Center for Vision and Values ^ | February 3, 2014 | Paul
G. Kengor
Pete Seeger’s death at age 94 is a cultural catharsis for the American left.
The New York Times accorded his passing the kind of space normally reserved for
the death of a president. Such was Seeger’s special place of reverence among
liberals.
The media is hailing Seeger as a “social-justice” crusading “progressive,” a
voice for the poor, the downtrodden, the working man, and the environment. He’s
also being portrayed as a victim of wild-eyed McCarthyites who maniacally
searched for a red under every bed.
Well, the full story is a little different.
Pete Seeger had in fact been a Marxist, a committed one who stumped for
international communism at the height of the Stalin era. Interviewed in 2008 for
the PBS series, “American Masters,” Seeger conceded those sympathies. He first
joined the Young Communist League at Harvard (mid-1930s) and later (early 1940s)
joined Communist Party USA (CPUSA).
That latter fact is a halting one. Many American communists, especially
Jewish communists, bolted from CPUSA when their beloved Joseph Stalin allied
with Hitler, specifically via the August 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact. Not Seeger. He
was undeterred, joining the party after the pact. (For the record, likewise
undeterred was Barack Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, who also joined
CPUSA after the pact.)
Seeger was a loyal comrade. If you were a communist agitator/organizer
staging a big display or furthering the revolution, Pete Seeger’s presence was
as reliable as a red flag. He was guaranteed to provide musical entertainment
for the cause.
Here are a few examples:
At the massive anti-Vietnam rally held in New York City in April 1967,
organized by the radical New Mobe, Seeger was there, strumming for the faithful.
In the 1950s, New York communist parents sent their red-diaper babies to the
Little Red School House, founded in the 1920s by “progressives.” There, the
likes of Angela Davis, Victor Navasky, the sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg,
and future Weather Underground terrorist Kathy Boudin (still in jail for murder)
sat at the knee of leftist celebrities like Seeger, who played and taught music
there.
Seeger also provided rousing performances at the summer “commie camps” in the
Catskills where the New York faithful sent their children to study the gospel
according to Marx. These surreal spectacles were a sort of twisted red version
of Vacation Bible School.
But Seeger’s most disturbing work as a Marxist minstrel was his crooning for
“The Almanacs,” which historian Ron Radosh—himself a former red-diaper
baby—calls a “communist folk-singing group.” At varying times, “The Almanacs”
included Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Burl Ives, and Will Geer, later known as
“Grandpa” on TV’s “The Waltons.” Seeger founded the group in 1941.
The most egregious work by “The Almanacs” was its propaganda for the
insidious American Peace Mobilization, which Congress identified as “one of the
most seditious organizations which ever operated in the United States” and “one
of the most notorious and blatantly communist fronts ever organized.” Founded in
1940, the objective of the American Peace Mobilization was to keep America out
of the war against Hitler. This also meant no Lend-Lease money to Britain.
Why did the American Peace Mobilization take such a position? It did so
because Hitler signed an alliance with Stalin. For American communists, any
friend of Stalin was a friend of theirs. They literally swore an oath, formally
pledging to a “Soviet America” and to “the triumph of Soviet power in the United
States.” They were unflinchingly devout Soviet patriots.
In my book Dupes, I publish the declassified Soviet Comintern document
detailing how the American Peace Mobilization “was organised on the initiative
of our Party in Chicago in September, 1940.” (Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall
Davis, was there.)
As for mobilizing the “peace,” eager Pete Seeger was there to salute the
flag.
The kick-off rally to attract naïve recruits (i.e., liberal dupes) to the
American Peace Mobilization was a huge April 1941 promotional in New York. The
featured musical talent was Stalinist Paul Robeson and “The Almanacs.” Almost
every “folk ballad” was a swipe at America and FDR—who communists were attacking
at that point—for supporting an “unjust war” by aiding Britain as it was
besieged by the Nazis’ ferocious onslaught.
Such was the position of American communists, like Pete Seeger.
Of course, liberals should be enraged at Seeger for efforts like this.
Unfortunately, they don’t understand their own history. For them, the bad guys
are never on the left. As ex-communist James Burnham used to say, for the left,
the preferred enemy is always to the right.
Speaking of which, in the left’s perverse moral universe, I’ll be viewed as
the bad guy for pointing out these sordid facts about Pete Seeger. I’ll be
pitied for my crass McCarthyism, whereas Seeger will be forever lionized by
liberals as a peace-loving lamb, a happy-hearted hippie unfairly persecuted for
his mere pursuit of “social justice.” - See more at:
http://www.visionandvalues.org/2014/02/pete-seeger-marxist-minstrel/#sthash.5lgAMa3u.dpuf
Monday, February 3, 2014
Boehner’s Immigration Blunder
POLITISITE.com ^ | 3 February 2014 | Colonel Steven B.
Vitali USMC (Ret)
Against the rising gale sweeping towards a Republican surge in the upcoming 2014 Congressional elections, House Speaker Boehner boldly disregards the wide sentiment of the American people against the promulgation of an amnesty bill this year. Speaker Boehner proudly put forth a set of immigration principles, a fig leaf presentation to pave the road to amnesty for illegal immigrants. In Republican country, the reception of Boehner’s amnesty embrace and his “go-it-alone” strategy during a pivotal election season rankles deep within the Republican Party and specifically questions his ability to continue as the Speaker of the House. His unconscionable decision is especially detrimentally significant since recent national polls indicated only 3% of the American population would support Congressional immigration legislation this year. Americans are under siege by a stagnant economy; a rapidly rising national debt; abusive regulations; over taxation; a carnivorous government; and most of all, a palpable fear of Obamacare that impacts on the health and wealth of all American families. These are the great issues defined today that hinders American prosperity and liberty. Americans are also rightfully concerned over the security of the American borders and anguish at an administration and Department of Justice whose inept immigration enforcement policies appear to green light an “Open Borders” strategy to benefit future Democrats running in national elections. Boehner’s folly to move on a path of citizenship without border security is inexcusable. Without real border security, Boehner’s proposition ensures a repeat flood of illegal immigrants surging across our porous borders. A path to citizenship will only be viable when and if our national borders become verifiably secure. As long as Obama remains in office, our borders will never be secured. Historically, America is home to the underpinning of liberty, individualism, patriotism, exceptionalism, and entrepreneurism that drew to America the fancies and aspirations of legal immigrants from the far corners of the globe. Legal immigrants patiently waited in line and learned our standards to become American citizens. Their dream of becoming an American was built on their hope and desire to assimilate into the fabric of the American society. Today, America increasingly is faced with a different immigration dilemma; illegal immigration. Of note, it is reported that only 50% of Illegal immigrants express a desire to learn and cultivate American history, values, traditions, and language. A number of illegal immigrants who crossed our borders and broke American laws did so only for monetary gain and openly display their allegiance to their ancestral home. America is a composite of a multitude of immigrants from all nationalities and the seal that binds us is our desire to assimilate into the fabric of an American society. Some Illegal immigrants possess no desire or willingness to assimilate and therefore, their divided allegiances create a dangerous precedent that may lead to the further “balkanization” of America. Assimilation is the key to long term health and vitality of America and not multiculturalism which strikingly failed in Eastern Europe. Our politicians in an effort to appeal to a block of potential voters cause great harm to our American composite and a disservice to all legal immigrants who patiently follow the rules as they wait to become American citizens. Progressive Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration have recognized the voting trends of the rapidly growing Hispanic vote. The strength of the Democrat Party is empirically fortified and sustained by a windfall amnesty program that fills the Democrat voter rolls to millions of new voters. We are witness to Latino immigrants possessed of deep roots of family, hard workers, good character, and who possess the same aspirations of a brighter future as any other legal immigrant. Yes, our nation must recognize the infeasibility of rounding up millions of illegal immigrants for deportations. That being the case, the proposition of amnesty or green cards can only be resolved once a secured border is erected and enforced. The illegal immigrant fiscal benefit to America is in dispute. Illegal immigrants are significantly less educated and unskilled. Therefore, illegal immigrants are more likely to live at the poverty rate; and therefore, they utilize considerably more governmental welfare resources and taxpayer expenditures at the local, state, and federal levels than the taxes they produce to the government. Second, illegal immigration in a period of large economic instability that exists today seizes jobs from American citizens who are desperately searching for employment. America’s unemployment rate in December 2013 fell to 6.7% but the increase in jobs was only 74,000 workers and half of the created jobs were unskilled part-time employment. Under these circumstances, illegal aliens are competing with American citizens for the scarcity of jobs in the market. The real unemployment figure is 10.3%, if those who gave up looking for employment are counted. Conditions for American workers are so harsh that Obama asks Congress to procure unemployment funds for those unemployed past 90 weeks. American citizens should not take second seats behind an illegal alien for the limited number of jobs created as a result of Obama’s failed economic policies. Amnesty or a path to citizenship should be placed on hold until the borders are secured and the American recession/ depression have ended. American citizen’s rights and liberties should not be negated to further a partisan political agenda. That is un-American and unpatriotic. In strategic terms, the Boehner path to citizenship (amnesty plan) is quite disturbing, especially in a run-up to a critical election year. Boehner’s ill-advised maneuver shifts the spotlight and public opinion from the titanic failures of Obamacare. For whatever reason, Boehner’s decided to hand Obama and Harry Reid a special election gift that will dampen Republican resolve, funding, and the possibility of recapturing the US Senate. Efforts to recapture the US Senate and hold the House should be Speaker Boehner’s primary concentration. Putting forth his truncated immigration principles was a potentially disastrous amateurish ploy and further divides the Republican Party when they should be unified. Boehner’s path to citizenship plan provides for work permits, legal status, and probationary periods. His principles sound reasonable and Boehner’s mouthpieces proclaim they will ensure the government secures the border first. Truthfully, are Americans going to discard the realities of the last five years of Obama’s immigration enforcement policies and trust Obama or Boehner for that matter to enforce and secure our borders? Neither one has earned the American public trust or respect. Congressional Republicans should unite against Speaker Boehner’s “fig leaf” amnesty plan. Americans deserved a new House Speaker who will work for justice and the rights of the common man in Middle America instead of the “fat cats’ within the Chamber of Commerce.
