they are using their large microphone to spread these lies, it irritates some of us to our core. We cringe because they are voicing uninformed and dishonest opinions. So when Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem, as part of a larger group of Spanish film notables, came out in a stinging letter blaming Israel for committing genocide among other atrocities, we must stand up and say NO. NO, you're wrong. NO, you're misinformed. NO, you're not entitled to spread lies about people.
Here are the facts Penny and Javi. You don't mind that I call you by these pet names, do you? (You certainly don't deserve anything more formal than that.) But first, I have a question: quick - can you name any war in which innocent civilians are not killed? Sane, realistic people know it is an unfortunate byproduct of war. The insane, irrational ones pretend this can be prevented. Of course, they can't tell you how. They can only infer that you're not as compassionate as they are. And then there are the evil ones who relish in civilian casualties, when it means they can exploit the deaths to gain sympathy. Israel belongs to the first group of sane people. Hamas and any other terrorist group belong to the last group. Many fall in the irrational group. Like Cruz and Bardem. You see, Penny and Javi, if Israel was committing genocide, then the Palestinian population would be smaller now than it used to be. But it isn't, it's increased by 30% in the last decade. And how ironic, that the very groups that cry genocide regarding Israel, are the very ones looking to kill all the Jews and wipe Israel off the map. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the very definition of genocide.
Our administration repeatedly states that Israel has the right to defend itself, while in the next breath demands that it eliminate civilian casualties. The simple facts are: 1) No country, no country, does more to limit civilian casualties than Israel does. 2) Israel must deal with an enemy who does not value life and instead, uses the death of their children to wage a propaganda war (note all the photographs from Gaza of bleeding children, etc.) 3) No other country lives up to the standards that are placed on Israel. Does this country?
While we're on the subject...where, Penny and Javi, is your moral outrage at Syria which has murdered over 130,000 of its people in the last few years, or over the jihadists in Iraq who have slaughtered Christians and forced tens of thousands out of the cities? And what about the real genocide still going on in Darfur, where close to half a million people have been killed and many more displaced?
I guess, Penny and Javi, you would rather single out Israel, whose ancestors were actual victims of genocide. Your claims about Israel are unfair. No, they are an outrage. And you can tell this to the other celebrities who share your anti-Israel views - right Roger Waters? Right, Elvis Costello? And to all the others who refuse to perform in Israel or want to strangle their economy through boycotts and divestment...you all make me sick.
Here are the facts Penny and Javi. You don't mind that I call you by these pet names, do you? (You certainly don't deserve anything more formal than that.) But first, I have a question: quick - can you name any war in which innocent civilians are not killed? Sane, realistic people know it is an unfortunate byproduct of war. The insane, irrational ones pretend this can be prevented. Of course, they can't tell you how. They can only infer that you're not as compassionate as they are. And then there are the evil ones who relish in civilian casualties, when it means they can exploit the deaths to gain sympathy. Israel belongs to the first group of sane people. Hamas and any other terrorist group belong to the last group. Many fall in the irrational group. Like Cruz and Bardem. You see, Penny and Javi, if Israel was committing genocide, then the Palestinian population would be smaller now than it used to be. But it isn't, it's increased by 30% in the last decade. And how ironic, that the very groups that cry genocide regarding Israel, are the very ones looking to kill all the Jews and wipe Israel off the map. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the very definition of genocide.
Our administration repeatedly states that Israel has the right to defend itself, while in the next breath demands that it eliminate civilian casualties. The simple facts are: 1) No country, no country, does more to limit civilian casualties than Israel does. 2) Israel must deal with an enemy who does not value life and instead, uses the death of their children to wage a propaganda war (note all the photographs from Gaza of bleeding children, etc.) 3) No other country lives up to the standards that are placed on Israel. Does this country?
While we're on the subject...where, Penny and Javi, is your moral outrage at Syria which has murdered over 130,000 of its people in the last few years, or over the jihadists in Iraq who have slaughtered Christians and forced tens of thousands out of the cities? And what about the real genocide still going on in Darfur, where close to half a million people have been killed and many more displaced?
I guess, Penny and Javi, you would rather single out Israel, whose ancestors were actual victims of genocide. Your claims about Israel are unfair. No, they are an outrage. And you can tell this to the other celebrities who share your anti-Israel views - right Roger Waters? Right, Elvis Costello? And to all the others who refuse to perform in Israel or want to strangle their economy through boycotts and divestment...you all make me sick.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Changing Our History
Imagine teaching the history of WWII without mentioning Adolf Hitler, the Nazi atrocities or the Holocaust. Or teaching the Civil War without Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Delete the Founding Fathers and their role in the American Revolution. But, do teach about the atomic bombs that we dropped and how that raised questions about our American values.
The College Board, the company which issues the SAT college entrance exams and other Advanced Placement exams, has created a new 'framework' for the AP U.S. History exam, which will radically change the way American history is taught.
According to Stanley Kurtz of NationalReview.com, "the traditional emphasis on America's founders and principles of constitutional government will soon be jettisoned in favor of a left-leaning emphasis on race, gender, class, ethnicity, etc." While this may conflict with existing history standards in the states, questions and debate have been virtually suppressed in the way this exam has been publicly released. Sample questions have been made public, but largely this test is being kept under tight wraps, along with a warning to certified AP teachers that any discussion of the new test will subject them to losing their AP teaching privileges. Says Kurtz, "This is clearly an effort to silence public debate over these highly politicized and illegitimately nationalized standards. If the complete sample test was available, the political nature of the new test would become evident."
An example of this new version of history may be that "the Constitution can be studied as an example of the Colonists' belief in the superiority of their own culture." Continues Kurtz, "so while allowing some minor flexibility on details, the new AP U.S. History framework effectively forces teachers to train their students in a leftist, blame-America-first reading of history, while omitting traditional treatments of our founding principles." http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382400/new-war-over-high-school-us-history-stanley-kurtz
Ken Mercer, of the Texas Board of Education, has been working to put a stop to this tranformative practice. According to Mercer, the hands of states and local school boards are tied, because if the students are required to take this test, then teachers have to teach for the test. Although, in theory, they have 'leeway' to add other information, the students will only be tested on the 98 page document given to teachers. Mercer believes that teaching outside the document would be doing a disservice to the students if they want the students to pass the test. http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/07/15/surprise-surprise-common-core-masterminds-behind-new-ap-u-s-history-curriculum/
The College Board President and CEO is David Coleman, one of the architects of Common Core, the controversial federal curriculum standards for K-12, currently being opposed by many teachers and parents.
In a live telecast on movie screens across the country last week, Glenn Beck brought together educators and activists in an attempt to stimulate grassroots opposition to Common Core. There will be another screening of the event this Tuesday, July 29th and is called "We Will Not Conform." Look for it at a theater near you. Also check out commoncorefails.com for ways in which you can help stop this federal takeover of education. The time to speak up is now, as these tests will be rolling out in the Fall.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about our country's history is what our children must learn. We must push back on the progressive agenda to change the telling of our history. Is it too much to ask that our children be taught American history devoid of an ideological agenda?
The College Board, the company which issues the SAT college entrance exams and other Advanced Placement exams, has created a new 'framework' for the AP U.S. History exam, which will radically change the way American history is taught.
According to Stanley Kurtz of NationalReview.com, "the traditional emphasis on America's founders and principles of constitutional government will soon be jettisoned in favor of a left-leaning emphasis on race, gender, class, ethnicity, etc." While this may conflict with existing history standards in the states, questions and debate have been virtually suppressed in the way this exam has been publicly released. Sample questions have been made public, but largely this test is being kept under tight wraps, along with a warning to certified AP teachers that any discussion of the new test will subject them to losing their AP teaching privileges. Says Kurtz, "This is clearly an effort to silence public debate over these highly politicized and illegitimately nationalized standards. If the complete sample test was available, the political nature of the new test would become evident."
An example of this new version of history may be that "the Constitution can be studied as an example of the Colonists' belief in the superiority of their own culture." Continues Kurtz, "so while allowing some minor flexibility on details, the new AP U.S. History framework effectively forces teachers to train their students in a leftist, blame-America-first reading of history, while omitting traditional treatments of our founding principles." http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/382400/new-war-over-high-school-us-history-stanley-kurtz
Ken Mercer, of the Texas Board of Education, has been working to put a stop to this tranformative practice. According to Mercer, the hands of states and local school boards are tied, because if the students are required to take this test, then teachers have to teach for the test. Although, in theory, they have 'leeway' to add other information, the students will only be tested on the 98 page document given to teachers. Mercer believes that teaching outside the document would be doing a disservice to the students if they want the students to pass the test. http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/07/15/surprise-surprise-common-core-masterminds-behind-new-ap-u-s-history-curriculum/
The College Board President and CEO is David Coleman, one of the architects of Common Core, the controversial federal curriculum standards for K-12, currently being opposed by many teachers and parents.
In a live telecast on movie screens across the country last week, Glenn Beck brought together educators and activists in an attempt to stimulate grassroots opposition to Common Core. There will be another screening of the event this Tuesday, July 29th and is called "We Will Not Conform." Look for it at a theater near you. Also check out commoncorefails.com for ways in which you can help stop this federal takeover of education. The time to speak up is now, as these tests will be rolling out in the Fall.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about our country's history is what our children must learn. We must push back on the progressive agenda to change the telling of our history. Is it too much to ask that our children be taught American history devoid of an ideological agenda?
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
The Transparent Agenda
President Obama promised us transparency when he was running for election in 2008. It is apparent that once again, he is living up to his promise.
Obama has been anti-Israel for a long time. Longer than he has been president. One needs only to look at his associations and appointments over the years and see that the quality they all have in common is their anti-Israel sentiment. Coupled with his public remarks about Israel returning to its '67 borders, about Israel showing restraint when they are being showered with rockets onto civilian neighborhoods, about Israel making more efforts at peace with an enemy which merely wants its destruction, one can easily see where he true heart lies.
