Saturday, April 19, 2014

18 Stats That Prove That Government Dependence Has Reached Epidemic Levels

End of the American Dream ^ | 04/17/2014 | Michael Snyder
Did you know that the number of Americans getting benefits from the federal government each month exceeds the number of full-time workers in the private sector by more than 60 million? In other words, the number of people that are taking money out of the system is far greater than the number of people that are putting money into the system. And did you know that nearly 70 percent of all of the money that the federal government spends goes toward entitlement and welfare programs? When it comes to the transfer of wealth, nobody does it on a grander scale than the U.S. government. Most of what the government does involves taking money from some people and giving it to other people. In fact, at this point that is the primary function of the federal government. Just check out the chart below. It comes from the Heritage Foundation, and it shows that 69 percent of all federal money is spent either on entitlements or on welfare programs…Heritage FoundationSo when people tell you that the main reason why we are being taxed into oblivion is so that we can “build roads” and provide “public services”, they are lying to you. The main reason why the government taxes you so much is so that they can take your money and give it to someone else.We have become a nation that is completely and totally addicted to government money. The following are 18 stats that prove that government dependence has reached epidemic levels…#1 According to an analysis of U.S. government numbers conducted by Terrence P. Jeffrey, there are 86 million full-time private sector workers in the United States paying taxes to support the government, and nearly 148 million Americans that are receiving benefits from the government each month. How long can such a lopsided system possibly continue?#2 Ten years ago, the number of women in the U.S. that had jobs outnumbered the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps by more than a 2 to 1 margin. But now the number of women in the U.S. on food stamps actually exceeds the number of women that have jobs.#3 The U.S. government has spent an astounding 3.7 trillion dollars on welfare programs over the past five years.#4 Today, the federal government runs about 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years.#5 Back in 1960, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages was approximately 10 percent. In the year 2000, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages was approximately 21 percent. Today, the ratio of social welfare benefits to salaries and wages is approximately 35 percent.#6 While Barack Obama has been in the White House, the total number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 32 million to nearly 47 million.#7 Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.#8 It sounds crazy, but the number of Americans on food stamps now exceeds the entire population of the nation of Spain.#9 According to one calculation, the number of Americans on food stamps is now greater than the combined populations of “Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.”#10 According to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, 43 percent of all immigrants that have been in the United States for at least 20 years are still on welfare.#11 Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, more than 70 million Americans are on Medicaid, and it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.#12 The number of Americans on Medicare is projected to grow from a little bit more than 50 million today to 73.2 million in 2025.#13 Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years. That comes to approximately $328,404 for each and every household in the United States.#14 If the number of Americans enrolled in the Social Security disability program were gathered into a single state, it would be the 8th largest state in the entire country.#15 In 1968, there were 51 full-time workers for every American on disability. Today, there are just 13 full-time workers for every American on disability.#16 It is being projected that the number of Americans on Social Security will rise from about 62 million today to more than 100 million in 25 years.#17 Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.#18 According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, an all-time record 49.2 percent of all Americans are receiving benefits from at least one government program each month. Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a home that received direct monetary benefits from the federal government.Many will read this and will assume that I am against helping the poor. That is completely and totally not true. There will always be people that are impoverished, and this happens for many reasons. In many cases, people simply lack the capacity to take care of themselves. It is a good thing to take care of such people, whether the money comes from public or private sources. In every society, those that are the most vulnerable need to be looked after.But it is a very troubling sign that the number of people on government assistance is now far, far greater than the number of people with full-time jobs. This is not a sustainable situation. The federal government is already drowning in debt, and yet more people become dependent on the government with each passing day.The long-term solution is to get more Americans working or starting their own businesses, but the federal government continues to pursue policies that are absolutely killing the creation of jobs and the creation of small businesses in this country. So our epidemic of government dependence is going to continue to get worse.And many of these programs are absolutely riddled with fraud and corruption. Just check out the following excerpt from a recent Natural News article
To understand the extent of this fraudulent waste, go no further than Dr. Salomon Melgen, a Florida ophthalmologist who raked in $20.8 million from Medicare in 2012 alone. Dr. Melgen isn’t the only one bathing in the fraud of this crony government program. Medicare dished out over $1 million to almost 4,000 doctors in 2012, according to the new data release analyzed by The Washington Post.Jonathan Blum, principal deputy administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is calling on the public for help in identifying fraud. He says, “The program is funded by and large by taxpayer dollars. The public has a right to know what it is paying for. We know there is fraud in the system. We are asking for the public’s help to check, to find waste, and to find potential fraud.”
Instead of fixing their own problems, they want us to help them do it.Just great.And of course they always want more of our money to help fund these programs. In fact, according to Americans for Tax Reform, Barack Obama has proposed 442 tax increases since entering the White House…
-79 tax increases for FY 2010
-52 tax increases for FY 2011
-47 tax increases for FY 2012
-34 tax increases for FY 2013
-137 tax increases for FY 2014
-93 tax increases for FY 2015Perhaps not coincidentally, the Obama budget with the lowest number of proposed tax increases was released during an election year: In February 2012, Obama released his FY 2013 budget, with “only” 34 proposed tax increases. Once safely re-elected, Obama came back with a vengeance, proposing 137 tax increases, a personal record high for the 44th President.
The more we feed the monster, the larger and larger it grows.And yet poverty is not decreasing. In fact, the poverty rate has been at 15 percent or greater for three years in a row. That is the first time that has happened in decades.Barack Obama promised to “transform” America, and yet poverty and government dependence have just continued to grow during his presidency.Not that anyone really believes anything that he has to say at this point. In fact, one recent survey found that only 15 percent of Americans believe that Barack Obama always tells the truth and 37 percent believe that he lies “most of the time”…
A Fox News poll released Wednesday shows that six out of every ten Americans believes that President Barack Obama lies to the American people, at least some of the time. A plurality – 37% – say that he lies “most of the time,” while another 24% say he lies “some of the time.” Another 20% say he lies once in awhile, while only 15% say that he never lies.

