RUSSIANS: U.S. SIDING WITH NEO-NAZIS

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:F. MICHAEL MALOOF

Moscow justifies aggression as battle against ultra-nationalists

WASHINGTON – A new equation in the Ukrainian crisis is a growing concern that ultra-nationalist Ukrainians could attack ethnic Russians.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stated the ultra-nationalist threat is the reason for preparing to move Russian troops into the country.

The ultra-nationalists were instrumental in ousting pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, even though he turned down a European Union partnership agreement. Yanokuvych’s acceptance would have brought about austerity measures that the ultra-nationalists would have opposed.

They have shown an ability to operate among the tens of thousands of demonstrators in Kiev and are trained to confront security forces. They are equipped with helmets, masks, protective gear, weapons and Molotov cocktails.

Analysts say that the ultra-nationalist groups present a threat, since members are prepared and willing to confront security forces.

The world-changing developments in the post-Soviet world are decoded in “Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategy for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion and Promoting Terrorism” and the companion film, “Disinformation: The Secret Strategy To Destroy The West.” Get both the book and DVD together – at a very special reduced price.

Russian doctrine

Lavrov’s rationale for Russia’s aggressive response is based on a change to Russian military doctrine implemented after the 2008 Russian-Georgian conflict that says Russia will send its troops anywhere to defend Russians.

After the 2008 war, Russia issued passports and granted citizenship to ethnic Russians in the captured Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which Russia later annexed.

The thrust of the doctrine could be interpreted as an open-ended means of committing “legal” aggression, since ethnic Russians occupy all of the independent countries that once comprised the Soviet Union.

There are ethnic Russians not only in Ukraine but in all of the Caucasus, Central Asia and in the former Soviet Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as Belarus, Poland and Finland.

‘Sieg heil’

The most prominent of the ultra-nationalist groups is the Pravy-Sektor, or Right Sector, whose leader now has called on Chechen Islamic militant chief Dokku Umarov to launch attacks in Russia.

Right Sector also opposes Russian influence in Ukraine. Its leader, Dmitry Yarosh, had threatened to send members to the Crimea to defend against Russian military intervention.

While Right Sector was involved in demonstrations that toppled Yanukovych, Yarosh, has let it be known that his group will resume violent demonstrations if the new interim government doesn’t deliver on the changes it promised.

Yarosh, however, was selected as a member of the National Security and Defense Council, which is part of the new interim government.

Right Sector and other ultra-national groups, such as Euromaidan, Patriot of Ukraine and White Hammer, are comprised mainly of males in their 20s and 30s who wear dark clothing and masks and are very aggressive during demonstrations.

The groups were directly involved in the beginning of demonstrations in January and occupied the Ukrainian presidential building and other government buildings.

One report said demonstrators hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols on toppled memorials and destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who died fighting German occupation during World War II.

The report said “sieg heil” salutes and the Nazi Wolfangel symbol was being displayed prominently in demonstrations in Maidan Square in Kiev, and neo-Nazi groups had established “autonomous zones” around the city.

Right Sector in particular is said to have wide support from the people throughout Ukraine.

“Right Sector’s emergence highlights how far-right and extremist groups can increase the impact of protects against autocratic regimes, political repression and austerity measures, sometimes effecting political change,” said a report by the open-intelligence group Stratfor.

Russia: U.S. doesn’t understand nuances

Lavrov further asserts that the West has sided with the ultra-nationalist groups, which he calls neo-Nazis, resulting in the violent government takeover.

Lavrov specifically accused U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry of helping to incite the groups, ignoring the excesses of what has been referred to as “militant Russophobic and anti-Semitic forces” inciting demonstrations in Kiev.

“Not bothering to make any effort to understand the complex processes occurring within Ukrainian society or make an objective assessment of the environment which is furthering the degradation following the forceful seizure of power in Kiev by radical extremists, Kerry operates with a Cold War stamp, offering not to punish those who carried out the government overthrow, but the Russian Federation,” a Russian foreign ministry statement said.

The statement said Moscow “further accused European powers of standing idly by while the ‘newly born Kiev regime’ trampled on the EU mediated agreement of February 21, in which Yanukovich reached a deal with the opposition to settle the crisis.”

“The ministry noted the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland had signed off on the document which was thrown out of the window when opposition forces seized power the next day. In the process, the West has effectively allied itself with neo-Nazis who are smashing up Orthodox churches and synagogues while “declaring war on the Russian language.”

The ‘real power’ in Ukraine

A knowledgeable Ukrainian source in Stanford, Calif, told WND the “real power in Kiev and much of Western Ukraine today belongs to several rival neo-Nazi factions whose masked, well-armed adherents are busy looting abandoned properties and shaking down businesses for money to support their ‘revolution.’”

“They have already made territorial demands to each of the countries bordering the Ukraine, including the NATO members Poland, Hungary and Romania, and they have declared their intention to acquire nuclear weapons,” the source said.

Other European neo-Nazi parties, such as Jobbik in Hungary and the Golden Dawn in Greece, are “amateurs compared to Ukraine’s Svoboda and Right Sector,” said the source.

The Ukrainian groups use “the same slogans and the same Nazi symbols they used in 1941-1944, when they butchered 200,000-300,000 Poles and Jews, and in 1945-1954, when they butchered in the most gruesome ways imaginable tens of thousands of peaceful Ukrainian citizens whose only crime was to refuse joining their ranks.”

“Today, much of Ukraine is frozen in horror, fearing that the neo-Nazis might unleash a bloodbath that would overshadow the crimes they committed in 1941-1954,” the source told WND.

He said many of the neo-Nazis’ current leaders collaborated with Chechen terrorists during the Chechens’ terror campaign against Russia in 1990s.

“We have no idea what awaits us next,” the source told WND. “Russia may be able to save the Crimea from the neo-Nazis, but it would probably not have enough muscle to save Ukraine proper.”

Sources say that Right Sector and the other ultra-nationalist groups are linked to a constellation of international neo-fascist groups through the Alliance of European National Movements.

‘Activate’ the fight

Right Sector leader Yarosh’s appeal to Chechen Islamic leader Umarov to act against Russia was posted on Right Sector’s VKontakte social network.

The message, signed by “leader of Right Sector Dmitry Yarosh,” called on Umarov “to activate his fight” and “take a unique chance to win” over Russia.

Yarmosh’s appeal shows “the guts of the so-called new Ukrainian authorities,” according to Aliy Totorkulov, chairman of the Presidium of the Russian Congress of Peoples of the Caucasus.

“Extremists, nationalists of all stripes, flooded the peaceful republic threatening it with chaos and violence,” he said.

He added that the Ukraine’s “Maidan sponsors” and those involved in supporting instability in the Caucasus come from a “single-enter” of extremism.

“We strongly support the deployment of Russian troops to resolve the situation in Crimea as well as provide assistance to other Ukrainian regions where the population rejects nationalism and asks Russia for help and protection,” Totorkulov said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/russians-u-s-siding-with-neo-nazis/#OMWzwUj057idr7K4.99

British Intelligence Advisor: CIA Conducted DNA Test on Obama – Found No Match to Alleged Grandparents

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Tim Brown

British Intelligence Advisor Barrister Michael Shrimpton presented a report in which he indicated that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya in 1960, not 1961, as he has claimed.

According to Shrimpton, Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya. Shrimpton says that sits on British Intelligence files, since at the time of Obama’s birth, Kenya was considered a part of the British Commonwealth.