Against the rising gale sweeping towards a Republican surge in the upcoming 2014 Congressional elections, House Speaker Boehner boldly disregards the wide sentiment of the American people against the promulgation of an amnesty bill this year. Speaker Boehner proudly put forth a set of immigration principles, a fig leaf presentation to pave the road to amnesty for illegal immigrants. In Republican country, the reception of Boehner’s amnesty embrace and his “go-it-alone” strategy during a pivotal election season rankles deep within the Republican Party and specifically questions his ability to continue as the Speaker of the House. His unconscionable decision is especially detrimentally significant since recent national polls indicated only 3% of the American population would support Congressional immigration legislation this year. Americans are under siege by a stagnant economy; a rapidly rising national debt; abusive regulations; over taxation; a carnivorous government; and most of all, a palpable fear of Obamacare that impacts on the health and wealth of all American families. These are the great issues defined today that hinders American prosperity and liberty. Americans are also rightfully concerned over the security of the American borders and anguish at an administration and Department of Justice whose inept immigration enforcement policies appear to green light an “Open Borders” strategy to benefit future Democrats running in national elections. Boehner’s folly to move on a path of citizenship without border security is inexcusable. Without real border security, Boehner’s proposition ensures a repeat flood of illegal immigrants surging across our porous borders. A path to citizenship will only be viable when and if our national borders become verifiably secure. As long as Obama remains in office, our borders will never be secured. Historically, America is home to the underpinning of liberty, individualism, patriotism, exceptionalism, and entrepreneurism that drew to America the fancies and aspirations of legal immigrants from the far corners of the globe. Legal immigrants patiently waited in line and learned our standards to become American citizens. Their dream of becoming an American was built on their hope and desire to assimilate into the fabric of the American society. Today, America increasingly is faced with a different immigration dilemma; illegal immigration. Of note, it is reported that only 50% of Illegal immigrants express a desire to learn and cultivate American history, values, traditions, and language. A number of illegal immigrants who crossed our borders and broke American laws did so only for monetary gain and openly display their allegiance to their ancestral home. America is a composite of a multitude of immigrants from all nationalities and the seal that binds us is our desire to assimilate into the fabric of an American society. Some Illegal immigrants possess no desire or willingness to assimilate and therefore, their divided allegiances create a dangerous precedent that may lead to the further “balkanization” of America. Assimilation is the key to long term health and vitality of America and not multiculturalism which strikingly failed in Eastern Europe. Our politicians in an effort to appeal to a block of potential voters cause great harm to our American composite and a disservice to all legal immigrants who patiently follow the rules as they wait to become American citizens. Progressive Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration have recognized the voting trends of the rapidly growing Hispanic vote. The strength of the Democrat Party is empirically fortified and sustained by a windfall amnesty program that fills the Democrat voter rolls to millions of new voters. We are witness to Latino immigrants possessed of deep roots of family, hard workers, good character, and who possess the same aspirations of a brighter future as any other legal immigrant. Yes, our nation must recognize the infeasibility of rounding up millions of illegal immigrants for deportations. That being the case, the proposition of amnesty or green cards can only be resolved once a secured border is erected and enforced. The illegal immigrant fiscal benefit to America is in dispute. Illegal immigrants are significantly less educated and unskilled. Therefore, illegal immigrants are more likely to live at the poverty rate; and therefore, they utilize considerably more governmental welfare resources and taxpayer expenditures at the local, state, and federal levels than the taxes they produce to the government. Second, illegal immigration in a period of large economic instability that exists today seizes jobs from American citizens who are desperately searching for employment. America’s unemployment rate in December 2013 fell to 6.7% but the increase in jobs was only 74,000 workers and half of the created jobs were unskilled part-time employment. Under these circumstances, illegal aliens are competing with American citizens for the scarcity of jobs in the market. The real unemployment figure is 10.3%, if those who gave up looking for employment are counted. Conditions for American workers are so harsh that Obama asks Congress to procure unemployment funds for those unemployed past 90 weeks. American citizens should not take second seats behind an illegal alien for the limited number of jobs created as a result of Obama’s failed economic policies. Amnesty or a path to citizenship should be placed on hold until the borders are secured and the American recession/ depression have ended. American citizen’s rights and liberties should not be negated to further a partisan political agenda. That is un-American and unpatriotic. In strategic terms, the Boehner path to citizenship (amnesty plan) is quite disturbing, especially in a run-up to a critical election year. Boehner’s ill-advised maneuver shifts the spotlight and public opinion from the titanic failures of Obamacare. For whatever reason, Boehner’s decided to hand Obama and Harry Reid a special election gift that will dampen Republican resolve, funding, and the possibility of recapturing the US Senate. Efforts to recapture the US Senate and hold the House should be Speaker Boehner’s primary concentration. Putting forth his truncated immigration principles was a potentially disastrous amateurish ploy and further divides the Republican Party when they should be unified. Boehner’s path to citizenship plan provides for work permits, legal status, and probationary periods. His principles sound reasonable and Boehner’s mouthpieces proclaim they will ensure the government secures the border first. Truthfully, are Americans going to discard the realities of the last five years of Obama’s immigration enforcement policies and trust Obama or Boehner for that matter to enforce and secure our borders? Neither one has earned the American public trust or respect. Congressional Republicans should unite against Speaker Boehner’s “fig leaf” amnesty plan. Americans deserved a new House Speaker who will work for justice and the rights of the common man in Middle America instead of the “fat cats’ within the Chamber of Commerce.
GOP War on Conservatives Backfires
breitbart.com ^ | 2/2/14 | Mike Flynn
On Friday, every political campaign had to file its 2013 year end report with the FEC. The reports delivered two big surprises. The Democrats are dominating the Republicans in fundraising. More surprising, perhaps, though, is that Tea Party and conservative SuperPACs raised around three times as much as GOP establishment SuperPACs. The DC GOP may have started the war against the Tea Party, but it won't finish it. Not long after their stunning losses in 2012, Karl Rove and other establishment Republicans announced a new effort to engage in primaries to ensure the "right" candidates got the party's nomination. Rove and the party leadership argued that the party lost because of "flawed", i.e. too conservative, candidates. There were indeed some flawed candidates in 2012, but far more establishment, "electable" candidates went down to uninspiring defeat. The GOP attack on the Tea Party came about for two reasons. The first was to deflect from the massive defeat suffered by Rove and other GOP consultants. Rarely in the history of mankind have so many resources been squandered so spectacularly. Perhaps the more important reason, though, is that the Tea Party movement is becoming a serious thorn in the side of Washington insiders. The movement has effectively ended earmarks. It threatens any corporatist giveaway. It calls out cronyism in both parties. It demands that Congress repeals ObamaCare, while business interests would rather "fix" the law to push the obligation for health benefits onto the government. More importantly, though, it wants rational immigration reform that doesn't simply flood the market with cheap labor as business would desire.
On Friday, every political campaign had to file its 2013 year end report with the FEC. The reports delivered two big surprises. The Democrats are dominating the Republicans in fundraising. More surprising, perhaps, though, is that Tea Party and conservative SuperPACs raised around three times as much as GOP establishment SuperPACs. The DC GOP may have started the war against the Tea Party, but it won't finish it. Not long after their stunning losses in 2012, Karl Rove and other establishment Republicans announced a new effort to engage in primaries to ensure the "right" candidates got the party's nomination. Rove and the party leadership argued that the party lost because of "flawed", i.e. too conservative, candidates. There were indeed some flawed candidates in 2012, but far more establishment, "electable" candidates went down to uninspiring defeat. The GOP attack on the Tea Party came about for two reasons. The first was to deflect from the massive defeat suffered by Rove and other GOP consultants. Rarely in the history of mankind have so many resources been squandered so spectacularly. Perhaps the more important reason, though, is that the Tea Party movement is becoming a serious thorn in the side of Washington insiders. The movement has effectively ended earmarks. It threatens any corporatist giveaway. It calls out cronyism in both parties. It demands that Congress repeals ObamaCare, while business interests would rather "fix" the law to push the obligation for health benefits onto the government. More importantly, though, it wants rational immigration reform that doesn't simply flood the market with cheap labor as business would desire.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Helicopter Pilot Chosen at Super Bowl
ATTENTION VETS:
What a nice, calm and honorable man represented
all men an women in uniform yesterday at the Super Bowl.
The only thing I wondered about was that he was
sober and did not use any foul language..."things are a
changin" in the ranks of helicopter pilots. (he was
an RLO (commissioned) though...that would be
different had a WO (warrant) been
chosen!)
Another Corvette Thief Foiled by Inability to Drive Stick!
Chevy Hardcore ^ | 1/31/14 | Jason Reiss
It used to be that learning how to drive a manual-transmission-equipped car was a rite of passage for all - either you had an uncle with an old car that taught you how to do it when you were 14, or you were lucky enough to have a parent that wasn’t afraid to row gears, and you went into the driving test feeling like a badass.