Obamacare Number Games: How Many Enrollees, Really? More to the raw numbers than meets the eye!

Pajamas Media ^ | 04/19/2014 | Rich Baehr
It has been a triumphant month for liberal journalists who have lived and died with the fortunes of the Affordable Care Act since its passage in March 2010.  Ezra Klein and Jon Cohen have declared victory, describing an amazing recovery for the program and for President Obama since the dark days of near-total failure among people trying to sign up on the federal exchanges in October and November.
To listen to Obamacare supporters, Kathleen Sebelius leaves her post as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services with her head held high, as her legacy now includes shepherding across the finish line a major expansion of health insurance for low-income, previously uninsured Americans. Howard Dean says [1] the Republicans would be foolish to attack Obamacare in this year’ s campaign, now that the program has achieved so much successCarl Sagan spoke [2] of “billions and trillions”; now the president and the Obamacare support media can talk of millions and millions newly insured.But how many millions?Prior to the opening of the exchanges in October 2013, President Obama claimed that the ability of families to keep children on their health insurance policies through age 26 had already added three million people to the ranks of the insured. This claim appears to be nonsense. Avik Roy — one of the few journalists who has actually been examining the data and drawing his own conclusions rather than regurgitating or looking to justify each of the administration’s assertions — estimates that the actual number of newly covered young people [3] is less than one-third of the number claimed, and perhaps far less.In fact, the percentage of uninsured Americans aged 18 to 24 has not changed at all from 2008 — prior to the economic collapse — through 2013. And of course, the change in policy did not come free. Roy estimates that family plans now cost $160 to $480 a year more due to the new coverage — and that is for all families, including all those without children who are newly covered. Also, as with all the other “free things” offered on the screening side due to Obamacare, none of it is free as someone else has to pay for them.The numbers for October 1 through the end of March — and now beyond due to late trickles from the exchanges — suggest 7.5 million people signed up on either the 16 state exchanges or the federal exchange (used by the other 34 states). Medicaid sign-ups, which can continue without any deadline during the current federal fiscal year, were 3.5 million. About half of the states did not participate in the Medicaid expansion, so any new enrollees in Medicaid in these states can not be attributed to Obamacare.In the years 2010 to 2013 — after the act was passed but before any expansion of the program beyond those at 100% of the poverty level or below — and now, since the expansion, Medicaid enrollees have increased. If the growth in the non-expansion states is considered a proxy for the enrollment growth that would have occurred without Obamacare, then about a quarter of the Medicaid enrollment growth is “natural” and unrelated to Obamacare. That leaves about 2.5 million new Medicaid enrollees, who benefited from the expansion of the program to include those earning up to 138% of the poverty level.Given the huge promotional push for Obamacare (some estimate a billion or more in federal, state, and corporate spending to advertise the new enrollment opportunities), it is likely that most of any surge in enrollment for Medicaid attributable to the coverage expansion has already occurred for this year. For point of reference, Medicaid enrollment grew by over 7% annually in the two years which overlapped with the economic recession, a faster growth rate [4] than the recent six-month period which included a large eligibility expansion.If you are keeping score, we may have 3.5 million total insured by counting young people kept on their parents’ policies and the expansion of Medicaid coverage. The big whale, then, is the enrollment number for the exchanges.The Obama administration