Saturday, April 26, 2014

Buying Latino votes comes at a price way too high for Republicans to pay!

Coach is Right ^ | 4/26/14 | Kevin "Coach" Collins
Simple rules of economics often escape liberals. Because they spend other people’s money, futures and safety to get what makes them feel good, the actual cost of things rarely enters into the schemes liberals concoct. They don’t understand that businesses often close when what they sell becomes too expensive for their customer base. Specialty shops of all kinds fall into this construct. Politicians who are considering buying votes must weigh whether the price to be paid is too much. They must ask themselves, “Will this break the bank?” Liberal politicians don’t bother with this consideration, but conservatives must never overlook it. The political enemies of conservatism would love to trick us into...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

In New York vs. Texas, it’s TKO by Texas

The Washington Times ^ | April 25,2014 | EDITORIAL
The governor’s best-known initiative to make New York more business friendly, however, is only a smoke-and-mirrors corporate-welfare scheme. Start-Up NY, featured in television commercials starring Mr. Cuomo, aims to “revitalize” business opportunities upstate. The state and local governments will waive state and local taxes and offer handouts for hand-selected businesses that partner with a nearby college or university. Start-Up NY eliminates taxes on favored businesses, sticking the unfavored with the bills. Therein lies the cause of New York’s uncompetitive position. Legislators in Albany are content to make tiny tax cuts and aid a few businesses at the expense of the others, without addressing the state’s fundamental problems of spending and regulating everything in sight. Until Mr. Cuomo and his colleagues make the sweeping changes necessary to make business welcome, competing against Texas and other states offering low taxes and reasonable regulatory burdens, it won’t be a fair fight.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Even Illinois is Sick of Obama! ^ | April 26, 2014 | John Ransom
I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed. – Jonathan Swift   Even Illinoisans are ashamed.   The wickedness has become so obvious, so entrenched and so brazen, that the state that used to take pride in their corruption, because it “worked,” now understands the Faustian bargain they've made. A Gallup poll reveals that by a wide margin Illinoisans trust their government less than any other state in the union. According to Gallup only 28% of people from Illinois have a great deal of trust in their government. The Land of Lincoln is followed by Rhode Island, Maine, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, California and Maryland-- all of which post numbers from 40% to 49% level of trust by resident. Residents from small government, pro-market states North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas and Alaska rate their government's highest in terms of trust, posting numbers as high as 79% of residents saying they have a great deal of trust in their government. And that's not really a coincidence is it? “Even though Midwesterners are generally more positive about their states,” writes the Chicago Tribune, “Illinois residents are the exception, with 25 percent declaring that it is ‘the worst possible state to live.’ The particularly grim outlook of Illinois residents could be attributed to factors like high-profile scandals and high taxes.” And it can also be attributed to the fact that the same bozo that is running the country right now, came from Illinois. Or more succinctly, Chicago. And Chicago is certainly the worst thing that ever happened to Obama, in the same way that Obama is the worst thing that ever happened to Chicago. So like a lot of stories these days, Chicago works its way in there as a burr buried deep in someone’s hair since the 1960s. If you are like me, you’re about as tired of my hometown of Chicago as the Detroit Lions are of Soldier Field. You are as tired of being ruled by aging hippies from there—like Hillary Clinton-- as you are of seeing slobbering media try to prop up an administration that deserves no props. Chicago’s become the punchline behind the joke on the Obama administration in the same way that Monica Lewinsky became the punchline for the joke on Bill Clinton’s administration. Metaphorically, there’s a great big stain splotching up the frock Chicago’s wearing. And we don’t have to wait for the DNA test to show who the culprits are or what they are up to. Let me tell you what the history books will say. The history books will say that these were the days of the last hurrah for the Democrat party machine; they will say that Chicago took a corrupt machine politician, packaged him as the reform candidate, realizing that they either had to export their corruption or die. "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him," wrote Swift. And that applies especially to the genius of smaller government. At a time when technology has given citizens the ability to be better informed, better educated and lead better lives, the dunces are conspiring to take away choices, rather than truly empower citizens. So far from being truly “progressive”, in any meaningful sense of the word-- as opposed to the ideological sense of the word-- the nation's experiment in Chicago type politics can be seen as reactionary rather than something new, honest and hopeful. And it’s not just Illinoisans that are paying attention. Young people are too. Conservative is becoming counterculture thanks to organic mismanagement, petty opportunism and lies-- the cornerstones on which the liberal freemasonry rests. We saw that same effect under Jimmy Carter, as counterculture icons like Saturday Night Live helped turn the peanut farmer’s administration into a real life parody of a Saturday Night Live skit. From there SNL and liberalism had nowhere to go but the mainstream, thereby creating hordes of young people, like me, who looked at liberalism as a swindle, a contrivance and a fraud. So prepare, my friends, for the next American Century-- a conservative one. Illinoisans are. And that says a lot.

