Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side?

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side? - Comment - Voices - The Independent

Posted by Brian
Enhanced by Zemanta

California trying to strike out tax-exempt status for Little League, 'discriminatory' groups

A California bill that could strip tax-exempt status from Little League, the Boy Scouts of America and other “discriminatory” nonprofit youth-serving groups could come up for a final vote this week.

The first-of-its-kind bill, SB 323, passed the California Senate and sailed through Assembly committees to a floor vote, possibly this week.

California trying to strike out tax-exempt status for Little League, 'discriminatory' groups - Washington Times

Posted by Brian
Enhanced by Zemanta


Limbaugh Living Rent-Free In Obama's Head, Blames Rush for Problems

Posted by Brian
Barack Obama claims that it is Republicans who are afraid of Limbaugh, but why is it that it is he who always brings Limbaugh's name up? One the one hand, Limbaugh is "just an entertainer that no one pays attention to, and on the other it is Rush Limbaugh who is soooo influential that Obama can't get anything done. With Limbaugh occupying so much of Obama's brain, you'd think that "the Messiah" would be getting smarter by the second.
It's extemely funny how Obama likes to claim that he doesn't even think about Limbaugh, but never fails to blame him when things are going south for him.  Me thinks that Obama doth protest too much, or to quote 'Ace Ventura': "Obsess much?"

Rush Limbaugh (on right) is the tenant in Barack Obama's head.

Obama on CNN: Congress Has Two Jobs, But Too ‘Worried About’ ‘Rush Limbaugh’ to Do Them 
by Noah Rothman | 7:59 am, August 23rd, 2013

In an exclusive interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Friday, President Barack Obama said that the upcoming fight over the continuation of a resolution which will fund the government does not have to be a fight at all. He said that enough Republicans in Congress agree that seeking to defund the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea, but they are afraid of angering their base or of conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
Continue Reading at Mediaite

Enhanced by Zemanta


"Here Son, Hold My Beer While I Take A Picture" Can Get You Arrested, Two Years in Jail

Posted by Brian

Arizona Cardinal season-ticket holder John Coulter said he thought he was the butt of a Candid Camera joke after being kicked out of an Arizona Cardinal's pre-season football game.

But this was no joke. Coulter and his 15-year-old son had just finished watching the opening kickoff, when he says he wanted to take a photo.  Asking his son to hold his beer, Coulter retrieved his iPhone from his pocket and snapped the photo.  Two men, undercover officers with Arizona Department Liquor Licenses and Control, then walked up to him, telling him "What you did was illegal and I can have you arrested for it".  Coulter tried to explain the situation to them, to no avail.  He and his son had their ID taken and were removed from the stadium and issued a trespassing citation.

A spokesman for the Department, Sergeant Wesley Kuhl,  said they were "lucky" they weren't arrested and thrown in jail.

"Providing alcohol to an underage person or an underage person in possession of alcohol is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The consequences could be up to, and this is a maximum, of two years in jail, $2,500 fine and three years probation."

Technically, Mr. Coulter was in violation of the letter of the law. The question for me is was he violating the spirit of the law?  He was not providing alcohol for his son to consume, but under the legal catch-all of allowing his son to be "in possession" of it.  Unfortunately, with a bad economy, and revenues to government down, law enforcement in too many cases are abandoning the spirit with which laws are passed, and siding with the legalese letter of the laws.

Channel 12 News in Phoenix said that officials at University of Phoenix Stadium are trying to "clamp down", "citing 23 cases of underage drinking at the stadium in the past two years".  Really?  23 whole cases in TWO years and the State Liquor police are going to assign a bunch of undercover detectives to walk around the stadium at football games to try to identify a couple of people out of 63,000 fans? It seems to me that the money being spent on these guys would probably yield better results than one at any one of the fraternities on campus.  Hell, they could probably get 23 violations at any weekend frat party.

What do you think? Were the agents just doing their job, or were they overzealous in their behavior?

Enhanced by Zemanta

CA Elementary to "Discontinue " Policy Which Forced Students to Kneel Before the Principal and Admins.

Posted by Brian

Who says the 'Nobility Class' doesn't exist? A Southern California elementary school Principal with an apparent 'Napoleon complex', appears to believe he belongs in it, forcing students to behave like subjects toward he and his fellow administrators.