has released a mid-April figure of 7.5 million, though they admit this is not the number of those who have paid a premium (or paid once and continued to pay).Several insurance companies — the ones actually providing new coverage and collecting premiums — have suggested that a ratio of 80% paid to enrolled is a good estimate so far. That would mean six million paid enrollees.In total, 9.5 million are newly insured, of which a million or so come from the family plan expansion that occurred prior to October 2013 — leaving 8.5 million newly insured since the exchanges opened. This is a number well short of the administration’s first year goal of close to 15 million new enrollees, though in fairness another 2.5 million Medicaid enrollees might have signed on had all 50 states expanded coverage, bringing the total number since October 2013 to 11 million.Of course, previously insured people lost coverage and did not obtain new coverage. This number may not be that large. Rand Corporation [5] has estimated that a large percentage of the first few million enrollees in the exchanges had coverage before October 1, and shifted to the exchanges either to replace a cancelled policy or to obtain coverage with a generous federal subsidy to pay for it.Of course, the subsidies are not free lunches. They are paid for with cuts to Medicare and higher taxes on a small percentage of Americans and industry groups.A few new surveys from the last month provide numbers in line with Rand’s estimates on the number of Americans newly insured and the drop in the percentage of Americans without insurance. Gallup estimates [6]a 4% reduction in the percentage of adults without insurance. Gallup goes on to note that a disproportionate percentage of the newly insured are younger people or lower income people, who tend to vote Democratic.The youth aspect is not surprising, since those over age 65 are already covered in almost all cases by Medicare. Obamacare did nothing for them, and made some changes to Medicare Advantage programs that will likely make this alternative more costly and less attractive to the elderly.Of course, the political damage to Democrats for this election cycle from the Medicare Advantage program cuts [7] has been eased by one of the many program changes announced by the administration.A major goal of the Affordable Care Act was to expand coverage through redistribution of income, taking taxes from haves to provide subsidies on the exchanges or expanded Medicaid coverage to have-nots. The legislation’s sponsors said this was a critical justification that they did not attempt to hide — “reform” meant “redistribution.”On that score, the program seems to have achieved its goals if Gallup’s survey is accurate, and probably reinforced political positions on the wisdom of expanding big government social programs among its recipients.For now, the administration is several million short of its first-year enrollment goal, even adjusting for the states that did not expand Medicaid. The Affordable Care Act’s backers may be right that the program numbers, whether nine million or something slightly smaller or larger, will make it much less likely that it can be legislatively dismantled.A different threat may come from the Supreme Court. John Roberts passed on an opportunity in 2013 to kill the bill in its entirety. But the Court may get one more chance [8] to deal a partial death blow for the states that are part of the federal exchanges. Sloppy drafting of the legislation seems, on its face, to prohibit federal subsidies when states fail to set up their own exchanges and rely on the federal government to do it.I think this challenge faces long odds. Of course, what Obamacare is today is a lot different than the bill that was passed. Several dozen changes were unilaterally adopted by the administration to delay or modify provisions so as to avoid political damage in the 2012 election and in 2014.The administration has never seemed to share Howard Dean’s confidence that everyone now or in the future will love Obamacare. All that is clear: whatever Obamacare is at any point in time, its original supporters will race to the barricades to defend it.