Not so for this idiot – one Annas Abdel-Khaliq of Marion County, Florida. According to the report, Abdel-Khaliq attempted to steal a 2012 Corvette from Ocala Ford Motors in the Sunshine State, but didn’t get very far – only about 100 feet from its previous position, before the hare-brained scheme hatched in his pea-sized mind began to unravel. Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Bloom ordered him to get out of the car, which he refused to do. So what was his next step? Why, to grab a steel bar and bash the deputy with it a few times in his haste to get away. Deputy Bloom got him out of the car, whereupon he started to run away. His mad dash was short-lived as Deputy Batts – who had just arrived – unleashed the pepper spray and the two deputies caught Abdel-Khaliq and subsequently placed him under arrest. We have a couple of questions. First, if you’re going to be dumb enough to try to steal a car with no tags off a well-lit dealer lot, wouldn’t you check first to see if you could drive it? Secondly, people still smoke Pall Malls? We thought those were reserved for the retired longshoreman that sits on the porch in his rocker at that house on the end of the block. As our good friend Forrest Gump says, “stupid is as stupid does”, and in this case, it’s 100% true. So now Mr. Abdel-Khaliq has a sweet charge of “aggravated burglary on a law enforcement officer” on his record to go with the Grand Theft Auto tag. That’s a great way to enter your twenties.
It used to be that learning how to drive a manual-transmission-equipped car was a rite of passage for all - either you had an uncle with an old car that taught you how to do it when you were 14, or you were lucky enough to have a parent that wasn’t afraid to row gears, and you went into the driving test feeling like a badass.
Not so for this idiot – one Annas Abdel-Khaliq of Marion County, Florida. According to the report, Abdel-Khaliq attempted to steal a 2012 Corvette from Ocala Ford Motors in the Sunshine State, but didn’t get very far – only about 100 feet from its previous position, before the hare-brained scheme hatched in his pea-sized mind began to unravel. Marion County Sheriff’s Deputy Bloom ordered him to get out of the car, which he refused to do. So what was his next step? Why, to grab a steel bar and bash the deputy with it a few times in his haste to get away. Deputy Bloom got him out of the car, whereupon he started to run away. His mad dash was short-lived as Deputy Batts – who had just arrived – unleashed the pepper spray and the two deputies caught Abdel-Khaliq and subsequently placed him under arrest. We have a couple of questions. First, if you’re going to be dumb enough to try to steal a car with no tags off a well-lit dealer lot, wouldn’t you check first to see if you could drive it? Secondly, people still smoke Pall Malls? We thought those were reserved for the retired longshoreman that sits on the porch in his rocker at that house on the end of the block. As our good friend Forrest Gump says, “stupid is as stupid does”, and in this case, it’s 100% true. So now Mr. Abdel-Khaliq has a sweet charge of “aggravated burglary on a law enforcement officer” on his record to go with the Grand Theft Auto tag. That’s a great way to enter your twenties.
22,000 Americans Filed Site Error Appeals On Healthcare.gov...Obama denies!
Political Realities ^ | 02/03/14 | LD Jackson
Last night's interview of President Obama by Bill O'Reilly stuck out to me
for one main reason. Obama refused to answer the questions and lied through his
teeth in the process. He refused to acknowledge there was a "smidgen" of
corruption present in the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. He
refused to acknowledge any failure in Benghazi. He refused to admit what was
really happening with the ObamaCare website. He went so far as to say it was
finally working the way it was supposed to work. That one lie is the easiest to
prove.
What are we supposed to conclude from this information? Either the President is the most uninformed President in modern history or he is lying to the American public. It's possible it is a little of both. At any rate, one would think he would pick a topic to lie about that is not so easy to disprove. This information is out in the public domain, easily available to anyone who cares to look. How much more will it take to prove to the American people how dishonest President Obama has been?
Last night's interview of President Obama by Bill O'Reilly stuck out to me
for one main reason. Obama refused to answer the questions and lied through his
teeth in the process. He refused to acknowledge there was a "smidgen" of
corruption present in the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. He
refused to acknowledge any failure in Benghazi. He refused to admit what was
really happening with the ObamaCare website. He went so far as to say it was
finally working the way it was supposed to work. That one lie is the easiest to
prove.
Fox News - Thousands of people who tried to sign up for a health plan via the federal healthcare exchange website, Healthcare.gov, have seen their appeals to fix site issues go unanswered. The Washington Post, citing internal government data, reports that approximately 22,000 Americans have filed appeals to try and get site errors corrected. The complaints range from being denied coverage altogether to being overcharged for coverage to being steered into the wrong program. So far, months after the site launched October 1, the appeals have been untouched. What's more, the Post reports, people who have tried to call the marketplace directly for assistance, have been told that the Healthcare.gov computer system is not yet allowing workers to correct enrollment records. In theory, error appeals can be filed through the site itself, by phone, or by mail. However, only the mail appeal is currently available. But according to the Post, the appeal by mail process only goes as far as scanning the seven-page forms and transferring them to a computer system, where they currently sit unread and uncorrected. A CMS spokesman told the Post "We are working to fully implement the appeals system." In the meantime, the paper reported, applicants are being told to go back to Healthcare.gov and start over, thought it is not clear how many of the 22,000 who complained of errors have done so.At the risk of sounding like a broken record, are we seriously supposed to just accept Obama's word that Healthcare.gov is working the way it is supposed to work? When so much evidence, easily obtainable, is available to show just how wrong that statement is? Are we supposed to believe President Obama didn't know about these 22,000 appeals to fix errors on Healthcare.gov? Is his staff not alerting him to the problems the website is having? Or does he know and is just refusing to admit, ie. lying about, the problems his signature legislation is having during the implementation process?
What are we supposed to conclude from this information? Either the President is the most uninformed President in modern history or he is lying to the American public. It's possible it is a little of both. At any rate, one would think he would pick a topic to lie about that is not so easy to disprove. This information is out in the public domain, easily available to anyone who cares to look. How much more will it take to prove to the American people how dishonest President Obama has been?
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Pelosi Disavows Responsibility for Obamacare Failures
Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 31 Jan 2014 | John Semmens
In an appearance on The Daily Show, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) insisted that “none of the problems of the Affordable Care Act are my fault. The bill we passed was over 2800 pages. I didn’t have time, no one had time to carefully read all of its provisions to see if there might be any glitches.”
“Beyond this there is always the problem of bureaucratic incompetence,” Pelosi continued. “Time after time we have passed legislation aimed at helping people—veterans benefits, medicare, medicaid, and now universal health insurance—only to see treatments bungled, services denied, and money wasted. It’s criminal.” The show’s host, Jon Stewart, seemed perplexed by the Minority Leader’s stance. “With a repetition of the same kinds of problems in program after program when does learning from experience set in?” he asked. “That’s a good question,” Pelosi acknowledged. “But you’re asking the wrong person. I’m no policy analyst. It’s the job of Congress to express the aspirations of the people by enacting laws that address their hopes and dreams. We trust the experts to make these laws work. If they can’t do that I guess there is no hope and the dream turns into a nightmare. The one thing we must not let happen is to give in to the naysayers who would exploit this failure to divert us from our course.”
In an appearance on The Daily Show, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) insisted that “none of the problems of the Affordable Care Act are my fault. The bill we passed was over 2800 pages. I didn’t have time, no one had time to carefully read all of its provisions to see if there might be any glitches.”
“Beyond this there is always the problem of bureaucratic incompetence,” Pelosi continued. “Time after time we have passed legislation aimed at helping people—veterans benefits, medicare, medicaid, and now universal health insurance—only to see treatments bungled, services denied, and money wasted. It’s criminal.” The show’s host, Jon Stewart, seemed perplexed by the Minority Leader’s stance. “With a repetition of the same kinds of problems in program after program when does learning from experience set in?” he asked. “That’s a good question,” Pelosi acknowledged. “But you’re asking the wrong person. I’m no policy analyst. It’s the job of Congress to express the aspirations of the people by enacting laws that address their hopes and dreams. We trust the experts to make these laws work. If they can’t do that I guess there is no hope and the dream turns into a nightmare. The one thing we must not let happen is to give in to the naysayers who would exploit this failure to divert us from our course.”
Let’s compare Michelle Obama’s birthday party with Laura Bush’s when George was in office!
Young Conservatives ^ | 1/24/14 | Joshua Riddle
The president and his queen are the epitome of corruption and greed. They
talk about “caring for the poor” while spending piles of other people’s money on
their celebrity parties.
Disgusting.
If anyone still clings to some charitable notion that there is
more to Michelle Obama than a celebrity wanna-be opportunist, let her
50thbirthday celebration be the proof that does away with any remaining
delusions.
The FLOTUS’ birthday bash invitees included such moneyed stars as Gladys
Knight, Jennifer Hudson, Mary J. Blige, Michael Jordan, Stevie Wonder, Samuel L.
Jackson, Ashley Judd, and, of course, power couple Beyoncé and Jay-Z (the latter
of whom sings a little ditty that says, among many other vile words it’d be indecent to print here: “Uh, she love different kinds of sex
now, Uh, black girl sippin’ white wine, Put my fist in her like a civil rights
sign”).
And this is just the stuff we know about.
The event was so top secret, the NSA had to find out about it by reading
Sasha and Malia’s text messages. No cell phones were permitted for the 500
people who attended, and those who disobeyed were told to check their devices at
the door.
Michelle’s guest list of famous “friends” was the tip of the iceberg. The
party “was reportedly everything you’d expect from a glamorous White
House party: Glitzy and stocked with powerful celebrities and government
officials.” They danced until 3 a.m., at least, and drank champagne, wine, beer,
and hard liquor. All of it. All at once.