MSNBC Host Calls Cover Oregon Failure ‘Biggest Obamacare Train Wreck In The Entire Country’

Washington Free Beacon ^ | April 25, 2014 | Washington Free Beacon Staff
MSNBC’s Chris Hayes called the now defunct Cover Oregon website the “biggest Obamacare train wreck in the entire country” Friday on MSNBC.

“Today the state gave up and called for help on what has to be the biggest Obamacare train wreck in the entire country,” he said. “Oregon became the first state to dump its own troubled online health exchange and use the federal marketplace instead. Oregon spent $248 million of $305 million in federal grant, including $3 million on this cool ad campaign.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Coming End of Affirmative Action ^ | April 26, 2014 | Paul Greenberg
Amidst all the opinions out of the nation's highest court on Tuesday -- majority and minority, concurring in part and dissenting in part, or just too vague to classify -- was there any clear message? Yes. Definitely. But you had to peer through all the legal haze, an admix of angry rhetoric and discreet evasions, in order to divine where the Supreme Court of the United States is headed on the always simmering issue of race-based admissions to the country's colleges and universities. But it's finally headed in the right direction, however many zigs and zags the learned justices may have taken along the way. If you listen carefully to the general drift of all these different decisions, that sound you can hear in the distance, maybe only the far distance, is the long awaited death knell for racial preferences in higher education. Yes, time is running out for all those racial quotas -- for that is what has always lurked behind the euphemism Affirmative Action, which can have decidedly negative impact on those students who don't belong to the favored race, ethnicity, class or whatever bias you prefer. . . If the essence of law is not logic but experience, to borrow an observation from the ever-observant Oliver Wendell Holmes, then this assemblage of legal opinions pro and con and in-between indicates that experience is slowly catching up to logic where racial preferences are concerned. And ending them. . . From its beginning, what is called affirmative action has had a paradox at its center: Any preference given applicants who belong to the preferred group amounts to discrimination against those who don't. That's always been the essential injustice of Jim Crow systems no matter what elevated names they are assigned -- whether "separate but equal" or "affirmative action" -- and no matter which Americans they favor, and so necessarily disfavor others. There's no getting around that essential truth no matter how hard judges like Sonia Sotomayor or Ruth Bader Ginsburg try. . . Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg are scarcely the first to deck out an essential injustice in the language of high principle. It's almost a tradition in American jurisprudence. See the works of Roger B. Taney (he of the infamous Dred Scott decision) or Henry B. Brown, author of Plessy v. Ferguson almost half a century later, from which all kinds of racial segregation flowed. Happily, there's always a great if lone dissenter like John Marshall Harlan who sees right through their game, or just a waffler like Anthony M. Kennedy who blows the whistle on it, as he did in this week's majority opinion. . . Yes, there are instances where some forms of racial discrimination may be justified on a temporary basis in order to break up a whole, greater system of racial discrimination long embedded in law, custom and popular passion. Think of the crosstown busing that was necessary -- for a while -- to end racial segregation in the nation's schools and so further liberty and justice for all in this one nation all too divisible. Unfortunately, the legal expedients we're told are only temporary have a way of becoming permanent, dragging on for years, even decades, as busing did. Only now may such arbitrary measures be fading, though not till after they ushered in an era of resegregated school systems in city after city. Affirmative action, too, has tended to become a permanent institution, with its own overstaffed bureaucracy and vested interests, in all too many of the country's institutions of "higher" learning, which wind up practicing a low form of racial discrimination. That's why the most hopeful comment in this miscellany of opinions the Supreme Court handed down Tuesday came from one of the only two justices on the court who would prolong affirmative action/racial quotas in American college admissions. The comment was embedded deep in Justice Sotomayor's outburst disguised as an impartial opinion, and you might have had to listen carefully to the summary of it she read from the bench to discern the ray of hope deep in its glowering text. It came when she accused the court of "permitting the majority to use its numerical advantage to change the rules mid-contest and forever stack the deck against racial minorities in Michigan." Michigan is where the voting public dealt racial preferences a major blow by outlawing them in that state's public universities. As if the voters had realized that the simplest, most direct way to end racial discrimination in college admissions is to end racial discrimination in college admissions. How about that? But that's just the kind of simple justice Madam Justice Sotomayor deplored in her opinion -- except, except for one brief comment that implied some hope for justice in the future. Did you catch it? It came when she was berating the court for changing the rules of the game "mid-contest." Hmm. So if the debate over affirmative action has reached its midpoint, that means this pernicious practice must have had a beginning and, yes, will someday have an end. And someday all students applying for admission to a state university will be judged without regard to their race or other irrelevancies. What a glorious day that will be, and this mixed bag of decisions out of the court Tuesday indicates that day is coming, however slowly. . . Yes, the college admission process can be rigged to benefit your favorite minorities, but only at the cost of penalizing others. The question is Cui bono? Who benefits? (This being a legal discussion, it would not be complete without a Latin phrase or two.) Black and Hispanic applicants may enjoy an advantage under affirmative action, but Jews and Asian-Americans need not apply. Indeed, one of the most evident results of affirmative action is to limit their numbers at the country's more prestigious universities. Just why justices like Sonia Sotomayor should think it awful to "stack the deck" against certain minorities but not against others may be one of those mysteries best left to her own law and conscience, for we can't think of any ready explanation for her selective indignation besides the old, obvious one: blind, invincible prejudice. The wheels of justice, they say, grind slow but exceeding fine. Sometimes so fine that justice is hard to discern. But the day of reckoning for affirmative action is coming, however slowly and contentiously. And it'll be a great day when it finally