URLs in this post:

[1] Howard Dean says: .
[2] Carl Sagan spoke:
[3] newly covered young people:
[4] a faster growth rate:
[5] Rand Corporation:
[6] Gallup estimates :
[7] Medicare Advantage program cuts:
[8] one more chance:

Don’t Ban Bossy, Ban Beyonce!

Flopping Aces ^ | 04-19-14 | Dave The Sage
BanBossy1-620x330Sheryl Sandberg, author of Lean In and Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, has a line in her book that states "I want every little girl who's told she's bossy to be told instead that she has leadership skills." As you have probably heard by now, her Lean In organization and the Girl Scouts of America have teamed up with various celebrities and some other well-known female figures to urge us to ban the use of the word bossy. As part of their "public service" campaign they have released a short ad featuring these women lecturing us about how they were called bossy and other names as children and therefore we should "ban bossy." The "Ban Bossy - I'm Not Bossy. I'm the Boss" video has gone viral while stirring up some controversy along the way. It has now been viewed over 2,250,000 times on Youtube. a prominent role in this campaign is the pop star diva Beyonce. It would appear that the Girl Scouts believe that Beyonce is an appropriate role model for impressionable young girls and someone who should be emulated and looked up too. That is disappointing, and the fact that they cooperating with her on any level should raise more than a few eyebrows. Any objective observer would be hard pressed to not point out that Beyonce apparently believes that empowering women not only calls for the banning of certain words but also the constant sexual objectification of females and dressing up like a stripper at every opportunity. Whoring yourself out just because "sex sells" is hardly edifying to the female gender and is worthy of condemnation. Yet here she is, front and center, in the Ban Bossy ad campaign sponsored by an organization supposedly charged with the mission of building the character, self-esteem, and self-respect of young girls. For the Girl Scouts and Lean In to showcase her as a spokesman in their campaign is pathetic at best. One of the last people we should be encouraging our daughters to pattern their lives, thoughts, actions, and attitudes after is her. Yet our little Feminist friends apparently have no problem with that. Influencing millions of little girls to sexualize themselves at a very young age is far more damaging than calling someone bossy, and recruiting a spokesperson who is married to a man who routinely calls women "bitches and hoes" just smacks of idiocy and hypocrisy on every level. Conveying the message that a girl has to portray herself as a shameless sexual plaything to gain fame, success, and attention is far more detrimental to the female gender in general, and to entire upcoming generations of young women, than one ten-year old girl telling another to quit being bossy on the playground. And we wonder why vast numbers of young women have self-esteem, eating disorders, and body image issues in our culture. In the Ban Bossy video Beyonce tells us that "Girls are less interested in leadership than boys," while Lynch adds, "And that's because they worry about being called bossy." Really, that's why? Are you really telling me that the fear of being called bossy has somehow stymied generations of women? How come I'm not buying that? And so what if a somewhat smaller percentage of "girls are less interested in leadership than boys." Is that the end of the world? Are we really to believe that there must be some sort of contest and competition between the genders when it comes to the percentages of each in perceived leadership positions? Or is this really perhaps just another attempt to fuel the fires of conflict and tension between them by those who don't really care much for the male gender to begin with? These are questions worth pondering. Is it so far-fetched to fathom that maybe males and females aren't actually exactly the same and perhaps, just perhaps, it is just a natural trait for a majority of both sexes to see males as leaders more often than females? And if so, is that really such an inherently awful idea? We are not born as 'clean slates' but already have a vast network of natural inclinations and predispositions already inside of us as we enter the world. That is not to say that culture and society doesn't play a significant part in who we are and what we become, but to dismiss basic genetic factors and behavioral traits when it comes to gender is both foolish and naive. It's probably not patriarchy and misogyny they should be complaining about here, but basic biology. Perhaps we should spend less time fighting against it and more time learning to understand it. (Excerpt) Read more at