Congratulation to the parents who stood up for their children's rights, and alerted other parents to this practice, forcing the school to halt this so-called "safety" measure.  Lets be clear: This is not a safety measure, but behavior modification of our youth, teaching them at a young age to be compliant towards officials.

What is also disturbing about this is not only that the Principle did this, but that the administration and teachers went along with it.  Is there literally NO ONE in this school who had the decency, common sense, and backbone to stand up and say, "This is wrong, and I will not be a part of, or allow, this behavior to take place on my watch"?

Do you still believe that the teachers and Teacher Unions have the best interests of your children at heart?  If you do, you better wake the hell up!

School District Ends Policy Of Forcing Students To Kneel Down For Dismissal
August 20, 2013 11:59 AM

YUCAIPA (CBSLA.com) — School district officials in San Bernardino County say they will discontinue a policy that required elementary school students to kneel down before being dismissed to class.

Principal Dana Carter (at left) at Calimesa Elementary School had reportedly instituted the policy, which called for students at various times of the school day to kneel down on one knee and wait for the principal or another administrator to dismiss them, as a safety measure.
Continue Reading at CBSLocal Los Angeles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson on God, The Founders, and "The Right to Life"

Posted by Brian

A&E's "Duck Dynasty is a hit for a simple reason.  The Robertson family epitomizes what most Americans miss - Love of God, love of family, and love of Country.

They represent what so many believe, but are afraid to say for fear of being seen as "un-PC'.  Thank God the Robertson's haven't shackled themselves with the chains of politically correct speech.  For too long, too many of us have done exactly that, fearful we will be seen as 'insensitive' to others, and we as a country are now paying the price for the cultural rot that we have allowed to fester up.
Phil Robertson has no such fear.  Neither should we.

To watch the entire speech, click the link below:

Enhanced by Zemanta


Ed "Sgt" Schultz: Only "Phony Christians" Oppose ObamaCare

Posted by Brian

Leave it to good ol' Ed Schultz to give us phony Christians a good laugh.  Using this "phony" label, Schultz predictably goes after conservative Senator Ted Cruz (who really does scare the devil out of liberals), painting him as the poster child of phony Christians.

Ed even channels his inner P.T. Barnum, striking a pious pose to pray for the "strength to heal the sick and help the poor, because we know that's what you want Lord".

Mr. Ed, goes on to pull the following talking points out of his liberal bag of tricks:
ObamaCare “is the most moral thing this country has ever done”
Those who oppose ObamaCare“They’re phony Christians. Phony Christians when they say that they are Christian but then they want to take away from their next door neighbor. They don’t want to be their brother’s keeper.”
Repealing ObamaCare: “It is very simple. If ObamaCare is repealed, Americans will die. Children of God will die,”

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Schultz claims to be a born-again Christian, and I won't judge his heart. I'll leave that to God. I will however, point out the hypocrisy of Mr. Ed, in his own words, just as he revels in pointing out what he calls the hypocrisy of conservative Christians and their views.

Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut".

Ed's Greatest "Hits"
Enhanced by Zemanta

Egypt: Muslim B'Hood Targets Christians and Churches While Obama Golfs, Kerry Sails, and MSM Ignores

Posted by Brian

The mainstream media must be wondering how they could have gotten it so wrong.  The "Arab Spring" was something to be celebrated.  It was confirmation of the success of Barack Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East. It vindicated him to his Nobel Peace Prize critics. Only right-wing nut jobs could fail to see the glorious results that came from Obama's capitulating and kowtowing to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Those of us who criticized the Obama Administration, the MSM, and a number of the participants for their apparent naivete' in calling this a "democracy movement" were roundly criticized.

Yes, there were people in Egypt who naively believe that democracy was what they were getting.  This included Coptic Christians who aligned with a movement which included the Muslim Brotherhood, communists/socialists, and other left-wing groups, in that so-called "spontaneous" uprising. Now it is the Coptics who are paying a bloody price for their trust in a Muslim Brotherhood which states openly of a worldwide caliphate in which Christians, Jews, Hindus, and all other religions have no part.

Muslims celebrate the burning of a Christian church in Egypt

Apparently the Coptics, and everyone else, forgot the Muslim practice of "Taqiyya", which is Islamic sanctioned lying to non-believers for the Islamic cause.