Obama Subverts the Law in the Name of Clemency

National Review Online ^ | April 26, 2014 | By Andrew C. McCarthy
So now it’s the pardon power. To this point, in making a mockery of his core constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully, the broad law-enforcement discretion the Constitution vests in the executive branch has been President Obama’s preferred sleight of hand. In reality, “prosecutorial discretion” is merely a resource-allocation doctrine peculiar to criminal law: a recognition of the obvious fact that enforcement resources are finite; that it is neither possible nor desirable that every penal infraction be prosecuted; and therefore that priorities must be established about which cases should be pursued, which left to state law-enforcement to handle, and which overlooked. The doctrine has never been what the president has turned it into: a license not merely to ignore but to rewrite laws — not just penal laws; any laws — with which he disagrees on policy grounds. Thus is “prosecutorial discretion” the subterfuge for usurping congressional law-making power — the maze of unilateral waivers, amendments, and whole-cloth weaving that marks Obama’s enforcement of the “Affordable” Care Act, the immigration laws, and other federal statutes.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Is Bee Sting Therapy Buzzing Into The Mainstream? Clinical Trials Underway For Chronic Pain ^ | April 25, 2014 11:30 PM | Lisa Sigell
An ancient folk remedy for chronic pain could be buzzing into mainstream markets. Axis Clinical Trials in Los Angeles is testing honey bee venom for treatment of osteoarthritis. Dr. Lydie Hazan spoke to CBS2′s Lisa Sigell about her experience treating patients with Apimed, otherwise known as standardized and purified “venom in a vial”. “We were contracted by a pharmaceutical company which is based in Korea. They decided they wanted this product marketed in the United States,” she said. “We inject it locally in the knees of patients that are afflicted with osteoarthritis.” Patients are monitored for months to see if their pain gets any better. The treatment must be proven safe and effective before it receives approval by the FDA. But Dr. Hazan admits how Apimed relieves pain remains somewhat of a mystery. “Nobody is really sure on exactly the mechanism of the honey bee venom. But it seems to have an affinity for inflammation in that it gobbles up the inflammation,” she said. Costa Mesa beekeeper Rich Heryford believes trials like this one were only a matter of time. He employs his bees to make honey, to pollinate almond crops and for bee sting therapy. Although he doesn’t make any promises, he says the medical industry is “finally catching up” to the trend. “When conventional medicine fails to help, sometimes bee sting therapy is the only thing left,” he said. Seventy-one-year-old Pat Henry, of Yucaipa, turned to bee sting therapy 16 years ago to treat symptoms of multiple sclerosis. Every other day she receives two bee stings to the back of her neck and four above and below her knees. She calls the flying insects “miracle creatures,” and says her joint soreness disappears within a couple of hours of treatment. “I’m independent. I clean my own house. [I] wake up every morning and say, ‘Okay, I made it one more day,’” she said. Her caretaker, Chet Henry, stings himself too. “My hands were so bad with arthritis, and I don’t have that anymore,” he said. Pat now has her own beehive, and says she takes the bad with the good. “I don’t want them in my hair but sometimes that happens,” she said, adding that she fears the alternative of chronic pain more than the bees. And although the stings haven’t prevented Pat’s M.S. from weakening her legs, she’s optimistic about the effectiveness of their venom. “I can carry on with my life and there are no side effects, and hopefully live to be 100 years old,” she said. Dr. Hazan warns a bee sting can be deadly to those who are allergic. She recommends being tested by a doctor before trying any type of bee venom therapy. The Apimed trial for osteoarthritis of the knee is currently recruiting patients. The trial lasts six months and participants are paid up to $1050 for their time and travel. More information is available on the Axis Today website. For more on the history of bee sting therapy, visit the American Apitherapy Association. If you have a beehive on your property and need advice on getting it re-located, check out Living Bees.