Scalia To Student: If Taxes Go Too High ‘Perhaps You Should Revolt’!

WNEW-FM ^ | April 18, 2014
Knoxville, Tenn. (CBS DC) – Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a crowd of law school students that if taxes in the U.S. become too high then people “should revolt.” Speaking at the University of Tennessee College of Law on Tuesday, the longest-serving justice currently on the bench was asked by a student about the constitutionality of the income tax, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports. Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Day to Ponder:The American Revolutionary War Began Today With the Battles of Lexington, Concord!

Will Hawkins ^ | April 19, 2014 | Will Hawkins
Original title:The American Revolution began - Today in history On April 19,1775 the American Revolutionary War began with the battles of Lexington and Concord.  At about 5 a.m., 700 British troops, on a mission to capture Patriot leaders and seize a Patriot arsenal, march into Lexington to find 77 armed minutemen under Captain John Parker waiting for them on the town's common green. British Major John Pitcairn ordered the outnumbered Patriots to disperse, and after a moment's hesitation the Americans began to drift off the green. Suddenly, the "shot heard around the world" was fired from an undetermined gun, and a cloud of musket smoke soon covered the green. When the brief Battle of Lexington ended, eight Americans lay dead or dying and 10 others were wounded. Only one British soldier was injured, but the American Revolution had begun. By 1775, tensions between the American colonies and the British government approached the breaking point, especially in Massachusetts, where Patriot leaders formed a shadow revolutionary government and trained militias to prepare for armed conflict with the British troops occupying Boston. In the spring of 1775, General Thomas Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, received instructions from England to seize all stores of weapons and gunpowder accessible to the American insurgents. On April 18, he ordered British troops to march against the Patriot arsenal at Concord and capture Patriot leaders Samuel Adams and John Hancock, known to be hiding at Lexington.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Minimum Wage Increase Kills Another Business!

by rottndog

This is a letter to the employees of a local restaurant. It's survived for decades, but is finally closing due to the latest increase in California's minimum wage. I guess it's better for the employees to have a higher wage, but no job with which to earn it.