When Laura Bush turned 60, she got a modest four paragraph mention inPeople magazine: Laura “celebrated her 60th birthday on
Saturday at the Bush family’s ranch in Crawford, Tex., where the President gave
her a triple-strand amber-colored necklace.
“The Bushes spent the weekend at the ranch, and on Saturday hosted
friends…for a dinner of enchiladas, tamales, guacamole, rice and beans and
birthday cake.”
Hey, I definitely do not have a problem with rich people enjoying their lives
and doing rich people things. (This is why I read/look at pictures on DailyMail.) Were I half as wealthy as any of these
celebs, I would be doing the same, except I would be partying with Rick Perry or
Prince Harry or anyone but the Obamas.
The problem, though, is the hypocrisy, obviously, (Michelle’s extra long vacation at Oprah’s place cost us an estimated $60-$100 million) and the lavish lifestyles the Commander and
his Indulger-in-Chief lead when the nation is suffering and nobody likes you anyway. This, coming from an administration
whose most recent political platform focuses on income inequality.
Some Americans are more equal than others, I guess.
The trouble with Obama’s myRA plan: Retirement plan helps those with no 401(k), but not much!
MarketWatch ^ | 02/02/2014 | Chuck Jaffe
Real life isn’t always a “Field of Dreams,” where “if you build it, they will come.” Instead, there are times when you build it, and they go “Ho-hum,” and mostly ignore you. So while any effort to encourage increased retirement savings among workers deserves to be applauded — arguing against increased savings is like disputing the value of parenthood and apple pie — it’s hard to see President Obama’s myRA program achieving most of its goals, because once you get past what he described during the State of the Union address, it appears to be a lot of wishful thinking. Let’s do the digging and see why that is. The awkwardly named myRA (rhymes with IRA, as in the individual retirement account it is designed to supplement) was unveiled by President Obama this week as a savings vehicle designed to serve people whose employers don’t provide access to a retirement plan. That’s about half of all workers, mostly the ones who work for small employers that can’t afford to offer a plan. The basic details released to this point make it clear that myRAs will be backed by a security that looks and feels like a savings bond, backed by the government and with the same variable-interest-rate return offered by the G Fund, the Government Securities Investment Fund in the federal employees’ Thrift Savings Plan. (It’s similar to another idea the Treasury has been working on for at least four years now: the R-bond, a retirement product that would let employees direct part of their paycheck toward an investment.) Savers would be guaranteed that the value of their account would never go down; they would pay no fees on the accounts.
Real life isn’t always a “Field of Dreams,” where “if you build it, they will come.” Instead, there are times when you build it, and they go “Ho-hum,” and mostly ignore you. So while any effort to encourage increased retirement savings among workers deserves to be applauded — arguing against increased savings is like disputing the value of parenthood and apple pie — it’s hard to see President Obama’s myRA program achieving most of its goals, because once you get past what he described during the State of the Union address, it appears to be a lot of wishful thinking. Let’s do the digging and see why that is. The awkwardly named myRA (rhymes with IRA, as in the individual retirement account it is designed to supplement) was unveiled by President Obama this week as a savings vehicle designed to serve people whose employers don’t provide access to a retirement plan. That’s about half of all workers, mostly the ones who work for small employers that can’t afford to offer a plan. The basic details released to this point make it clear that myRAs will be backed by a security that looks and feels like a savings bond, backed by the government and with the same variable-interest-rate return offered by the G Fund, the Government Securities Investment Fund in the federal employees’ Thrift Savings Plan. (It’s similar to another idea the Treasury has been working on for at least four years now: the R-bond, a retirement product that would let employees direct part of their paycheck toward an investment.) Savers would be guaranteed that the value of their account would never go down; they would pay no fees on the accounts.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Doctor’s ‘I will not comply’ Obamacare break-up letter getting incredible praise from her peers!
BizPac Review ^ | February 2, 2014 | Joe Saunders
A Texas ophthalmologist and co-founder of AmericanDoctors4Truth tore down the curtain on Obamacare last week, describing President Obama’s “signature” legislative achievement for the con game of forced labor that it really is. When she wrote to the Aetna insurance company canceling her participation in its offerings, Dr. Kristin Held of San Antonio was informed she is contractually bound to care for the company’s patients for another year — as though Obamacare not only re-configured the American health care system, it repealed the 13th Amendment at the same time. In her letter dated Jan. 30, the long-time and vocal opponent of Obamacare wrote that the “law of the land” Obamacare is made up of “politically-expedient mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations with which I cannot rationally or morally treat my patients and run a practice, much less interpret, implement or comply.” In the letter, Held describes a strange form of care in which a doctor’s services are sold without the doctor’s knowledge or consent. “So here we are,” Held wrote, “you are getting new business offering health insurance plans featuring my services without my consent under terms which are unacceptable to me …
A Texas ophthalmologist and co-founder of AmericanDoctors4Truth tore down the curtain on Obamacare last week, describing President Obama’s “signature” legislative achievement for the con game of forced labor that it really is. When she wrote to the Aetna insurance company canceling her participation in its offerings, Dr. Kristin Held of San Antonio was informed she is contractually bound to care for the company’s patients for another year — as though Obamacare not only re-configured the American health care system, it repealed the 13th Amendment at the same time. In her letter dated Jan. 30, the long-time and vocal opponent of Obamacare wrote that the “law of the land” Obamacare is made up of “politically-expedient mandates, rewards, penalties, rules and regulations with which I cannot rationally or morally treat my patients and run a practice, much less interpret, implement or comply.” In the letter, Held describes a strange form of care in which a doctor’s services are sold without the doctor’s knowledge or consent. “So here we are,” Held wrote, “you are getting new business offering health insurance plans featuring my services without my consent under terms which are unacceptable to me …
(Excerpt) Read more at bizpacreview.com ...
Obama Stumbles Over Latest Promise: “If You Like Your Retirement…”
Townhall.com ^ | February 2, 2014 | Michael Schaus
Our imperially inclined President is already acting on the promise he made
during his State of the Union to take unilateral “action” outside of the normal
legislative process. And at the top of his non-legislative agenda is the
reformation of American retirement. Utilizing his oratory prowess and an
executive memorandum, the President is promising to give Americans a new way of
saving for retirement… Or something like that. Maybe “oratory prowess”
was a bit of an overstatement. It turns out that his teleprompter was never
taught about avoiding double negatives – let alone triple and quadruple
negatives:
Obama:
'I'm Not Going to Wait for Congress' "Now, I'm hoping that Congress goes
along with this, but I'm not going to wait for Congress. I could do more with
Congress, but I'm not going to not do anything without Congress, not when it's
about the basic security and dignity of American workers."
Well… Good. Now we’re all confused. It’s nice that we have a leader who can
unite us. (What happened to his fantastic oratory skills? Was the teleprompter
set on “stutter”?) He’s “not going to not do anything without Congress.” The point was
still clear, despite the obfuscatory wording. Our all-powerful
Campaigner-in-Chief will not wait for the legislative wheels of Constitutional
government to be set in motion.
So what is he signing into non-law? Obama has directed his Treasury
Secretary, Jack Lew, to create a new savings bond called the “MyRA”. (Cute name.
It rings of Orwellian double-speak given that the MyRA will be a
government program.) With mildly more competent sentence structure than
before, the President outlined his cure for America’s retirement woes:
“And we're calling it "MyRA." Not IRA -- MyRA.”
Thank you, Mr. President. I get it. You replaced the “I” in “IRA” with the
word “My” to make me feel like I have ownership over the money I invest in this
governmental financial instrument. Very clever.
“And what it is, it's a new type of savings bond that we can set up
without legislation that encourages Americans to begin to build a nest egg.”
Wait! We’re creating a new savings bond!! And to think I was planning on not
saving anything until I started collecting Social Security. Quick! Where do I
sign up! (My kingdom for a sarcasm font.)
“Workers can contribute through automatic deductions…”
Am I supposed to be excited that the Treasury Department will allow me to
“invest” with the same technological tools that allow me to subscribe to
Netflix?
“MyRAs are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States
Government.”
Oh, that makes me feel good. Anyone know if S&P is planning on
downgrading the US again?
“[You] can keep the same account even if [you] change jobs.”
Oh good! So if you like your retirement, you can keep it.
“And it's affordable. You can open an account with as little as
$25. You can contribute as little as $5 at a time.”
Because nothing helps build a comfortable retirement more than occasional $5
contributions to a government savings bond.
The Administration’s push to portray some gimmicky treasury bond as the
solution to America’s retirement woes, only highlights the White House’s
comically incompetent leadership on fiscal issues. The real problem, aside from
Mr. Obama’s dependence on an apparently glitchy teleprompter, is far deeper than
an insufficient choice of treasury bonds. Artificially low interest rates,
declining household wealth, income stagnation, and an abysmal jobs market are
far more painful to the retirement prospects of American workers than anything
Treasury can singlehandedly address. The President’s adoption of
extra-legislative gimmicks only serve to illustrate the leaderless incompetence
of this White House.
It is becoming more apparent that the remainder of Obama’s tenure will be a
hopeless mess of legislative gridlock, and executive politicking. The MyRA is
nothing more than the first of many attempts to convince the American people
that Obama will dictatorially go around Congress for “the greater good” of the
nation. Or, as the President put it, he’s “not going to not do anything without
Congress”.