So a rocket falls a mile away from Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. Due to the Malaysian airplane that was downed over Ukraine recently, some U.S. airlines began suspending flights to Israel, as a precautionary measure. It wasn't too long before other European airlines suspended flights as well. When our own FAA issued a ban on ALL airline flights to Israel for 24 hours, it seemed questionable. Not surprisingly, this ban has now been extended for another 24 hours. According to former U.S. Dept. of Transportation inspector general Mary Schiavo, "it's very unusual for the FAA to prohibit U.S. carriers from flying to a particular airport. In the past, when the FAA has done it there have been diplomatic consequences."
Meanwhile, Israel has maintained that their airport, which has been under security threat for many years, is safe to travel through. Now Israel would be the last country to risk the lives of travelers wanting to come to its country. So, one would think if they are feeling confident in their ability to protect people, that would be sufficient. Said Gloria Romm, director of the Civil Aviation Authority of Israel, "it is not a miracle and it is not a trick. We know how to defend Ben-Gurion, period," referring to the thousands of rockets that have been fired into the country while thousands more flights have landed and taken off at the airport.
This brings us back to the FAA, an agency working under the Executive Branch of the government. Sure, they can 'justify' the banning of flights to Israel to maintain the safety and security of its passengers. But let's remember who gets hurt by this ban. It hurts Israel. Only Israel. In fact, Hamas has declared this flight ban as a victory for them. And predictably, nothing has been done about Hamas firing the rocket towards the airport. On the contrary, they continue to get lots of financial aid from this administration, they get treated as an equal player in all this, despite the fact that they are an official terrorist group, and they get the sympathy of the left-wing media here and abroad. Our President is being very transparent now.
Obama has been anti-Israel for a long time. Longer than he has been president. One needs only to look at his associations and appointments over the years and see that the quality they all have in common is their anti-Israel sentiment. Coupled with his public remarks about Israel returning to its '67 borders, about Israel showing restraint when they are being showered with rockets onto civilian neighborhoods, about Israel making more efforts at peace with an enemy which merely wants its destruction, one can easily see where he true heart lies.
So a rocket falls a mile away from Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. Due to the Malaysian airplane that was downed over Ukraine recently, some U.S. airlines began suspending flights to Israel, as a precautionary measure. It wasn't too long before other European airlines suspended flights as well. When our own FAA issued a ban on ALL airline flights to Israel for 24 hours, it seemed questionable. Not surprisingly, this ban has now been extended for another 24 hours. According to former U.S. Dept. of Transportation inspector general Mary Schiavo, "it's very unusual for the FAA to prohibit U.S. carriers from flying to a particular airport. In the past, when the FAA has done it there have been diplomatic consequences."
Meanwhile, Israel has maintained that their airport, which has been under security threat for many years, is safe to travel through. Now Israel would be the last country to risk the lives of travelers wanting to come to its country. So, one would think if they are feeling confident in their ability to protect people, that would be sufficient. Said Gloria Romm, director of the Civil Aviation Authority of Israel, "it is not a miracle and it is not a trick. We know how to defend Ben-Gurion, period," referring to the thousands of rockets that have been fired into the country while thousands more flights have landed and taken off at the airport.
This brings us back to the FAA, an agency working under the Executive Branch of the government. Sure, they can 'justify' the banning of flights to Israel to maintain the safety and security of its passengers. But let's remember who gets hurt by this ban. It hurts Israel. Only Israel. In fact, Hamas has declared this flight ban as a victory for them. And predictably, nothing has been done about Hamas firing the rocket towards the airport. On the contrary, they continue to get lots of financial aid from this administration, they get treated as an equal player in all this, despite the fact that they are an official terrorist group, and they get the sympathy of the left-wing media here and abroad. Our President is being very transparent now.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Danger At The Border
There is no denying that there's a disaster going on at our southern border. A man-made disaster, made by years of unsecure borders, but more recently by a simple directive in 2012 from Obama to DHS, called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which essentially postponed deportation for "potentially millions of young illegal immigrants." By circumventing laws on the books, he has created even more immigration problems.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/02/wrong-side-constitution-obama-likely-to-delay-deportations-say-experts/
Not only was this flooding of illegal immigrants anticipated by the government several months back, there was nothing done to stop it. The tens of thousands of illegals coming primarily from Honduras, Guatamala, and El Salvador, are coming due to expectations that they will not be turned away. Many of these people are children, travelling without their parents, and being escorted by dangerous drug cartels. These chidren are transported through 1800 miles of difficult roads in Mexico and are being physically and sexually abused along the way. They are riding the tops of trains, they are riding in overcrowded trucks and buses, and they are crossing the Rio Grande River where, tragically, several children have washed ashore.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062514-706233-texas-border-immigration-wave-orchestrated-by-administration.htm?ven=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/16/they-keep-coming-the-rehearsed-answers-illegal-immigrants-are-using-at-the-border-to-gain-entry-into-the-u-s/
Once they enter our country, they are being warehoused in crowded facilities, where diseases that many of them came with, are spreading. To make matters worse, the administration is currently relocating tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to states such as Massachusetts, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, while other states are being considered. When it was revealed that the illegals, after being flown and bussed to other locations and are then abandoned, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona wanted answers from DHS and called on the President to end this practice. Recently, more than 1,000 illegal immigrant children were 'dumped' in her state, without prior warning. She calls this practice by the administration "deplorable." http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/06/09/AZ-Gov-Jan-Brewer-Disturbed-and-Outraged-Feds-Have-No-Plans-To-Stop-Illegal-Immigrant-Dump
In some cases, the citizens are taking matters into their own hands. The residents in Murietta, CA have taken up protests over plane loads of illegals being shipped to their town, and to date, they have successfully pushed back. Recently, though, the feds were threatening to bring riot gear to the small town and use this gear to push back the crowds who have been holding back buses from coming in. The threat, however, will not deter the protestors, who vow to stand their ground. Murrieta resident, John Henry, told Breitbart News, "the administration thinks that if it floods our streets, in small town America, they can force immigration reform." http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/07/10/Busload-of-Illegal-Aliens-a-No-Show-in-Murrieta-Skeptical-Protesters-Stand-Ground
Naturally, our porous borders are porous to anybody. Evidence of Korans, prayer rugs and other telltale items are turning up on the border, which indicate that the illegals are not just from Central America. This, of course, poses serious security risks, at a time when the Islamists are more emboldened than ever to cause harm to this country. And because the border patrol agents are so preoccupied now with the tremendous influx of illegals coming in, there are large swaths of land that are virtually unmanned; just the circumstances needed for terrorists wanting to get in unnoticed.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/14/urdu-dictionary-found-on-texas-ranch-near-border-we-just-dont-know-whos-here-already/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/14/night-time-on-border-endless-wave-illegal-immigrants-floods-rio-grande-valley
During Obama's recent trip to Texas to attend fundraisers, his refusal to go to the border to see about this catastrophe didn't appear to make sense to a lot of people. His seeming not to care, is, frankly, because he really doesn't care. It's all about the means to an end. He uses the strategy he finds so effective - the Cloward-Piven strategy - overwhelm the system, flood the government bureaucracy with impossible demands beyond their capacity to handle them, which in turn, forces the system to break down. In this case, it will allow Obama the opportunity to 'fix' the immigration system by ushering in his own comprehensive program. Scandalous.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/02/wrong-side-constitution-obama-likely-to-delay-deportations-say-experts/
Not only was this flooding of illegal immigrants anticipated by the government several months back, there was nothing done to stop it. The tens of thousands of illegals coming primarily from Honduras, Guatamala, and El Salvador, are coming due to expectations that they will not be turned away. Many of these people are children, travelling without their parents, and being escorted by dangerous drug cartels. These chidren are transported through 1800 miles of difficult roads in Mexico and are being physically and sexually abused along the way. They are riding the tops of trains, they are riding in overcrowded trucks and buses, and they are crossing the Rio Grande River where, tragically, several children have washed ashore.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062514-706233-texas-border-immigration-wave-orchestrated-by-administration.htm?ven=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/16/they-keep-coming-the-rehearsed-answers-illegal-immigrants-are-using-at-the-border-to-gain-entry-into-the-u-s/
Once they enter our country, they are being warehoused in crowded facilities, where diseases that many of them came with, are spreading. To make matters worse, the administration is currently relocating tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to states such as Massachusetts, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, while other states are being considered. When it was revealed that the illegals, after being flown and bussed to other locations and are then abandoned, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona wanted answers from DHS and called on the President to end this practice. Recently, more than 1,000 illegal immigrant children were 'dumped' in her state, without prior warning. She calls this practice by the administration "deplorable." http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/06/09/AZ-Gov-Jan-Brewer-Disturbed-and-Outraged-Feds-Have-No-Plans-To-Stop-Illegal-Immigrant-Dump
In some cases, the citizens are taking matters into their own hands. The residents in Murietta, CA have taken up protests over plane loads of illegals being shipped to their town, and to date, they have successfully pushed back. Recently, though, the feds were threatening to bring riot gear to the small town and use this gear to push back the crowds who have been holding back buses from coming in. The threat, however, will not deter the protestors, who vow to stand their ground. Murrieta resident, John Henry, told Breitbart News, "the administration thinks that if it floods our streets, in small town America, they can force immigration reform." http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/07/10/Busload-of-Illegal-Aliens-a-No-Show-in-Murrieta-Skeptical-Protesters-Stand-Ground
Naturally, our porous borders are porous to anybody. Evidence of Korans, prayer rugs and other telltale items are turning up on the border, which indicate that the illegals are not just from Central America. This, of course, poses serious security risks, at a time when the Islamists are more emboldened than ever to cause harm to this country. And because the border patrol agents are so preoccupied now with the tremendous influx of illegals coming in, there are large swaths of land that are virtually unmanned; just the circumstances needed for terrorists wanting to get in unnoticed.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/14/urdu-dictionary-found-on-texas-ranch-near-border-we-just-dont-know-whos-here-already/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/14/night-time-on-border-endless-wave-illegal-immigrants-floods-rio-grande-valley
During Obama's recent trip to Texas to attend fundraisers, his refusal to go to the border to see about this catastrophe didn't appear to make sense to a lot of people. His seeming not to care, is, frankly, because he really doesn't care. It's all about the means to an end. He uses the strategy he finds so effective - the Cloward-Piven strategy - overwhelm the system, flood the government bureaucracy with impossible demands beyond their capacity to handle them, which in turn, forces the system to break down. In this case, it will allow Obama the opportunity to 'fix' the immigration system by ushering in his own comprehensive program. Scandalous.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
When in the Course of human Events...