Putin Isn’t a Genius — We Are Complete Idiots

PJ Media ^ | April 17, 2014 | David P. Goldman
Vladimir Putin happily allowed the Kiev authorities to shoot a few pro-Russian demonstrators while keeping his military forces on ice across the border. I predicted (and am sticking to my story) that Russia will not seize more territory in Eastern Ukraine–not for the time being, in any case. Russia will stand back and watch Ukraine implode, the way Egypt did during the two years following the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. Before the Maidan coup, Putin was willing to sit on $15 billion in arrears to Gazprom and put up $18 billion in new money. Now he wants $35 billion in back gas bills, on top of Ukraine’s $15 billion a year current account deficit. The IMF wants massive cuts in subsidies, which will make the Kiev government an object of hatred without putting a dent into the problem. Western taxpayers won’t cough up $50 billion for Ukraine, not even a small fraction of it. Yankee Doodle went to Maidan, stuck a feather in his hat and called it democracy. Our foreign policy ideologues are like UFO cultists who are so convinced that space aliens are invading the earth that they see moon men in every glare of swamp gas. In this case, it isn’t moon men, but aspiring republicans. First Tahrir Square, then Maidan, were glorious proof of the Manifest Destiny of Western democracy. A Google search with the terms “Putin” and “genius” yields over 10 million hits. If I hear another pundit’s panegyric to Putin’s great intellect, I’ll lose my lunch. Putin is not that smart; the trouble is that we are complete idiots. When Ukraine imploded, our leaders–from Victoria Nuland at the State Department to the neo-conservatives–rather assumed that we would reverse Ukraine’s polarity to the West, and humiliate Russia with the loss of Crimea. Putin called our bluff, and we had no viable military options. Putin doesn’t need to send the Red Army into Ukraine. Every Ukrainian officer above the rank of major came up through the ranks in the Red Army. Ukrainian commanders won’t fight the Russians. They are the Russians. Yesterday we watched Ukrainian paratroopers turn their armored vehicles over to Russian separatists. Maybe John McCain can send them more weapons to hand over to Moscow. Americans play Monopoly, Russians chess: We landed on Park Place fair and square, and that gave us the right to put down a hotel. Never mind that Ukraine is a basket case with a per capital income a tenth that of the European Community, whose best young people (along with some of its worst) have left the country, with a ruined economy and a declining population. Putin isn’t playing by the rules printed on the inside top cover of the board game. He’s another Hitler! Where is our Churchill? It’s a Monty Python remake of Dr. Strangelove. A few provocateurs holding a Russian flag pass out handbills demanding that Jews in Eastern Ukraine register with the authorities, and the whole of the media as well as the Obama administration hyperventilates, until the affair is exposed as a hoax. The threat, as the great chess theorist Aron Nimzowitsch wrote, is mightier than the execution. Putin will let the West take ownership of the Ukrainian disaster until it festers, and then he will pick and choose what he wants. We will huff and puff and bloviate about Putin, the new Hitler, while Ukraine’s economy disintegrates. Bismarck’s aphorism applies: die ganze Ukraine ist nicht die gesunden knochen eines pommerschen Grenadiers wert.

A New, More Sinister IRS Scandal

PJ Media ^ | April 17, 2014 | J. Christian Adams
Yesterday was a significant day in the IRS abuse scandal. The scandal evolved from being about pesky delays in IRS exemption applications to a government conniving with outside interests to put political opponents in prison.  Emails obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act reveal Lois Lerner cooking up plans with Justice Department officials to talk about ways to criminally charge conservative groups that are insufficiently quiet. Larry Noble, a law professor now with the Soros-funded Campaign Legal Center, was cited in the emails as someone agitating to jail conservatives who “falsely” report on IRS forms that they are not engaged in political speech. Lerner talked about setting up meetings with Justice Department election lawyers who wanted to talk about making Noble’s dreams a reality — this after Senator Sheldon Whitehouse raised the idea of criminal charges for conservatives who are not sufficiently quiet, charges that they falsely completed an IRS tax exemption form. Larry Noble Their theory is a favorite among speech regulators in the Soros-funded left and academia. It goes like this: “Too much speech is bad (unless unions do it.) Groups who talk about things leftists find uncomfortable are necessarily political and thus should never have 501(c) tax exempt status. Criminally charge any group that said on their IRS tax exempt form that they were not political if they say things the left finds uncomfortable. Get Eric Holder’s Justice Department on the case.” The emails obtained by Judicial Watch reveal this is essentially what was going on behind the scenes at the IRS, DOJ, and with outside leftist interests. The emails, so far, only name a few of the speech regulators involved. But there are many who don’t appear in the latest document dump that give life to the cause of limiting the
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama strips our military while building own militia!