Mr. Shrimpton also indicated that Obama’s father was tied to a group known as the Mau Mau, and that he ran guns and money for them and the German Intelligence Network in East Africa.

According to Shrimpton, Obama’s mother Stanley Ann Dunham, was not pregnant in 1961, but instead gave birth to Barack Obama in 1960. He says that Obama’s mother was one of many of Obama’s mistresses.

“My understanding is that if a lady’s giving birth in August, we would like to see her pregnant in July,” said Shrimpton. “It’s been established that his (Obama’s) alleged mother wasn’t pregnant in July; his claimed birth on fourth August does seem to be coming under a certain degree of scrutiny.”

Perhaps this is why Obama can’t seem to remember his birthday.

However, if the photo that Shrimpton refers to is this one, then this photo has been alleged to have actually been of Barbara Bush, not Stanley Ann Dunham. I have no way of checking his claim, since no photo is actually shown in the video.

Then Shrimpton dropped a bombshell.

“It’s also nice to have a DNA relationship with your parents,” Shrimpton added. “The DNA test that was done in respect to Barack Obama’s claimed grandparents, I understand the CIA (Central Intelligence Community) were unable to obtain a match.”

Shrimpton went on to say that the CIA performed a covert DNA testing on Obama during a fundraising dinner using a glass of water. Apparently, the CIA was able to grab a few glasses of water with both saliva and fingerprints to conduct their testing, and according to Shrimpton, the test came back that Barack Obama is not related to his alleged grandparents. Dreams of My Real Father, anyone?

This would explain why Obama doesn’t look anything like his family members.

Mr. Shrimpton also alludes to the fact that Rudy Giuliani’s people bought him lunch because of what he knew and were “fascinated by his discoveries.” Giuliani was hoping to be the Republican candidate at the time. Apparently Hillary Clinton’s people were just as interested in Shrimpton’s findings.

Michael Shrimpton is a very credible source. According to his website:

Michael Shrimpton is a barrister, called to the Bar in London 1983 and is a specialist in National Security and Constitutional Law, Strategic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism. He has wide ranging connections both in Western Intelligence agencies and amongst ex-Soviet Bloc agencies. He has also earned respect in the intelligence community for his analysis of previously unacknowledged post WWII covert operations against the West by organizations based in Washington, Munich, Paris and Brussels and which are continuing in post 9-11.

He is Adjunct Professor of Intelligence Studies, Department of National Security, Intelligence and Space Studies, American Military University, teaching intelligence subjects at Master’s Degree level to inter alia serving intelligence officers.

He has represented US and Israeli intelligence officers in law and has briefed staffers on the Senate select Committee on Intelligence and the Joint Congressional inquiry into 9-11, also addressing panels on terrorism in Washington DC and Los Angeles.
His active assistance to Intelligence and Law Enforcement Agencies in the Global War on Terror has produced some notable success including the exposure of the Abu Graib “hood” photograph as a fake.

His work in strategic intelligence takes him on regular trips to the Pentagon, and he also met with senior advisors to the President of the Russian Federation in Moscow in November 2005.

He participated in the Global Strategic Review conference in Geneva in 2005 and is a regular contributor at conferences such as Intelcon and the Intelligence Summit in Washington, DC in February 2006.

While the video is a couple of years old, many people have never seen it. This is not a mere reporter, but a British Intelligence advisor. Additionally, his claims tend to support evidence that we compiled from Kenyan Parliament records that indicate Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/03/british-intelligence-adviser-cia-conducted-dna-test-obama-found-match-alleged-grandparents/#C1yX1XFZvUCc8pS1.99

Obama’s use of executive power faces reckoning at Supreme Court

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.teaparty.org

 

Posted by:

(The Hill) – Nothing less than the boundaries of executive power are at stake Monday as the Supreme Court considers whether President Obama violated the Constitution during his first term.

Oral arguments slated for Monday will center on a trio of recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that were deemed unconstitutional by lower courts.

If they uphold the decision, experts say the justices could endanger hundreds of NLRB decisions.

Even more significant are the ramifications for future presidents, with the court poised either to bolster or blunt the chief executive’s appointment powers.

“Rulings like this have implications that last for centuries,” said Michael Lotito, an employment and labor attorney and co-chairman of Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute.

Presidents have for decades used recess appointment powers when the Senate is away to install judges and fill top federal vacancies that ordinarily would be subject to confirmation proceedings.

But with the disputed NLRB appointments, Obama became the first president to appoint nominees when the Senate was in a “pro-forma” session, when the upper chamber is briefly called to order and adjourned every few days.

The sessions are intended to prevent recess appointments, and usually only a handful of senators are present for them. In filling the NLRB posts, the Obama administration claims that the Senate is generally not available to conduct business during the sessions, so the president’s recess appointment power is in effect.

“The sham pro-forma sessions are nothing more than that,” said Catholic University law professor Victor Williams, who filed a brief backing the government’s position.

The impetus for recess appointments has faded now that Senate Democrats have changed their chamber’s rules to allow for a simple majority vote on presidential nominees. Nevertheless, the case could stunt Obama’s and future presidents’ authority when it comes to staffing administrations.

The case was brought by Noel Canning, an Oregon-based soft drink bottling and distribution company that challenged the appointments as unconstitutional.

In January of last year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The appellate court ruling under now review at the Supreme Court found a narrow window for the president to make recess appointments. Under its decision, the president can only make such appointments when the Senate is in recess between sessions of Congress, and only if a vacancy occurred in that same time period.

That goes well against protocol adopted by past Democratic and Republican presidents. A Congressional Service Research report found 329 such appointments since 1981 that would not meet that criteria and would be ruled void if the appeals court decision was law.

Some see the fight against the labor board as a broader effort in which opponents have sought to stymie the Obama administration’s rules and regulations.

“I think the battle against the NLRB over the last few years has been a proxy war about the proper role and scope of government,” said Wilma Liebman, who served as chairwoman of the NLRB from January 2009 to August 2011.

The obscure agency has become ground zero in that war, pitting business against labor and Republicans against Democrats.

The private sector mobilized a massive lobbying campaign after Obama’s election, fearing a Democratic president might enact a host of policy changes favorable to unions.

The effort first targeted legislation that would ease union organizing, but shifted to the NLRB nominees and its decisions.

“There has been an especially rancorous degree of controversy whipped around the NLRB. It got swept up with the Employee Free Choice Act,” Liebman said.

The NLRB has had its decisions overturned by the high court before. In 2010, the Supreme Court found the board lacked the authority to make decisions for more than two years because it only had two members — one short of a quorum.

About 600 NLRB decisions were made in that time period, and the board was forced to go back through about 100 of them.

Liebman said it was a time-consuming process, but one the labor board could do again.

“We issued new decisions in a relatively short period of time. We had a process in place and went methodically back through them,” Liebman said. “It took some time that we could have spent doing other things. It wasn’t the end of the world.”

But having to turn its focus on previous decisions could sidetrack the NLRB from what is seen as an activist agenda at a critical moment, said Lolito, whose firm represents employers.

The board is now at full strength for the first time in years, and was expected to tackle numerous issues involving union elections.

“If this board has to spend the next good couple of years looking backward instead of forward, many in the employer community would say that’s good news,” he said.

In Monday’s arguments, attorneys with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will argue on behalf of Noel Canning that the NLRB operated without a quorum for well over a year, causing confusion for both employers and employees.