The media are covering the violence from the standpoint of criticizing the army for the bloodshed against "pro-Morsi" supporters (read: The Muslim Brotherhood), giving body counts of those killed and wounded in the clashes.  Since the Vietnam War, the media just loves body counts as the impetus for their stories.

What is also happening, but which is receiving scant notice from the MSM, is the pogrom being waged on Egypt's Christian population from the Muslim Brotherhood and radical islamists.
Over fifty Christian churches and institutions were torched over two days. (Story)
Nuns are being marched through town like POW's. (Story)
A Christian cab driver is pulled from his vehicle and beaten to death. (Story)
Two Christian sibling sisters are sexually harassed and abused. (Story)

Why are the MSM seemingly unconcerned with this side of the story unfolding in Egypt? I have two theories.

One is that the media are just shocked that they could have been so totally wrong about the Arab Spring, and what it represented.  Everyone was supposed to be singing Kumbaya by now.  This was the dawning of the "Age of Aquarius" and the "second coming" rolled into one.  It was Woodstock! Peace, love, and understanding!  The MSM have been totally invested in this completely false narrative of promoting about the Muslim Brotherhood as "mainstream" and "moderate". Events since the Arab Spring uprisings have shown that this couldn't be further from the truth.. To report what is really going on is to admit their complicity in the sham.

Two is that the media are really not that interested in this, because the Obama Administration are not that interested in it.  For all of Obama's bluster about this crisis, which is growing by the day, he and his administrations' actions tell a completely different story.  With a crisis like this, which can have global effects, you might expect that his Cabinet and top advisors would be meeting daily to address this as it unfolds.  But this President continues with his Martha's Vineyard vacation, golfing with his Bain Capital cronies, and others.  No problem though, right?  Surely his new Secretary of State, John F. Kerry is all over it, calling world leaders, and giving the President hourly updates on everything, right?

Uh, no.

John Kerry is of to Nantucket to work on his sailboarding skills. No better time than a crisis to work on your cutbacks and feel the spray of the ocean in your face.

So maybe that's it!  The media ignores half of the story because Obama is unconcerned himself with what is happening to the Christians in Egypt.  To him, they are acceptable casualties in an agenda which is much grander.  The continued weakening of the United States.  Not just on the diplomatic side, but in every conceivable way.

There is a better than average chance that what is happening in Egypt could have catastrophic implications to the world oil supply if, as some are concerned about, the Suez Canal is shut down.  If oil were to spike to $180, $190, or even $300 a barrel, it will have a ripple effect throughout the entire globe. Combine this with the fact that Obama and the leftists in this country have removed 40% of the corn food supplies for the production of the inefficient ethanol (which also drives up beef and chicken feed prices), and you have the makings of not only an oil crisis, but a global affordable food crisis.  Everything from food to clothes to electricity - EVERYTHING - would skyrocket in cost, creating a global recession/depression, and probably a World War.

With these kinds of implications looming, a reasonable person with common sense would expect the President to address this looming crisis.  With the Bakken Reserve alone containing more oil than the entire Middle East, the fact that Obama continues to hold fast to a policy of minimizing the US's ability to retrieve this vast resource, including the repeated blocking of building the pipeline from Canada, speaks volumes about his overall agenda - he doesn't want the US to remain strong.

What is going on in Egypt is a disaster for the Obama Administration.  Allies are publicly saying that Obama and the US cannot be trusted on foreign policy, and that Obama "no longer has any clear idea of his country's global role" (Story).

The mainstream media and the Obama administration have blood on their hands, and the media will do everything in their power to protect themselves and Obama from the American people hearing the truth of how bad it really is, and how wrong they really were, and continue to be.

Enhanced by Zemanta


The Liberty Amendments Interview: Mark Levin on Returning States' Rights, the Peoples' Rights, a Return to Federalism

Posted by Brian
by JOEL B. POLLAK  12 Aug 2013

Breitbart News: With The Liberty Amendments, you're attempting to launch a movement to amend the Constitution. Do you expect to be successful, and how long would it take?