Action of Second Continental Congress,
July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only.
He has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People.
He has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the Dangers of Invasion from without, and Convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance.
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pre-tended Offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People.
He is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized Nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the Executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.
Nor have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Dear Mr. President, You Are A Phony
Dear Mr. President,
Don't mean to interrupt your umpteenth game of golf, but once again, you are characterizng the scandals you and your administration are embroiled in, as phony. Just Washington insider stuff, you say. Nothing to see here. Move along. No, we will not move along. Because, Mr. President, you are the phony.
Before you even took office, you said you would create jobs and fix the economy. The economy is worse, and unemployment is still too high. You said you would bridge the racial divide, you've widened it. You said you would bridge the political divide, and you've spent much time fueling it. You said your administration would be transparent, yet it's the most secretive in history. You said we could keep our health care plan and our doctors, we can't. You said the insurance premiums would be much cheaper. Nope. You said you would support constitutional protections on surveillance programs. Nyet; the spying is more widespread and egregious than ever. You said you would cut the deficit in half, and that you didn't want to leave our children in debt. You've multiplied the deficit and left our children in more debt than ever. You said that America under your reign would have more respect from the world. Not true, not even our allies like us.
Mr. President, all of these broken promises are real. Also real are your many scandals which revolve around the abuse of executive power and the cover-up of illegal actions. No, Mr. President, we are not moving along...there's plenty to see here.
Don't mean to interrupt your umpteenth game of golf, but once again, you are characterizng the scandals you and your administration are embroiled in, as phony. Just Washington insider stuff, you say. Nothing to see here. Move along. No, we will not move along. Because, Mr. President, you are the phony.
Before you even took office, you said you would create jobs and fix the economy. The economy is worse, and unemployment is still too high. You said you would bridge the racial divide, you've widened it. You said you would bridge the political divide, and you've spent much time fueling it. You said your administration would be transparent, yet it's the most secretive in history. You said we could keep our health care plan and our doctors, we can't. You said the insurance premiums would be much cheaper. Nope. You said you would support constitutional protections on surveillance programs. Nyet; the spying is more widespread and egregious than ever. You said you would cut the deficit in half, and that you didn't want to leave our children in debt. You've multiplied the deficit and left our children in more debt than ever. You said that America under your reign would have more respect from the world. Not true, not even our allies like us.
Mr. President, all of these broken promises are real. Also real are your many scandals which revolve around the abuse of executive power and the cover-up of illegal actions. No, Mr. President, we are not moving along...there's plenty to see here.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Reaching Critical Mass
So much going on in this country and around the world, one doesn't know where to look first.
On the one hand we have a shrinking economy, as evidenced by the decline in GDP from the 1stQ of this year, the continuing high number of unemployed among college graduates, and the highest number of government dependents in history.
We have a monstrous overload of illegal immigrants, with tens of thousands of children coming through our very porous borders, unaccompanied and carrying diseases.
We have government agencies which appear to be very corrupt, e.g. the IRS, the Veterans Administration, the EPA and the Justice Department.
We have a health care system run by the government which is revealing itself to be costly and restrictive of choice.
We have a President who is constantly giving Congress the middle finger because nothing will stand in the way of his agenda, as he has told us his pen and phone are all that he needs.
We have a political system in which one party mimics the sleazy behavior of the other party to keep their longstanding politicians in power, e.g. 4-decades-in-congress rino Cochran vs. Tea Party backed-McDaniel.
We have a reversal of events in Iraq in which extremists seem to be winning out; costing this country thousands in casualties, trillions in dollars, and a priceless reputation.
We have an administration that seems content with watching while an Islamic caliphate is building in the Middle East, and which will undoubtedly expand its reach unless stopped in its path.
We have old enemies who are rearing their ugly heads to usurp power while they can, e.g. Russia and China.
We have allies who are feeling betrayed by this country, e.g. Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan.
We have the biggest sponsor of terror in the world in Iran working tirelessly to build nuclear weapons to advance their very hostile agenda.
We have an administration who is only too willing to release some of jihad's worst perpetrators, and if that wasn't enough, in exchange for one very controversial deserter.
We have hundreds of people in Asia and Africa getting kidnapped and/or beheaded by maniacs.
We have one American soldier sitting in a Mexican prison for nearly 3 months due to a wrong turn on the road and our President won't extend himself to free him.
And we have a complicit media who seemingly still has the desire to protect and support this administration.
By no means is this the end of the list..this merely represents some of the very disturbing events and actions that are occuring lately. We seem to be reaching critical mass. What's next? What will be the tipping point?
On the one hand we have a shrinking economy, as evidenced by the decline in GDP from the 1stQ of this year, the continuing high number of unemployed among college graduates, and the highest number of government dependents in history.
We have a monstrous overload of illegal immigrants, with tens of thousands of children coming through our very porous borders, unaccompanied and carrying diseases.
We have government agencies which appear to be very corrupt, e.g. the IRS, the Veterans Administration, the EPA and the Justice Department.
We have a health care system run by the government which is revealing itself to be costly and restrictive of choice.
We have a President who is constantly giving Congress the middle finger because nothing will stand in the way of his agenda, as he has told us his pen and phone are all that he needs.
We have a political system in which one party mimics the sleazy behavior of the other party to keep their longstanding politicians in power, e.g. 4-decades-in-congress rino Cochran vs. Tea Party backed-McDaniel.
We have a reversal of events in Iraq in which extremists seem to be winning out; costing this country thousands in casualties, trillions in dollars, and a priceless reputation.
We have an administration that seems content with watching while an Islamic caliphate is building in the Middle East, and which will undoubtedly expand its reach unless stopped in its path.
We have old enemies who are rearing their ugly heads to usurp power while they can, e.g. Russia and China.
We have allies who are feeling betrayed by this country, e.g. Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan.
We have the biggest sponsor of terror in the world in Iran working tirelessly to build nuclear weapons to advance their very hostile agenda.
We have an administration who is only too willing to release some of jihad's worst perpetrators, and if that wasn't enough, in exchange for one very controversial deserter.
We have hundreds of people in Asia and Africa getting kidnapped and/or beheaded by maniacs.
We have one American soldier sitting in a Mexican prison for nearly 3 months due to a wrong turn on the road and our President won't extend himself to free him.
And we have a complicit media who seemingly still has the desire to protect and support this administration.
By no means is this the end of the list..this merely represents some of the very disturbing events and actions that are occuring lately. We seem to be reaching critical mass. What's next? What will be the tipping point?
Saturday, June 7, 2014
The Questionable Exchange
Barack Obama thinks that all those who oppose his decision to release five very dangerous terrorists from Gitmo, in exchange for one American soldier, who undisputedly deserted his position, opposed this due to partisan politics. His National Security Adviser Susan Rice says Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the army deserter, Muslim convert, and possible enemy collaborator, served with "honor and distinction." Another administration official said "what if his platoon was long on psychopaths and short on leadership?" after hearing Bergdahl's fellow platoon members debating the swap and the administration painting him as a hero.
Several platoon members spoke out on "The Kelly File" this week, angered by this administration and its characterization of Bergdahl, as well as what they felt was a lopsided trade which will undoubtedly put their country at risk. This is what prompted several of them to break a non-disclosure statement, which they were told to sign five years ago, when Bergdahl first deserted. But, when they saw how this story was shaping up into one of falsity, and when they heard some question their motives and credibility, they ended their silence. They were accused of 'swiftboating' Bergdahl, which has come to imply, to some, that they were merely smearing his character. As the former troop leader to Bergdahl said, he's "not a hero, didn't serve with distinction. He needs to be held accountable and needs to answer for what he did." Additionally, there have been claims that several troops lost their lives in the search for Bergdahl.
Adding to the muddiness of this story, is the fact that Obama made this deal without notifying Congress; another lawless move in a long list of lawless moves by this President. This, of course, only served to throw fuel on the many fires this questionable exchange brought forth.
Bergdahl's fellow platoon mates waited five years to hear why he left them and the army. There are many unanswered questions. But, now that he's back, hopefully the real truth to all of this will emerge.
Several platoon members spoke out on "The Kelly File" this week, angered by this administration and its characterization of Bergdahl, as well as what they felt was a lopsided trade which will undoubtedly put their country at risk. This is what prompted several of them to break a non-disclosure statement, which they were told to sign five years ago, when Bergdahl first deserted. But, when they saw how this story was shaping up into one of falsity, and when they heard some question their motives and credibility, they ended their silence. They were accused of 'swiftboating' Bergdahl, which has come to imply, to some, that they were merely smearing his character. As the former troop leader to Bergdahl said, he's "not a hero, didn't serve with distinction. He needs to be held accountable and needs to answer for what he did." Additionally, there have been claims that several troops lost their lives in the search for Bergdahl.
Adding to the muddiness of this story, is the fact that Obama made this deal without notifying Congress; another lawless move in a long list of lawless moves by this President. This, of course, only served to throw fuel on the many fires this questionable exchange brought forth.
Bergdahl's fellow platoon mates waited five years to hear why he left them and the army. There are many unanswered questions. But, now that he's back, hopefully the real truth to all of this will emerge.