And the Oscar Goes to... Senator Mary Landrieu! ^ | April 26, 2014 | Jeff Crouere
After the release of the latest Landrieu campaign commercial, the critics are raving. What an incredible performance from a talented actress! Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu has done it again. Elections bring out the best acting from the state’s 18 year incumbent. Every six years, Mary Landrieu adopts the sympathetic character of a “fighter for Louisiana.” In reality, she is a liberal Democrat who votes with President Obama and Majority Leader Harry Reid, but, during campaigns, Senator Landrieu convinces voters she is constantly opposing leaders in her own party. The result is that Senator Landrieu wins another term in office, quite a hat trick, since Louisiana is a red Republican state. In this election, the political environment is especially tough for Senator Landrieu, so she has had to pull out all the stops by recreating a Senate hearing at the Louisiana State Capitol. In the commercial, the Senator was able to improve on her real life performance by fixing the errors, the make-up and the wardrobe. The lighting was perfect, the script was changed and all of the actors performed their roles flawlessly. Now, inquiring minds want to know, did the campaign utilize the state’s 30% film tax credits on this expensive production? Unfortunately for Senator Landrieu, this fiction was exposed and now her campaign has been embarrassed by this exercise in political make-believe. It remains to be seen whether voters will see the light in this election or continue to be fooled by the talented performer Mary Landrieu. In the commercial, the Senator touts her opposition to the Obama administration and her advocacy of the state’s oil and gas industry. She neglects to mention, however, that she votes with President Obama 97% of the time and on all of the important issues, she is a consistent vote for the President. He needed her on the Affordable Care Act and she delivered, despite thousands of calls, texts, faxes, emails and telegrams from the people of Louisiana expressing their opposition to the plan. Sadly, Senator Landrieu ignored her constituents and cast the deciding vote in favor of this unpopular bill. While she may oppose the President on energy issues, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, her political action committee, Jazz PAC, has contributed $400,000 to Democrat Senators who are hostile to the pipeline and the oil and gas industry. A real advocate of the major engine of the state’s economy would not give such strong financial support to liberals who advocate positions that will harm Louisiana’s economy. As usual, Senator Landrieu acts one way in Washington D.C, but an entirely different way when she is looking for votes at home. This “fighter” for Louisiana is a reliable supporter of the leftist agenda of the President Obama, who has an approval rating in Louisiana of only 40 percent. Because of the President’s unpopularity, the Senator knows she cannot be too closely tied to President Obama, which is why she skipped his recent visit to New Orleans. In reality, the President knows that he has a strong supporter in Mary Landrieu. He rewarded her by enthusiastically endorsing Mary’s brother, Mitch Landrieu, in his winning re-election campaign as Mayor of New Orleans. With Mitch in charge of New Orleans once again, his sister has a much better chance of victory this November. Polls show Senator Landrieu is below 50% currently and probably headed for a run-off, but she has defied expectations in the past and pulled off improbable victories. Today, she is the only Louisiana Democrat holding a statewide elected office. For this election, voters will have to answer the question; do they want a real fighter for Louisiana or one who only plays the role on TV?