Levin: What I hope to do, at least in some small way, is begin a discussion among those of us who believe the Republic is unraveling, and find a way to re-establish the Constitution and reclaim our heritage.  When you look at the massive debt and reckless monetary policies of the federal government; the ability of five Supreme Court justices to pervert the Constitution and impose via fiat their personal policy preferences on the whole of society without any recourse; Congress's legislating, through massive bills, outside its enumerated powers and its delegation of unchecked power to a massive and growing bureaucracy, which legislates thousands of times each year by regulatory fiat; and the increasing authoritarianism of presidents who issue executive orders to create their own law and also blatantly rewrite statutes by interpretation and execution (or not) based on whether they agree with them or not; I think this and much more evinces the growing and steady decline of constitutional republicanism. And I've concluded that Washington is incapable of reforming itself, which should seem fairly obvious. After all, it has designed the federal Leviathan, which is getting bigger and more aggressive.  And I was thinking: What has this federal government become? It is not a constitutional, federal, or representative republic, as our Framers understood those institutions. I believe the federal government is increasingly operating outside the Constitution and that we are in a post-constitutional period. This is how justices, presidents, and members of Congress are able to concoct and then impose such monstrous laws as Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, among thousands of other laws and rules every year, on an unwitting population. This book is written for those of us who fear what is happening to our nation--the increasing authoritarianism and abuse of the individual--and refuse to accept these events either by pretending they are not serious or as the inevitable decline of a great republic. This has been building for decades, since at least the advent of the Progressive era, and, in my view, requires a resolute, decades'-long effort to reverse course. So, the question arises, what do we do? For those of us who care, my book explores some of the possibilities. And they are provided in the Constitution itself. The Framers knew better than others what it was like to confront actual tyranny. So why wouldn't we look to these greatest men for answers? So, that's what I did. If you look at Article V of the Constitution, it includes, among other things, two processes for amending the Constitution. The first process has resulted in twenty-seven amendments: two-thirds of both Houses of Congress propose an amendment, and three-fourths of the states are required to ratify it. In the second process, which is every bit as legitimate, two-thirds of the states decide to convene a meeting for the purpose of proposing amendments, which are then sent to the states for three-fourths ratification. It is a process that essentially bypasses Congress.  Let me be as clear as I can: this second amendment process provides for a convention of the states to propose amendments, which in turn must be ratified by three-fourths of the states; it does not provide for a Constitutional Convention. Furthermore, because three-fourths of the states must ratify proposed amendments, there would be no "runaway convention" overturning the entire Constitution, as some might fear monger. I fully expect the most vociferous critics of this constitutional process to be among those who support or have contributed to all manner of constitutional evasions and distortions in favor of the increasing centralization and concentration of power, which is precisely what the Constitution was established to prevent. Now, this is something I want to discuss at length on my program, and which I discuss at length in the book.  I believe our strongest weapon is the Constitution, and therefore we should do all we can to reacquaint the American people with their Constitution. This is how we push back against a mindset that insists they surrender so much of their liberty to federal institutions; it is a mindset pounded home each and everyday by self-serving politicians, in academia, by the media, et cetera. Alexis de Tocqueville, and many others, eloquently warned about democracies acquiescing to the gradualism of soft tyranny and its destructiveness on man's nature. The amendment process of which I speak was proposed and enacted by the Framers, who considered it crucial to accomplishing the ratification of the Constitution, for it was specifically established to address the possibility of an oppressive federal government. In particular, George Mason insisted two days before the Constitutional Convention's end that there needed to be a lawful and civil way to address an oppressive federal government, which he believed inevitable, short of violence and revolution. The Convention delegates in Philadelphia agreed. Thus, the Constitution provides that at least two-thirds of the states could ultimately get together, essentially bypassing Congress, and propose amendments to the Constitution which, in turn, all the states would then consider, three-fourths of which would be required to ratify them. This is no easy task. But it is the path the Framers provided in the Constitution to lawfully and civilly address an increasingly oppressive federal government, which ultimately would not control itself. So, we turn to the Constitution to save the Constitution, and restore the Republic. As I write in the book, I admit that this is something that, originally, I was skeptical about. But having now thoroughly studied the intent of the Framers in this regard, it is crystal clear they put this process in place to provide us recourse under the kind of circumstances we find ourselves confronted with today. I need to underscore that this is not some radical or novel idea, although it has been largely ignored. It will be ferociously opposed by the proponents or beneficiaries of an all powerful federal government, or dismissed by those who delude themselves that nothing of this sort can happen in America and, as they will undoubtedly claim, Americans are resilient and we have overcome worse. But it is those who seek to further impose this alien design on our society who are the target of this amendment process. Their objections, albeit self-serving, are understandable. As for the others, let me say it is because Americans are resilient that I believe we are not destined for all eternity to suffer a miserable existence, which is precisely why we must take matters into our own hands by embracing the Constitution. It was President Reagan who famously stated: "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us that we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done." The book is called The Liberty Amendments for a reason. I have proposed eleven amendments for people to think about, not because I am all-knowing and all-powerful, but because they are my suggestions to encourage people to think about or, even better, to become active in reclaiming their heritage through this state convention process. The amendments I propose are not abstractions, but concrete suggestions, based precisely on what I believe, through research and scholarship, the Framers intended for this republic. I discuss each amendment at length in the book, and it is impossible to do them justice in a short interview. But it is worth remembering, whereas the statists promise a utopian paradise that conflicts with our constitutional order as justification for an ever-growing federal government, and many Republicans embrace the status quo, as designed by the statists-- I call them neo-statists--I say let's enthusiastically embrace the Constitution rather than fear it. Let's be positive about it. It offers us liberty, opportunity, security. These amendments are all aimed at reclaiming our founding principles by unraveling the federal Leviathan and reducing the excessive and growing power of the ruling class. Do I think this is doable, and how quickly? Absolutely, or I wouldn't have written the book.The Framers thought so, because otherwise they wouldn't have bothered including this process in the Constitution. Will it happen tomorrow? Absolutely not. But I dare say that at some point it will. Because the situation in this country will reach a point, with lost liberties and economic dislocation, that I believe the people will look for a legitimate and non-violent means by which to save themselves. The nation's demise is not inevitable, unless we do nothing. We can prevent this, if we, the people, have the desire and motivation to do so. People want to know how we can do it. And the only way I can think of--I'm open to others--is by turning to the Constitution and the recourse the Framers left us. One other point. Look at the statists. They play for keeps, and they are resolute. They never surrender, and they are never done with their social engineering and societal experiments. For example, for a century they have pushed national health care. They finally achieved it with Obamacare. Yet, Obamacare is just a start. It is a platform from which they intend to pursue endless lifestyle calibrations. The individual will be tormented and coerced endlessly. We conservatives, on the other hand, get impatient. We are too quick to abandon the battlefield. We must be as resolute, as defiant, as ambitious for liberty and constitutionalism as the statist is for the opposite. As I said earlier, there is an American spirit, and we must rekindle it and spread it. We need not accept this, we must not. We have children and grandchildren to think about; we must think about future generations, and not just the next two or three. We must encourage people to engage in the Constitution in the way that our Founders intended.
Continue Reading at Breitbart News' Big Government
Enhanced by Zemanta