“We look forward to the much needed clarity that the Supreme Court’s decision will bring,” said Lily Fu Claffee, the Chamber’s general counsel.

The Obama administration’s case hinges on winning three points, according to Georgetown University Law Center’s Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, who is arguing against the government.

First, it must convince the justices that presidents may make appointments during regular recesses and not, as the appeals court ruled, only during the breaks between numbered sessions on Congress.

Next, the court must agree that the appointments may include the filling of vacancies that existed before the recess began, rather than those that occurred during a recess.

Finally, it must conclude that the pro-forma sessions do not count as formal sessions of Congress.

Proving all three points, particularly the last, would be a tall order, said Rosenkranz, who predicted a 9-0 ruling in favor of Noel Canning.

“I don’t think this is a close case,” he said.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/195155-supreme-court-to-decide-the-limits-of-executive-

– See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/obamas-use-executive-power-faces-reckoning-supreme-court-33090/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social#sthash.lkDhQFk9.dpuf

Why Bridgegate made headlines but Obama’s IRS scandal didn’t

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://nypost.com

 

Posted by:JOHN PODHORETZ

 

Photo: Illustration by Leah Tiscione

Most government scandals involve the manipulation of the system in obscure ways by people no one has ever heard of. That is why George Washington Bridgegate is nearly a perfect scandal — because it is comprehensible and (as they say in Hollywood) “relatable” to everyone who has ever been in a car. This is the reason this one is not going to go away so easily, even if one accepts the contention that Gov. Chris Christie had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Government officials and political operatives working for Christie, for weird and petty reasons, chose to make traffic worse. That’s the takeaway. When they are reminded of the fact that people working on Christie’s behalf thought it was a good political game to mire tens of thousands of their fellow Americans in the nightmarish gridlock that is a daily dreaded prospect for tens of millions, they will be discomfited by that and by the politician in whose name it was done.

And yet, you know what is also something everybody would find “relatable”? Politicians who sic the tax man on others for political gain. Everybody has to deal with the IRS and fears it. Last year, we learned from the Internal Revenue Service itself that it had targeted ideological opponents of the president for special scrutiny and investigation — because they were ideological opponents.

That’s juicy, just as Bridgegate is juicy. It’s something we can all understand, it speaks to our greatest fears, and it’s the sort of thing TV newspeople could gab about for days on end without needing a fresh piece of news to keep it going.

And yet, according to Scott Wheelock of the Media Research Center, “In less than 24 hours, the three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they’ve allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service controversy.”

Why? Oh, come on, you know why. Christie belongs to one political party. Obama belongs to the other. You know which ones they belong to. And you know which ones the people at the three networks belong to, too: In surveys going back decades, anywhere from 80% to 90% of Washington’s journalists say they vote Democratic.

Scandals are not just about themselves; they are about the media atmosphere that surrounds them. They are perpetuated and deepened by the attention of journalists, whose relentless pursuit of every angle keeps the story going. That is exactly what has been missing from the IRS scandal from its outset; Republicans in Congress have been the dogged pursuers, not the press.

There was plenty of material. Just as journalists remain skeptical today about who exactly might have gotten the idea for the lane closures, they could have been asking without letup who got the idea to dig into conservative tax-status applications. Several officials at the IRS resigned, retired and took the Fifth, just as was the case with Christie-aligned Port Authority officials.

It’s pretty clear the questions about how high up Bridgegate went are going to be pursued far more diligently than they have been in the IRS case.

What gives?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding among conservatives about the causes of partisan media bias — the reason there is unequal coverage of scandals of this kind. It exists not because there is a conscious effort to soft-pedal bad news for politicians you like and to push hard on bad news for politicians you don’t.

It’s actually more personal — more relatable, shall we say—than that.

Journalists know the Obamans. Intimately. They know them from college, they know them from work, they know them from kids’ soccer. They’re literally married to them.

To the journalists, the Obamans don’t look like crooks and cheats. Far from it. For them, it’s like looking in a mirror.

In September, Elspeth Reeve of The Atlantic Wire took note of 24 major journalists who have taken posts at senior levels in the Obama administration. All of them have worked for decades in various news organizations, thus creating personal ties and bonds of affection with literally hundreds of working reporters and editors.

The journalists are not covering up for their friends and their spouses. They just believe the people they know could not be responsible for behaving badly, or cravenly, or for crass political advantage —and the tone they strike when such things are discussed is often one of offense, as though it is a sign of low character to believe otherwise. It would be, well, like believing the journalists themselves were crooks.

It’s fair to say that most conservatives don’t know people in the Obama administration, and they dislike and disagree with its policies. When they look at it, their dislike and lack of any personal connection make it easier for them to see officials mired in scandal and tush-covering cover-up. This is a direct analogue to the way liberals — of whom journalists comprise a central cohort — viewed the George W. Bush and Reagan administrations.

They saw people with whom they disagreed and who they thought were bad for the country and so found it much easier to believe they were acting out of malign motive and doing evil.

Christie may be entirely innocent of all wrongdoing. Or there may be some connection, even a very tenuous and suggestive one. But there will be little let-up now.

For in the end, because Christie is a Republican. Christie isn’t them.

America’s expanding police state

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

In the increased police state around us and the amplified NSA surveillance everywhere, citizens are feeling more and more like they are guilty until proven innocent. The police in Fairfax County, Virginia, cannot stop many people for speeding since the interstates and highways are constantly partially blocked by accidents, road repairs, and rush hour – it is almost impossible to go fast – just a crawling speed bumper to bumper at all hours of the day and night.

What is a cop to do to make his quota of tickets? “Taxation through citation” for simple stuff, often made up charges, harassing innocent citizens, while real crimes go unpunished. The area is overrun with illegal aliens who drive unlawfully and badly because they cannot read nor understand the road signs, yet ordinary Americans are stopped constantly. Is the role of police to protect Americans who pay their salaries or has it morphed into taxing citizens through endless minor but expensive citations?

The tickets run from you did not stop long enough at the stop sign, you ignored it, you stopped way before the white line, you stopped past the white line, you changed lanes illegally, you did not signal, etc.  When roads are treacherous or covered in black ice, it is hard to stop precisely on the white line as policemen dictate.

Stop light cameras everywhere catch even the most diligent drivers who are tired of waiting in endless traffic lights that are not synchronized, and misjudge the timing of the camera flash after the light changes from yellow to red. Nobody argues with cops, it’s their words against the mighty police, unless they want to wind up in jail, tazed, or cavity searched.

I am sure many policemen put their lives on the line at times when they encounter bad guys. Must they hide behind unmarked cars in order to catch speeders or other violators? If the police’s role is to protect and serve the honest, law abiding taxpaying citizens, if we are in real trouble and need to seek police help, how do we know who to ask? How do we know they are the legitimate cops and not bad elements prowling to kidnap or rape the innocents?

Do police need tanks and armored vehicles like the ones used in battle in Iraq to protect its citizens from drunks, bar brawls, home invasions, convenience store robberies, and traffic violations? Yes, criminals have outgunned police at times, as was the case years ago in California during a bank heist gone terribly perilous.

For every lazy and novice cop who hides in quiet neighborhoods to catch residents going 2-3 miles over the speed limit or not stopping long enough (What is long enough and who decides?) at the stop signs, there are thousands of policemen who put their lives on the line to really serve and protect innocent citizens from harm. And they do it for modest remuneration.