The disappearance of America’s will ^ | April 18th, 2014 | Caroline Glick
The most terrifying aspect of the collapse of US power worldwide is the US’s indifferent response to it. In Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East and beyond, America’s most dangerous foes are engaging in aggression and brinkmanship unseen in decades. As Gordon Chang noted at a symposium in Los Angeles last month hosted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, since President Barack Obama entered office in 2009, the Chinese have responded to his overtures of goodwill and appeasement with intensified aggression against the US’s Asian allies and against US warships. In 2012, China seized the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. Washington shrugged its shoulders despite its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines. And so Beijing is striking again, threatening the Second Thomas Shoal, another Philippine possession. In a similar fashion, Beijing is challenging Japan’s control over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and even making territorial claims on Okinawa. As Chang explained, China’s recent application of its Air-Defense Identification Zone to include Japanese and South Korean airspace is a hostile act not only against those countries but also against the principle of freedom of maritime navigation, which, Chang noted, “Americans have been defending for more than two centuries.” The US has responded to Chinese aggression with ever-escalating attempts to placate Beijing. And China has responded to these US overtures by demonstrating contempt for US power. Last week, the Chinese humiliated Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during his visit to China’s National Defense University. He was harangued by a student questioner for the US’s support for the Philippines and Japan, and for opposition to Chinese unilateral seizure of island chains and assertions of rights over other states’ airspace and international waterways. As he stood next to Hagel in a joint press conference, China’s Defense Chief Chang Wanquan demanded that the US restrain Japan and the Philippines. In addition to its flaccid responses to Chinese aggression against its allies and its own naval craft, in 2012 the US averred from publicly criticizing China for its sale to North Korea of mobile missile launchers capable of serving Pyongyang’s KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missiles. With these easily concealed launchers, North Korea significantly upgraded its ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons. As for Europe, the Obama administration’s responses to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and to its acts of aggression against Ukraine bespeak a lack of seriousness and dangerous indifference to the fate of the US alliance structure in Eastern Europe. Rather than send NATO forces to the NATO member Baltic states, and arm Ukrainian forces with defensive weapons, as Russian forces began penetrating Ukraine, the US sent food to Ukraine and an unarmed warship to the Black Sea. Clearly not impressed by the US moves, the Russians overflew and shadowed the US naval ship. As Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News on Monday, the Russian action was not a provocation. It was “a show of contempt.” As Krauthammer explained, it could have only been viewed as a provocation if Russia had believed the US was likely to respond to its shadowing of the warship. Since Moscow correctly assessed that the US would not respond to its aggression, by buzzing and following the warship, the Russians demonstrated to Ukraine and other US allies that they cannot trust the US to protect them from Russia. In the Middle East, it is not only the US’s obsessive approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel that lies in shambles. The entire US alliance system and the Obama administration’s other signature initiatives have also collapsed. After entering office, Obama implemented an aggressive policy in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere of killing al-Qaida operatives with unmanned drones. The strategy was based on the notion that such a campaign, that involves no US boots on the ground, can bring about a rout of the terrorist force at minimal human cost to the US and at minimal political cost to President Barack Obama. The strategy has brought about the demise of a significant number of al-Qaida terrorists over the years. And due to the support Obama enjoys from the US media, the Obama administration paid very little in terms of political capital for implementing it. But despite the program’s relative success, according to The Washington Post, the administration suspended drone attacks in December 2013 after it endured modest criticism when one in Yemen inadvertently hit a wedding party. No doubt al-Qaida noticed the program’s suspension. And now the terror group is flaunting its immunity from US attack. This week, jihadist websites featured an al-Qaida video showing hundreds of al-Qaida terrorists in Yemen meeting openly with the group’s second in command, Nasir al-Wuhayshi. In the video, Wuhayshi threatened the US directly saying, “We must eliminate the cross,” and explaining that “the bearer of the cross is America.” Then there is Iran. The administration has staked its reputation on its radical policy of engaging Iran on its nuclear weapons program. The administration claims that by permitting Iran to undertake some nuclear activities it can convince the mullahs to shelve their plan to develop nuclear weapons. This week brought further evidence of the policy’s complete failure. It also brought further proof that the administration is unperturbed by evidence of failure. In a televised interview Sunday, Iran’s nuclear chief Ali Akhbar Salehi insisted that Iran has the right to enrich uranium to 90 percent. In other words, he said that Iran is building nuclear bombs. And thanks to the US and its interim nuclear deal with Iran, the Iranian economy is on the mend. The interim nuclear deal the Obama administration signed with Iran last November was supposed to limit its oil exports to a million barrels a day. But according to the International Energy Agency, in February, Iran’s daily oil exports rose to 1.65 million barrels a day, the highest level since June 2012. Rather than accept that its efforts have failed, the Obama administration is redefining what success means. As Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz noted, in recent months US officials claimed the goal of the nuclear talks was to ensure that Iran would remain years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. In recent remarks, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the US would suffice with a situation in which Iran is but six months away from acquiring nuclear weapons. In other words, the US has now defined failure as success. Then there is Syria. Last September, the US claimed it made history when, together with Russia it convinced dictator Bashar Assad to surrender his chemical weapons arsenal. Six months later, not only is Syria well behind schedule for abiding by the agreement, it is reportedly continuing to use chemical weapons against opposition forces and civilians. The most recent attack reportedly occurred on April 12 when residents of Kafr Zita were attacked with chlorine gas. The growing worldwide contempt for US power and authority would be bad enough in and of itself. The newfound confidence of aggressors imperils international security and threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people. What makes the situation worse is the US response to what is happening. The Obama administration is responding to the ever-multiplying crises by pretending that there is nothing to worry about and insisting that failures are successes. And the problem is not limited to Obama and his advisers or even to the political Left. Their delusional view that the US will suffer no consequences for its consistent record of failure and defeat is shared by a growing chorus of conservatives. Some, like the anti-Semitic conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan, laud Putin as a cultural hero. Others, like Sen. Rand Paul, who is increasingly presenting himself as the man to beat in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, indicate that the US has no business interfering with Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Iran as well is a country the US should be less concerned about, in Paul’s opinion. Leaders like Sen. Ted Cruz who call for a US foreign policy based on standing by allies and opposing foes in order to ensure US leadership and US national security are being drowned out in a chorus of “Who cares?” Six years into Obama’s presidency, the US public as a whole is largely opposed to taking any action on behalf of Ukraine or the Baltic states, regardless of what inaction, or worse, feckless action means for the US’s ability to protect its interests and national security. And the generation coming of age today is similarly uninterested in US global leadership. During the Cold War and in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the predominant view among American university students studying international affairs was that US world leadership is essential to ensure global stability and US national interests and values. Today this is no longer the case. Much of the Obama administration’s shuttle diplomacy in recent years has involved sending senior officials, including Obama, on overseas trips with the goal of reassuring jittery allies that they can continue to trust US security guarantees. These protestations convince fewer and fewer people today. It is because of this that US allies like Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, that lack nuclear weapons, are considering their options on the nuclear front. It is because of this that Israeli officials are openly stating for the first time that the US cannot be depended on to either secure Israel’s eastern frontier in the event that an accord is reached with the Palestinians, or to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is because of this that the world is more likely than it has been since 1939 to experience a world war of catastrophic proportions. There is a direct correlation between the US elite’s preoccupation with social issues running the narrow and solipsistic gamut from gay marriage to transgender bathrooms to a phony war against women, and America’s inability to recognize the growing threats to the global order or understand why Americans should care about the world at all. And there is a similarly direct correlation between the growing aggression of US foes and Obama’s decision to slash defense spending while allowing the US nuclear arsenal to become all but obsolete. America’s spurned allies will take the actions they need to take to protect themselves. Some will persevere, others will likely be overrun. But with Americans across the ideological spectrum pretending that failure is success and defeat is victory, while turning their backs on the growing storm, how will America protect itself?