Dream Lineup: Limbaugh, Levin, and Hannity as GOP Debate Moderators?

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin eyed as 2016 GOP debate moderators 
| WashingtonExaminer.com

The Republican National Committee, already threatening to block CNN and NBC from hosting 2016 primary debates if they air planned features on Hillary Clinton, is also looking to scrap the old model of having reporters and news personalities ask the questions at candidate forums.

Miffed that their candidates were singled out for personal questions or CNN John King's "This or That," when he asked candidates quirky questions like "Elvis or Johnny Cash," GOP insiders tell Secrets that they are considering other choices, even a heavyweight panel of radio bigs Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

They told Secrets that they are eager to bring in questioners who understand Republican policies and beliefs and who have the ability to get candidates to differentiate their positions on core conservative values.

The move comes as several conservatives are pressuring the party to have Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin ask the debate questions. "It makes a lot of sense. We'd get a huge viewership, they'd make a lot of news and maybe have some fun too," said one of the advocates of the radio trio hosting debates.

Read More Here:
Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin eyed as 2016 GOP debate moderators | WashingtonExaminer.com

Posted by Brian
Enhanced by Zemanta

Reagan Biographer: 'The Butler' maligns Reagan's Record on Race

Reagan Biographer Blasts 'The Butler' for Maligning President's Race Record

The new political drama Lee Daniels' The Butler depicts President Ronald Reagan as being dismissive of apartheid in South Africa as well as civil rights regarding black Americans.

