Saturday, November 30, 2013

TAPS

This is an incredible performance that should impress you by her skill and the crowd's reverence.
The conductor of the orchestra is Andre Rieu from Holland .
The young lady, her trumpet and her rendition of TAPS makes your hair stand on end. Many of you may never have heard taps played in its entirety
For all of the men and women who have died for you to have the freedom we have in America .
This is an opportunity you won't want to miss and you'll never forget.
Amazingly beautiful Melissa Venema, age 13, is the trumpet soloist. Here is Taps played in its entirety. The Original version of Taps was called Last Post, and was written by Daniel Butterfield in 1801. It was rather lengthy and formal, as you will hear in this clip, so in 1862 it was shortened to 24 notes and re-named Taps. Melissa Venema is playing it on a trumpet whereby the original was played on a bugle. Enjoy Click on link below to here this special performance

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Judge Not

Murray Budget 2

Zero Calories

Eating Disorder Cartoon 1

New Tax

The Feeding

Obesity

Cartoon Obese Government

You're gonna love him!

Obamacare Crtn 5

Almost!

Obamanomics Cartoon 2013 1

Still Waiting!

Obamanomics Cartoon 2013 2

Middle Class Diet Plate

Obamanomics Cartoon 2013 3

How a presidency unravels

The Washington Post ^ | 23 Nov 2013 | George F. Will 

For concision and precision in describing Barack Obama’s suddenly ambivalent relationship with his singular — actually, his single — achievement, the laurels go to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.).
After Obama’s semi-demi-apology for millions of canceled insurance policies — an intended and predictable consequence of his crusade to liberate Americans from their childish choices of “substandard” policies sold by “bad apple” insurers — Scalise said Obama is like someone who burns down your house. Then shows up with an empty water bucket. Then lectures you about how defective the house was. What is now inexplicably called Obama’s “fix” for the chaos he has created is surreal. He gives you permission to reoccupy your house — if you can get someone to rebuild it — but for only another year.
At least he has banished boredom from millions of lives. Although probably not from his.
The place to begin understanding the unraveling of his presidency is page 274 of “The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama.” The author, David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, quotes Valerie Jarrett, perhaps Obama’s closest and longest-serving adviser, on her hero’s amazingness:
“He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.”
Leave aside the question of whether someone so smitten can be in any meaningful sense an adviser. About what can such a paragon as Obama need advice? (Although he did recently say, “What we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.” Just to buy.) It is, however, fair to note that what ordinary people ordinarily do is their jobs, competently.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

The left’s takeover of the American military

Coach is Right ^ | November 23rd, 2013 | Jim Emerson, staff writer 

Obama’s uneasiness with Generals


A hallmark of dictators is the purging of senior military officers in the hope of eliminating any viable opposition to future tyrannical actions. A large number of senior military officials–around 200 flag officers–have been relieved by the Kenyan Muslim in Chief in the last five years. (2) Obama is working diligently to create a totally obedient, Democrat Party controlled military. After the Arab Spring uprising overthrew the old government and installed Muslim Brotherhood President Muhammed Morsi in Egypt, both Morsi and Obama expected Egyptian Military officers to subordinate themselves to the whims of a tyrant with Washington and terrorist connections. Obama watched that experiment closely because it was essentially to become his roadmap to total power in the United States.

Compliant Officer Class

The blogosphere is becoming keenly aware of an ongoing purge of Generals and Admirals in the US Military who are not in lock-step with Obama’s agenda. Senior military officers are being intimidated against speaking out. The real damage will be created and if the left create a “compliant officer class” to carry out the wishes of America’s first elected dictator of the modern era. What is going to stop the Kenyan from ordering the Armed forces to suppress insurgent Tea Partiers? Obama has a history of destroying any opposition and the main stream press has always been more than willing to help him out. If Obama succeeds, leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces will not have the backbone to tell the political class “no” to future commands. Even today there are few combat Generals in the ranks; most senior officers are political animals. That is why there was little opposition to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

The Scheme behind the Obamacare Fraud

NRO ^ | 11/23/2013 | Andrew C. McCarthy 

That is the Obamacare scheme.

It is a Fabian plan to move an unwilling nation, rooted in free enterprise, into Washington-controlled, fully socialized medicine. As its tentacles spread over time, the scheme (a) pushes all Americans into government markets (a metastasizing blend of Medicare, Medicaid, and “exchanges” run by state and federal agencies); (b) dictates the content of the “private” insurance product; (c) sets the price; (d) micromanages the patient access, business practices, and fees of doctors; and (e) rations medical care. Concurrently, the scheme purposely sows a financing crisis into the system, designed to explode after Leviathan has so enveloped health care, and so decimated the private medical sector, that a British- or Canadian-style “free” system — formerly unthinkable for the United States — becomes the inexorable solution.
Once you grasp that this is the scheme, the imperative to lull the public with lies makes sense. Like all swindles, Obamacare cannot work if its targeted victims figure out the endgame before it is a fait accompli.
The president is a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky tradition. He is trained to adopt the language and co-opt the sensibilities of the masses in order to become politically viable; then, once raw power is acquired, the Alinskyite uses every component of it to thwart opposition in patient but remorseless pursuit of the given “social justice” goal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Ben Stein on Obama: Should Be “Charged With Criminal Fraud” for His Repeated Lies (Video)

Gateway Pundit ^ | November23,2013 | Jim Hoft 

Actor, speechwriter and columnist Ben Stein is the latest pundit to point out the Obama regime’s criminal behavior. Stein told the Cavuto panel this morning if the administration were a bank they would be charged with criminal fraud for their repeated lies to the American public.
“The president lied to us about every aspect of this… I’m getting kind of sick of him saying he didn’t know what was in his own bill. He didn’t know what happened in Benghazi. He didn’t know what happened in the US. If he didn’t know what was in his own signature legislation, his own most important document, his own most important achievement, he should not be president…
If this government were a bank, a large investment bank, it would be charged with criminal fraud for the lies Mr. Obama has told over and over again about this healthcare. Every single ‘scare’ that the Republicans said wasn’t scary enough.”
Via The Cost of Freedom:

White House Muzzling All Who Worked on Healthcare.gov

White House Dossier ^ | Saturday, November 23, 2013 | Keith Koffler 

The Obama administration “has requested that all government officials and contractors involved (in the development of the website) keep their work confidential,” according to the New York Times, in what appears to be at least in part – and perhaps in whole – an effort to minimize the release of information about the development of the catastrophe known as Healthcare.gov.
New York Times piece running today mentions the information blackout in explaining why sources for the story, which details the incompetent development of the website, would not allow their names to be used.
The story puts on gory display a administration that failed spectacularly both in the planning and implementation of the website project.
The government had huge ambitions which could not possibly be realized in the time alotted:
The prime contractor, CGI Federal, had long before concluded that the administration was blindly enamored of an unrealistic goal: creating a cutting-edge website that would use the latest technologies to dazzle consumers with its many features. Knowing how long it would take to complete and test the software, the company’s officials and other vendors believed that it was impossible to open a fully functioning exchange on Oct. 1.
Government officials, on the other hand, insisted that Oct. 1 was not negotiable. And they were fed up with what they saw as CGI’s pattern of excuses for missed deadlines . . .
The online exchange was crippled, people involved with building it said in recent interviews, because of a huge gap between the administration’s grand hopes and the practicalities of building a website that could function on opening day. 
(Excerpt) Read more at whitehousedossier.com ...

Let's Screw!

Thanks Obamacare ad

Crap Pie!

2r2400x.jpg

Relax!

140125_600.jpg

HOLD IT!

ktbg.jpg

Hill and Bill

ObamaCare-Ad-Hot-to-Trot-0005aAa.jpg

STD from Obamacare!

Thanks-O-Care-2-590CI.jpg

Pace Car

f50g00.jpg

OH MY!

33zcql0.jpg

Successful

140112_600.jpg

DOH!

16jii6o.jpg

They told you so!

nltxsg.jpg

Looking stupid?

24nqr28.jpg

Impressive

140100_600.jpg

Nixon vs Obama

vqpp95.jpg

The Dump

140279_600.jpg

Senate Rules for Radicals

Wall Street Journal ^ | November 21, 2013 | Editorial 

Today's Democrats have grown up in the Saul Alinsky tradition, and on Thursday they proved it with a partisan vote to break the Senate filibuster rule for confirming judges and executive-branch nominees. The new rules will empower the party's liberals for as long as they control the White House and Senate, but they will also set a precedent for conservatives to exploit in the future.
The immediate result of Harry Reid's power play will be that President Obama has a freer hand to pursue his agenda through regulation and the courts.
Mr. Reid's new rules for Senate radicals are also a warning of what Democrats will do if they retake the House in 2014. They will surely break any GOP filibuster that could block key liberal legislation so President Obama can go out with a reprise of his first two years. Forget about a filibuster stopping union card-check, for example.
ObamaCare would never have passed if Mr. Franken hadn't stolen the Minnesota recount and prosecutors hadn't hidden exculpatory evidence to convict Alaska Republican Ted Stevens on false ethics charges. But liberals are showing that they'll only need 51 votes, not 60, to pass the next ObamaCare.
Conservatives have more of a stake than liberals do in the legislative filibuster as a check on the political passions of the moment. But the Democrats who rewrote Senate rules on Thursday should also understand that they have now opened the door to repeal ObamaCare with only 51 votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Man arrested, cuffed after using Legal 2.00 Dollar bills at Best Buy



Conservative Read ^ | Conservative Read 

A man trying to pay a fee using $2 bills was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail after clerks at a Best Buy store questioned the currency’s legitimacy and called police.

(Excerpt) Read more at conservativeread.com ...

Friday, November 22, 2013

The Insiders: New Obamacare marketing –‘Sign up and shut up or the IRS will be calling’

Washington Post ^ | 11/21/13 | Ed Rogers 

... The Democrats' sappy pleas that they understand they have to win back consumers by "fixing" what's wrong with Obamacare are bogus. Consumers don't have a choice. Americans won't be using the Obamacare exchanges because they find the Obamacare branding and marketing pitches informative and appealing, they will use the exchanges because if they don't, Obama’s IRS will fine them. The gentle appeals that we will be hearing as a result of all the “rebranding” and “remarketing” are just cynical, doe-eyed scams. The truth is, if you don’t sign up for Obamacare, the IRS is coming after you. Now that’s effective marketing. And the White House knows it......
... The White House plan to “rebrand” Obamacare is simple. The new plan is to make certain that the president, Administration officials, Democrats everywhere and apologists in the media never, ever, ever use the word “Obamacare” again. I personally refuse to conform to the new guidance. Obamacare is now a word with its own meaning, and the negative image it conjures up is here to stay. "Obamacare" is more synonymous with “Hindenburg” than it is with “Apollo.”
...
(Excerpt) Read more at m.washingtonpost.com ...

Stupid Stuff My President Says

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/11/22/stupid-stuff-my-president-says-n1751311?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl ^ | John Ransom 


