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:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0B41BB3029AD5BD3

Related articles

• Sarah Palin to GOP: Stand Up for Life Like 'Duck Dynasty' Star
• "Duck Dynasty" star Willie Robertson shares his faith
• Duck Dynasty: The Pro-God, Guns, Family and Capitalism Reality Show Rules the Ratings Roost

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 If ObamaCare is repealed, Americans will die.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"

Related articles

• Ed Schultz Slams Religious Hypocrisy Before Lapsing Into It

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.

Related articles

• Egypt: Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood Mobs Burn Christian Coptic Churches
• Media, Political Class Downplay Muslim Brotherhood Killing Christians in Egypt
• As Egyptian Churches Are Put To the Torch, Obama's Reputation Goes Up in Flames
• Mr. President, we do take sides
• It's Official: Obama Has Surpassed Jimmy Carter
• 'Animals': More attacks on Christians and churches in Egypt [pics]
• Report: Former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to be freed - Fox News

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

Posted by Brian
BREITBART NEWS INTERVIEW: MARK LEVIN AND THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS
by JOEL B. POLLAK  12 Aug 2013

The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin at Amazon.com

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

Related articles

• Mark Levin's The Liberty Amendments Hits #1 on Amazon
• Let the national conversation begin

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

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

Related articles

• Movie 'The Butler' Slams Reagans, Ignores Real-Life Butler's Bond With Couple

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

 

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

Related articles

• Yemeni Engineer Begs Obama to Stop Murdering His Family with Drones
• US, Britain pull some staff from Yemen due to terror threat - CNN International
• US assassination drone strikes Yemen - Four killed

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.
BY MARK BOWES

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

Obama's "Mission Accomplished?" Al Qaeda, "Decimated" and "On the Run" Stronger than Ever

Posted by Brian

Al Qaeda Decimated? On the run? Yeah, all over the Middle East and North Africa!

Al Qaeda, whom Barack Obama has called "decimated" and "on the path to defeat" 32 TIMES since the attack on Benghazi, has the Administration on its heels.  Posing what some are calling "the most serious threat" since 9/11, the United States is shutting down embassies all over the Middle East, and issuing travel alerts to Americans traveling overseas.



Al Qaeda is so "decimated" that they have orchestrated prison breaks across nine nations, including Benghazi, Libya, Abu Ghraib in Iraq,  and Dera Ismail Khan in Pakistan, freeing thousands of al qaeda terrorists, causing INTERPOL to issue a global security alert.

This Administration, for all of its bold talk of being tough on terrorism, has yet to even try to understand this enemy.  Obama and those on the left constantly boast that "Osama bin Laden is dead".  This is Obama's "Mission Accomplished" banner, and he unfurls it each time this Administration is exposed for its wishy-washy approach to the terrorist threat. This administration has effectively cleansed the terms "terrorist" and "jihad" from their vocabulary. When criticized for calling terrorist acts "workplace violence", "man-caused disasters", and other equally asinine (and dangerous) labels, Obama and his sycophants, unable to defend their position, shout "Osama bin Laden is dead".  It's their equivalent of shouting "racist" whenever they are unable to defend their liberal social policies, illegal immigration, or any criticism of Obama.

Aside from being absolutely infuriating, Obama's lies about nearly everything, and his administration's posture toward Islamists is dangerous. While downplaying the global Islamist threat, he falsely touts his "accomplishments" on domestic issues to his brain-dead followers.  Still repeating the lie that he inherited the "worst economy since the Great Depression", he brags that businesses have "created 5 million new jobs, the American industry is back on top, American manufacturing is growing at the fastest pace in 15 years, we are less dependent on foreign oil than any time in 20 years, home values are on the rise", and of course, "Osama bin Laden is dead".  What's really sick, is to see and hear these intellectual dwarfs behind him, and in the audience, actually cheer this crap, their allegiance to this man is so blind.

What's dangerous is that he has convinced so many incurious people, who take as gospel everything he says, that Al Qaeda really isn't a threat, that Islam really is a "religion of peace", and that those who oppose his views are all islamaphobes, bigots, racists, and ill-informed. You know - "White crackers".

While admitting that there have been Islamist terrorist attacks on U.S. soil in Obama's four and a half years in office, he brushes them of by claiming they weren't really "serious attacks". Tell the Boston bombing and Ft. Hood victims that these weren't "serious" attacks.

Sadly, I believe that for too many of my fellow Americans, it is going to take an event the size of 9/11, or even more significant, for many to finally realize the danger that Barack Hussein Obama has put this country in.

Related Stories:
Senior U.S. Official: Planned Attack "Big", Strategically Significant
Source: Terrorists Behind Embassy Threat in Place
Senator: Terrorist threat "most serious he's seen in years"
"Terror chatter beyond anything heard since before 9/11"
Feds Boosting Security Efforts Inside Homeland

Related articles

• You get the feeling absolutely nothing Obama says is the truth?
• "Decimated" al-Qaeda causes U.S. to shut embassies and go on high alert
• U.S. Army Awards Contracts to Al-Qaeda Members
• Al Qaeda is back
• Dueling Headlines; 'Al Qaeda has been decimated' edition
• Interpol links recent prison breaks to al-Qaeda
• Why we need NSA surveillance: RAND study finds al Qaeda expanding
• Michael Chertoff: Today's Al Qaeda 'More Dangerous' than Before 911

McCain: Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton in 2016? "It's Gonna Be A Tough Choice"

Posted by Brian

If there were any lingering doubts about John McCain being a conservative leader in the GOP, although I don't see how that's possible, he certainly put those to rest in a recent New Republic interview.