Reagan biographer Craig Shirley says such a characterization is nonsense.

Shirley, who worked on Reagan's 1980 and 1984 presidential campaigns, says the country's 40th president signed the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday into law as well as legislation extending the Voting Rights and Fair Housing Acts.

A critical scene in the movie shows Reagan (Alan Rickman) bluntly threatening to crush sanctions against South Africa for its racist policies.

Shirley says Reagan's position on the matter was far more intricate than the film describes, a stand that likely helped the nation emerge from its hateful policies with less bloodshed.

To Continue Reading, click below:
Reagan Biographer Blasts 'The Butler' for Maligning President's Race Record
Enhanced by Zemanta


Affordable Care Act is Actually Obama's 'Holy Grail', not GOP's

Posted by Brian

One has to wonder when the American people are going to wake up to the lies and hyperbole that vomit out of the mouth of Barack Obama on a nearly daily basis.  We know that the press is in a state of perpetual slumber under the spell of Rip van Obama, so invested are they in protecting this President.  However, there are indications that many Americans have snapped out of their 2008 "Obama is the messiah" trance as the scandals have piled up, and a majority now oppose ObamaCare, now that we've "(found) out what's in it".

Obama is now complaining (when isn't he complaining) of Republicans saying that they will not pass a spending bill unless the hugely unpopular ObamaCare is defunded.  So unpopular is ObamaCare, that even Democrats like Jimmy Hoffa and the unions are now opposing it.  Predictably, Obama goes to his favorite tactic of dividing and demonizing his opponents, claiming that the GOP wants to ensure "that 30 million people don't have healthcare", calling it their "holy grail", and claiming they have an "ideological fixation".

This is the language of the leftist, taken right out of Saul Alinski, Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, and every other communist and despot throughout history.  It is meant to paint a mental picture, no matter how distorted, of his opponents as heartless ogres hell-bent on seeing Americans suffer and die.

Of course, this isn't new.  Democrats have long used this tactic to demonize Republicans on environmental issues, entitlement reform, immigration, and abortion.

How many times have we heard that the GOP wants to "starve children", as part and parcel of their debate over the federal school lunch program?  Or, that Republicans want dirty water and dirty air when the issue is job-killing radical environmentalist legislation?  Conservatives want to see women die in "back-alley" abortions, and tear apart families of illegal immigrants who flood into the country.

Does anyone honestly believe that the Party of Lincoln wants to kill women and children, poison the water supply, and pollute the environment? An intellectually honest person would have to admit that these are just slogans by a Democrat Party which does not want an honest debate on the merits of what they support, and so chooses to hurl baseless accusations as their debating tactic.

Sadly, for a dumbed-down, low-information electorate who react emotionally rather than intellectually, hyperbole is effective.

So it is that we have the Divider-in-Chief, Barack Obama, now claiming that Republicans want 30 million Americans to go without healthcare.  That is, evil Republicans want 30 million of you to die! But, where does Obama get this 30 million figure? What he fails to  acknowledge to his legions is that this 30 million figure comes from the Congressional Budget Office who determined that ObamaCare itself would leave that number uninsured. This, after claiming that failure to pass ObamaCare would keep 30 million Americans uninsured.

Obama goes on to claim that defunding or repealing ObamaCare is the "Holy Grail" of for the GOP, while neglecting to admit that it was he and the Democrat Party who rammed through his signature piece of legislation without a single Republican vote, and half of the country opposing the bill at the time it was passed.

In the four years hence, opposition to ObamaCare has strengthened, with polls showing over 50% favor full repeal of the law.  Even prior to the 2012 election, Gallup reported that 87% of Republicans, 43% of Independents, and 14% Democrats strongly or somewhat opposed ObamaCare, with 47% of all Americans favoring full repeal of the law.

Republican opposition to the law reflects the growing dissatisfaction and concerns of the American electorate, while it is Obama who is continuing to ram this down the throat of Americans who indicate that they don't want it.

Who is it, Mr. President, who really sees this law as the Holy Grail?