The Lowell Sun ^ | April 17, 2014 | Blossom Stiefel
It is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the United States from "invasion."  How is it possible that top administration officials have directed 21,000 border patrol officers to retreat or distance themselves and seek cover in response to thrown or hurled projectiles from illegal aliens or drug smugglers? They are directed to keep their weapons holstered when drug smugglers drive by, and agents can't use guns against a fleeing vehicle. Instructions also indicate that officers will be penalized if they don't step back.  The new rules were issued this March by Michael Fisher, chief of U.S. Border Patrol. In a news conference, Fisher told reporters that our agents would be equipped with short-range tasers and pepper spray plus medium-range pellet guns, to deter attacks. With all of these restrictions, how can we protect our borders? How are we protecting our own Border Patrol people? Does this Administration even think about protecting Americans? Americans embrace and encourage legal immigration. We have laws for people to acclimate to American society. The first rule is recognition and respect for the rule of law. Crossing the border illegally makes a person a criminal, but the Border Patrol now is forced to ignore this crime. Curiously, at the same time, President Obama is building a nonmilitary "national security force" -- the one he referenced when he said the following in his 2008 campaign: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national-security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." Obama is purging our military of generals and officers, cutting our military budget and advocating gun control, but building a vast arsenal of weapons and ammo under DHS. Border agents have the most dangerous job in federal law enforcement; if they are being told to refrain from using lethal force on the job, why is DHS hoarding bullets? According to a new General Accounting Office report, the DHS is planning on buying a huge amount of ammunition ? 703 million rounds through fiscal year 2018. It's not only Homeland Security; other agencies are becoming more and more militarized under Obama's watch. Domestic agencies having nothing to do with national defense, such as the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Postal Service, and the Social Security Administration are also stockpiling ammunition and weaponry. Obama's strategy: Take away guns from innocent citizens so they can't fight back, shred the Constitution, defile the military, and build your own shadow army through federal agencies. George Washington said: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Democrats awash in 'green' energy deals on public land

WND ^ | April 18, 2014 | Jerome R. corsi
In the wake of the Bundy Ranch standoff, Nevada’s public energy utility confirmed it has so many renewable-energy projects in the works that it has no need for the $5 billion solar-power project with the Chinese government and ENN Group that was withdrawn last year. Fay Andersen, spokeswoman for NV Energy, told WND the state currently has 39 producing renewable energy projects, with an additional project under construction and another in the development phase. “Nevada has one of the highest Renewable Portfolio Standards in the country, determined as a percent of retail energy sales, and requiring the company to achieve 25 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2025,” she explained to WND. She said NV Energy has exceeded its renewable energy requirement of 18 percent for 2013-14, with 20.3 percent in southern Nevada in 2013 and 34.7 percent in northern Nevada.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Paul Revere's Ride

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year. He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm." Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide. Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore. Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,--
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town
And the moonlight flowing over all. Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay,--
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide like a bridge of boats. Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse's side,
Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns. A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides. It was twelve by the village clock
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer's dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down. It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon. It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadow brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket ball. You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,---
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
>From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load. So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

The Best Easter Bunny

Republicans manage to find new, unique and very creative ways to lose.

The Washington Times ^ | April 18, 2014 | By Judson Phillips
Republicans, at least in theory, are better off than liberals. Republicans generally don’t manage to lose by repeating the same old mistakes. Instead, Republicans manage to find new, unique and very creative ways to lose. House Speaker John Boehner has told business leaders and others on a couple of occasions he is going to get immigration amnesty done this year. In one instance, he said he was “hellbent” on getting it done.  Amnesty will, of course, destroy the Republican Party. That is why the Left loves it. Corporatists who want amnesty for low wages don’t think beyond the next quarter’s profit and loss report. It will doom them as well.  Republicans could stop this insanity, but the civil war in the Republican Party is the latest creative and unique way Republicans have found to lose.  John Boehner has been a disaster as the Republican speaker of the House. He has been walked on by the Democrats, unable to advance an agenda, and the efforts he promotes are more likely to kill the Republican Party than to give it a 40-year majority.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Charles Koch Crushes Democrat Harry Reid in New Poll