As a law abiding citizen who has nothing to fear, I find myself more and more afraid of the police. It’s a feeling of dread I had growing up under communism. A person in police uniform was someone to fear because they were not there to protect us, they were there to harm and harass us – we were guilty until proven innocent. For three years after I arrived in the U.S., my heart skipped a beat every time I saw a cop – they were the enemy. I learned that policemen in the U.S. were there to help and protect, and I relaxed.

I never see a policeman on the road in Virginia helping a stranded motorist or changing a tire for a lady in distress as was the case in other parts of the country where I lived.

I see blue lights as more aggravation on the side of the roads with perennially slow moving traffic. Is it necessary for cops to call in another cruiser as a backup when they are ticketing someone for allegedly ignoring a stop sign?

Lately, I am anxious and fearful again every time I see a policeman in uniform – my old feelings of dread are resurfacing. As the police state tightens around us, heightened by the NSA spying on all American citizens, the question to ponder is, how free are we anymore?

SEE A SHRINK, LOSE YOUR GUN

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:BOB UNRUH

New ‘rules’ would suspend 2nd Amendment even for ‘outpatient’ treatment

In an end-of-week “information dump” often resorted to by political leaders to publicly release information they would like overlooked, President Obama formally has launched his much-feared expansion of the use of mental health diagnoses to crack down on gun ownership.

The Obama Department of Homeland Security already is on record casting aspersions on the mental ability of returning veterans, third-party candidate supporters and people with pro-life bumper stickers – calling them potential “right-wing extremists.” It was also caught, through the IRS, targeting conservative organizations that might be critical of Obama.

So critics of the administration long have warned the move would come. On Friday, it did.

Obama announced that his Department of Justice is proposing a rule change that would “clarify” that being committed to a mental institution – a key red flag under gun ownership rules – would include receiving nebulous “outpatient” services from a professional, such as a psychiatrist.

The president said his Health and Human Services agency is issuing a rule to pierce the privacy protections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act so there would be “express permission” for “entities” to hand over to the federal government certain medical records – that is, “information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands.”

WND reported six months ago on alarms raised by various groups over this issue.

At the time, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, warned that the administration was widening the door for those subject to a “mental” deficiency definition, looking for ways to send people to a mental institution for “mental defectiveness or mental illness” or “for other reasons.”

“The phrase ‘for other reasons’ is overly broad and vague,” EPIC said. “Although the DOJ has illustrated that drug use is an example of ‘commitments for other reasons,’ the nebulous language would grant the DOJ sweeping authority to prohibit individuals from possessing firearms, a constitutionally protected right.”

The privacy advocates warned: “Until the DOJ clearly defines and enumerates the types of formal commitments that can bar gun ownership, HHS should not amend its regulations to release sensitive mental health information to the DOJ.”

The Obama administration’s gun-control agenda accelerated after the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012. It then began to press for “closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands,” a ban on “military-style” weapons and some ammunition magazines, as well as “making schools safer” and improving mental health services.

See the real details about the Second Amendment in the Whistleblower issue on “Firearms and Freedom: Why the Second Amendment is more important than ever.”

But the vague generalities used to describe the plans have worried privacy advocates and Second Amendment supporters.

‘Wrong hands’

On Friday, Obama announced his executive actions to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.”

“Too many Americans have been severely injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence,” his statement said. “While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent, in some cases when persons with a mental illness do not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide.”

That, he wrote, explains the need for the DOJ rule “to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm” and the HHS rule change is “to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information … to the federal background check system.”

His statement noted that Obama already has directed federal agencies to hand over criminal records and other “information” about those who are prohibited from having guns “for mental health reasons.”

And he spent $20 million to “improve incentives for states” to hand over background check information to the federal government. He’s proposing to spend $50 million on that in 2014.

At the Washington Times, commentator Michael E. Hammond said, “The real agenda of the gun-hating Obama administration is to strip gun rights from law-abiding Americans, even if the result is to discourage people from seeking counseling.”

He asked: “Do you really think a hunter or gun owner feels somehow less violated when, as a result of sharing his deepest secrets in confidence, his name is turned over to government as either a dangerous or incompetent person and – as has happened – a SWAT team is sent to his house to seize his guns?”

It was just a year ago that Obama announced 23 executive actions aimed at curbing gun rights. Then Congress handed him a massive defeat, refusing to go along with some of the more reaching plans to curb gun ownership.

The federal government admits it already has banned from gun ownership those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, have been found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, or otherwise have been determined through an adjudication process to have a severe mental condition.

Judicial records

The mental health records come from the judiciary, not the health system.

Now the federal government wants access to all such records from health care providers, too.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center said the best way to handle the federal government’s plans would be to leave in place the protections provided for consumers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’s Privacy Rule, which doesn’t allow such discussions of diagnoses or treatment.

EPIC said at the time if changes are made, there need to be clear protections.

“HHS should assign liability to states that disclose excess mental health data for NICS purposes,” the comments said. “HHS should mandate states notify NICS as soon as possible but no [later] than 10 business days of an incorrect or outdated mental illness record.”

Said EPIC: “There are not enough adequate privacy protections in place, under state law or otherwise, for data collected by state entities for reporting to the NICS. … Many states do not have privacy laws that explicitly address privacy protection of mental health records and availability to the NICS.”

WND also has reported on another anti-gun strategy, which is a possible explanation for why the Obama administration has failed to launch legal action against Colorado and Washington, where voters have voted to legalize marijuana under their state laws, even though federal law doesn’t allow it.

Some have asked if there something about the idea of legalizing marijuana that Washington likes. The idea may have been borne out recently when the Congressional Research Service released its report on the “State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues.”

As attorneys Todd Garvey and Brian Yeh wrote in the report, Washington has flexibility regarding drug prosecution, stating: “The extent to which federal authorities will actually seek to prosecute individuals who are engaged in marijuana-related activities in Colorado and Washington remains uncertain. President Obama himself has suggested the prosecuting simple possession is not a priority, while the Department of Justice has said only that ‘growing, selling or possession any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.’”

What is more certain, they wrote, is that federal firearms regulators will be aggressive about banning anyone who uses marijuana from buying – or possessing – a weapon.

“With the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes in Colorado and Washington, it seems likely the ATF will … consider a recreational user of marijuana to be a prohibited possessor of firearms regardless of whether the use is lawful under state provisions,” they wrote.

The attorneys said the ATF specifically has stated “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

They further wrote, “These individuals are to answer ‘yes’ when asked on the firearms transfer form if they are unlawful users of a controlled substance.”

Targeting veterans

Also, the government has been using its interaction with veterans to designate many of them – by the tens of thousands – incapable of handling their own financial affairs and, therefore, banned from having guns.

A lawsuit was just filed by the United States Justice Foundation against the Veterans Administration for snatching veterans’ gun rights without “due process” or any “factual or legal basis.”

WND has published reports about how returning veterans were being deprived of their Second Amendment rights without a court-based adjudication competency process, based on arbitrary VA agency decisions.

The problem arises when the agency wants to appoint a fiduciary – someone to advise a disabled veteran or one receiving certain government benefits – to help with the management of the benefits.

The government then routinely notifies the FBI’s NICS system, a federally maintained list of those whose competency has been challenged. That means they no longer can purchase a gun or even keep the one they may have.

Michael Connelly, executive director of the USJF, told WND the initial lawsuit is to compel the VA to respond to two requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

“The information requested included Veterans Benefits Administration rules, regulations and criteria for making ‘determinations of incompetency due to a physical or mental condition of a benefit recipient,’” the legal team explained.