Related Stories:

Obama slams GOP over 'holy grail' of blocking healthcare law

Enhanced by Zemanta


Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Barack Obama, Bombs Yemen, Kills 4 Militants. None Were on Most-Wanted List.

Posted by Brian

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.  
Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.  
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.  
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."  Oslo, October 9, 2009

Wow. What a difference a few years make.

Barack Obama, who has warned Israel about conducting pre-emptive strikes on Iran's nuclear plants, conducted two drone strikes in Yemen.  The attacks reportedly killed four al Qaeda members, none of whom were identified as high value targets, or placed on "most-wanted" lists.  This is the second strike by the Obama Administration in Yemen using drones in the past ten days.

I'm all for killing al Qaeda.  Anytime. Anywhere. However, I'm also aware of the slippery slope of using military force on a whim, without regard for whether U.S. national interests are at stake. It's not a secret that Yemen is a hotbed of terrorism. The question needs to be, "What critical national interest is at stake which requires the use of military force in a Yemen against four al Qaeda militants, none of whom are listed as key players in the war on terror?".

Waking up to this news is disturbing in that the Obama Administration has kept the American public completely in the dark about recent "terrorist threat alerts".  There has not been one statement put out by this President, or the White House, regarding any of this.  That Americans are dubious of not only the timing, but the substance of these alerts, is not surprising.  They are reminiscent of Bill Clinton bombing a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998 which many believe was a carried out as a distraction to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal surrounding Clinton's Presidency at the time.  Regardless of whether the allegations are true or not, the effect was that the bombing knocked the scandal off of the front page, and Clinton and the media were able to circle the wagons, allowing Clinton to weather the storm.

Fast forward to today, and you have a potentially worse situation for Barack Obama.  The Obama Administration is juggling not one scandal, but numerous ones.  None of which seem to be going away any time soon, and in fact, seem to be picking up steam.

The Benghazi scandal is not only not going away, but getting much worse, with reports of a gun-running black ops mission from Libya to Syria by the CIA now part of the story.

The IRS scandal, in which Tea Party, Conservative, and pro-Israel groups were targeted for harrassment and "special" scrutiny, has now expanded to include the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).

Still bubbling just under the surface is the Obama DOJ's own gun-running scandal, "Fast and Furious", which has led to the deaths of two federal agents, and hundreds of Mexicans South of the border.

The conditions are ideal for the Obama Adminstration, which has shown little compunction for transparency, to "wag the dog" in an effort to distract from the turmoil around his Administration. Whether this is what he is doing remains to be seen, but as they say, the timing is extremely suspect.

What is known is that Yemen is crawling with terrorists who would love nothing more than to reenact another 9/11-type event.  What Obama has done by killing some low-level members of al Qaeda may be the equivalent of poking a hornets nest with a stick and expecting not to get stung.

Where military action is concerned, I believe that if you have been forced into a limited military option, that you do it in a big way.  Don't drop a couple of bombs on a couple of nobody's.  Hit key targets, key leaders, and critical locations.  Do major damage. Don't swat at flies. Pissing off the enemy is not the goal.  Putting abject fear into them is. Just ask Ghaddafi.

The milquetoast approach that Obama has taken, coupled with his failure to communicate with the American people on any of this, only lead me to be suspect of his intentions on all of it.

Drone strikes kill militants in Yemen; Americans urged to leave 
By Elise Labott and Mohammed Tawfeeq, CNN updated 9:27 AM EDT, Tue August 6, 2013

(CNN) -- A pair of suspected U.S. drone strikes killed four al Qaeda militants in Yemen as the United States maintained a heightened security alert in the country and urged all Americans to leave immediately.

Security sources told CNN about the strikes but didn't offer additional details. A Yemeni official said four drone strikes have been carried out in the past 10 days.

None of those killed on Tuesday were among the 25 names on the country's most-wanted list, security officials said.
Continue Reading at CNN.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

Gun-related violent crimes drop as sales soar in Va.

Posted by Brian

Posted: Friday, November 23, 2012 11:20 pm | Updated: 12:05 am, Mon Jan 28, 2013.

Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales. The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.

But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.

The numbers appear to contradict a long-running popular narrative that more guns cause more violent crime, said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who compared Virginia crime data for those years with gun-dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Read More at Richmond Times-Dispatch
Enhanced by Zemanta