What an awful coming down.
“The problem is that I’m president of the United States; I’m not emperor,” he explained to us.
From a Nobel Prize to a booby prize; From the smartest guy ever to hold the position of president of the United States to one of the most obtuse.
“A few of us saw a backbencher from the Illinois state legislature,” wrote long-time Obama watcher, John Kass of the Chicago Tribune, “a guy who took orders, then rode to the White House on a personality cult, finally exposed.”
We’ll not really “finally.”
But more like “disastrously” exposed.
“We underestimated the complexities of building a website,” the not-so-emperor told us.
Oh THAT explains it.
All it took was for a personal insurance Armageddon to hit 5-150 million Americans; a tax increase on every worker in the U.S. that was never going to happen while he was president; spying on a few citizens more or less, with an emphasis on more; and mid-term elections for the lamest of lame ducks.
“The private sector is doing fine,” he yawned.
Why it didn’t happen long ago will be, I suppose, the mystery of the age.
Because it took a lot of stupidity to bend to a particular moment in time to break up the Obama Coalition of the More-Than-Willing:
OK, on the website, I was not informed directly that the website would not be working the way it was supposed to. Had I been informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, ‘Boy, this is going to be great.’
I’m accused of a lot of things, but I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, ‘This is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity’ a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work. So clearly, we and I did not have enough awareness about the problems in the website.
Wait: Were you informed indirectly?
Because, he brings up a valid point: Just how stupid is Obama?
He seems to be willing to admit that he was at least stupid enough to hire someone stupid enough-- lots of someones actually—to let him go bragging on a website that wasn’t going to work.
When exactly were they going to say: “Er, Mr. President, uh….”?
“We live in the greatest nation in the history of the world,” he pleaded. “I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.”
Done!
And as I said yesterday, I think the question remains open just how stupid Obama really is.
We’ve known for a long time that he’s intellectually sloppy and dishonest.
That’s what happens when you lead a Coalition of the Easy-Button.
“If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.”
They act like every Gen-X voter only cares about dropping their pants and hiking their skirt ala a Marvin Gaye song.
They act like every senior only cares about Medicaid Part D.
They act like everyone is owed something except those people who work hard and play by the rules.
“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them,” he accused.
Gee, do you think?
The people who are getting bitter however aren’t us bitter-ender Tea Party types. We’re just mad because we told you so.
Again and again and again.
Senator Ted Cruz, who shutdown the government over Obamacare, knew something others were afraid to say. He isn’t a whacko bird. He is wise, even if he isn’t exactly like me.
No, the people getting bitter are the Coalition of the Democrats who passed the stupid law in the first place.
“They are letting it be known that House and Senate Democrats are increasingly frustrated, bitter and angry with the White House,” saysthe Hill, “over ObamaCare’s botched rollout, and that the president’s mea culpa in a news conference last week failed to soothe any ill will.”
“Those jobs weren’t as shovel-ready as I thought,” Obama laughed.
But this presidency most definitely is.
He either means to say what he does, or doesn't mean to.
Pick one.

Belated House GOP Approval for Replacing ObamaCare?

The American Thinker ^ | 11-22-13 | Jim Giurard 

After three long years of cautious resistance to comprehensive replacement of ObamaCare, the House Republican leadership seems ready to approve of legislative hearings and eventual House action on major proposals to that effect -- namely, to proactively support the Republican Study Committee's HR 3121 (with well over 100 co-sponsors) and Rep./Dr. Tom Price's overlapping HR 2300 (with over 40 co-sponsors).
These two proposals -- like Rep. Price's HR 3400 in 2011 and HR 3000 in 2012 -- can all be traced back to the March 2010 House debates and razor-thin 219-212 House passage of ObamaCare. It was then that GOP leaders (then in the minority) proposed a comprehensive "Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute" -- which would almost surely have passed and would have "partial-birth aborted" ObamaCare, but which was quickly "tabled" on Speaker Nancy Pelosi's party-line procedural vote instead.
Since then, the GOP leadership, believing that a) free-standing repeal without replacement or b) repeal via defunding or c) the Supreme Court might solve the problem, and fearing also that deeply divided Republicans would fall into self-destructive warfare over what total replacement should involve, opted to avoid such intra-party conflict.
But now that hoped-for rescue by the Supreme Court, by bare-bones repeal, and by bare-bones defunding have all failed, the House GOP is finally -- some say very belatedly -- returning to the "regular order" legislative process of crafting what will be called "De Facto Repeal via Comprehensive Replacement."
An Early Appeal in the American Thinker
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Senate Conservatives Fund blames McConnell after Dems go nuclear!

dailycaller.com ^ | 11/22/13 | Alexis Levinson 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had an eye on November 2014 on Thursday.
Senate Democrats pushed through the nuclear option that morning, curtailing the use of the filibuster and drastically curbing the power of the minority. McConnell pointed to the next Congress as a time when he hoped that he, as the new Senate majority leader, could make a Democratic minority shoulder the consequences of that action.
But on Friday, a conservative group blamed McConnell and what they said was his “weakness” as a minority leader for allowing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to go nuclear.
Senate Conservatives Fund, an outside group who is backing McConnell’s primary opponent in Kentucky, political newcomer Matt Bevin, blasted McConnell Friday saying the rule change was his fault.
“Harry Reid did this because he knows Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will let him get away with it,” SCF Executive Director Matt Hoskins wrote in an email to the group’s supporters.
“The only way to deter a nuclear attack is to make it clear that the response will be equally devastating. Unfortunately, weakness is the only message Mitch McConnell has sent the Democrats on this issue,” Hoskins wrote.
McConnell’s campaign dismissed that argument as sheer idiocy.
“That argument is so profoundly stupid that it is hard to fully ascertain whether their deficiency is in math or logic,” said McConnell campaign communications director Allison Moore. “It does however help further illuminate why SCF is so bad at what they do.”
Twice already this year, in the face of Democratic threats to invoke the nuclear option after Republicans blocked nominees, the two parties have struck deals to avert the rule change, something Senate Conservatives Fund — which has repeatedly hit McConnell for his role in deals with Democrats, like the fiscal cliff deal on New Year’s Eve —
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