“The USJF has received numerous complaints from military veterans around the country who are being declared incompetent to handle their own financial affairs and then told that they can no longer purchase or own firearms or ammunition,” said Connelly. “This determination is being made without due process protections for the veterans and the basis for the incompetency ruling is often arbitrary and without a factual or legal basis.”

Just a month ago, WND columnist Jeff Knox warning about Obama’s newly announced strategy.

A front

“The strategy is to use the wide acceptance of the idea that the mentally ill should not have access to firearms as a front for prohibiting a broad array of ‘normal’ people from possessing guns or ammunition. As with most things, the devil is in the details. What is mental illness? Who is mentally ill? How mentally ill must one be to warrant revocation of a fundamental human right? Who makes that determination? Who is ‘normal,’ and how ‘normal’ do they have to be to own guns? We all know people who have dealt with some mental health issues or who people consider a bit odd, but who are also fully functional, completely rational, good people who would never harm anyone. The new anti-rights strategy is to cast doubts on those people and deny them their rights to own guns and ammunition.”

Knox also reported his sources confirm the strategy of using “emergency” legislation to “pass draconian bills with no hearings, no committee votes and no public input” that would further “control” firearms.

“While this anti-rights sneak attack is just getting under way, you can be sure it is well-planned and well-funded, so expect to see a flood of bills dealing with mental health in general and firearms access by the mentally ill in particular introduced in Congress and state legislatures nationwide in the coming months,” Knox wrote.

“These bills will be promoted as ‘common sense,’ but they will contain definitions so broad that hundreds of thousands – possibly millions – of regular folks who have been or are being successfully treated for common, minor, mental and emotional issues will be denied their right to arms as ‘mental defectives.’ People suffering from mild depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, even women treated for PMS, could be lumped in with violent schizophrenics and the criminally insane.”

And be banned from having a firearm.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/see-a-shrink-lose-your-gun/#1QYva5tgeF6sQxsw.99

Why is there no Benghazi Special Committee?

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.americanthinker.com

 

Posted by:Thomas Lifson

The 9/11 12 attack on the Benghazi Diplomatic Facility is a deep stain on America, and the Obama administration, with the cooperation of media allies like the New York Times, is determined to dismiss it from public consciousness. That’s understandable, perhaps, out of political self-interest.  But why is Speaker John Boehner playing along, and standing in the way of a House Special Committee that could put people under oath and get to the bottom if the scandal?

It is not as if such a committee would be unpopular. Matthew Boyle reports at Breitbart:

A poll released by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell and Republican pollster John McLaughlin shows that a vast majority of American voters want a special select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal. However, House Speaker John Boehner is denying them a shot at it.

Secure America Now president Allen Roth, whose organization commissioned the poll, points to it as a major reason why he signed a letter to Boehner sent Monday that demands he stop obstructing the investigation and install a select committee.

“In a recent national poll, conducted by Democrat Pat Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin, 62% of Americans say it is important that Congress create a special committee to get to the truth about Benghazi,” Roth told Breitbart news in an email over the weekend before the letter became public. “A large majority of House Republicans agree. The American people understand that if Republican leaders allow the Obama Administration to cover up its negligence that led to unnecessary deaths of Americans, it would be a crime. We will continue to apply pressure on House leadership until they create a select committee.”

Fortunately, pressure can be placed on Boehner. Matthew Boyle reports separately:

Former Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a leader in the conservative movement and retired Lt. Colonel of the United States Army, told Breitbart News that he thinks House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) might be trying to help the Obama administration cover up the Benghazi scandal.

lWest is a signer of the letter from a coalition of conservative and military eaders, along with three family members of the victims in the Benghazi terrorist attack, that demanded Boehner create a select committee to investigate the Benghazi terrorist attack. Boehner has been blocking the House Resolution from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) that would create such a committee, even though H. Res. 36 has 178 cosponsors in addition to Wolf.

“There is widespread support for a select committee to get to the bottom of disturbing questions surrounding the attack, as H.Res. 36 has 178 cosponsors,” West said in an email to Breitbart News. “Yet Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor refuse to bring it to the House floor for a vote. You have to wonder, is there something they know that they prefer not come to light?”

The letter delivered to Boehner on Monday similarly questioned whether Boehner is helping President Barack Obama’s administration cover up the Benghazi scandal.

There has been much speculation that some sort of national security-endangering secret is at risk in Benghazi. Perhaps Boehner has received secret briefings that have coopted him into the cover-up faction. But frankly, the lack of response to the Benghazi attack is itself threatening our national security, declaring open season on our overseas facilities.

Let the truth be known.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/why_is_there_no_benghazi_special_committee.html#ixzz2pmmWutkG

POLL: MAJORITY WANT BENGHAZI SELECT COMMITTEE

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from http://www.breitbart.com/ :

 

Posted by:MATTHEW BOYLE

---

A poll released by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell and Republican pollster John McLaughlin shows that a vast majority of American voters want a special select committee to investigate the Benghazi scandal. However, House Speaker John Boehner is denying them a shot at it.

WHY is he stopping it ?

Secure America Now president Allen Roth, whose organization commissioned the poll, points to it as a major reason why he signed a letter to Boehner sent Monday that demands he stop obstructing the investigation and install a select committee.

“In a recent national poll, conducted by Democrat Pat Caddell and Republican John McLaughlin, 62% of Americans say it is important that Congress create a special committee to get to the truth about Benghazi,” Roth told Breitbart news in an email over the weekend before the letter became public. “A large majority of House Republicans agree. The American people understand that if Republican leaders allow the Obama Administration to cover up its negligence that led to unnecessary deaths of Americans, it would be a crime. We will continue to apply pressure on House leadership until they create a select committee.”

Roth’s group’s poll was released in late October and showed that 62 percent of voters believe that congressional leaders should create a select committee on Benghazi, whereas only 32 percent think such a procedure is not important. More specifically, 83 percent of GOP voters and 58 percent of independents support a select committee, while 50 percent of Democratic voters oppose a select committee. A majority of self-identified moderate voters, 53 percent, want a select committee as well.

Conservative leader Ginni Thomas, who also signed the letter to Boehner, told Breitbart News: “Americans can see John Boehner is not serious about using the constitutional powers of investigation to get at the truth of Benghazi. On the anniversary of September 11 in 2012, Americans should have been rescued in a firefight started by radical Islamists, not left alone while the president prepares to go to a fundraiser the next day in Las Vegas.”

“Republicans are playing ‘small ball legislating’ when America wants professional investigations and accountability from an administration that is running circles around Republicans,” Thomas continued. “If Republicans with gavels don’t do oversight capably, garnering the respect of the Obama administration, at some point, Republicans are as complicit in the scandal. We are approaching that deadline.”

The VA Corruption Scandal You Haven’t Heard Of

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.westernjournalism.com

 

Posted by:MIKE SUHOR

What if I told you that the requests for information from a Congressional Oversight committee were being repeatedly ignored by a member of Obama’s administration?

What if I told you that this has been going on for months on an almost daily routine, and that the head of this congressional committee had to resort to a subpoena to get any responses to his questions?

What if I told you that millions of dollars had been spent wastefully by this department for lavish conventions, where the attendees celebrated as if they were on a vacation, with gifts, helicopter rides, and services paid for with taxpayer money?

What if I told you that this department has ignored Congressional investigations into the deaths of Americans in the care of this department?