Friday, May 16, 2014
The Bullying Era
How ironic that in this era of anti-bullying campaigns in schools from coast to coast, that we live in an era of unprecedented bullying in our culture.
Not a day goes by where we don't hear about another speaker who is disinvited to an event because someone doesn't like their politics, about another word that we're told we can't say because it's offensive to someone, somewhere in the world, or where a given belief or opinion, is squashed because it's not in line with a particular point of view.
We learned in the last couple of weeks that invited speakers Condi Rice, Aayan Hirsi Ali, and Christine Lagarde were disinvited to address commencements due to a few outspoken critics of their politics. And this, in universities, once hailed as institutions of open-mindedness and new learning; instead they have become places of close-mindedness and political correctness. We learned of the brainwashing going on at the annual White Privilege Conference, in which educators and students were taught that all white people are racist and that our capitalist system maintains white supremacy. And if that isn't bad enough, we learned that Harvard's Kennedy School will be making it mandatory for students to take a class on White Privilege.
This week we learned that a 7 minute film in the new 9/11 museum uses words like jihad, terrorists and Islam, which some left-wing and Muslim groups claimed is insensitive; pressure was put upon the museum to edit the film. We learned that the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota cancelled a "hump day" event, as it was deemed racist. The plan was to bring a camel on campus and some viewed it as racially insensitive to the Middle East culture.
We learned that the Benham Brothers recently lost a new HGTV show on real estate they were signed to do because of their conservative viewpoints on abortion and gay marriage. Now it seems that SunTrust Banks is cutting ties with them as well, by pulling all of its listed properties with their business. We learned that Dolphins football player Don Jones, in reaction to Michael Sam's gay kiss after being drafted by the Rams, tweeted "horrible" in reference to the kiss on TV and was fined and suspended until he receives 'training' for his comments.
We learned too, this week, that distinguished climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson, was bullied into resigning the Global Warming Policy Foundation, where his fellow climate scientists threatened they would refuse to collaborate with him if he stayed on the advisory board. According to Matt Ridley, this is reminiscent of the Climategate scandal of 2009, in which skeptics were to be threatened and blackballed, according to the emails that were leaked.
These recent examples are just that. There are hundreds, if not more, of examples of speech we 'shouldn't' use, of opinions we 'shouldn't' have, of people we 'shouldn't' listen to. We are reaching critical mass. A free society cannot sustain such infringements. It seems a cultural civil war has already begun. The question is, who will emerge the victor? Freedom is powerful stuff. Let's put the bullies in their place.
Not a day goes by where we don't hear about another speaker who is disinvited to an event because someone doesn't like their politics, about another word that we're told we can't say because it's offensive to someone, somewhere in the world, or where a given belief or opinion, is squashed because it's not in line with a particular point of view.
We learned in the last couple of weeks that invited speakers Condi Rice, Aayan Hirsi Ali, and Christine Lagarde were disinvited to address commencements due to a few outspoken critics of their politics. And this, in universities, once hailed as institutions of open-mindedness and new learning; instead they have become places of close-mindedness and political correctness. We learned of the brainwashing going on at the annual White Privilege Conference, in which educators and students were taught that all white people are racist and that our capitalist system maintains white supremacy. And if that isn't bad enough, we learned that Harvard's Kennedy School will be making it mandatory for students to take a class on White Privilege.
This week we learned that a 7 minute film in the new 9/11 museum uses words like jihad, terrorists and Islam, which some left-wing and Muslim groups claimed is insensitive; pressure was put upon the museum to edit the film. We learned that the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota cancelled a "hump day" event, as it was deemed racist. The plan was to bring a camel on campus and some viewed it as racially insensitive to the Middle East culture.
We learned that the Benham Brothers recently lost a new HGTV show on real estate they were signed to do because of their conservative viewpoints on abortion and gay marriage. Now it seems that SunTrust Banks is cutting ties with them as well, by pulling all of its listed properties with their business. We learned that Dolphins football player Don Jones, in reaction to Michael Sam's gay kiss after being drafted by the Rams, tweeted "horrible" in reference to the kiss on TV and was fined and suspended until he receives 'training' for his comments.
We learned too, this week, that distinguished climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson, was bullied into resigning the Global Warming Policy Foundation, where his fellow climate scientists threatened they would refuse to collaborate with him if he stayed on the advisory board. According to Matt Ridley, this is reminiscent of the Climategate scandal of 2009, in which skeptics were to be threatened and blackballed, according to the emails that were leaked.
These recent examples are just that. There are hundreds, if not more, of examples of speech we 'shouldn't' use, of opinions we 'shouldn't' have, of people we 'shouldn't' listen to. We are reaching critical mass. A free society cannot sustain such infringements. It seems a cultural civil war has already begun. The question is, who will emerge the victor? Freedom is powerful stuff. Let's put the bullies in their place.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Ignoring Boko Haram Won't Make It Go Away
Despite repeated urgings in the last two years from the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Dept. and over one dozen senators and congressmen, to convince Secy. of State Hillary Clinton and the State Department to officially label Boko Haram a terrorist organization, the group was never put on the list during her tenure.
Now Boko Haram, known for attacking Christians and government targets, and bombing churches, schools, and police stations, is in the headlines as the group responsible for kidnapping 300 school girls in Nigeria. Had the group been classified a terrorist group, (with clear ties to Al Qaeda), the government agencies would've had the authority to go after them and and most likely could have diminished their threatening and destructive activities, which have been going on for many years. Now Clinton is recognizing them as a terrorist group, in her recent characterization of the abduction - it's "abominable, it's criminal, it's an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria." The State Dept., at the time, refused to put them on the terror list, concerned that it would elevate their status and give them undue publicity. Secy. Kerry eventually did give them the designation, after a series of church bombings in the region, but the delay proved to be a huge mistake.
The former Secy. has taken her eye off the ball too many times now. As we get closer to 2016, Clinton's record should be scrutinized. Her strategy of inaction did not serve our best interests, as we have allowed this dangerous anti-western group to intensify their terrorist actions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html
Now Boko Haram, known for attacking Christians and government targets, and bombing churches, schools, and police stations, is in the headlines as the group responsible for kidnapping 300 school girls in Nigeria. Had the group been classified a terrorist group, (with clear ties to Al Qaeda), the government agencies would've had the authority to go after them and and most likely could have diminished their threatening and destructive activities, which have been going on for many years. Now Clinton is recognizing them as a terrorist group, in her recent characterization of the abduction - it's "abominable, it's criminal, it's an act of terrorism and it really merits the fullest response possible, first and foremost from the government of Nigeria." The State Dept., at the time, refused to put them on the terror list, concerned that it would elevate their status and give them undue publicity. Secy. Kerry eventually did give them the designation, after a series of church bombings in the region, but the delay proved to be a huge mistake.
The former Secy. has taken her eye off the ball too many times now. As we get closer to 2016, Clinton's record should be scrutinized. Her strategy of inaction did not serve our best interests, as we have allowed this dangerous anti-western group to intensify their terrorist actions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/07/hillary-s-state-department-refused-to-brand-boko-haram-as-terrorists.html
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
A Not-So-Private Conversation
It's stupid. It's hateful. Donald Sterling's remarks have proven to disgust many people and rightfully so. But, there's an aspect to this story that most people are not talking about. His privacy. These were conversations that took place between two people in the privacy of a home. Not on the job, not in public.
So, it begs the question. Since when is it a problem to express opinions, even racist ones, privately? According to his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, he asked her to record conversations because he kept forgetting what he said. Did he also ask her to leak them to the world? Doubtful. Evidently, she is seeking revenge, some say, due to his public approval of his ex-wife's lawsuit against Stiviano, claiming she stole money from Sterling.
Question is: if she so despised his prejudices, (as a minority herself), why was she with him? It seems there is more than one loathsome aspect to think about here; aside from his racism, it was her exploitative tactics of revealing it to the world, and turning private conversations into very public ones. Now that's very troubling.
So, it begs the question. Since when is it a problem to express opinions, even racist ones, privately? According to his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, he asked her to record conversations because he kept forgetting what he said. Did he also ask her to leak them to the world? Doubtful. Evidently, she is seeking revenge, some say, due to his public approval of his ex-wife's lawsuit against Stiviano, claiming she stole money from Sterling.
Question is: if she so despised his prejudices, (as a minority herself), why was she with him? It seems there is more than one loathsome aspect to think about here; aside from his racism, it was her exploitative tactics of revealing it to the world, and turning private conversations into very public ones. Now that's very troubling.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Censoring Our Speech
For over 200 years now, freedom of speech has been one of our most valued liberties. This inalienable right has become so embedded into our national character, that we don't know life without it. But we're starting to get a glimpse into what it might be like to have others want to silence us; and some of these examples are not just coming from our government, but from private citizens demonstrating their lack of tolerance.
Probably the most well-known example of infringement on free speech is the IRS targeting of conservative groups. The special scrutiny, excessive questioning, and unfair demands on information went to groups such as the Tea Party, which were seeking tax-exempt status. In recent findings, House Ways and Means Chairman, Dave Camp, said it was Washington, D.C. which gave the directive to audit conservative groups, not merely a Cincinnati office as originally stated.