The wrong side won in Vietnam


A South Vietnamese woman mourns over the body of her husband, found with 47 others in a mass grave near Hue. Corbis
At the height of the Vietnam War, Ralph White tried to join the U.S. Marine Corps but was turned down because of an eye injury he had sustained playing tennis. As the fighting drew to a tumultuous close in April 1975, however, 27-year-old White was in Saigon, acting true to the leatherneck motto “Semper fidelis” – only by civilian means.
By cajoling, twisting arms and cleverly bypassing red tape, White found an ingenious way to rescue 112 Vietnamese employees of Chase National Bank and their family members: he simply adopted all of them in the presence of U.S. justices of the peace on emergency duty at Saigon’s Tan Son Nhat Airport. In the face of an impending defeat of the United States’ South Vietnamese ally, this American civilian who had wanted to be a Marine achieved a small but remarkable victory.
Four days later, on April 30, Soviet-made T-54 tanks completed the communist conquest of South Vietnam by bursting through the gate of the presidential palace in Saigon. Inside, newly appointed South Vietnamese President Duong Van “Big” Minh offered to transfer power. North Vietnamese Col. Bui Tin replied, “There is no question of your transferring power ... You cannot give up what you don’t have.”
To me, a German, these words sounded identical to the terms the Allies imposed on my country in 1945 when I was still a child: unconditional surrender. The irony was that while at the end of World War II a manifestly evil government was forced to surrender this way, the opposite was true 30 years later in Saigon: a totalitarian regime with deeply inhumane features bullied a much more humane – though faulty – opponent into capitulating unconditionally, and the world cheered.
Having covered Vietnam for West Germany’s largest publishing house over a period of five years, I concluded that the wrong side had won. There was no reason to rejoice. Yet when President Gerald Ford proclaimed at Tulane University in New Orleans that the Vietnam War “is finished as far as America is concerned,” one week before South Vietnam was finally crushed, he received a standing ovation.
The reaction should have been more muted given the grim fate to which vast numbers of South Vietnamese had been delivered. For them, the real Calvary only started with the communist victory. Between 200,000 and 400,000 drowned while fleeing their country on fishing boats and makeshift vessels, according to the U.N. High Commission for Refugees. Some 65,000 were executed. One million ended up in concentration camps, where 165,000 were tortured or starved to death. Among those killed were 30,000 whose names had been on lists of CIA informants left behind at the embassy, National Review reported.
Proportionately speaking, Ralph White outperformed the U.S. government: he got all his people out, just as he intended to when he volunteered to be sent from Bangkok to Saigon as acting general manager of Chase’s Vietnam branch two weeks before Saigon fell. In his report to his boss at Chase, he later wrote that “maintaining an American liaison between bank and embassy to ensure maximum coordination with evacuation planning” was the “sole purpose” of his assignment.
“Reading my report makes me pretty proud of that 27-year-old man,” says White, who is now a writer in Litchfield, Conn.
Almost four decades after the collapse of South Vietnam, I came across another moving story about an American civilian acting as bravely and faithfully to her values as any good soldier. Patricia Palermo was a blonde Pan Am stewardess from Nebraska who volunteered to serve as a purser on shuttle flights from Guam to Saigon, flying “fresh-faced, rosy-cheeked and high-spirited young men” to the war zone, as she recalled in a recent interview. “When I saw them again 12 months later, they looked like 50-year-old men. Many were wounded and crippled, some drugged out. They were not allowed to board until after the other ‘returnees’ had been loaded in the cargo bay – those in zinc coffins.”
Palermo, who now lives in New York, said in a telephone interview that she was so emotionally shaken by these flights that she blocked them out of her mind until 1980, when she watched on television a live report of the first parade honoring Vietnam veterans. “I immediately rushed out of my house and joined in,” she recalled.
The most dramatic part of her flying career came during the last days of the war, when Pan Am took at least 2,000 babies, mostly Asian-Americans due for adoption in the United States out of Saigon. “We weren’t allowed to leave the aircraft because of enemy fire, but we could see how some desperate mothers threw their children over the fence at Tan Son Nhat to be brought to safety by our crews. I remember someone handing me two babies hidden in a basket. Once I counted more than 400 babies on our Boeing 747. They were everywhere, even in the luggage racks above the seats, and they were so still, always so still ....”
I watched the fall of Saigon on television in my apartment in Paris with mounting grief and anger. I marveled at the beautiful execution of Operation Frequent Wind, which evacuated the last 1,373 Americans, plus 5,595 Vietnamese and other nationals, in helicopters primarily from a landing pad on top of the U.S. military attache’s office at the U.S. Embassy April 29-30. I had been there seven years earlier during the Tet Offensive and watched from across the street as the communists’ attack on the embassy was defeated. Now they were about to triumph; hence my grief.
My anger, though, was directed primarily at the students and intellectuals cheering the communist victory as an act of liberation. They were doing this everywhere: across the River Seine on the Left Bank; in my own country, West Germany; and in the United States. Watching a sea of red-and-blue Viet Cong flags on TV made me feel nauseated, because to me these colors stood for the heinous massacres I had witnessed in Vietnam.
One night in the Central Highlands, for example, I happened upon the mutilated corpses of a village chief, his wife and their 12 children, all tortured by communist henchmen. As the villagers told me, the family was killed because the chief had stayed loyal to the Saigon government. That was in 1965. In 1967, an election year, the Viet Cong committed at least 100,000 such acts of terror against civilians to prevent them from going to the polls.
When French newscasters announced the end of South Vietnam, I instinctively reached for a book that had lain on my bedside table in the Continental Palace hotel in Saigon and accompanied me to Paris: “The Two Vietnams.” I had met its author, French political scientist Bernard B. Fall, many times in Saigon and Washington before he was killed by a Viet Cong mine. He was, to me, one of the world’s most astute experts on Indochina. One passage in his book has haunted me ever since. Fall quotes North Vietnam’s chief strategist, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, who died Oct. 4 at the age of 102, as telling the political commissars of one of his divisions: “The enemy (meaning the West) ... does not possess ... the psychological and political means to fight a long-drawn-out war.”
Giap never doubted America’s military capabilities but believed he had found democracy’s Achilles’ heel, as Fall explained: “In all likelihood, Giap concludes, public opinion in the democracy will demand an end to the ‘useless bloodshed,’ or its legislature will insist on knowing for how long it will have to vote astronomical credits without a clear-cut victory in sight. This is what eternally compels the military leaders of democratic armies to promise a quick end to the war – to ‘bring the boys home by Christmas’ – or forces the democratic politicians to agree to almost any kind of humiliating compromise rather than to accept the idea of a semi-permanent anti-guerrilla operation.”
Was this dire analysis borne out by Washington’s failure to respond, as promised, “with decisive military force” to any North Vietnamese violation of the 1973 Paris accords, I wondered? The accords had allowed Hanoi to keep 80,000 regular troops in the South, but nothing happened when that number increased to 200,000. As the Vietnam drama unfolded so calamitously, I also wondered how we in the media, including the overwhelming majority of us not overtly or tacitly siding with the Viet Cong, failed to make our readers recognize the most incontrovertible evidence that most South Vietnamese never favored the communists: from the start we correspondents had watched them flee the Viet Cong.
They fled neither across the Ben Hai River into North Vietnam nor into the so-called liberated zones – “liberated” by the communists. Until the very end, the refugees gravitated to the shrinking parts of the country controlled by Saigon;