What if I told you that those responsible for the waste of millions of dollars of taxpayer money and deaths of Americans in their care were given bonuses and allowed to retire on lavish pensions instead of answering the hard questions before Congress?

If you are thinking that it should be a scandal of epic proportions, you’d be right.

Except that it isn’t because you aren’t really being told about it until now.

The Department, of course, if you haven’t guessed it already, is the Veterans Affairs Department.

There is truly nothing sadder in my eyes than having to resort to British Newspapers to get news about our VA:

A former assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs pleaded the Fifth on Wednesday, refusing to testify about a pair of taxpayer-funded human resources conferences in 2011 that cost a scandalous $6.1 million or more.

John Sepulveda oversaw the conferences, which included the screening of a parody video based on ‘Patton,’ whose production cost the Treasury more than $52,000.

But in front of the House Oversight Committee, he chose to remain silent; taking advantage of a clause in the U.S. Constitution intended to protect citizens from incriminating themselves.

‘You are not excused,’ committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa ultimately told Sepulveda before sending him away. ‘You are dismissed.’

Sadly, it gets worse. This was just the loss of a whole lot of money by the VA on what was nothing more than paid vacations to Orlando for VA human resources staff complete with Karaoke, Massages, and a pathetic and insulting imitation of General George S. Patton, which can only be seen to be believed:

There is still the deaths of veterans from wretched care to be discussed.

Examples of the department’s lack of accountability are numerous. But almost as plentiful — and even more shameful — are the many cases where VA employees and executives are being rewarded rather than punished for their incompetence.

Officials with the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System have botched the handling of a deadly Legionnaires’ disease outbreak at nearly every turn. Five veterans are now dead from the pneumonia-like disease. But instead of giving those who failed to prevent the outbreak pink slips, VA gave them glowing performance reviews and huge bonuses.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up to 21 veterans were sickened between February 2011 and November 2012, but that didn’t stop VA Pittsburgh Director Terry Gerigk Wolf from receiving the highest possible score on a VA performance review covering the bulk of the outbreak period.

Shockingly, Wolf’s review makes no mention of the outbreak, and instead praises her for leading a “groundbreaking Civility Initiative” and helping improve her employees’ resume-writing skills.

Memories of the outbreak seem to have eluded VA officials again when they nominated Wolf’s boss, VA regional director Michael Moreland, for the Presidential Rank Award, America’s highest civil-service accolade. For Moreland, the honor included a whopping $62,895 bonus, which he formally accepted just three days after VA’s inspector general reported VA Pittsburgh’s response to the outbreak was plagued by persistent mismanagement.

Most people would find VA’s celebration of Wolf and Moreland in the aftermath of a deadly outbreak they were too incompetent to stop hard to believe.

Amazingly, this expose of the VA didn’t come from a “trained Journalist,” but instead came directly from the pen of Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida, who is the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.

Click here to read just one of the many letters that Rep. Miller has sent to VA Secretary Eric Shinseki. This particular one is asking why The VA spent a million dollars on TV commercials in and around the DC area during the World Series.

Here is the video in question:

Vet Burial

And click here to read Rep. Miller’s letter to President Obama on the lack of responses from the VA.

“Grave concerns” is a term not used lightly in government; it is political speech for “Hey Dummy, you are screwing the pooch on this, and there will be an investigation.”

Even the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has become involved, and yet it takes an actual subpoena before The VA responds to any request for information from Committees of Congress.

There is something seriously wrong with the VA these days, even more than the usual obstacle course our Vets have to endure to get treatment. It is almost as if Obama wants to force vets into Obamacare.

Actually, he does and is willing to triple healthcare fees Vets pay to do it.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/told/#vjBCBPGXqkzfsK8Z.99

The Wrath of Michelle O Strikes Again

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.americanthinker.com

 

Posted by:Thomas Lifson

The coming weekend will be a painful one for Desiree Rogers, the beautiful former White House Social Secretary  who discovered that outshining Michelle Obama is a very, very bad idea. After following the Obamas from Chicago to DC and entering the history books as the first African-American White House Social Secretary, Ms. Rogers appeared to revel in her status as Michelle’s Chicago buddy, and demonstrated a fashion sense that took advantage of her naturally slender frame and role as social gatekeeper to become (however briefly) possibly the most glamorous African American woman in  the country.

Michelle and Desiree in happier White House times

If Oprah was too fat to remain Michelle’s buddy, Desiree’s problem may have been being too slender.

That gig did not last very long, of course. Desiree was given her walking papers after 14 months, though allowed to “step down” so as to retain a shred of dignity in the wake of her termination.  Claiming a role as booster of the Obama brand and letting it be known that she  holds the key to Brand Obama was probably not all that smart, especially for a woman who holds a Harvard MBA, where they do teach about managing personal relationships.  Rogers also claimed a major role in the failed Obama initiative to bring the Olympics to Chicago, an embarrassing rejection that absolutely could not be blamed on Barack Obama, even though he traveled to Copenhagen to lobby for the honor only to not even make second place.

The pain of exile from the White House must have been eased by the next job she assumed, CEO of Johnson Publications, the black media empire that includes Ebony and Jet, and, most importantly, the BET Cable television empire. But for all her status in Chicago as head of the largest black-owned enterprise in the city and the country, Desiree is being frozen out this weekend at the wedding of the decade, as far as the Chicago black social scene is concerned. Michael Sneed of the Chicago Sun-Times reports:

The president is going.

The first lady is going.

First daughters Sasha and Malia will be there.

But Desiree Rogers, the first African-American to become the White House Social Secretary, has been dissed.

Translation: Rogers has not been invited to the backyard Kenwood wedding this weekend for the daughter of the ultimate White House insider/Rogers’ former “closer-than-glue” best friend, White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett.

For those who do not follow the ins-and-outs of Versailles-on-the-Potomac, Valerie Jarrett is widely regarded as THE most powerful White House advisor of all. Former Obama chiefs of staff Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley crossed her, and both are back in Chicago. Incidentally, they aren’t invited to the wedding either.

Sneed explains the depth of the diss:

“Valerie and Desiree were once very close; Sunday dinner mates; part of a powerful clique of African-American Chicago women, which also included Johnson Publishing chairman Linda Johnson Rice,” said a top source familiar with the group. “Michelle Obama was not part of that elite Chicago clique.”

The wedding snub is more than social; Rogers watched Jarrett’s daughter grow up.

The snub contains salt; Rogers’ ex-husband and close friend, financial guru John Rogers, has been invited.

The former social diva is also not on the list of African-American royalty – and members of the new Obama social order – gathering Friday night before the wedding for a backyard barbecue at the Kenwood home of attorney/developer Allison Davis; and the get-together at the president’s Kenwood home, where he will stay while entertaining pals Marty Nesbitt and Eric Whitaker.

Allison Davis, by the way, gave Barack Obama his only job as a lawyer, where he worked for such prize clients as Tony Rezko, now a guest of the federal prison system. Davis’s home, where the barbecue will be held, is just blocks from the mansion purchased by Barack and Michelle with considerable financial assistance from Rezko, a move the president now calls “bone-headed.”

Does this all matter? Is it merely catty, trivial, gossipy trash unworthy of a serious political website? In a more serious administration, where cabinet secretaries actually met with the president more than once or twice and exercised substantive responsibilities instead of “czars” personally beholden to the first family, where well defined roles and responsibilities marked the White House bureaucracy, and where the first lady confined her role to symbolic activities and advocacy, the answer would be yes.