Putin Continues Military Buildup as He Ignores Threats from America’s Weakling Leaders!

Coach is Right ^ | April 26, 2014 | Jim Emerson, staff writer
Adopting the strategy of the Cold War the Obama administration has adopted the long-term approach of containment. The new strategy against Russia is basically the Alinsky strategy, isolate, ridicule, pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Not a good idea to attack someone who has a few nukes to toss around. To isolate, the Pentagon is sending troops to Poland for training exercises to reassure Eastern European allies that the United States will help to defend them from Russian aggression. A company sized contingent of 600 American troops will also be heading to Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia for training exercises. The US and NATO presence will form a perimeter in the hope of isolating Russia from Europe.In addition to ground forces Air Force fighters are being deployed in Poland. Analysts have indicated that the deployment will be a symbolic gesture that will have little or no impact on the Ukrainian crisis. The Pentagon insists that the troop deployment is in direct response to the buildup of Russian troops near the Ukraine boarder. Belarus Six Russian Su-27s Flankers and support aircraft have been deployed to Bobruisk airfield inside Belarus. Deja Vu Reporters were excited this week when Russian aircraft encroached on the airspace of several NATO countries.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Major Obama donor avoids jail time after brutally beating girlfriend (RadiumOne CEO)

Biz Pac Review ^ | 4/25/14
A high-dollar Obama donor who was caught on video brutally beating his girlfriend got off with 25 hours of community service last week after he pled guilty to domestic battery charges. CCTV footage caught Gurbaksh Chahal, the CEO of San Francisco tech startup RadiumOne, kicking his girlfriend 117 times, including blows to the head, and trying to smother her with a pillow during a vicious 30-minute assault. He faced 45 felony charges until the footage was deemed inadmissible. As a result, Chahal has managed to avoid jail time, the Daily Mail reported on Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

IRS Gives Tax Exempt Status to Major Muslim Terrorist Groups with Clinton Ties!