2 million poured into Da Nang. The roads to Saigon were so clogged with fleeing families that they slowed down the North Vietnamese advance, and when it was over, “boat people” not only sailed away from the south in huge numbers but from northern ports as well. Never before in Vietnamese history has there been such a mass exodus from that country – not in Chinese, French or American days. And this was supposed to be liberation? Somehow, I suspected then, and am convinced now, that logic was one of the casualties of the Vietnam War. And so was intellectual honesty.
One image flashing across my TV screen in Paris stayed with me for decades because it punctuated these reflections. It showed South Vietnamese Vice President Nguyen Cao Ky at the controls of an UH-1A (Huey) helicopter landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Midway. I had known Ky well and liked him. True, he was a flashy Vietnam Air Force general, a peacock like many a military man throughout history. But he was not the crooked clown he was so often made out to be.
Six years earlier, in May 1969, Ky and I had traveled together to Saigon from Paris, where I had been covering the Vietnam peace talks and he headed Saigon’s delegation. Our conversation was unusually awkward, probably because both of us knew that things were not going well in Paris for his side; it was evident that a flawed perception in the United States and elsewhere of the 1968 Tet Offensive had broken America’s will to bring this conflict to a victorious conclusion.
“But we won Tet!” Ky fumed. “Why do Americans think otherwise?”
“I know, General, I was in Hue when you won,” I answered. “But the public in the United States and in Europe received a different message.”
In Hue I had stood at the rim of a mass grave containing the bodies of at least 1,000 men, women and children murdered by the communists. A U.S. television team wandered about the scene aimlessly. “Why don’t you film this?” my colleague Peter Braestrup of The Washington Post asked them. Their cameraman replied, “We are not here to spread anti-communist propaganda.”
I told Ky this, and he did not comment. He knew that I knew that the military victory of the Americans and South Vietnamese at Tet was turned into a political defeat when Walter Cronkite declared the war unwinnable on CBS in a statement after a brief post-Tet visit. This flew in the face of what many of us combat correspondents had witnessed and reported from Hue. “If I‘ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America,” President Lyndon B. Johnson is reported to have said. I shared his sense of loss and have never forgiven the iconic Cronkite for his act of journalistic malpractice.
Ky kept staring at the door leading to the cockpit of the Air France airliner.
“Why do you keep looking there?” I asked him.
“All I want is to be a pilot again,” he said quietly.
His escape to Midway at the controls of a Huey marked the end of his flying career.
A few years ago, I taught an advanced journalism class at Concordia University Irvine in California. We focused on the large and successful Vietnamese refugee community in Orange County. Student Kellie Kotraba, now a successful journalist in Missouri, came across a study by a group of eight renowned researchers headed by Harvard psychiatrist Richard F. Mollica, titled “Brain Structural Abnormalities and Mental Health Sequelae in South Vietnamese Ex-Political Detainees Who Survived Traumatic Head Injury and Torture.”
The study, published by the American Medical Association, showed that thousands of former political detainees now living in the United States still suffer severely from the aftereffects of torture inflicted on them during their captivity decades ago. “There must be over 100,000 of them,” Mollica told Kotraba, who then asked the Vietnamese Embassy in Washington for a comment. She received a denial in the form of an email from the embassy’s press attache, Tung Pham, which read, “Information saying that inmates of reeducation camp (sic) was (sic) tortured is totally untrue.”
This was to be expected. More surprising was the fact that the Mollica study received little attention in the U.S. media when it came out in 2009, and when I offered Kotraba’s fascinating stories to several publications their editors weren’t interested.
Why did U.S. editors ignore information about suffering at such a massive scale in their midst as a consequence of the Vietnam War, I wondered? There exists a strong analogy between what happened in some of the 300 communist gulags in Vietnam and the concentration camps in Nazi-occupied Europe. I just finished reading a French translation of the account by Father Andrew Nguyen Huu Le, a Catholic priest now living in New Zealand, of his 13 years in communist captivity, 2,020 days of which he spent in leg irons – causing festering wounds where maggots bred.
In “Je dois vivre” (“I must live”), Le describes in gruesome detail how his friend Dang Van Tiep, a former South Vietnamese Army major and member of Parliament, was killed to the merriment of a crowd of communist functionaries and their wives screaming with delight. He was made to drink large amounts of water. Then prison trusty Bui Thi Dinh, the most sadistic official in the Thanh Cam penal camp, jumped on Tiep’s abdomen until it burst and his intestines spilled out. Tiep died.
Dinh had been a captain in the South Vietnamese Army. The captives at Thanh Cam referred to him as “Kapo,” a term used for trusties in Nazi concentration camps. Like some former Nazi Kapos, he made it to the United States. He was discovered in Garden Grove, Calif., arrested and ordered deported. At last report, he lived in the Marshall Islands.
In his book, Le describes his frequent flashbacks, which include severe abdominal pains. Flashbacks are a condition many U.S. veterans know all too well. When I worked as a chaplain intern among these men at the VA medical center in St. Cloud, Minn., I met a baker from St. Paul who had a recurring nightmare. Every day he dreamed of an incident near Da Nang. He was riding shotgun at the back of a military truck and saw a little boy pull the pin of a hand grenade, ready to lob it onto the truck where it would probably have killed an entire platoon.
The soldier killed the child. But then, night after night, he saw the distorted face of the dying boy. “He was about 8 years old,” said the veteran, “and now I have twins and in my dreams his face takes on their features.” This was one of the saddest stories I heard during my internship that was part of the theological education I began mid-career, probably in response to my experiences as a reporter in Vietnam.
But there was something worse I found among those former Vietnam warriors: almost every member of the three pastoral care groups I led together with a psychologist had been called a baby killer within the first 24 hours of his return from the war. One was even asked not to return to his church until his hair had grown again, and would he please turn up in civilian clothes.
Most men in my groups believed in God but thought he had deserted them in Vietnam. So they had “flipped God off,” as they called it. I wrote a theology for Vietnam veterans titled “The Acquittal of God,” reminding them of the insight by the martyred German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who said that man is called to “suffer with God in a godless world,” which in their case implied that God is suffering with them and was always with them in their suffering – both in Vietnam and after their return. Therefore, God was not a deserter but their fellow sufferer. Many of the patients found this thought compelling.
To this day, I hear Vietnam veterans ask, “Was our sacrifice in vain?” As an old war correspondent, I am unable to respond to this question intelligently. But as a theologian I do have an answer. In his famous treatise “Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved,” Martin Luther compared the vocation of a warrior with that of a surgeon who might have to amputate a patient’s limb in order to save the rest of his body. Often patients die in the days or months after surgery. But does this mean that the operation was futile?
As a war correspondent, I saw the vast majority of GIs and South Vietnamese soldiers faithfully act out their vocation in the service of others. The wrong side won; this is true. As a theologian,
I must add: humans are not the lords of history, and history is always open to the future. It might take many more decades until we see the soldiers’ sacrifice in Vietnam bear fruit and the communist regime vanish, just as other tyrannies have disappeared in the past. Perhaps then the world will discover that the blood Americans and their allies shed in Vietnam has been the seed of a victory much more profound than the one they were denied April 30, 1975. 
Uwe Siemon-Netto’s latest book is “Duc: A Reporter’s Love for the Wounded People of Vietnam.”