But the Obama White House is a different sort of animal entirely. Like a decadent  monarchy, the favor of the potentate and the potentate’s wife count for much too much in the Obama administration, and the social life, celebrity, and glamour of life at the top seem to eat up far more time than convening cabinet meetings.

We are reduced to reading tea leaves in the social calendar to understand the power dynamics of our national leadership. Another sign of an incipient banana republic.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/the_wrath_of_michelle_o_

strikes_again.html#ixzz2pml5GHhf

Paul Ryan vs. the Military

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.americanthinker.com

 

Posted by:Elise Cooper

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) have wrongly and outrageously cut the budget on the backs of the U.S. military.

On December 26 President Obama signed a new bipartisan bill that includes a $6 billion cut from military members’ retirement. These cuts to COLA (cost-of-living adjustments) also affect medically retired veterans, including those wounded in combat. American Thinker interviewed those who are directly affected.

Amongst Congress and the president there is always the talk of how those serving, past and present need to be admired for their sacrifices. Michael Hall, a former Ranger Command Sergeant Major who served thirty-four years, felt that on December 26th President Obama could have “done the right thing” by refusing to sign the bill unless this provision was taken out. He lost a chance to be the supportive commander-in-chief, missing an opportunity to be the hero and protector to those who have served in the military.

Paul Ryan still insists that the cuts are necessary because military compensation growth is out of hand. With this new budget he obviously did not throw grandma off the cliff, but instead has thrown those in the military. The former and current defenders of America were transformed into sacrificial lambs in an attempt to make Republicans more appealing to the left. Ryan did not balance the budget, pay off the debt, or reform entitlements. Instead he, along with Senator Murray, broke a promise when they changed the contract signed by having the annual cost-of-living adjustments cut by one percent for military retirees 62 or younger.

Iraqi and Afghanistan veteran Pete Hegseth is surprised that it was as much Paul Ryan’s idea as Patty Murray. “I felt he should have known better. Never has a Paul Ryan budget included these kinds of cuts. I understand that the military personnel part is eating up the DOD budget and we need to figure out how to reform it. However, it must be addressed without slashing the budget of current retirees. There are better ways of coming up with reform instead of this arbitrary manner.”

Many wonder, as Jennifer Haefner has, if the politicians really understand the sacrifices made since it appears, “They look at the money side without looking at the sacrifice side. Many military families move around for the different deployments and have to start their careers over again. That means no buildup of a career or a financial cushion. My husband, a Marine officer, has missed birthdays, anniversaries, watching his children grow, and has seen his friends killed. He has had to work in horrible environments sometimes 7 days a week for 24-hour periods. Shame on those politicians for not understanding that military men and women have sacrificed their lives, limbs, and families.

These politicians do not understand us because they have never lived our culture.”

Army retired Colonel Jack Jacobs noted to American Thinker, “Let’s remember this money was paid to people that are doing a job that no one else wants to do. If it is such a great deal how come everyone who is complaining about the military compensation doesn’t immediately sign up and put on the uniform? By all means we should be seeing millions and millions of people clawing their way to get this job. People who sign up for the military do it for G-d, country, and family.”

Joyce Wessel Raezer, the Executive Director of the National Military Family Association, wants Americans to understand that a number of promises were broken. “They changed the rules in the middle of the game. In 2012 Congress established the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission to examine the entire military-compensation system. At the time the Commission was established it was promised that none of the changes would affect currently serving members and retirees. It would be a proposal only for future military members. Effectively this new budget deal hamstrings the commission before it finished its work and made its recommendations. Other promises broken are that active duty people will be getting smaller pay raises in 2014 then they should have under the law. Congress set the raise to what is the private sector average (ECI), 1.8%; yet, in 2014 military members will only be getting a 1% raise, the lowest since 1962. The military people feel singled out because no one else receiving a government payment is getting hit.” She seems to make a good point since CNN reported that any federally funded program that directly serves the needy “could benefit from Murray-Ryan.”

Congressman Ryan, who has never served in the military, tries to spin this provision by explaining, “all this reform does is make a small adjustment for those younger retirees.” Not true, says those who were interviewed. Americans always hear Ryan quoting numbers — maybe he should consider these: Joyce cites the Military Officers Association who estimates that the average enlisted retiree will lose about $300 per month; Jennifer, whose husband is an officer, will lose approximately $500 per month; and Michael Hall wants Americans to understand that he only gets $50,000 per year which will be reduced. In addition, former SEAL Jason Redman says Tricare health premiums are rising substantially, as high as 300%, and wonders how a child tax credit of $4.3 billion could be granted to illegal immigrants while “breaking a promise to the one group of Americans who have actually sacrificed and earned the benefits they are receiving as part of a contract signed.”

Retired Colonel Jack Jacobs is utterly frustrated since he believes that in the big scheme of things $6 billion is not a lot of money. “This basically has no overall fiscal effect on the budget; yet, has a negative effect on the people that served. The politicians have no interest in saving money regarding their districts because that affects them personally. There are a lot of other places it can be saved including getting rid of a lot of the waste in government. No one should be persuaded by those people who say the reductions are not a lot of money.”

Ryan also stated in an op-ed that these “younger military retirees [in their] late 30s and early 40s [in their] are prime working years, and most of these younger retirees go on to second careers.” A current Army Master Sergeant who has served over twenty-four years, vehemently disagrees. “Many of the soldiers who retire do not have a skill. There are also those who have health issues, such as PTSD, back and knee problems, which put limitations on the type of job they can find. Unemployment is still high so jobs are not readily available. I am fifty and if I retire I will have to fight age discrimination, making it harder to find a job. This means for twelve years I will have to suffer with lower pay. I ask Mr. Ryan how many of those retirees will be able to find a job? This bill was a slap in the face.”

Why do they think the politicians voted for these proposals? Everyone interviewed agrees with Michael Hall that there is no lobbyist for the soldiers who jumps up and down saying military benefits cannot be cut. He feels that they do not have a voting bloc since the contingency is spread throughout the country. “They cut the military benefits because it is the easy way out. The lawmakers have the notion it does not matter what they do to us. Even though we in the military were taught that a person’s word and integrity are really important the politicians do not live by this rule. They refuse to ask other Americans to make the sacrifices, and because we are an easy target we were singled out.”

Debbie Lee, a spokesperson on military matters, is frustrated with this “government attack on our troops. They honored their contract and did what was required. If any changes are to be made it should be spelled out for future enlistees. As Americans we should remember that military families live in constant fear of getting that knock on the door as I did when I was informed my Navy SEAL son Marc was killed. Politicians forget the dangers because they work in a safe environment with guaranteed benefits.”

Not all politicians are of the attitude that they want to take advantage of the silent warriors. Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) told American Thinker he voted against the 2013 Budget Act for a number of reasons, including “cutting military staff benefits, while not addressing the fraud and waste in the military procurement process, something I find offensive. This budget uses the same old tactics of placing the financial burden on the backs of our brave soldiers and their families. I will continue to focus on eliminating the rampant fraud and abuse in our federal system, so legitimate spending such as military pay is not jeopardized.”