Our imperially inclined President is already acting on the promise he made
during his State of the Union to take unilateral “action” outside of the normal
legislative process. And at the top of his non-legislative agenda is the
reformation of American retirement. Utilizing his oratory prowess and an
executive memorandum, the President is promising to give Americans a new way of
saving for retirement… Or something like that. Maybe “oratory prowess”
was a bit of an overstatement. It turns out that his teleprompter was never
taught about avoiding double negatives – let alone triple and quadruple
negatives:
Obama:
'I'm Not Going to Wait for Congress' "Now, I'm hoping that Congress goes
along with this, but I'm not going to wait for Congress. I could do more with
Congress, but I'm not going to not do anything without Congress, not when it's
about the basic security and dignity of American workers."
Well… Good. Now we’re all confused. It’s nice that we have a leader who can
unite us. (What happened to his fantastic oratory skills? Was the teleprompter
set on “stutter”?) He’s “not going to not do anything without Congress.” The point was
still clear, despite the obfuscatory wording. Our all-powerful
Campaigner-in-Chief will not wait for the legislative wheels of Constitutional
government to be set in motion.
So what is he signing into non-law? Obama has directed his Treasury
Secretary, Jack Lew, to create a new savings bond called the “MyRA”. (Cute name.
It rings of Orwellian double-speak given that the MyRA will be a
government program.) With mildly more competent sentence structure than
before, the President outlined his cure for America’s retirement woes:
“And we're calling it "MyRA." Not IRA -- MyRA.”
Thank you, Mr. President. I get it. You replaced the “I” in “IRA” with the
word “My” to make me feel like I have ownership over the money I invest in this
governmental financial instrument. Very clever.
“And what it is, it's a new type of savings bond that we can set up
without legislation that encourages Americans to begin to build a nest egg.”
Wait! We’re creating a new savings bond!! And to think I was planning on not
saving anything until I started collecting Social Security. Quick! Where do I
sign up! (My kingdom for a sarcasm font.)
“Workers can contribute through automatic deductions…”
Am I supposed to be excited that the Treasury Department will allow me to
“invest” with the same technological tools that allow me to subscribe to
Netflix?
“MyRAs are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States
Government.”
Oh, that makes me feel good. Anyone know if S&P is planning on
downgrading the US again?
“[You] can keep the same account even if [you] change jobs.”
Oh good! So if you like your retirement, you can keep it.
“And it's affordable. You can open an account with as little as
$25. You can contribute as little as $5 at a time.”
Because nothing helps build a comfortable retirement more than occasional $5
contributions to a government savings bond.
The Administration’s push to portray some gimmicky treasury bond as the
solution to America’s retirement woes, only highlights the White House’s
comically incompetent leadership on fiscal issues. The real problem, aside from
Mr. Obama’s dependence on an apparently glitchy teleprompter, is far deeper than
an insufficient choice of treasury bonds. Artificially low interest rates,
declining household wealth, income stagnation, and an abysmal jobs market are
far more painful to the retirement prospects of American workers than anything
Treasury can singlehandedly address. The President’s adoption of
extra-legislative gimmicks only serve to illustrate the leaderless incompetence
of this White House.
It is becoming more apparent that the remainder of Obama’s tenure will be a
hopeless mess of legislative gridlock, and executive politicking. The MyRA is
nothing more than the first of many attempts to convince the American people
that Obama will dictatorially go around Congress for “the greater good” of the
nation. Or, as the President put it, he’s “not going to not do anything without
Congress”.
Will Obama’s pursuit of executive power backfire?
Hotair ^ | 02/02/2014 | Ed Morrissey
In his State of the Union message on Tuesday, Barack Obama promised “a year of action,” inadvertently echoing Richard Nixon in both rhetoric and perhaps tone. Obama threatened that if Congress didn’t come along on his agenda, he’d take unilateral action to impose it instead. This has the potential to backfire on Obama, Stephanie Simon argues at Politico, by firing up the Republican base even more in a midterm election year:
Republican outrage has focused on executive orders, but that’s a little too narrow and a bit misplaced. The White House has been careful to keep EOs within the boundaries of executive power, if perhaps testing it at the edges. The EO on the minimum wage for federal contracts, for instance, lives within those boundaries even if (a) it won’t actually impact more than a handful of people anyway and (b) is bad policy nonetheless. The real issue with the abuse of executive authority comes in sins of commission and omission that have nothing to do with EOs. For instance, the most egregious abuse is the war Obama launched against the Qaddafi regime in Libya without ever bothering to ask Congress for authorization. But there are plenty of other examples closer to home, especially in the arbitrary adherence to statute in the President’s own favorite law, ObamaCare, and many other examples of regulatory adventurism, as noted by Simon. That, plus the defiance of Congressional oversight by lawless recess appointments and the abuse of executive privilege, have made this into a truly imperial presidency, and has set precedents that Democrats will almost certainly rue, and sooner rather than later. This abuse erodes the basic fabric of a nation based on the rule of law, as Elizabeth Price Foley argued in the New York Times this week (via Instapundit):
The reason this will backfire is that imperial presidencies only impress the loyal base of the President’s party, who mistake autocracy for wisdom. They tend to worry and frighten everyone else, especially when the result is the unmistakable incompetence of this administration on both domestic and foreign policy. Expect the backlash on all of these points this year.
In his State of the Union message on Tuesday, Barack Obama promised “a year of action,” inadvertently echoing Richard Nixon in both rhetoric and perhaps tone. Obama threatened that if Congress didn’t come along on his agenda, he’d take unilateral action to impose it instead. This has the potential to backfire on Obama, Stephanie Simon argues at Politico, by firing up the Republican base even more in a midterm election year:
Obama’s use of executive power could come back to haunt him. Republicans in Congress, infuriated at being bypassed, are using every shred of authority they can muster to try to halt or delay the president’s agenda. At the very least, they figure, they can whip up public outrage, drive down Obama’s approval rating and perhaps persuade him to retreat. The executive agenda outlined in the Politico Pro report — which described an administration eager to shape everything from the content of third-grade math tests to the recipe for Reese’s Pieces to the fuel sources that power our homes — spooks voters, and not just Republicans, said Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah). “This is something that people react to viscerally,” Stewart said. … Republicans have also filed lawsuits and legislative amendments trying to rein in executive power. One resolution calling for the House to take stronger legal action is sponsored by Rep. Tom Rice (R-S.C.). He calls it the S.T.O.P. act – for Stop This Overreaching Presidency. Big business and big industry have stepped in, too. They’ve sued to overturn regulations. They’ve also sought to delay the rule-making process by demanding more time to evaluate draft regulations — and then flooding agencies with comments.
Republican outrage has focused on executive orders, but that’s a little too narrow and a bit misplaced. The White House has been careful to keep EOs within the boundaries of executive power, if perhaps testing it at the edges. The EO on the minimum wage for federal contracts, for instance, lives within those boundaries even if (a) it won’t actually impact more than a handful of people anyway and (b) is bad policy nonetheless. The real issue with the abuse of executive authority comes in sins of commission and omission that have nothing to do with EOs. For instance, the most egregious abuse is the war Obama launched against the Qaddafi regime in Libya without ever bothering to ask Congress for authorization. But there are plenty of other examples closer to home, especially in the arbitrary adherence to statute in the President’s own favorite law, ObamaCare, and many other examples of regulatory adventurism, as noted by Simon. That, plus the defiance of Congressional oversight by lawless recess appointments and the abuse of executive privilege, have made this into a truly imperial presidency, and has set precedents that Democrats will almost certainly rue, and sooner rather than later. This abuse erodes the basic fabric of a nation based on the rule of law, as Elizabeth Price Foley argued in the New York Times this week (via Instapundit):
The only strength gained by unilateral presidential lawmaking is raw speed: policies can be implemented more swiftly by unilateral presidential action than by congressional deliberation and debate. But the dangers are many, and should counsel any American — of whatever political persuasion — that such dispatch comes at a high constitutional cost. When the president fails to execute a law as written, he not only erodes the separation of powers, he breeds disrespect for the rule of law and increases political polarization. The president’s own party — for example, the current Democrat-controlled Senate — will face intense pressure to elevate short-term, partisan victory over defending constitutional principles. If partisan preferences prevail, Congress will be unable, as an institution, to check presidential ambition and defend its lawmaking prerogative. Once such precedent is established, damage to the constitutional architecture is permanent. The next president of a different party will face similar pressures and undo all the previous actions. He will initiate a new round of unilateral lawmaking, satisfying his own political base. The law will fluctuate back and forth, and our legislature will become little more than a rubber stamp for a single elected individual, which is not how representative government is supposed to work.
The reason this will backfire is that imperial presidencies only impress the loyal base of the President’s party, who mistake autocracy for wisdom. They tend to worry and frighten everyone else, especially when the result is the unmistakable incompetence of this administration on both domestic and foreign policy. Expect the backlash on all of these points this year.
Liberalism’s Biggest Lie: If You Like Your Morality, You Can Keep Your Morality
The
Public Discourse ^ | January 31, 2014 | Carson Holloway
The unchecked progress of sexual liberalism means that we cannot say what kind of moral culture our children will inhabit as adults or, accordingly, what kind of moral culture will form our grandchildren. No responsible person can support such a movement.