Asked about his vote if the 2016 election came down to Rand Paul or Hillary Clinton, McCain chuckled that it would be "a tough decision".  This could be written off as McCain just being cheeky, but for his effusive praise of Hillary, at one point calling her a "rock star". All this, while lumping in Rand Paul with Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, whom he has called a "wacko bird, in a discussion about Marco Rubio's "bright future" in the GOP.

So according to John McCain, Rand Paul and others in the GOP who actually stand up for the conservative principles of small government and secure borders don't have a bright future in the GOP.

Others whom McCain named on his list of the right kind of people were Lindsay Graham ("like a son to me"), Kelly Ayotte (turncoat who ran as a "Tea Party" candidate), the despicable Chuck Schumer, and equally abhorrent Carl "Leaky" Levin ("as close as two people can be").

I have news for Senator McCain. These so-called "wacky birds" (read: conservatives) might just have a much brighter future than he gives them credit for.  Not because they, like he, are willing to compromise their principles, but because they refuse to, at least for now.  On the other hand, it is the John McCain's, Lindsay Graham's, John Boehnor's, and Chris Christie's of the party who need to be looking over their shoulder come 2014 and 2016.

Conservatives are pissed. There will be more than a few establishment RINO's primary'd in upcoming elections, and Senator McCain will hopefully be one of them.

Related articles

• McCain strolls into Dem caucus meeting
• McCain: 'Fox News Is A Bit Schizophrenic'

Economic Illiteracy: Fast Food Workers Strike to Super-Size their Wages

Posted by Brian

When I was growing up I couldn't wait to get my first job. Like most other teens, I had my sights set on the fast-food and restaurant industry to get my foot in the door of the workforce. I eventually got a job  washing dishes at a restaurant.  The pay was $2.36 an hour. It wasn't a lot, but it gave me a meager income in which to pay for movies, buy record albums, go out for a bite with my friends. It wasn't what people today call a "living wage", but I never expected it to be.  It was a training ground to prove to others that I possessed a good work ethic, could show up on time for my shift, and put in an honest day of work to justify my pay.  It was what we call an "entry level" position. I was being paid commensurate with the skill level required of the position.  I never considered this job a "career" position.  It was simply preparing me for getting a "real job"somewhere down the line.

You apply for the job.
You are aware of what the job pays and the terms of employment.
You accept the job. How is this exploitation?

Fast-forward to some of today's crop of young entry-level job workers. Self-important, brash, and possessing a fully developed entitlement mentality, they not only feel they have a "right" to a job, they are cocksure in the knowledge that, somehow, they "deserve" to be paid a wages exceeding those who work in skilled technical fields make. Enter SEIU, which is more than happy to gin up emotion, provide support and propaganda, and convince these workers and others of how they are getting the shaft.

The workers, confident in their "rights", but blindingly naive and ignorant of economics, see no correlation between their wages, the cost of goods and services, and consumer pricing.  Everything exists in a vacuum, making them oblivious to the effect that doubling their wage would have on them.  From losing their jobs, to having their hours cut, to an increase in the consumer price of the product, they are oblivious.  So many in the country have been dumbed-down in math, science, economics, history, the absolute basics, that too many young people are coming out of high school and colleges with an unrealistic arrogance as to their worth.  I know. I have seen it.  There are a not insignificant number of individuals entering the workforce who are essentially unteachable.  It's not because they are stupid, but because they are supremely, but mistakenly, confident that they already know everything.

We, as a society, have created a coddled class of citizen, nurturing a confidence based on a vapid "Stuart Smalley" model.  We have fed our children the lie that all "smart" people go to college, while poo-pooing the value of trade schools and on-the-job training programs.  Even the idea of "working my way through college" is viewed as a "burden"  by too many college students.  Now it's practically a full-time job to research scholarships, grants, and loans, as young people scramble to afford the ever skyrocketing cost of attending universities. Completely lost on all these young people is how all of these government grants, scholarships, etc., actually contribute to these increases. But that is an article for another day.

The point is, these fast-food workers have been duped into believing that doubling their hourly wage is "sticking it to the man", while in fact, they would be sticking it to themselves in the form of higher unemployment, less hours, and eventually less purchasing power as prices go up to offset the expense of higher wages.

Though this "strike" is merely a publicity stunt to raise awareness for a leftist concept called "the living wage", which like most ideas from the left is a never attainable moving target, meant only to further divide the so-called "haves" from the "have nots".

Like so many other symbolic efforts from liberals, this walk-out had absolutely zero effect other than encouraging a bunch of low-skilled workers to miss out on a days pay while complaining of not making enough money.

Ironic, isn't it?

Where's the beef? Fast-food workers in walkout to protest low wages 
Published July 29, 2013 FoxNews.com

Don’t expect to have it your way today at some fast-food restaurants across the country.

Workers at the nation’s best known fast-food restaurants in seven cities across America are planning to walk off the job Monday to protest what they say are wages that are too low to live on. In a move orchestrated with the help of powerful labor unions and clergy groups, the workers plan to strike for a day to demand their wages be doubled.

The Washington Post reports that the protests will take place in New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Flint, Mich., involving workers at McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's and KFC. Some employees at stores including Dollar Tree, Macy's and Victoria's Secret are also expected to join the protesters in several cities.

"A lot of the workers are living in poverty, you know, not being able to afford to put food on the table or take the train to work." - Jonathan Westin, Fast Food Forward The workers are calling for wages of $15 per hour, more than double New York's current minimum wage of $7.25.
Read More at Fox News