Last week was the case with famous women's rights activist and outspoken critic of oppressive practices under Sharia law, Aayan Hirsi Ali, who was due to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University. After pressure from faculty, students and some Muslim organizations, most notably the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), Brandeis caved, and withdrew the award. Why? Due to her past comments in opposition to Islam; the president of Brandeis felt it wasn't in keeping with the values of the university. Ali herself was raised a Muslim and survived some of the very offensive and violent treatment she speaks about now - female genital mutilation, beatings, and an arranged marriage. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/09/brandeis-university-withdraws-planned-honorary-degree-for-islam-critic-ayaan/
Related to this was the banning of the film "Honor Diaries", a documentary about the violence imposed on women in Islamic societies. After CAIR started a campaign calling the film Islamophobic, The University of Michigan agreed not to show the film. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/31/islamophobia-in-action-honor-diaries-screening-shut-down-by-cair/
Mark Steyn, best-selling author and radio host, is now defending himself in a defamation lawsuit when he commented that climate scientist Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' theory was fraudulent. Steyn maintains that this is a free speech issue and that Mann was trying to silence those who oppose climate change theories by taking Steyn, and National Review magazine to court. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/31/climate-scientist-case-against-national-review-go-/
When Charles Krauthammer, in a Washington Post column, challenged the notion that the science on climate change is settled, environmental activists launched a petition to have the newspaper refrain from publishing his column. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/
The University of Hawaii is being sued by two students who were not allowed to distribute the U.S. Constitution on campus at a school event. They were told they could only distribute at a 'free speech zone', which was described as "a small, muddy, frequently-flooded area on the edge of campus." This is in addition to another incident when, on Constitution Day, a student at Modesto Junior College in California, was prevented from handing out the Constitution. He sued the school for violating his rights. http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/24/another-university-stops-students-from-handing-out-constitution/
During the recent incident in which many people rallied to the defense of a Nevada rancher against an excessive show of force by the government over cattle grazing fees, the government had set up a 'free speech zone' for those who wanted to protest. By cordoning off a small area for free speech, they were restricting much of the larger area to no speech. "Regardless of the purpose, advocates say such zones are an inappropriate infringement of free speech." http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/free-speech-zones-blm-cattle-roundup-put-controversial-areas-spotlight
The recent forced resignation of Mozilla Firefox CEO Brendan Eich, was due to his political donation for Proposition 8 (anti-gay marriage) in California six years ago. Some of the employees, as well as members of the board, couldn't tolerate his position on this issue, and consequently, his right to exercise free speech. Read The Thought Police Strike Again.
Several months ago, it was reported that insurance companies were getting pressure from the White House to keep quiet with criticism of Obamacare. In a CNN report, "the White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations, to keep quiet. Sources telling us they fear White House retribution." https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-intimidates-insurance-companies-not-publicly-criticize-obamacare_765582.html
These are several of the many examples of how our highly valued freedom of speech is being infringed upon. As Charles Krauthammer said recently, "when it comes to free speech, they don't even hide it anymore. Now they proudly want certain arguments banished from discourse. The next step is book burning. So the question of the day is: Can you light a Kindle?"
Probably the most well-known example of infringement on free speech is the IRS targeting of conservative groups. The special scrutiny, excessive questioning, and unfair demands on information went to groups such as the Tea Party, which were seeking tax-exempt status. In recent findings, House Ways and Means Chairman, Dave Camp, said it was Washington, D.C. which gave the directive to audit conservative groups, not merely a Cincinnati office as originally stated.
Related to this was the banning of the film "Honor Diaries", a documentary about the violence imposed on women in Islamic societies. After CAIR started a campaign calling the film Islamophobic, The University of Michigan agreed not to show the film. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/31/islamophobia-in-action-honor-diaries-screening-shut-down-by-cair/
Mark Steyn, best-selling author and radio host, is now defending himself in a defamation lawsuit when he commented that climate scientist Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' theory was fraudulent. Steyn maintains that this is a free speech issue and that Mann was trying to silence those who oppose climate change theories by taking Steyn, and National Review magazine to court. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/31/climate-scientist-case-against-national-review-go-/
When Charles Krauthammer, in a Washington Post column, challenged the notion that the science on climate change is settled, environmental activists launched a petition to have the newspaper refrain from publishing his column. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/
The University of Hawaii is being sued by two students who were not allowed to distribute the U.S. Constitution on campus at a school event. They were told they could only distribute at a 'free speech zone', which was described as "a small, muddy, frequently-flooded area on the edge of campus." This is in addition to another incident when, on Constitution Day, a student at Modesto Junior College in California, was prevented from handing out the Constitution. He sued the school for violating his rights. http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/24/another-university-stops-students-from-handing-out-constitution/
During the recent incident in which many people rallied to the defense of a Nevada rancher against an excessive show of force by the government over cattle grazing fees, the government had set up a 'free speech zone' for those who wanted to protest. By cordoning off a small area for free speech, they were restricting much of the larger area to no speech. "Regardless of the purpose, advocates say such zones are an inappropriate infringement of free speech." http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/free-speech-zones-blm-cattle-roundup-put-controversial-areas-spotlight
The recent forced resignation of Mozilla Firefox CEO Brendan Eich, was due to his political donation for Proposition 8 (anti-gay marriage) in California six years ago. Some of the employees, as well as members of the board, couldn't tolerate his position on this issue, and consequently, his right to exercise free speech. Read The Thought Police Strike Again.
Several months ago, it was reported that insurance companies were getting pressure from the White House to keep quiet with criticism of Obamacare. In a CNN report, "the White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations, to keep quiet. Sources telling us they fear White House retribution." https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-intimidates-insurance-companies-not-publicly-criticize-obamacare_765582.html
These are several of the many examples of how our highly valued freedom of speech is being infringed upon. As Charles Krauthammer said recently, "when it comes to free speech, they don't even hide it anymore. Now they proudly want certain arguments banished from discourse. The next step is book burning. So the question of the day is: Can you light a Kindle?"
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 10
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
CONCLUSION
In this 10-part series, "Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation", readers were taken through the many ways in which Barack Obama has been working to greatly expand the authority and control of the Federal government, while undermining the Founding principles which made this country great. Here is a recap of the last nine parts:
In Part 1 of the "Fundamental Transformation" series, I spoke about healthcare, and the intent to scrap the system and rebuild it, via Obamacare (2700 page bill and 20,000 pages of new regulations); all of it designed to redistribute the wealth and move us into a single payer, government-controlled health plan. Common Core, the nationalizing of education standards and curriculum, and the collection of student data, illustrates the overstepping role of the Federal government. Immigration reform is currently being debated; the administration is looking to grant amnesty for illegals to secure a future voting bloc, while failing to secure the borders.
Part 2 deals with the First Amendment and how our freedoms in that Amendment are routinely being trampled on by this administration.
Part 3 The politics of division is the subject here. This speaks to the division by class, race, gender and political beliefs, as accelerated and promoted by this President and his administration.
Part 4 Aspects of the economy are addressed in this part of the series - redistribution, government dependency, unemployment, the shrinking middle class, national debt and minimum wage. When looking at the big picture, it's easy to see that the economy is not growing, and will not grow under this administration...but then, of course, it's not supposed to.
Part 5 Our foreign policy and our military are at very weak points now - this post delineates some reasons why.
Part 6 Besides the First Amendment being trampled on, as discussed in the second part of the series, here are examples of how our Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments are being ignored as well. From gun rights, to privacy rights to states rights, our freedoms are not being protected by this government.
Part 7 Environmental and energy policies are being crafted to extend control over businesses and private citizens, whether further regulations and taxes are factually necessary or not. Another means with which to redistribute the wealth and grow the Federal government.
Part 8 takes a look into the how of Obama; through the tactics of Saul Alinsky and the strategies of Cloward and Piven, we see how his vision of revolution is happening in front of us.
Part 9 deals with the why of Obama. Once we take a look into the life of Obama and his influences throughout, we learn why he's executing his Presidency the way he is.
Part 10: CONCLUSION:
To many Americans, Obama's style of governing is puzzling. He is constantly dividing our country's citizens on every level; by class, gender, race, ideology. His enemies are not found in oppressive regimes, rather they are his political opponents and the conservative electorate. He has created an atmosphere of intimidation in his administration to squelch opposing views. He appears to have contempt for the wealthy, yet he freely takes their money to fuel his campaigns. He has consistently defied the Constitution by ignoring laws on the books he doesn't like, or, bypassing Congress to change existing laws, or, signing executive orders to get things done as he sees fit. He continues to grow the Federal government via bureaucracies, regulations, taxes and spending. He is presiding over the transformation of institutions such as health care, education, marriage, and the military. His policies on the economy, the environment and energy seek to primarily control lives and redistribute wealth. He encourages government dependency and seeks to amass power from an ever increasing welfare state, knowing that the people who depend on the government will vote for those who are providing for them.
We've heard the argument that this President is incompetent and bungling things. On the other hand, we've heard for years now how smart, even brilliant, this man is. You can't have it both ways. He's either smart or incompetent. I say, he's smart. His 'bungling' is not bungling at all. It's deliberative. He is accomplishing exactly what he set out to do. He's trying to collapse the system so that he can rebuild it as he sees fit. He is reducing American power around the globe, dismantling friendly alliances, and allowing unfriendly and dangerous governments to become emboldened and powerful. Why? Because he believes that the United States of America is an oppressive colonial power which uses up much of the world's resources and exerts too much influence upon other nations. We have no business being exceptional, he believes. And he has been working to level the playing field, both domestically and internationally for over five years now.
I am sorry to say, he is accomplishing his objectives. For those who saw this coming in 2008, it is our nightmare scenario happening before our eyes. For those who may be awakening to this reality, it's time to help and turn this ship around. We can all do our part to become part of the solution. First it starts with getting educated (and educating our children) about our Founding documents and why it's important for this country to preserve and stay true to its principles. Then, staying informed about the news and political landscape (an uninformed public is a dangerous one); there are numerous websites you can explore to get information (that is, before we lose control of the internet to Russia or China as is the debate now - more in a future post). Engaging can be as simple as signing petitions or making phonecalls during election time. It can be donating to campaigns of liberty-minded people. It can be writing blogs, and using social media to re-tweet blogs (like this one!) and articles, posting important news links on Facebook, and talking to people to make them aware. Step it up to attend Tea Party meetings, or any of the other patriot groups that exist. And, if you're so inclined, run for elected office - we need good people to get involved in the community - school board, town and county offices...remember, all politics start at the local level.
America is on the brink. Our exceptional Founding principles of limited government, individual liberty, inalienable rights, free market capitalism, and strong national defense are fading. Let's not let that happen. Let's not allow Barack Obama to fundamentally transform this nation anymore!