In recent months there has been a good deal of discussion of the president’s apparent mendacity in his selling of the Affordable Care Act. “If you like your health care you can keep it,” the president repeatedly assured his fellow citizens while the law was pending before Congress. The roll-out of the law in late 2013, however, revealed that this promise was no good, and it is difficult to believe that the president was not aware of this even as he was making it. Because the use of dishonesty to win support for legislation is hardly compatible with the American promise of self-government, this issue has deserved all the attention it has gotten, and indeed it deserves even more. Nevertheless, the sitting president’s efforts to achieve progress (as he understands it) by recourse to falsehoods should also lead us to probe more deeply and see the bigger, even more consequential falsehoods upon which liberalism has relied for the last two or three generations. With every step of the “progress” it has sought in recent decades, with every effort it has made to “free” us from some aspect of morality, liberalism has made an Obama-like assurance that has turned out to be wrong. Five years ago, the president falsely told Americans, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” For the last fifty years, liberalism as a movement of moral liberation has repeatedly assured Americans, “If you like your morality, you can keep your morality.” In both cases, the game is to promise
The unchecked progress of sexual liberalism means that we cannot say what kind of moral culture our children will inhabit as adults or, accordingly, what kind of moral culture will form our grandchildren. No responsible person can support such a movement.
In recent months there has been a good deal of discussion of the president’s apparent mendacity in his selling of the Affordable Care Act. “If you like your health care you can keep it,” the president repeatedly assured his fellow citizens while the law was pending before Congress. The roll-out of the law in late 2013, however, revealed that this promise was no good, and it is difficult to believe that the president was not aware of this even as he was making it. Because the use of dishonesty to win support for legislation is hardly compatible with the American promise of self-government, this issue has deserved all the attention it has gotten, and indeed it deserves even more. Nevertheless, the sitting president’s efforts to achieve progress (as he understands it) by recourse to falsehoods should also lead us to probe more deeply and see the bigger, even more consequential falsehoods upon which liberalism has relied for the last two or three generations. With every step of the “progress” it has sought in recent decades, with every effort it has made to “free” us from some aspect of morality, liberalism has made an Obama-like assurance that has turned out to be wrong. Five years ago, the president falsely told Americans, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” For the last fifty years, liberalism as a movement of moral liberation has repeatedly assured Americans, “If you like your morality, you can keep your morality.” In both cases, the game is to promise
(Excerpt) Read more at thepublicdiscourse.com ...
Saturday, February 1, 2014
God Bless Delta Baggage Handlers
Thank Heavens for the
Delta Baggage Handlers. Apparently, the present administration,White House,
State Department and Department of Defense can't be bothered with such trivial
non headline events. I had no idea Delta does this. God Bless
them!
Giving The Country Away
Flopping Aces ^ | 01-31-14 | Warren Beatty
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, last Friday (January 24, 2014) said
that the approximately eleven and one half million illegal immigrants in the US
have "earned the right to be citizens." He actually said that!
Johnson also said:
Johnson, in an effort to relate his remarks toimmigration reform and homeland security, continued:
What is truly amazing is that RINOs, like Senator John McCain (R-AZ), think, despite historical evidence, that if they support comprehensive immigration reform that Hispanics, mostly Mexicans, will support them. But history indicates otherwise:
Ronald Reagan, in 1986, supported amnesty for illegal aliens, yet the vote differential grew when George H.W. Bush ran for president! So, with the above fact and the two most recent vote differentials in mind, guess who will get credit with immigration reform. That's right, Democrats! The MSM will see to it. As John Hawkins writes (Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, last Friday (January 24, 2014) said
that the approximately eleven and one half million illegal immigrants in the US
have "earned the right to be citizens." He actually said that!
Johnson also said:
It is also, frankly, in my judgment, a matter of who we are as Americans, to offer the opportunity to those who want to be citizens, who've earned the right to be citizens, who are present in this country - many of whom came here as children - to have the opportunity that we all have to try to become American citizens.
Johnson, in an effort to relate his remarks toimmigration reform and homeland security, continued:
Comprehensive immigration reform would also promote a more effective and efficient system for enforcing our immigration laws, and should include an earned path to citizenship for the approximately 11-and-a-half-million undocumented immigrants present in this country, something like 86% of whom have been here almost 10 years.
An earned path to citizenship for those currently present in this country is a matter of, in my view, homeland security to encourage people to come out from the shadows, to be accountable, to participate in the American experience, the American society.
What is truly amazing is that RINOs, like Senator John McCain (R-AZ), think, despite historical evidence, that if they support comprehensive immigration reform that Hispanics, mostly Mexicans, will support them. But history indicates otherwise:
|
Year
|
Percent Hispanic Vote Margin To Democrats
|
|
1980
|
21%
|
|
1984
|
24%
|
|
1988
|
39%
|
|
1992
|
36%
|
|
1996
|
51%
|
|
2000
|
27%
|
|
2004
|
18%
|
|
2008
|
36%
|
|
2012
|
44%
|
Ronald Reagan, in 1986, supported amnesty for illegal aliens, yet the vote differential grew when George H.W. Bush ran for president! So, with the above fact and the two most recent vote differentials in mind, guess who will get credit with immigration reform. That's right, Democrats! The MSM will see to it. As John Hawkins writes (Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Keystone Pipeline to Be Built Because There’s No Reason Not To!
New York Magazine ^ | Jonathan Chait
The State Department today released its long-awaited environmental impact analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline. The analysis is key because President Obama announced last summer he would not approve the pipeline unless it was found to have no significant impact on climate change. And that’s what the analysis finds. It argues, as many other analysts have concluded, that if we block the pipeline, Canada will just ship the oil out by rail. So, what public policy reason is there to block the pipeline? There really isn’t one. Indeed, the environmentalists' obsession with Keystone began as a gigantic mistake. Two and a half years ago, the environmentalist James Hansen wrote a blog post alerting his readers to the pipeline, which he concluded would amount to “game over” for the climate, as it would lead to the burning of enough new oil to moot any effort to limit runaway greenhouse gases. His analysis was based on a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation that turned out to be wrong in several respects, the most important being the assumption that blocking the pipeline would keep the oil in the Canadian oil sands in the ground.
The anti-Keystone movement was an accident. I recently argued that it was a huge mistake. Numerous allies of the environmental movement replied that it did make sense, after all. (See Joe Romm, Matthew Yglesias, Charles Pierce, and Ryan Cooper. All of them insisted that Keystone is indeed a good issue for environmentalists to organize around because it’s easy for people to understand. As Yglesias put it, “You sometimes need to focus on slightly eccentric issues that happen to have good organizing attributes.”) Cooper mockingly asks readers to envision a protest where organizers shout, “What do we want?” “More stringent carbon dioxide emission regulations on extant coal-fired power plants!” “When do we want it?’ “After the extraordinarily complicated rule-writing process over which the president has no direct control!” It certainly may be easier to get people excited about opposing a pipeline. It may also be hard to get people excited about favoring new regulations. But if your goal is to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, you need to have a strategy designed to advance policies that limit greenhouse-gas emissions. Stopping Keystone doesn’t do that. EPA regulations would. Would blocking the Keystone pipeline make it easier for Obama to issue tough regulations on existing power plants, and to negotiate an international climate treaty in 2015 after such regulations bring us into compliance with our reduction targets? I don't see how. I think it would feed criticism by opponents that Obama is captive to environmentalists, even to the point of following their quixotic and marginal obsessions. Approving Keystone might give him more credibility to defend tough regulations. It's not guaranteed, of course. But the intuitive idea is for a movement to organize around the issues that matter, not the issues that are easiest to explain. Building a movement by misleading people is a strange choice
The State Department today released its long-awaited environmental impact analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline. The analysis is key because President Obama announced last summer he would not approve the pipeline unless it was found to have no significant impact on climate change. And that’s what the analysis finds. It argues, as many other analysts have concluded, that if we block the pipeline, Canada will just ship the oil out by rail. So, what public policy reason is there to block the pipeline? There really isn’t one. Indeed, the environmentalists' obsession with Keystone began as a gigantic mistake. Two and a half years ago, the environmentalist James Hansen wrote a blog post alerting his readers to the pipeline, which he concluded would amount to “game over” for the climate, as it would lead to the burning of enough new oil to moot any effort to limit runaway greenhouse gases. His analysis was based on a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation that turned out to be wrong in several respects, the most important being the assumption that blocking the pipeline would keep the oil in the Canadian oil sands in the ground.
The anti-Keystone movement was an accident. I recently argued that it was a huge mistake. Numerous allies of the environmental movement replied that it did make sense, after all. (See Joe Romm, Matthew Yglesias, Charles Pierce, and Ryan Cooper. All of them insisted that Keystone is indeed a good issue for environmentalists to organize around because it’s easy for people to understand. As Yglesias put it, “You sometimes need to focus on slightly eccentric issues that happen to have good organizing attributes.”) Cooper mockingly asks readers to envision a protest where organizers shout, “What do we want?” “More stringent carbon dioxide emission regulations on extant coal-fired power plants!” “When do we want it?’ “After the extraordinarily complicated rule-writing process over which the president has no direct control!” It certainly may be easier to get people excited about opposing a pipeline. It may also be hard to get people excited about favoring new regulations. But if your goal is to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, you need to have a strategy designed to advance policies that limit greenhouse-gas emissions. Stopping Keystone doesn’t do that. EPA regulations would. Would blocking the Keystone pipeline make it easier for Obama to issue tough regulations on existing power plants, and to negotiate an international climate treaty in 2015 after such regulations bring us into compliance with our reduction targets? I don't see how. I think it would feed criticism by opponents that Obama is captive to environmentalists, even to the point of following their quixotic and marginal obsessions. Approving Keystone might give him more credibility to defend tough regulations. It's not guaranteed, of course. But the intuitive idea is for a movement to organize around the issues that matter, not the issues that are easiest to explain. Building a movement by misleading people is a strange choice
New ethics complaint against Wendy Davis, hid income and ties to lobbyists!