Shoebat ^ | 4/25/14 | Walid Shoebat
The former Chairman of perhaps the most notorious mosque in the U.S. sits on the Board of an organization that has received 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Bassam Estwani, who led the Dar al-Hijrah mosque for years prior to 9/11 and who welcomed Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi into the mosque, as reported by [see photo here] is listed as a member of the Board of Directors for a group identified as Mercy Without Borders. The Tax ID is listed as 45-5259026. As the IRS scandal, which involves the targeting of law-abiding conservative groups and the awarding of tax-exempt status to stealth jihadists, continues to unfold, it is becoming obvious that the groundwork for such an egregious disparity began years ago – in the Clinton White House. As recently uncovered photos reveal [click here], Estwani is an extremely heavy hitter for the Muslim Brotherhood in America. The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord rightly likened close Hillary Clinton adviser Huma Abedin to Alger Hiss. However, the top priority of a good spy is stealth. Abedin was good at that but not good enough. Until now, Estwani has largely flown under the radar, despite leading the Dar al-Hijrah mosque for several years. That mosque was visited by three 9/11 hijackers and Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Malik Hasan. Hasan’s notorious imam, Anwar al-Awlaki served as an imam there. Estwani resembles Hiss a bit more than Abedin does. Estwani sits on the Board of another organization with 501(c)(3) status. His fellow board member is named Dr. Yahya Basha, who is also a Foundation Board Member of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and is associated with several other Muslim groups. None other than Mahdi Bray once served as MPAC’s Executive Director.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

ANALYSIS: Obamacare will cost taxpayers $53,000 per newly insured!

The Daily Caller ^ | April 24, 2014 | Sarah Hurtubise
Taxpayers will pay over $53,000 per each person newly insured under Obamacare, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of the Congressional Budget Office data. Last week’s highly debated CBO report found that Obamacare will cost slightly less than expected over the next decade. The budget office shifted its assessment of the health care law due to unexpectedly low premiums, which it attributed not to lowered costs but on “less attractive” health insurance offerings than it assumed would be available. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal fiscal policy group, released its own analysis of the CBO findings Tuesday, concluding that the CBO had also cut the estimated cost of the Medicaid expansion on state budgets. The CBO predicts that on average, federal taxpayers will now pay over 95 percent of the total cost of the Medicaid expansion. Fewer than expected Americans who were already eligible for traditional state Medicaid programs signed up for coverage while programs received free publicity due to the furor over the Medicaid expansion, leading to a lowered estimates of the Medicaid costs states will incur....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Paul: 'Difficult to turn the clock back' on O-Care!

The Hill's Ballot Box ^ | April 25, 2014 | Alexandra Jaffe
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) admitted Friday it’s “difficult to turn the clock back” on ObamaCare, but proposed making the law voluntary as a possible fix for consumers. “I think it’s going to be difficult to turn the clock back. People get assumed and accustomed to receiving things, particularly things that they get for free,” he told a crowd of students at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on Friday. Paul’s comments echo those of other Republicans who have admitted it will be difficult to fully repeal the law after some of its more popular provisions took effect. The potential 2016 presidential candidate said he ultimately doesn’t think repeal is possible without Republicans controlling the House, the White House and with close to 60 votes in the Senate, like Democrats had when they passed the law. But he predicted the cost of the law could ultimately have dire effects, suggesting they could “bring down local hospitals” or hamstring state governments. In the meantime, Paul offered a fix. “I think one of the practical things you might be able to do, and I think the public at large might accept this, is to make ObamaCare voluntary. You make it voluntary, basically you get rid of the coercion,” he said, presumably by eliminating the penalty those without insurance are required to pay, known as the individual mandate. He said he may keep some parts of the law, like the subsidies to help poor Americans afford insurance, or the Medicaid expansion -- two of ObamaCare's more popular provisions but potentially its more expensive. “Does that get rid of the subsidies? Not necessarily, or the Medicaid. But I think also we’re going to find out we can’t afford to have everybody on Medicaid, we can’t afford to have everybody on subsidized insurance,” Paul said. The Kentucky senator also railed against President Obama for the idea of the law in the first place, telling students gathered at Harvard’s Institute of Politics on Friday that Obama “says that you are not smart enough…to choose your own insurance.” Paul, who signed up his family for insurance under ObamaCare used his son’s plan as an example. He said it includes coverage for a number of unnecessary procedures “because the president says he’s too dumb and can’t buy an individual product that would cost him a lot less and wouldn’t have as many things included.”