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
CONCLUSION
In this 10-part series, "Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation", readers were taken through the many ways in which Barack Obama has been working to greatly expand the authority and control of the Federal government, while undermining the Founding principles which made this country great. Here is a recap of the last nine parts:
In Part 1 of the "Fundamental Transformation" series, I spoke about healthcare, and the intent to scrap the system and rebuild it, via Obamacare (2700 page bill and 20,000 pages of new regulations); all of it designed to redistribute the wealth and move us into a single payer, government-controlled health plan. Common Core, the nationalizing of education standards and curriculum, and the collection of student data, illustrates the overstepping role of the Federal government. Immigration reform is currently being debated; the administration is looking to grant amnesty for illegals to secure a future voting bloc, while failing to secure the borders.
Part 2 deals with the First Amendment and how our freedoms in that Amendment are routinely being trampled on by this administration.
Part 3 The politics of division is the subject here. This speaks to the division by class, race, gender and political beliefs, as accelerated and promoted by this President and his administration.
Part 4 Aspects of the economy are addressed in this part of the series - redistribution, government dependency, unemployment, the shrinking middle class, national debt and minimum wage. When looking at the big picture, it's easy to see that the economy is not growing, and will not grow under this administration...but then, of course, it's not supposed to.
Part 5 Our foreign policy and our military are at very weak points now - this post delineates some reasons why.
Part 6 Besides the First Amendment being trampled on, as discussed in the second part of the series, here are examples of how our Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments are being ignored as well. From gun rights, to privacy rights to states rights, our freedoms are not being protected by this government.
Part 7 Environmental and energy policies are being crafted to extend control over businesses and private citizens, whether further regulations and taxes are factually necessary or not. Another means with which to redistribute the wealth and grow the Federal government.
Part 8 takes a look into the how of Obama; through the tactics of Saul Alinsky and the strategies of Cloward and Piven, we see how his vision of revolution is happening in front of us.
Part 9 deals with the why of Obama. Once we take a look into the life of Obama and his influences throughout, we learn why he's executing his Presidency the way he is.
Part 10: CONCLUSION:
To many Americans, Obama's style of governing is puzzling. He is constantly dividing our country's citizens on every level; by class, gender, race, ideology. His enemies are not found in oppressive regimes, rather they are his political opponents and the conservative electorate. He has created an atmosphere of intimidation in his administration to squelch opposing views. He appears to have contempt for the wealthy, yet he freely takes their money to fuel his campaigns. He has consistently defied the Constitution by ignoring laws on the books he doesn't like, or, bypassing Congress to change existing laws, or, signing executive orders to get things done as he sees fit. He continues to grow the Federal government via bureaucracies, regulations, taxes and spending. He is presiding over the transformation of institutions such as health care, education, marriage, and the military. His policies on the economy, the environment and energy seek to primarily control lives and redistribute wealth. He encourages government dependency and seeks to amass power from an ever increasing welfare state, knowing that the people who depend on the government will vote for those who are providing for them.
We've heard the argument that this President is incompetent and bungling things. On the other hand, we've heard for years now how smart, even brilliant, this man is. You can't have it both ways. He's either smart or incompetent. I say, he's smart. His 'bungling' is not bungling at all. It's deliberative. He is accomplishing exactly what he set out to do. He's trying to collapse the system so that he can rebuild it as he sees fit. He is reducing American power around the globe, dismantling friendly alliances, and allowing unfriendly and dangerous governments to become emboldened and powerful. Why? Because he believes that the United States of America is an oppressive colonial power which uses up much of the world's resources and exerts too much influence upon other nations. We have no business being exceptional, he believes. And he has been working to level the playing field, both domestically and internationally for over five years now.
I am sorry to say, he is accomplishing his objectives. For those who saw this coming in 2008, it is our nightmare scenario happening before our eyes. For those who may be awakening to this reality, it's time to help and turn this ship around. We can all do our part to become part of the solution. First it starts with getting educated (and educating our children) about our Founding documents and why it's important for this country to preserve and stay true to its principles. Then, staying informed about the news and political landscape (an uninformed public is a dangerous one); there are numerous websites you can explore to get information (that is, before we lose control of the internet to Russia or China as is the debate now - more in a future post). Engaging can be as simple as signing petitions or making phonecalls during election time. It can be donating to campaigns of liberty-minded people. It can be writing blogs, and using social media to re-tweet blogs (like this one!) and articles, posting important news links on Facebook, and talking to people to make them aware. Step it up to attend Tea Party meetings, or any of the other patriot groups that exist. And, if you're so inclined, run for elected office - we need good people to get involved in the community - school board, town and county offices...remember, all politics start at the local level.
America is on the brink. Our exceptional Founding principles of limited government, individual liberty, inalienable rights, free market capitalism, and strong national defense are fading. Let's not let that happen. Let's not allow Barack Obama to fundamentally transform this nation anymore!
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
The Thought Police Strike Again
Again, political correctness rears its ugly head. The CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, just resigned after essentially being bullied into it. What did he do, you ask? Six years ago, he supported Prop 8 in California, by way of a donation (Prop 8 was an anti-gay marriage proposition on the ballot). But the gay activists would have none of this. When this 'horror' was recently leaked, some employees of Mozilla decided it was more important to sacrifice liberty for political correctness. It didn't matter that his belief in traditional marriage wasn't, in any way, imposed on any employee or subscriber; he was not in lockstep with the thinking on the Left, and for that, he should be punished. So, they (some employees and board members) forced him to step down. He was not only the CEO of Mozilla Firefox, but one of its founders.
This is just another in a long string of oppressive and intolerant behavior coming from the radical Left. But, we cannot let the Left dictate to us what we are to think, what we are to believe, or how we exercise our First Amendment right to free speech. This is not a debate about gay marriage, or anything else. It is a debate about freedom. Freedom to think and express those thoughts, whether in writing, speaking or in supporting causes we believe in. It's about the right to keep your job because you have an opinion that may be politically incorrect (and how ironic that standing up for traditional marriage is looked upon as radical now). We must not let the tyrants have their way or we will lose our liberty. Today it is about one topic. Tomorrow it will be another topic. The only real issue is, will we have the freedom to express our beliefs without the 'thought police' controlling them? There should be no victories here for the Left. Fascism is never correct. I, for one, have dropped Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser. Mozilla should not ever think they can control anybody's First Amendment rights.
UPDATE: As it happens, the CEO of OKCupid, who started this controversy by recommending that his customers not use Mozilla software to access their website and brought Eich's opinions to light, actually donated money himself (!) in 2004 to a Congressman who voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The hypocrisy is never-ending.
Just as an aside, it didn't seem to matter to the Left that in 2008 their beloved leader Barack Obama was a supporter of traditional marriage.
To understand how political correctness has its roots in Marxism, go to the following links:
political correctness defined, see: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm
or origins of, see: http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html
This is just another in a long string of oppressive and intolerant behavior coming from the radical Left. But, we cannot let the Left dictate to us what we are to think, what we are to believe, or how we exercise our First Amendment right to free speech. This is not a debate about gay marriage, or anything else. It is a debate about freedom. Freedom to think and express those thoughts, whether in writing, speaking or in supporting causes we believe in. It's about the right to keep your job because you have an opinion that may be politically incorrect (and how ironic that standing up for traditional marriage is looked upon as radical now). We must not let the tyrants have their way or we will lose our liberty. Today it is about one topic. Tomorrow it will be another topic. The only real issue is, will we have the freedom to express our beliefs without the 'thought police' controlling them? There should be no victories here for the Left. Fascism is never correct. I, for one, have dropped Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser. Mozilla should not ever think they can control anybody's First Amendment rights.
UPDATE: As it happens, the CEO of OKCupid, who started this controversy by recommending that his customers not use Mozilla software to access their website and brought Eich's opinions to light, actually donated money himself (!) in 2004 to a Congressman who voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The hypocrisy is never-ending.
Just as an aside, it didn't seem to matter to the Left that in 2008 their beloved leader Barack Obama was a supporter of traditional marriage.
To understand how political correctness has its roots in Marxism, go to the following links:
political correctness defined, see: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm
or origins of, see: http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 9
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
THE WHY OF OBAMA
Barack Hussein Obama comes from a complex network of influences, all of which seem to have impacted on his ideals growing up and ultimately on his achievement goals for his Presidency. On the one hand, he had Marxist influences from his mother's side. On the other hand, he had anti-colonialist influences from his father's side. Together the combination would create one of the most consequential political leaders in our country's history; one who would be intent on dismantling the very institutions which helped create the world's superpower.
Peering into Barack Obama's past, we learn he was born to an unusual mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (named for the son her parents never had), a white atheist woman raised in midwest America, whose parents specifically moved to Washington state so that their daughter may attend Mercer Island High School, a school known at the time for teaching a radical curriculum. Included were philosophy courses that emphasized Marxism; in fact, the school employed several pro-Marxist teachers; two of whom taught "a critical theory curriculum to students which included rejection of societal norms, attacks on Christianity, the traditional family, and assigned readings by Karl Marx." http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Mercer_Island_High_School Dunham would soon embrace the ideas of cultural Marxism. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html Her parents were members of the Unitarian Church near Seattle, aka the 'little red church' for its communist leanings.
Dunham ultimately married and divorced two foreign men, one from Kenya, the other from Indonesia, both Muslim. She studied economic anthropology and rural development. After Dunham divorced from Barack Sr., she met Lolo Soetero at the University of Hawaii and got re-married. When Jr. was a little boy they all went to live in Indonesia, where he spent the next several years of his life. Returning to Hawaii, he lived with his maternal grandparents, who introduced the young Barack to Frank Marshall Davis, card-carrying and well known member of the Communist Party, and therein began a seven year mentorship that Barack's maternal grandfather set up.