Examiner ^ | 1/31/14
Democrat nominee for the Governor's Mansion in the Lone Star State is finding herself at the receiving end of a new ethics violation complaint filed with the Texas government, as reported by Fox News on Jan. 30, 2014 via Watchdog.org on Jan. 29, 2014
State Senator and darling of the left since her recent pro-abortion filibuster in the Texas State Legislature, Wendy Davis has just been figuratively slapped with accusations that she failed to disclose income as well as ties to lobbyists as required by state law for those seeking elected office. The editor of the citizens rights/journalism activists group Watchdog Wire – Texas, Lou Ann Anderson, filed a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission, claiming Davis failed to disclose $25,000 in both interest and dividends she earned from 2010 to 2012.
Democrat nominee for the Governor's Mansion in the Lone Star State is finding herself at the receiving end of a new ethics violation complaint filed with the Texas government, as reported by Fox News on Jan. 30, 2014 via Watchdog.org on Jan. 29, 2014
State Senator and darling of the left since her recent pro-abortion filibuster in the Texas State Legislature, Wendy Davis has just been figuratively slapped with accusations that she failed to disclose income as well as ties to lobbyists as required by state law for those seeking elected office. The editor of the citizens rights/journalism activists group Watchdog Wire – Texas, Lou Ann Anderson, filed a complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission, claiming Davis failed to disclose $25,000 in both interest and dividends she earned from 2010 to 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Now Is the Winter of Our Discontent
The Wall Street Journal ^ | January 31, 2013 | ROBERT LEE
HOTZ
At times in January, Chicago was colder than the South Pole, while flowers bloomed out of season in balmy Juneau, Alaska.
Driven by contorted bends of the jet stream, cold snaps and snow kept Northern and Southern states in a deep freeze, while unusually warm weather and record drought gripped the far West. The U.S. has been a country divided by temperature extremes, in a winter of record Western highs and bone-chilling Eastern lows, federal climate experts and private meteorologists said. A formal federal tally of January's temperature trends won't be completed for weeks, but preliminary regional data compiled by commercial meteorologists suggest that the Eastern half of the country is experiencing one of its 10 coldest winters on record—with thousands of local records for cold already tied or broken. By contrast, California, Alaska and the Western U.S. are having one of the 10 warmest winters, with several cities setting records in January for high temperatures. "We are talking about significant departures from normal," said meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, chief forecaster at Weatherbell Analytics LLC, a commercial forecasting company based in New York.
At times in January, Chicago was colder than the South Pole, while flowers bloomed out of season in balmy Juneau, Alaska.
Driven by contorted bends of the jet stream, cold snaps and snow kept Northern and Southern states in a deep freeze, while unusually warm weather and record drought gripped the far West. The U.S. has been a country divided by temperature extremes, in a winter of record Western highs and bone-chilling Eastern lows, federal climate experts and private meteorologists said. A formal federal tally of January's temperature trends won't be completed for weeks, but preliminary regional data compiled by commercial meteorologists suggest that the Eastern half of the country is experiencing one of its 10 coldest winters on record—with thousands of local records for cold already tied or broken. By contrast, California, Alaska and the Western U.S. are having one of the 10 warmest winters, with several cities setting records in January for high temperatures. "We are talking about significant departures from normal," said meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, chief forecaster at Weatherbell Analytics LLC, a commercial forecasting company based in New York.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Important change for hurricane warnings in 2014
On Friday, the National Hurricane Center announced that it will add storm surge maps to text warnings when the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season begins in June.
The color-coded maps will show geographical areas where inundation from storm surge could occur and how high water might reach. The maps will be updated every six hours during a threat.
“A lot of coastal residents, including those vulnerable to storm surge, simply don’t understand storm surge,” Rhome said. “This map is one of several steps aimed at improving communication and better highlighting the risk.”
Storm surge — an abnormal rise of water pushed onto shore by a hurricane — was the culprit in the three deadliest storms in U.S. history: the Galveston hurricane of 1900 (more 8,000 killed), the Lake Okeechobee hurricane of 1928 (2,500 killed) and Hurricane Katrina of 2005 (more than 1,800 killed).
While those tragedies were all major hurricanes, Superstorm Sandy in 2012 proved that even a post-tropical cyclone can still produce catastrophic storm surge. Sandy caught many people off-guard when the storm drove a 9-foot surge of water above ground in parts of New Jersey and New York.
For the last few years, meteorologists and emergency managers have been working on ways to get the public to think beyond wind-strengths associated with hurricane forecasts.
“What Sandy did was highlight the extreme urgency of this effort,” Rhome said. “Wind and surge don’t always go hand in hand.”
Friday’s announcement was welcome news in forecasting circles.
“This is a much, much needed step,” meteorologist Eric Holthaus wrote on Twitter.
Houston TV weatherman Tim Heller said storm surges are the most misunderstood part of a hurricane.
“This will help get people out of the path of the storm,” said Heller, chief meteorologist at KTRK-TV.
In 2005, Houston freeways were paralyzed by residents fleeing to get out of town ahead of Hurricane Rita.
“Hopefully the maps might also show people where they don’t have to evacuate,” Heller said.
The National Weather Service says the maps will be used on an experimental basis for at least two years while they collect feedback from emergency personnel and the public. Heller says he knows the amount of planning that has gone into the maps and doesn’t doubt their value.
“No. 1, I hope we never have to use it, but I’m glad we have it just in case,” he said. “Now we’ll be able to show them how high the water will be in their yard.”
SOTU Slams “Stagnant Economy”
Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 31 Jan 2014 | John Semmens
President Obama vowed to rescue the country from the “enemies of prosperity” in his speech on the State-of-the-Union Tuesday.
“Too many people are without jobs because businesses place profit ahead of employment,” the president complained. “This is the outcome of the perverse incentives of our market economy. If Congress will not act to offset these incentives I will take Executive action to rectify this injustice.” “Too many people are without an income because they have no jobs,” Obama asserted. “This is the outcome of a mentality that insists that being self-supporting is somehow a requirement for survival. If Congress will not act to eliminate this requirement I will take Executive action to see that it happens.” “Too many people’s welfare benefits are threatened because the government lacks the resources to ensure a steady and reliable flow of resources to sustain them,” Obama warned. “This is the outcome of an obsession with fiscal solvency. If Congress will not raise the taxes needed to fully fund these programs I will take Executive action to secure whatever revenues are necessary.” Representative Steve Stockman (R-Texas) took issue with both the President’s assertions and his proposed remedy of “Executive action.” “The job situation is bleak because the President’s policies have increased the cost of employing people,” Stockman contended. “The culture of dependency he has cultivated and vows to expand and entrench contradicts the principles of freedom upon which this country was founded. His intention to bypass Congress in order to impose his will is beyond his Constitutional authority and invites impeachment.” In related news, North Carolina has enjoyed an economic boom since ending extended unemployment benefits last July. This occurred in the face of Democratic forecasts that cutting off these payments for not working would devastate the state’s economy. NC State Representative Jason Saine (R-Raleigh) who had himself been a recipient of extended unemployment benefits observed that “years of extended benefits didn’t seem to be having a positive effect on jobs. We decided, instead, to try cutting business taxes to stimulate the economy. I’m happy to say that this seems to be working.”
President Obama vowed to rescue the country from the “enemies of prosperity” in his speech on the State-of-the-Union Tuesday.
“Too many people are without jobs because businesses place profit ahead of employment,” the president complained. “This is the outcome of the perverse incentives of our market economy. If Congress will not act to offset these incentives I will take Executive action to rectify this injustice.” “Too many people are without an income because they have no jobs,” Obama asserted. “This is the outcome of a mentality that insists that being self-supporting is somehow a requirement for survival. If Congress will not act to eliminate this requirement I will take Executive action to see that it happens.” “Too many people’s welfare benefits are threatened because the government lacks the resources to ensure a steady and reliable flow of resources to sustain them,” Obama warned. “This is the outcome of an obsession with fiscal solvency. If Congress will not raise the taxes needed to fully fund these programs I will take Executive action to secure whatever revenues are necessary.” Representative Steve Stockman (R-Texas) took issue with both the President’s assertions and his proposed remedy of “Executive action.” “The job situation is bleak because the President’s policies have increased the cost of employing people,” Stockman contended. “The culture of dependency he has cultivated and vows to expand and entrench contradicts the principles of freedom upon which this country was founded. His intention to bypass Congress in order to impose his will is beyond his Constitutional authority and invites impeachment.” In related news, North Carolina has enjoyed an economic boom since ending extended unemployment benefits last July. This occurred in the face of Democratic forecasts that cutting off these payments for not working would devastate the state’s economy. NC State Representative Jason Saine (R-Raleigh) who had himself been a recipient of extended unemployment benefits observed that “years of extended benefits didn’t seem to be having a positive effect on jobs. We decided, instead, to try cutting business taxes to stimulate the economy. I’m happy to say that this seems to be working.”
A superb foreign policy speech — from Ted Cruz (yup!)
By Jennifer Rubin
Washington Post
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)
Senator Cruz (R-Tex.), from our vantage point, has not been consistent on national security. He’s bought into easy slogans on the National Security Agency. He failed to lead on Syria or to recognize the connection to Iran. But hawks should give him his due. He is plainly thinking through the big issues and evidencing a more mature world outlook.