Does this bother anybody else besides me?

First Lady Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the no-bid contract to build the failed Obamacare website.
Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of '85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov<http://healthcare.gov/>. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.

Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.
Toni Townes '85 is a onetime policy analyst with the General Accounting Office and previously served in the Peace Corps in Gabon, West Africa. Her decision to return to work, as an African-American woman, after six years of raising kids was applauded by a Princeton alumni publication in 1998
George Schindler, the president for U.S. and Canada of the Canadian-based CGI Group, CGI Federal's parent company, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract.

On the government end, construction of the disastrous Healthcare.gov<http://healthcare.gov/> website was overseen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of longtime failed website-builder Kathleen Sebelius' Department of Health and Human Services.
CGI Federal did not immediately return a request for comment.


_______________________________________________
Soooooo...........
Lets see if we can connect the dots here ...
1.) No American companies considered
2.) A Canadian company hired
3.) No Bid contract for 93 million dollars ...
4.) Top executive at Website building firm went to school with Michelle Obama.
5.) Previous experience building gun registry for canadian government
6.) Fired by Canadian Government for overruns that cost Canada 100 millions dollars.
4.) Overruns for Obamacare enrollment website now costing U.S. $678,000,000.00 = $678 Million dollars

Does this bother anybody else besides me? 

Thursday, November 21, 2013

The largest, fastest failure in the history of welfare programs!