Barack's birth father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was born in Kenya, strongly influenced by his own father with strong anti-colonialist ideals. In fact, father and grandfather were both very active politically, in a country that was struggling to gain independence from its colonial powers. Although the relationship with his biological father was short lived, long after his father was gone, Barack was left with a legacy of 'dreams from his father', and wrote a book of the same title. These dreams included a deep rage against the Western colonial powers of his father's native country, where he was an important figure in the struggle against Western oppression.
Keen insight into part of the thinking of where Barack Obama 'comes from' ideologically is illustrated in the best selling book by Dinesh D'Souza, The Roots of Obama's Rage, which became the basis for the movie "2016 Obama's America." In this book, D'Souza describes Barack's 'education' about his paternal family's disdain for the Western dominance in the world. He writes about the tenets of anti-colonialism: 1) "empires are produced by murderous conquest and sustained by unceasing terror and violence" 2) "colonial regimes are racist - they systematically produce the dehumanization of the colonized" 3) "colonialism is a system of piracy in which the wealth of the colonized countries is systematically stolen by the colonizers" and 4) "the colonial powers have a new leader; the United States." These ideas seem to have been adopted and internalized by this President. How do I know? Look at how he governs. Look at how, at every turn, he tries to divide and weaken this country, on both the domestic and foreign fronts. Look at how redistribution of wealth is at the cornerstone of his policies. Is America exceptional? Not if Barack Obama could help it.
It's not hard to understand why Obama does what he does when one looks into his formative years. The confluence of beliefs from all primary influences in his life all lead to the same road; bring down America's power in the world. Transform this nation from a superpower to a powerless one. Is he accomplishing what he set out to do? Yes. And he is doing this systematically; he is doing this economically, militarily, and culturally. Are we weaker now as a nation than we were when he took office? Yes. On all fronts. Soon, I imagine, he hopes to claim "Mission Accomplished." It is, after all, the fundamental transformation of the United States of America we are witnessing.
P.S. There is an abundance of information on Obama, his life, his influences, his associates, etc. Look up some of it, including his college years and his early years in Chicago, which were not addressed here. When you understand where he comes from, you'll understand where he's going.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/what_barack_obama_learned_from.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/15/in-harvard-essay-young-michelle-obama-argued-for-race-based-faculty-hiring/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/03/americas-race-to-the-bottom-barack-obama-and-critical-theory/
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/the-roots-of-obamas-rage/
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Minimum Wage, Minimum Benefit
In an eye-opening segment on TheBlazeTV, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere broke down the truth behind minimum wages.
Little Known Facts:
-1% of the U.S. labor force earns minimum wage
-Of the 1%, teens make up the largest age group; these are not people trying to support a family
-32% of minimum wage workers are full time workers
-In 2014, a full time minimum wage worker earns $3,410 more than the federal poverty limit
Little Known Facts: When minimum wages are hiked, union wages are also hiked. This is often built into union contracts; a raise in the minimum wage triggers a wage hike for union members. When union wages are hiked, more dues money is available to go into the Democrats' campaign coffers, giving them the incentive to push for minimum wage hikes. An increase also means more security for the workers, because it restricts businesses from hiring low skilled workers who would otherwise gladly take less pay for experience.What a convenient circle of events. http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/02/13/americans-love-the-minimum-wage-unless-you-tell-them-the-truth-about-it/
The sad truth: The Congressional Budget Office projects that if the minimum wage is increased to $10.10, there will be a loss of 500,000 jobs. Although this issue has been championed by the left, I wonder if they see the irony in the net effect of this mandate: the very people they speak about helping (the poor, the minorities, the youth) are the very people that will be negatively impacted by increases in the minimum wage.
When employers are forced to pay a higher wage for unskilled or low skilled labor, they will then outsource that work because they can't afford to pay a higher wage for it. Hence, the loss of jobs for low level workers. In this case, the majority of these workers are young people. Additionally, when a business incurs more expense, often that expense is passed on to the consumer. Again, a more expensive product hurts those for whom this act is looking to help.
In sum, a fraction of 1% of the country works for minimum wage and is already above the poverty line. When Americans were polled, the vast majority (75%) supported an increase in minimum wage. When told that it meant the loss of jobs, only 37% favored it. Minimum wage, minimum benefit.
Little Known Facts:
-1% of the U.S. labor force earns minimum wage
-Of the 1%, teens make up the largest age group; these are not people trying to support a family
-32% of minimum wage workers are full time workers
-In 2014, a full time minimum wage worker earns $3,410 more than the federal poverty limit
Little Known Facts: When minimum wages are hiked, union wages are also hiked. This is often built into union contracts; a raise in the minimum wage triggers a wage hike for union members. When union wages are hiked, more dues money is available to go into the Democrats' campaign coffers, giving them the incentive to push for minimum wage hikes. An increase also means more security for the workers, because it restricts businesses from hiring low skilled workers who would otherwise gladly take less pay for experience.What a convenient circle of events. http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/02/13/americans-love-the-minimum-wage-unless-you-tell-them-the-truth-about-it/
The sad truth: The Congressional Budget Office projects that if the minimum wage is increased to $10.10, there will be a loss of 500,000 jobs. Although this issue has been championed by the left, I wonder if they see the irony in the net effect of this mandate: the very people they speak about helping (the poor, the minorities, the youth) are the very people that will be negatively impacted by increases in the minimum wage.
When employers are forced to pay a higher wage for unskilled or low skilled labor, they will then outsource that work because they can't afford to pay a higher wage for it. Hence, the loss of jobs for low level workers. In this case, the majority of these workers are young people. Additionally, when a business incurs more expense, often that expense is passed on to the consumer. Again, a more expensive product hurts those for whom this act is looking to help.
In sum, a fraction of 1% of the country works for minimum wage and is already above the poverty line. When Americans were polled, the vast majority (75%) supported an increase in minimum wage. When told that it meant the loss of jobs, only 37% favored it. Minimum wage, minimum benefit.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Stay Out of Our Business!
Clearly this President never worked in private industry. Obama's new decree, is to have employers of salaried employees (not hourly employees) pay them for their overtime. Now, on the surface this may sound 'fair', but just scratch with a thumbnail and see the unfairness in this.
If Barack Obama had worked in private industry, he would know that working late and putting in extra hours was something you did if you wanted to get promoted, earn a bonus, get a salary increase, or all of the above. It's how you stood out from the other employees, it's how you demonstrated your work ethic, it's how you proved you could handle more work, it's how you showed your boss you were dedicated to your job. And you did this voluntarily. Maybe, one could argue, there was an unwritten expectation...to an extent this was true. But it was your option to take. And if you took it, it was usually acknowledged at the next job evaluation.
So where does this President get off dictating to employers that they must pay extra to salaried employees who work overtime? As if intruding on private businesses with Obamacare wasn't enough of a hit for employers, now they must compensate for work which previously was done voluntarily by workers to get ahead? The consequence? The boss will now just tell you to go home. How then, do we demonstrate our willingness to climb the ladder? How then, does one distinguish themselves from the other employees?
Obama's objective to equalize income is absurd and un-American on so many levels. And like he does so often, he says one thing and does another. "If you work hard, you can get ahead," he tells young people. Well, Mr. President, you just took that option away. And like so many things this man does, he just added another disincentive to work harder.
If Barack Obama had worked in private industry, he would know that working late and putting in extra hours was something you did if you wanted to get promoted, earn a bonus, get a salary increase, or all of the above. It's how you stood out from the other employees, it's how you demonstrated your work ethic, it's how you proved you could handle more work, it's how you showed your boss you were dedicated to your job. And you did this voluntarily. Maybe, one could argue, there was an unwritten expectation...to an extent this was true. But it was your option to take. And if you took it, it was usually acknowledged at the next job evaluation.
So where does this President get off dictating to employers that they must pay extra to salaried employees who work overtime? As if intruding on private businesses with Obamacare wasn't enough of a hit for employers, now they must compensate for work which previously was done voluntarily by workers to get ahead? The consequence? The boss will now just tell you to go home. How then, do we demonstrate our willingness to climb the ladder? How then, does one distinguish themselves from the other employees?
Obama's objective to equalize income is absurd and un-American on so many levels. And like he does so often, he says one thing and does another. "If you work hard, you can get ahead," he tells young people. Well, Mr. President, you just took that option away. And like so many things this man does, he just added another disincentive to work harder.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Witnessing The Fundamental Transformation Pt. 8
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
THE HOW OF OBAMA
Some call him the founder of modern community organizing, who profoundly influenced Barack Obama. Some claim his book on revolutionary tactics influenced the 60's radicals, who have since infiltrated all institutions of our society, in order to destroy a system they viewed as oppressive and unjust.
Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist from Chicago, (1909-1972), born of Russian parents, whose "Rules for Radicals", published in 1971, impacted a generation of left wing radicals. Alinsky had strong convictions that America needed a dramatic overhaul, that the Have-nots must learn strategies on how to take from the Haves, as this country, in his belief, was rife with economic injustice. But not just economic injustice; he felt that all of society's problems were interrelated - crime, unemployment, disease, racism, inadequate housing, etc. In his view, what was needed was a revolution to turn the society upside-down and inside-out. Destroy it. Rebuild it in the utopian vision held by these leftist radicals.
In the Alinsky model, community organizing was a euphemism for revolution; "the goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels and Lenin predicted..." As writer Richard Poe put it, "Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin. In David Horowitz's analysis of "Rules for Radicals", he quotes Alinsky: "From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army." "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." Organizing for power was supreme. And one of the guiding principles was, 'the ends justify the means'. One vehicle for achieving the ends is miscommunication; it "is the precise art that he teaches radicals who are trying to impose socialism on a country whose people understand that socialism destroys freedom: Don’t sell it as socialism; sell it as as "progressivism", "economic democracy" and "social justice."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20%282%29.pdf
Forward to 1986. Barack Obama is hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side of Chicago. Three of Obama's mentors were trained in Alinsky's 'rules', and Obama himself, for several years, taught workshops on the Alinsky methods.