Administration Exploring Options for Curbing Anti-Muslim Hate Speech!

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 25 April 2014 | John Semmens
The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Bill Killian, says “the Administration is looking into ways we can curb anti-Muslim hate speech. Such speech violates Muslims' Constitutional right to freely exercise their religion. It is our duty to protect this right.” Killian acknowledged that “there are some tricky and delicate issues here. Some believe that freedom of speech gives them the right to make remarks critical of or disparaging toward Islam. On the other hand, Islam commands its faithful to fight against, subdue, and slay those who insult their beliefs. The only way we can see to head off potential violent confrontations is to interdict the insults through official prohibitions.” “Muslim beliefs are different from those of Christians and Jews,” Killian explained. “Jesus bade his followers to 'turn the other cheek' toward those who harm or offend them. And Jews have a long history of suffering under discriminatory laws and pogroms without violently responding to these oppressions. So, while there is clearly no need for the Government to intervene against anti-Christian or anti-Jewish speech the same cannot be said in regard to anti-Muslim speech.” “If we can persuade Muslims that the Government will impose satisfactory sanctions against persons who insult their religion there will be no need for them to take matters into their own hands,” Killian argued. “They will see that Government is up to the task of protecting their faith and that they won't have to take up arms to defend it. It's simply a matter of maintaining both the Constitutional right of Muslims to practice their religion and our Constitutional obligation to secure domestic tranquility.” if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...

In speech to Alabama Republicans, Sarah Palin blasts Obama and 'RINOs' alike

The Mobile Press-Register ^ | April 25, 2014 | Brendan Kirby

ORANGE BEACH, Alabama – Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin offered plenty of red-meat attacks on President Barack Obama during an appearance at the Baldwin County Republican Party’s annual fundraising dinner Friday, but she did not spare her own party. Palin, who rocketed to political stardom after presidential candidate John McCain tapped her as his running mate in 2008, expressed nearly as much exasperation with the GOP establishment as she did with Democrats. She referenced her own upbringing in an Alaskan hunting family in declaring that she would fight politicians that conservatives deride as “Republicans in Name Only” during intra-party squabbles. “I’m not afraid at all to go on a little RINO hunt,” she said. Since her unsuccessful bid for vice president, Palin has devoted a great deal of energy toward supporting like-minded Republicans in primary battles, whether they be incumbents or challengers. Along the way, she has become one of the top draws on the speaking circuit. Baldwin Republican Chairman Matt Simpson said it was a big coup to get Palin. He declined to say how much the party paid for her appearance and said the former governor agreed to an interview only with Yellowhammer News, a conservative blog in Alabama. Simpson said about 500 people attended the speech at The Wharf in Orange Beach. The audience included most of the county’s Republican leaders, along with the chairman of the state GOP, U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne, R-Fairhope, Republican leaders from the rest of the state and even a U.S. Senate candidate for Louisiana. Palin charmed her audience with her signature speaking style and a few local references. She noted the famed Flora-Bama Mullet Toss that takes place this weekend. Turning serious, Palin questioned the commitment of some Republicans to repealing the Affordable Care Act, Obama’s signature legislative achievement. “They’re giving a lot of lip service to it, but it’s not happening,” she said. The reason, Palin suggested, is that some Republicans have concluded they are better off raising campaign contributions off of the issue and leaving the law alone. She said too few Republicans in Congress supported efforts by Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah, to shut down the federal government in order to force the defunding of the health reform law. “They left some of our guys out there alone,” she said. “Worse than that, they joined the lapdog media” in condemning Lee and Cruz. Palin urged Republicans to “send reinforcements” to help tea party Republicans in Congress. She paraphrased a famous Obama quote in crediting the tea party for engineering the Republican takeover of the House in 2010. “Republican establishment, you didn’t build that – the tea party did that,” she said. Referencing big Republican electoral gains in Alabama since 2010, Palin held up the state as a model for the nation. “Alabama really is the picture of this – especially Baldwin County,” she said. Palin had plenty of fire for Obama and the Democrats, too, starting with the “Orwellian boondoggle” of Obamacare. She blasted the administration over the National Security Agency spying scandal, the murder of the American ambassador in Benghazi, Libya, and Obama’s response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. “We are going to do all we can to stop Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of the most exceptional country in the world,” she said, later adding that his policies represent a “depression on the soul of America.” Palin got her biggest applause and a standing ovation for her defense of America’s veterans. She decried cuts to veterans’ health benefits and Obama’s proposed defense cuts. “They’re the ones who should be getting the free ‘Obamacare,’ not the prisoners,” she said.