The Freeman ^ | November 20, 2013 | Jeffrey A. Tucker 

A president stands disgraced. Congress is scattering. Bureaucrats are baffled. Pundits are reaching. Industry is scared. Politicians are scrambling to do something, anything, to make it better. One political party is in meltdown and the other loving every minute of it, hoping to ride the calamity to electoral gains.
The so-called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”—the showpiece of democratic welfareism in the 21st century—has made history as the largest, fastest failure in the history of State-provided welfare programs.
It turns out that you can’t just pass a law that causes everyone to get all the healthcare he or she desires at extremely low cost. Nor can government create a market-like environment out of a non-market good or service and expect it to achieve efficiency, productivity, and customer satisfaction.
Maybe this seems rather obvious to you. If so, you know more about economic reality than the many thousands of certified experts who worked for many years, in and out of government, to create the perfect storm that Obamacare has become.
Like many people, I had a passing interest in the debate over Obamacare for several years, fully expecting bad things to happen but unable to predict the extent of the damage. There have always been two mitigating factors to consider: First, the existing system was badly in need of reform before Obamacare, and it was simply not the case that a beautiful market-based system was being threatened by a socialist takeover. Second, Obamacare in no way represented some unprecedented threat. Both parties had been making a mess of the whole system for decades, at both the federal and state levels.
After all, we’ve had 100 years of intervention in the medical market, beginning with the regulation of medical schools that had already cartelized the system. The whole panoply of interventions needs to be uprooted to allow a viable system to emerge, but absolutely no one in Washington dares to speak this way.
In addition, all the non-negotiable talk about “health insurance” is fundamentally flawed. Insurance pertains to risks of events that are not brought about through human volition, which is to say they are unexpected. That’s why real insurance is able to make money. If you bring about the insured-against “risk” through your own choice—you set your house on fire—that’s insurance fraud. There are unexpected events in the area of health, but most fall under the category of catastrophic.
In a real market, we would probably see medical care work much like veterinary care today—mercifully free of too much government involvement—in which you pay per service. Prices are clearly posted. Consumers pay the full cost of non-catastrophes. And there is healthy competition among providers who are trying to treat you best at the lowest price. Indeed, the restoration of the price system is the central requirement of any sane reform.
In a free market for healthcare, one can easily imagine subscription services emerging—think of Spotify, Netflix, or Amazon Prime for health services—but they would unlikely have anything to do with employment. The whole link between your job and your healthcare—and the third-party payment system through huge and cartelized institutions—came about because of wartime price controls. It’s completely arbitrary and massively distorting.
A purely market-based medical system in the 21st century might offer some wonderful surprises. The prices would continually fall, and perhaps be free for routine care, just as so many services on the Internet are free. Even now, even with all the absurdities and bloat and interventions, private-sector insurers operating in the non-profit space are able to offer a form of mutual aid for a quarter of the price of the big players in the insurance market (see, for example, Samaritan Ministries).
Given all of this, Obamacare was just another step in the wrong direction—albeit a big one—not unlike that which had occurred once every five years for the last 50 or so. It was hard to tell just how bad the effects would be. Everything we know about government and economics suggested that this plan would not end well. But not even the biggest skeptic could have fully prepared for the calamity that ensued in the weeks after the program was finally put in place.
What does failure mean? The most obvious was the exploding healthcare.gov website that in the first day of operation only managed to enroll six people in the program. Looking through the notes from the war room, one observes all the troubles that every highly ambitious and poorly constructed website has: tangled databases, bad connections, leaky memory explosion, mixed-up authentication rules, and about a thousand other things.
Will it be fixed? Possibly. But at what price? To prepare the site, the feds have already spent some $600 billion and deployed a dud. More than twice that sum will be spent on repair, but with what results? If the site follows the usual government pattern, it will only work as long as it is frozen in time. It can’t adapt to change and will become antiquated in only a few years, and will thereby require other massive infusions to keep up.
A government-run website is the digital-age equivalent of the failure of government to run factories and farms in the 1920s and 1930s. Under socialism, it was true that with enough force and money, even Soviets could produce trucks, grain, and bombs. But every economic decision involving physical resources and time requires trade-offs: If you do this, you are not doing that. The real question is, at what cost? Lenin made some progress in electrification even while major parts of the newly socialized Russia were experiencing famine.
Likewise, healthcare.gov has become a costly symbol of a wider system failure.
The website can and probably will be fixed—but will the program itself achieve its aims? The ACA promised to retain existing health-insurance coverage and then expand it. Upon implementation, the ACA immediately and dramatically reduced coverage by forcing many individually provided healthcare plans to be dropped. Otherwise, most are experiencing sticker shock.
In many cases, mandated coverage of new ailments made continued service economically unfeasible. In other cases, existing plans were suddenly outside the law. For example, the government said that plans must cover outpatient care, emergency room visits, lab tests, hospitalization, maternity, preventative services, pediatric services, prescription drugs, and much more. If the plan didn’t, it was essentially declared illegal and had to be cancelled.
In other words, the companies who dropped millions from the rolls were merely complying with the law. They were obeying government diktat. That few people expected this outcome reveals the true nature of government planning. Two lessons emerge from the mess: Planners cannot account for all contingencies and/or they must lie to get what they want.
Then came the doubling—in some cases tripling—of premiums of many individual plans because of the requirement that insurers take no account of pre-existing conditions, which is a bit like requiring that auto insurers cover drunk drivers who are training for NASCAR.
It is very easy after the fact to look at any government failure and point to all the reasons why the failures should have been anticipated and thereby prevented. But remember that this is knowledge gained after the fact. Before the trial, there are a million possible contingencies, and it is not possible for anyone to prepare for them all. That’s why markets specialize in embedding trial and error as a feature of the system. A market system learns over time, copying success and avoiding failure. Governments are terrible at this. They build, release, and forget about it—with very little ongoing adaptation.
After the disaster took place, some politicians immediately responded by saying: Make it illegal to stop dropping coverage. This response piles error on error. It amounts to a form of nationalization of already cartelized companies—another step away from the market and toward fully socialized healthcare. Of course, those who’ve always called for a single-payer system won’t mind—even as it will turn U.S. healthcare into a Brezhnevian breadline.
Politicians from the other side proposed that the law be changed to say that whatever plans existed before the calamity should just be made legal again. That sounds fine but for one thing: this proposition only increases the uncertainty of what legislation permits or disallows. Insurers are there to make money, and they do this through long-term customer relationships. Endless legislative jockeying does not inspire the confidence needed to make business work.
The system was broken before and now it is broken beyond repair. Daily we read reports of doctors, consumers, and institutions just bailing out completely. Businesses that take people abroad for high-quality, low-cost healthcare are suddenly booming. It seems that everyone is looking for a way out of the official system. This is the only promising development to emerge from the great healthcare disaster of 2013. If a new and independent sector emerges despite every attempt by government to stop it, the irony is that there will be a good basis for optimism about the future.
Government can’t and won’t fix healthcare. Only the private sector can do that. The full solution, then, will require complete secession from every plan put out by every politician, every political party, and every national commission of experts purporting to know better than the people who make up the market order.

Your answer

Psychic_Obama_Sign_Up_ad.jpg

My own media!

x2a3xy.gif

Paying Attention?

swd0tw.jpg

Bubba says:

27y62r.jpg

But you said I could keep it!

Wheel-Deals-590-LA1.jpg

Omlettes

jj2o06.jpg

Dumb as SHIT!

23vmg7r.jpg

'xplainin

2nbzwk4.jpg

Starving an Obama supporter

ip48cj.jpg

Transformation

2ngh3ep.jpg

If Doctors Boycott Obamacare, Squeeze Their Pay!

Truth Revolt ^ | 11/21/2013 | Bradford Thomas 


The reality of the insatiable liberal desire for control and need to punish those who refuse to play the statist game is on full display in a recent Slate class-envy piece, “Doctors Fire Up the Obamacare Waaambulance,” by Matthew Yglesias.
Fully acknowledging the reality that doctors will be paid (far) less under Obamacare and, thus, will reject the system in droves, Yglesias tries to assuage his liberal readers’ fears by presenting the perfect punishment for the miserly, self-serving M.D. class: Use the Obamacare leviathan and regulations to “reduce doctors’ payment rates elsewhere in the system.” Here’s the key passage:
Medical doctors are highly paid professionals. They earn more money—a lot more money—than your average American. What's more, American doctors get paid more than doctors in any other country. Given how much of health care is financed either directly (Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Affairs, public-sector workers) or indirectly (tax subsidy for employer-provided insurance) by the federal government, it's natural to make restraining doctors' income part of any program for making health care more affordable. So when you read stories about doctors whining that Affordable Care Act exchange plans don't pay them enough, please throw up a little in your mouth and proceed to ignore the doctors' complaints. The only practical reason to worry about low compensation for doctors in the ACA exchanges is it may cause them to boycott exchange patients. If that happens, the solution is to reduce doctors' payment rates elsewhere in the system. If we ever reach the point where American doctors have been squeezed so badly that they start fleeing north of the border to get higher pay in Canada, then we've squeezed too hard. Until that happens, forget about it.
One positive about the destructive rollout of Obamacare: It's giving America a hard look at the rank underbelly of the radical left.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Our Next President?




'Where is the G*damn f**king flag! I want the G*damn f**king flag up every morning at f**king sunrise.' 
-From the book Inside the White House by Ronald Kessler, p.244- Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991

'F**k off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.' 
-from the book America Evita by Christopher Anderson, p.90-Hillary to her State Trooper body guards after one of them greeted her with 'Good Morning' 

'If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!'
-from the book The First Partner p.259- Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.

'Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, OK!!?' 
-from the book Unlimited Access by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p.139- Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail.

 'Where's the miserable c**k sucker!' 
-from the book The Truth About Hillary by Edward Klein, p.5- Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. 

'You f**king idiot" 
-from the book Crossfire p.84- Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event. 

'Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back! 
-from the book "Dereliction of Duty" p.71-72-- Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.

'Come on Bill, put your d**k up! You can't f**k her here!' 
-from the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p.243-Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female.



This vile, abusive kook now leads most 2016 presidential polls. Hillary wants to be your next president and wield total control as commander and chief of our military- one she's shown nothing but contempt for the whole of her adult life. 

And if you thought Obama was arrogant, here's the one who might just be able to compete with Dear Leader's detached disdain for us plebes- while bringing us 16 continuous, uninterrupted years of 'progress', great.

How Mike Lee Is Changing The Republican Party

Townhall ^ | 11/20/2013 | Conn Carroll 


Former-President Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson has a fine op-ed in today's Washington Post, heaping praise on Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). Gerson writes:
For those who expect and fear an irrepressible conflict between the tea party and the Republican establishment, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah is a hopeful anomaly. Should this anomaly become a trend, the GOP’s future would be considerably brighter.
Few have done more to burn ideological bridges within the GOP. Yet no one from the tea party side is now doing more to construct them....
Lee has been proselytizing for a “comprehensive anti-poverty, upward-mobility agenda” — making him one of the few Republican politicians talking in any sustained way about stalled economic mobility, stagnant middle-class wages and economic inequality. To this, Lee has added a dollop of populist “anti- cronyism,” proposing to simplify the tax code and rein in the big banks. Setting aside the policy details, Lee makes strikingly sane observations about the Republican future....
The subtext here is not a challenge to establishment Republicanism, which would offer no ideological objection to the role of government that Lee described. The real contrast is with libertarianism, particularly of the Rand Paul variety. And Lee has come close to making his criticism explicit. “Freedom means ‘we’re all in this together,’?” he said. “The conservative vision for America is not an Ayn Rand novel. It’s a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a nation of ‘plain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the other fellow, too.’?”
This is a good, general prescription for Republican recovery: More Frank Capra. Less Ayn Rand.
Gerson hits a few good notes here, but his ultimate conclusion is wrong.
Lee, as Gerson says, is trying to build policy bridges between the populist Tea Party and the Republican establishment. And Lee's communitarian rhetoric is, in many ways, the polar opposite of what establishment Republicans like Mitt Romney have run on. In particular, Lee's tax plan is a direct repudiation of Romney's individualist 47 percent line.
But Gerson goes, on to claim, "Lee's specific agenda ... is well within the broad tradition of ... compassionate conservatism."
This is just plain false. Bush's compassionate conservatism oversaw the largest expansion of the entitlement state since President Johnson and before President Obama. Bush greatly expanded the scope and power of the Department of Education and he signed the pork-filled 2005 transportation bill.
Lee's policies take the federal government in the opposite direction. Lee's transportation bill cuts the gas tax and returns most transportation spending to the states. His education bill empowers state governments to foster higher education competition by bypassing federally empowered accrediting organizations.
And most importantly, Lee's populist policies are the exact opposite of the corporatist deal Bush struck with drug companies when he expanded Medicare Part D.
There simply is no major difference between Lee's limited government vision, and the one espoused by most libertarians, including Rand Paul. Lee's vision, however, is antithetical to how K Street Establishment Republicans have governed Washington in the very recent past.
But by getting establishment Republicans like Gerson to move in his direction, Lee is slowly changing the soul of the party.

The Jarrett File - What we know about Obama’s secretive adviser!

National Review ^ | November 20, 2013 | Andrew Stiles 

"..................Jarrett’s official job description is “somewhat vague,” Becker writes, noting that at least part of her role is to serve as “chief liaison to the business community, state and local governments, and the professional left,” but her influence is undeniable. She commands a staff of nearly three dozen and has a hand in decisions ranging from the invitation list to state dinners and what gifts to give foreign leaders, to who should be nominated to the Supreme Court, appointed to a vacant ambassadorship, or awarded the President Medal of Freedom. When Warren Buffett visits to the White House for lunch, the table is set for three.
White House memos are littered with references to what “VJ thinks” or “VJ says.” When Standard & Poor’s downgraded the country’s credit rating in August 2011, she was among a select few invited to Camp David to discuss how to manage the fallout. She is “effectively the chief of staff,”...
Tellingly, despite presiding over one of the greatest political disasters in recent memory, Sebelius remains at her post, whereas Jarrett’s enemies rarely stick around for long. The White House reportedly went to great lengths last month to out a senior official—Jofi Joseph of the National Security Council—who had been operating an anonymous Twitter account, @natsecwonk, which was highly critical of the administration. Among Joseph’s offending tweets: “I’m a fan of Obama, but his continuing reliance and dependence upon a vacuous cipher like Valerie Jarrett concerns me.” Joseph was fired immediately after his identity was discovered in a sting operation coordinated by the White House and State Department.
Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas revealed a September 2010 clash between Jarrett and former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. When Jarrett informed him that Michelle Obama was not pleased with his work, Gibbs went ballistic, telling Jarrett...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Me Lie?

28m1jpc.jpg

What is it?

obdoctor.jpg

Global Warming?

140046_600.jpg

Sub-Standard

14aiqdj.png

Charge the driver!

6sgvih.png

I am now covered!

1452248_440713876058277_1468728370_n.jpg

It's Your Job!

2gsq4i8.jpg

Lie-Abilities

995222_10152348852283942_1056450565_n.jp

The Crook

1426735_10152339390108942_772468529_n.pn

Who would have bought it?

Hitch_T20131107.jpg

Crazy Debbie

2i03y1c.jpg

Skyrocketing crime rate in California called 'good progress' after jails emptied

American Thinker ^   | 06/16/2018 | Ed Straker  Here's a thought experiment: what happens if you release criminals, a lot of them, f...