He has, in recent months, blasted the president on Cuba and Iran. On Tuesday, he sternly criticized the “lack of U.S. leadership championing freedom and the lack of effective leadership defending our interests in the world, which is making the world a much more dangerous place.” He warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s influence is spreading in Iran, Egypt and elsewhere. His focus was on Russia and Russia’s “growing spheres of influence,” but he more generally challenged conservatives to return to a pro-freedom foreign policy. Human rights, he said, is more than “disinterested do-goodism”; it is essential to speak and act in defense of our values as Americans and in keeping with our traditions and history.
Cruz faltered, however, when he said the “unilaterally announced strike” on Syria went off the rails (he and others opposed it, thereby helping to push it off track). He further claimed U.S. action lacked a national security purpose. However, his own speech proved it had a central purpose: To enforce the prohibition on WMD’s, deal a blow to Iran and check Russian influence. He’s obviously thinking about these issues — and should rethink this incongruity.
That said, not every senator talks at length about the Magnitsky Act, going through in gruesome detail the fact surrounding its namesake’s murder in Russian jail and bashing the Obama administration for refusing to enforce its terms.
Cruz went on to slam the interim Iran deal (“very, very, very bad”) and correctly compared it to the North Korea deal. “Any deal, just cut a deal,” he says, has become the default U.S. policy. And he gave a rousing defense of Ukraine. (“We stand with those who are protesting for freedom.”) His explanation of our ability to help Ukraine by removing its dependence on Russian natural gas was impressive. “We have nothing to gain by ceding our principles to Russia,” he said. And he concluded by saying it has historically been dangerous for tyrants, despots and autocrats when the United States stands up for freedom. “American exceptionalism has caused tyrants to tumble.”
On the whole, it was promising speech. Plainly, he is not seeking to mimic the isolationism of some on the right. His diligence in learning the particulars of foreign policy issues allows him to talk with authority. Because of his particular appeal to the party’s far right, he offers hope that he will keep that segment of the party within the Reaganesque tent. He is smart enough to criticize Obama from the right, not the left.
Free advice isn’t worth much, but Cruz and the GOP would benefit if he would build on this effort. First, Cruz needs to take a sane view of NSA surveillance, defending accountability and oversight but opposing efforts to make effective programs more cumbersome. A strong foreign policy requires strong anti-terrorism tools, as I think he must understand. He need not follow Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) down the rabbit hole of paranoia. Second, he would do well to look again at immigration in the context of national security. It is essential that we control our borders, encourage high-skilled and entrepreneurial immigrants to stay in the United States and, at the very least, figure out who is in the country, who is overstaying visas, etc. Perhaps the legislative movement away from earned citizenship toward legalization will make his re-evaluation of immigration reform efforts easier. And finally, he can play a useful role in making the case that economic growth goes hand in hand with strong national security and an internationalist outlook. Frankly, too many hawks have failed to make this argument, thereby allowing the Obama-Paul argument that we have to recede from the world to “nation build at home” carry the day.
I differ with Cruz on a number of things and think his misguided behavior in the shutdown hurt the GOP and the cause of conservatism. Nevertheless, just as Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is leading the right to a more constructive, positive domestic agenda, Cruz can do the same on foreign policy. If he does continue his defense of a strong U.S. foreign policy, he can help himself, his party and his country.
Progressivism Kills!
National Review ^ | February 1, 2014 | Kevin D. Williamson
There are many horrific stories to be told about the implosion of Detroit, once the nation’s most prosperous city, today its poorest. There is the story of its corrupt public institutions, its feckless leaders, its poisonous racial politics, its practically nonexistent economy, the riots that have led to its thrice being occupied by federal troops. The most horrific story may be that of the death of its children. Detroit has the highest child-mortality rate of any American city, exceeding that of many parts of what we used to call the Third World........ .....Detroit represents nothing less than progressivism in its final stage of decadence: Worried that unionized public-sector workers are looting your city? Detroit is already bankrupt, unable to provide basic services expected of it — half the streetlights don’t work, transit has been reduced, neighborhoods go unpatrolled. Worried that public-sector unions are ruining your schools? Detroit’s were ruined a generation or more ago, the results of which are everywhere to be seen in the city........... ...The result of all that municipal “investment”? For children newborn through age 18, Detroit sees 120 deaths per 100,000 each year — a rate 26 percent higher than second-place child-killer Philadelphia. That’s nearly two and a half times the rate in Los Angeles, which isn’t exactly a leafy suburban paradise. Every time our progressive friends come to us with another idea for transferring wealth from the productive economy to them and their friends, they scold us: “Think of the children!” But those who resist their efforts to do to the country at large what they have done to Detroit are thinking of the children....
There are many horrific stories to be told about the implosion of Detroit, once the nation’s most prosperous city, today its poorest. There is the story of its corrupt public institutions, its feckless leaders, its poisonous racial politics, its practically nonexistent economy, the riots that have led to its thrice being occupied by federal troops. The most horrific story may be that of the death of its children. Detroit has the highest child-mortality rate of any American city, exceeding that of many parts of what we used to call the Third World........ .....Detroit represents nothing less than progressivism in its final stage of decadence: Worried that unionized public-sector workers are looting your city? Detroit is already bankrupt, unable to provide basic services expected of it — half the streetlights don’t work, transit has been reduced, neighborhoods go unpatrolled. Worried that public-sector unions are ruining your schools? Detroit’s were ruined a generation or more ago, the results of which are everywhere to be seen in the city........... ...The result of all that municipal “investment”? For children newborn through age 18, Detroit sees 120 deaths per 100,000 each year — a rate 26 percent higher than second-place child-killer Philadelphia. That’s nearly two and a half times the rate in Los Angeles, which isn’t exactly a leafy suburban paradise. Every time our progressive friends come to us with another idea for transferring wealth from the productive economy to them and their friends, they scold us: “Think of the children!” But those who resist their efforts to do to the country at large what they have done to Detroit are thinking of the children....
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Article V Convention: Path of Least Resistance
American Thinker ^ | February 1st 2014 | Robert Berry
In what is taking shape as a sort of Great Awakening, state legislators have begun to learn that they hold equal status with Congress when it comes to proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, a handful of state legislators from each state, as yet unknown, are destined for the annals of American history the moment the nation's first Convention for Proposing Amendments is gaveled to order.
The process, found in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, requires the legislatures of at least two thirds (34) of the states to pass resolutions demanding that Congress call a "Convention for Proposing Amendments" -- an ad hoc assembly where state legislators, voting state-by-state, may propose (but not ratify) amendments. The thought of such a thing, while horrifying to Congress, represents the last constitutional method to reform a federal government run amok. And nothing more clearly illustrates the divide between flyover country and the federal city than the remedies that are sure to be proposed and later ratified by the states. To the ruling class, nothing could be more anathema than the prospect of amendments requiring term limits, balanced budgets, single-subject bills, and commerce clause reform. Few on the Hill seem to be taking notice of the gathering clouds -- a situation that the states would do well to exploit. If anything, the nascent "Article V movement" is little more than a curiosity among the ruling elite. Congress, aware of Article V, has every expectation that the states will continue a 200-year losing streak when it comes to coordinating the resolutions necessary to trigger the process. This is entirely due to the fact that the founders left Congress in charge of counting the resolutions.
In what is taking shape as a sort of Great Awakening, state legislators have begun to learn that they hold equal status with Congress when it comes to proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, a handful of state legislators from each state, as yet unknown, are destined for the annals of American history the moment the nation's first Convention for Proposing Amendments is gaveled to order.
The process, found in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, requires the legislatures of at least two thirds (34) of the states to pass resolutions demanding that Congress call a "Convention for Proposing Amendments" -- an ad hoc assembly where state legislators, voting state-by-state, may propose (but not ratify) amendments. The thought of such a thing, while horrifying to Congress, represents the last constitutional method to reform a federal government run amok. And nothing more clearly illustrates the divide between flyover country and the federal city than the remedies that are sure to be proposed and later ratified by the states. To the ruling class, nothing could be more anathema than the prospect of amendments requiring term limits, balanced budgets, single-subject bills, and commerce clause reform. Few on the Hill seem to be taking notice of the gathering clouds -- a situation that the states would do well to exploit. If anything, the nascent "Article V movement" is little more than a curiosity among the ruling elite. Congress, aware of Article V, has every expectation that the states will continue a 200-year losing streak when it comes to coordinating the resolutions necessary to trigger the process. This is entirely due to the fact that the founders left Congress in charge of counting the resolutions.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Speechwriter: Obama Didn’t Lie About ObamaCare, He Just Didn’t Understand How It Worked!
Frontpage Mag ^ | 1/31/14 | Daniel Greenfield
The Obama approval ratings are apparently bad enough that they’re going with the, “He’s not a liar, he’s just stupid” defense.
At an AEI event on the secrets of the State of the Union speech, former President Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett acknowledged that the “keep your health care plan” pledge didn’t turn out to be as accurate as the administration planned. That’s PR speak for, “It was a complete and total lie from beginning to end.” How accurate did the administration hope that a claim that had no basis in fact would be on a scale from one to minus zero?
The Obama approval ratings are apparently bad enough that they’re going with the, “He’s not a liar, he’s just stupid” defense.
At an AEI event on the secrets of the State of the Union speech, former President Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett acknowledged that the “keep your health care plan” pledge didn’t turn out to be as accurate as the administration planned. That’s PR speak for, “It was a complete and total lie from beginning to end.” How accurate did the administration hope that a claim that had no basis in fact would be on a scale from one to minus zero?
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Today Dispatch ^ Oops! Apparently, the state of Rhode Island had 150,000 people incorrectly placed on their voter rolls and nobody not...
-
Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, sol...