According to Awr Hawkins, of Breitbart.com, Alinsky's impact on Obama has manifested itself demonstrably in his ability to say one thing and do another. This duplicitousness is perfectly acceptable behavior within the model; "For it was Alinsky who spent his life teaching would-be radicals (like Obama) that you can say what you have to say to get over the hump, but once you're over the hump, you do whatever you want to do. In other words, it's okay to present yourself as something moderate, even centrist, for the purposes of securing power, and once you've secured that power it is perfectly acceptable to revert to who (and what) you really are." Hence, Obama's pose as a moderate in the run-up to an election, but sharply leftist after his victories. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/05/how-saul-alinsky-taught-obama-to-say-one-thing-and-do-the-opposite
Examples of Alinsky's tactics manifested in Obama's methods include: Change is brought about through relentless agitation and "trouble making" of a kind that radically disrupts society as it is. Think about the very disruptive and violent Occupy Wall Street movement triggered in large part by the endless speeches about the wealthy 1% (the Haves) and the disadvantaged 99% (the Have nots). Think about all the anger and racial resentment stirred up during the Trayvon Martin case, when Obama had made clear which side of the case he was on. These two examples, of many, served to 'make trouble' and divide the country, since Obama clearly does not want unity. Obama wants polarization.
The organizer can never focus on a single issue. He must move inexhaustibly from one issue to the next. Obama constantly moves from one issue to the next. From taxing and spending at an unmatched pace, to amnesty for illegals, to health care, to gun control, to climate change policies, to education...the list goes on and on.
In the list of Alinsky's rules, Rule #5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." The mocking of climate change skeptics, policy critics, gun owners, conservative talk show hosts, Fox News...The president himself has actually resorted to name calling and has recruited his minions to do the same.
Rule#12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Nothing is more illustrative of this than the Tea Party, which has been targeted, by the media, by the government, and by the President himself, as an extreme right-wing faction of the Republican Party, which is to be feared and destroyed. Many Americans have a negative view of the Tea Party, not because of who they are and what they stand for, but because of the successful polarization tactics.
For a list of the 'rules': http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals
While Alinsky provided the tactics for Obama, Alinsky also provided the inspiration for other '60's radicals, Cloward and Piven, who devised the strategy in Obama's playbook. Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven, both formerly of Columbia University and long-standing members of the Democratic Socialists of America, created a strategy of crisis to help empower poor people. They believed that only when the rest of society is afraid of them, poor people can then advance.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, as it has become known, is to overwhelm the government bureaucracy system, flooding it with impossible demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to handle it. This is designed to break the budget, force them into gridlock and bring the system down. This then results in fear, turmoil, and violence - conditions they believed were just ripe for bringing in radical change. And that radical change was to collapse the capitalist system and its institutions and usher in socialism. There are several examples of their strategy at work, one of which is the aggressive attempt to get more people on welfare rolls. We have seen in the past few years, the explosive rise in food stamp recipients, the extended handouts of long term unemployment benefits, and increased benefits going to illegal immigrants. For further information on other crises designed to overwhelm the system (e.g. voter fraud, the mortgage meltdown, and ACORN's role in all of this, including Obama's role, as their lawyer and supporter in his early days), see these articles.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-voter-fraud/2008/09/22/id/325456
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/recenteffortstooverloadtheamericansystem.html
Since the start of his administration, Obama has surrounded himself with advisers and czars who share his socialist/communist utopian vision. He has appointed far left thinkers to the federal bench and to his cabinet. For further information on many, but not all of his extreme left wing appointees, go to: http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/
After reading about Obama's inspirational 'advisers' - Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven, it's easy to see how Obama is pursuing his objectives. And judging by the goals of these revolutionaries, it's also easy to see that they all share the same endgame. Destroy this country as we know it and replace it with socialism or communism. Or, as Obama puts it, the fundamental transformation of the United States of America.
Oh, by the way, another notable official was inspired by Saul Alinsky. This person interviewed him and wrote a 92-page college thesis on Alinsky's theories and methods. Upon graduation, this person was offered a job by Alinsky, but instead chose to go to Yale Law School. This person could very well be the next President of the United States. This person was Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
THE HOW OF OBAMA
Some call him the founder of modern community organizing, who profoundly influenced Barack Obama. Some claim his book on revolutionary tactics influenced the 60's radicals, who have since infiltrated all institutions of our society, in order to destroy a system they viewed as oppressive and unjust.
Saul Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist from Chicago, (1909-1972), born of Russian parents, whose "Rules for Radicals", published in 1971, impacted a generation of left wing radicals. Alinsky had strong convictions that America needed a dramatic overhaul, that the Have-nots must learn strategies on how to take from the Haves, as this country, in his belief, was rife with economic injustice. But not just economic injustice; he felt that all of society's problems were interrelated - crime, unemployment, disease, racism, inadequate housing, etc. In his view, what was needed was a revolution to turn the society upside-down and inside-out. Destroy it. Rebuild it in the utopian vision held by these leftist radicals.
In the Alinsky model, community organizing was a euphemism for revolution; "the goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels and Lenin predicted..." As writer Richard Poe put it, "Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin. In David Horowitz's analysis of "Rules for Radicals", he quotes Alinsky: "From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army." "The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." Organizing for power was supreme. And one of the guiding principles was, 'the ends justify the means'. One vehicle for achieving the ends is miscommunication; it "is the precise art that he teaches radicals who are trying to impose socialism on a country whose people understand that socialism destroys freedom: Don’t sell it as socialism; sell it as as "progressivism", "economic democracy" and "social justice."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Rules%20for%20Revolution%20%282%29.pdf
Forward to 1986. Barack Obama is hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side of Chicago. Three of Obama's mentors were trained in Alinsky's 'rules', and Obama himself, for several years, taught workshops on the Alinsky methods.
According to Awr Hawkins, of Breitbart.com, Alinsky's impact on Obama has manifested itself demonstrably in his ability to say one thing and do another. This duplicitousness is perfectly acceptable behavior within the model; "For it was Alinsky who spent his life teaching would-be radicals (like Obama) that you can say what you have to say to get over the hump, but once you're over the hump, you do whatever you want to do. In other words, it's okay to present yourself as something moderate, even centrist, for the purposes of securing power, and once you've secured that power it is perfectly acceptable to revert to who (and what) you really are." Hence, Obama's pose as a moderate in the run-up to an election, but sharply leftist after his victories. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/05/how-saul-alinsky-taught-obama-to-say-one-thing-and-do-the-opposite
Examples of Alinsky's tactics manifested in Obama's methods include: Change is brought about through relentless agitation and "trouble making" of a kind that radically disrupts society as it is. Think about the very disruptive and violent Occupy Wall Street movement triggered in large part by the endless speeches about the wealthy 1% (the Haves) and the disadvantaged 99% (the Have nots). Think about all the anger and racial resentment stirred up during the Trayvon Martin case, when Obama had made clear which side of the case he was on. These two examples, of many, served to 'make trouble' and divide the country, since Obama clearly does not want unity. Obama wants polarization.
The organizer can never focus on a single issue. He must move inexhaustibly from one issue to the next. Obama constantly moves from one issue to the next. From taxing and spending at an unmatched pace, to amnesty for illegals, to health care, to gun control, to climate change policies, to education...the list goes on and on.
In the list of Alinsky's rules, Rule #5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." The mocking of climate change skeptics, policy critics, gun owners, conservative talk show hosts, Fox News...The president himself has actually resorted to name calling and has recruited his minions to do the same.
Rule#12: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Nothing is more illustrative of this than the Tea Party, which has been targeted, by the media, by the government, and by the President himself, as an extreme right-wing faction of the Republican Party, which is to be feared and destroyed. Many Americans have a negative view of the Tea Party, not because of who they are and what they stand for, but because of the successful polarization tactics.
For a list of the 'rules': http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals
While Alinsky provided the tactics for Obama, Alinsky also provided the inspiration for other '60's radicals, Cloward and Piven, who devised the strategy in Obama's playbook. Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven, both formerly of Columbia University and long-standing members of the Democratic Socialists of America, created a strategy of crisis to help empower poor people. They believed that only when the rest of society is afraid of them, poor people can then advance.
The Cloward-Piven Strategy, as it has become known, is to overwhelm the government bureaucracy system, flooding it with impossible demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to handle it. This is designed to break the budget, force them into gridlock and bring the system down. This then results in fear, turmoil, and violence - conditions they believed were just ripe for bringing in radical change. And that radical change was to collapse the capitalist system and its institutions and usher in socialism. There are several examples of their strategy at work, one of which is the aggressive attempt to get more people on welfare rolls. We have seen in the past few years, the explosive rise in food stamp recipients, the extended handouts of long term unemployment benefits, and increased benefits going to illegal immigrants. For further information on other crises designed to overwhelm the system (e.g. voter fraud, the mortgage meltdown, and ACORN's role in all of this, including Obama's role, as their lawyer and supporter in his early days), see these articles.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/obama-voter-fraud/2008/09/22/id/325456
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/recenteffortstooverloadtheamericansystem.html
Since the start of his administration, Obama has surrounded himself with advisers and czars who share his socialist/communist utopian vision. He has appointed far left thinkers to the federal bench and to his cabinet. For further information on many, but not all of his extreme left wing appointees, go to: http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/
After reading about Obama's inspirational 'advisers' - Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven, it's easy to see how Obama is pursuing his objectives. And judging by the goals of these revolutionaries, it's also easy to see that they all share the same endgame. Destroy this country as we know it and replace it with socialism or communism. Or, as Obama puts it, the fundamental transformation of the United States of America.
Oh, by the way, another notable official was inspired by Saul Alinsky. This person interviewed him and wrote a 92-page college thesis on Alinsky's theories and methods. Upon graduation, this person was offered a job by Alinsky, but instead chose to go to Yale Law School. This person could very well be the next President of the United States. This person was Hillary Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)