TPNN ^ | April 18, 2014 | Matthew Burke
In a new poll of a hypothetical race between libertarian philanthropist and business leader Charles Koch and Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Koch beats Reid by a huge margin, 42.2% to 29.9%.  The new poll, by the Washington Free Beacon, goes in line with other recent polls that show the Koch Brothers (Charles and David) of Koch Industries as being more popular than Reid, despite Reid’s unending campaign to vilify them.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

More Than 200 (illegal) Immigrants Arrested at Texas Camp

NBC DFW ^ | 4/18/14
They were found in an undeveloped patch of scrub near an abandoned tennis club in McAllen. They were camped under tents and huts camouflaged with mesquite branches and cacti. Some told authorities they had been there sleeping on pieces of cardboard with little food or water for at least a week. It was unclear whether any of those arrested Thursday afternoon were guides suspected of guarding the immigrants, Border Patrol spokesman Danny Tirado told The McAllen Monitor. A short time later, Border Patrol arrested 132 immigrants found in two buildings on a property in Alton, about 8 miles west of McAllen, according to KRGV-TV. The Border Patrol made more than 154,000 arrests on the section of the U.S.-Mexico border in southernmost Texas last year, more than anywhere else on the Southwest border. The majority of the immigrants come from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Oath Keepers Pour into Nevada from Across America to Support Cliven Bundy

Freedom Outpost ^ | 04/18/2014 | Kim Paxton
Despite the fact that Senator Harry Reid has called these Patriots “domestic terrorists”, the militia members and Oath Keepers there to support Cliven Bundy have peacefully assembled in Bunkerville, Nevada for more than a week to protect the rancher from armed federal land grabbers. Although the BLM has allegedly backed off citing “safety concerns,” the surly Senator Reid (who has incidentally been busted with his hand in the $5 million solar power cookie jar) commented, “Well, it’s not over. We can’t have an American people that violate the law and then just walk away from it. So it’s not over.” Because of statements like Reid’s, a request was made by Oath Keeper’s founder Stewart Rhodes for reinforcements. Interestingly, shortly after the request for support was made, the Oath Keepers website suffered a mysterious malfunction. Members of the alternative media quickly picked up the reins and made certain that the request was publicized. In response, Oath Keepers from as far away as Alaska are answering the call put out by founder Stewart Rhodes.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

War, What Is It Good for For? These Four Things, Actually ^ | 4/14/2014 | Ian Morris
There are four parts to the case I will make. The first is that by fighting wars, people have created larger, more organized societies that have reduced the risk that their members will die violently. This observation rests on one of the major findings of archaeologists and anthropologists over the last century: that Stone Age societies were typically tiny. Chiefly because of the challenges of finding food, people lived in bands of a few dozen, villages of a few hundred, or (very occasionally) towns of a few thousand members. These communities did not need much in the way of internal organization and tended to live on terms of suspicion or even hostility with outsiders. *SNIP* My second claim is that while war is the worst imaginable way to create larger, more peaceful societies, it is pretty much the only way humans have found. “Lord knows, there’s got to be a better way,” Edwin Starr sang, but apparently there isn’t. If the Roman Empire could have been created without killing millions of Gauls and Greeks, if the United States could have been built without killing millions of Native Americans—in these cases and countless others, if conflicts could have been resolved by discussion instead of force, humanity could have had the benefits of larger societies without paying such a high cost. But that did not happen. It is a depressing thought, but the evidence again seems clear. People hardly ever give up their freedom, including their rights to kill and impoverish each other, unless forced to do so, and virtually the only force strong enough to bring this about has been defeat in war or fear that such a defeat is imminent.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...