One Congresswoman who does understand the military members’ plight is Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FLA). Her husband is a combat veteran and her children were Marine officers in Iraq. She is cosponsoring a bill to remove any reduction in COLA and commented, “Our veterans are owed the highest protection, care, and service by our grateful nation, and I will continue to work to ensure that we take care of America’s heroes.”
Former SEAL Jason Redman summarized it best when he quoted Calvin Coolidge, “The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten.” Americans need to remember that these brave men and women already sacrificed for their country and should not be asked to sacrifice anymore. They stepped up to defend Americans because they thought it their obligation to serve. As Colonel Jacobs stated,

“Lets hope this broken promise is not a commentary on how this country deals with people who serve because if that is the case the answer is not well.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/paul_ryan_vs_the_military.html#ixzz2pmkQpSPL

Do Democrat lawmakers anticipate treason trials?

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

 

Posted by:Erik Rush

It is possible that we not only have a pathologically unethical oligarchy in perpetual residence in our government, but various Mafia-like “families” sharing and trading off power

According to a report by Breitbart’s Elizabeth Sheld, eight Democrat lawmakers have proposed a bill that would eliminate the death penalty as a consequence for individuals convicted of numerous federal crimes, among them espionage and treason. Nothing happens in Washington without a reason, so The Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act (HR 3741) gives rise to a bevy of questions and suspicions.

What motivation would congressional Democrats have for wishing to neutralize the death penalty option for such serious crimes? While the average news consumer is conditioned to summarily dismiss the machinations of government unless it directly impacts their pocketbook, or their sensibilities are deliberately targeted by the press, common sense dictates that elected officials proposing such a law could be anticipating the requisite conditions, thus necessitating the law in the first place.

So, who do these lawmakers suppose might be tried for treason, espionage, or the host of other federal crimes now punishable by death in the not-so-distant future?

Well, take your pick. President Obama himself committed a treasonable offense in supplying military aid to rebels fighting against the Assad regime in Syria, first clandestinely and then overtly after circumventing laws expressly prohibiting same. What other treasonable offenses he may have committed attendant to this process (including those related to the 9/11/12 attack on the Benghazi compound) remains to be seen.

Obama’s insinuation of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into sensitive government positions, as well as actions pursuant to his relationship with them are likely treasonable offenses. Despite the Muslim Brotherhood’s intended goal in subjugating America and the rest of the globe, the only reason that this has not been an issue of contention is because Obama and his surrogates themselves do not wish it to be, the press has been complicit, and the Republican leadership are invertebrates.

Then, there are the recent reports coming out of the Middle East as represented by former Muslim Brotherhood member Walid Shoebat. According to Naglaa Mahmoud, wife of Egypt’s ousted President Mohammed Morsi and Muslim Sisterhood operative, Bill and Hillary Clinton (with an emphasis on Hillary) have been deeply involved with the Brotherhood since the 1980s. Mahmoud has been implicated in Egypt in anti-government operations dedicated to returning her husband to power; he remains in Egyptian custody.

Mahmoud recently appeared on Turkish television network Mehwar TV and alleged that the Clintons recruited her and her husband in the 1980s toward the end of advancing everything from “Green” initiatives in the West to the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East.

Hillary Clinton’s “Girl Friday” just happens to be Huma Abedin (her Deputy Chief of Staff when she was Secretary of State), whose mother is a colleague of Mahmoud’s and a long-time leader in the Muslim Sisterhood. Oddly enough, one of the few topics that Mahmoud refuses to discuss is Abedin. According to Shoebat, “In December of 2011, Abedin went on maternity leave. She returned in June of that year while simultaneously taking a job a Special Government Employee (SGE). In addition to her role their being quite ambiguous, questions about the legality of the arrangement caught the eye of Senator Charles Grassley, who sent Secretary of State John Kerry a letter demanding answers.”

What was Abedin doing? Who knows, but some of the activities in which Mahmoud alleges the Muslim Brotherhood and the Clintons were involved most certainly do not reflect a primary concern for the security of the United States. Were they treasonable? Only an extensive investigation might reveal that, but these allegations proffer that the Clintons’ relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood predates Bill becoming Governor of Arkansas.

Then, we have the body counts. Recently, Larry Nichols, a former Clinton operative, almost casually admitted to having murdered for the Clintons on a regular basis, whether it was low-level political opponents, or “weak link” confidants who held information that might compromise their power. 

The lengthy list of individuals whose suspicious deaths directly benefitted Barack Obama began even before he received the Democratic nomination. Most recently of course, Hawaii State Health Director Loretta Fuddy was killed when the small plane carrying her and eight other people crashed into the ocean off the Hawaiian island of Molokai. The only fatality, she is the individual who certified (I use the term loosely) President Obama’s long-form birth certificate. The circumstances and accounts of her demise are respectively, sketchy and conflicting at best.

It is well-known that Obama’s close associates include members of the Weather Underground, whose stated mission was overthrowing the American government. For his entire life, he has been surrounded by radicals, embittered, America-hating anti-colonialists, black nationalists, and avowed communists – yet this has never entered into the area of popular discussion, even in the face of the myriad policies, orders, and actions the President brought about which have directly compromised America’s economy, national security, and domestic tranquility.

Obama’s origins narrative of course remains unresolved. This week for the first time, a mainstream publication supported the voracity of evidence that the President perpetrated a fraud with the forged long-form birth certificate released by the White House in April 2011. It is a little-known fact that the submission of fraudulent documents toward attaining public office on the federal level remains an executable offense under the law. 

It is possible that we not only have a pathologically unethical oligarchy in perpetual residence in our government, but various Mafia-like “families” sharing and trading off power, operating as they see fit, and compromising this nation in ways most Americans cannot yet imagine. If so, the perpetrators must shudder to think of what an independent prosecutor or commission with no political allegiances might make of their activities over the last couple of decades.

So, congressional Democrats sponsoring HR 3741 might have been persuaded to do so by influential parties who fear that they may at some point be charged with espionage or treason. On the other hand, they might be acting independently, in the anticipation of other prominent Democrats being so charged. Perhaps some may even have purposed to facilitate such charges being leveled, knowing how toxic certain individuals have become to the party.

In such a case, they may be trying to spare their lives, as well as facilitating easier convictions. Some might rather not have the blood of colleagues on their hands, but perceive the imperative of removing people who have become dangers to the Democrat Party, as well as traitors to the United States.

Oops! There’s no way to add a newborn baby to your ObamaCare coverage

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:Canada Free Press.Com

 

Posted by:Herman Cain

Americans need to realize that when politicians offer to take care of your needs, that comes with a price you don’t want to pay

 

The government geniuses who decided they could run health insurance better than everyone else apparently overlooked the fact that circumstances in people’s lives sometimes change, and it becomes necessary to update your insurance information to reflect that.

People now covered under ObamaCare are getting a rather unpleasant surprise upon the joyous event of having babies added to their families. It turns out giving birth may be easier than giving the baby health coverage. Try going to HealthCare.gov and looking for a way to add your newborn to your coverage. It doesn’t exist. While you’re at it, try looking for a way to indicate a change in your marital status, your job status, your income . . . I’ll save you the trouble. HealthCare.gov doesn’t offer a way to do any of that.

Now, you can call your insurer and they’ll take the information and update your insurance, so problem solved, right?

Problem not solved. For many people forced to buy coverage on the ObamaCare exchanges – coverage that often features exorbitant premiums to cover mandatory coverage they may or may not even want (including maternity care . . . ahem) – the federal subsidy that comes as part of the deal is the only thing making the coverage even remotely affordable.

Having a baby will increase your premium, and will theoretically increase your subsidy, but that will only happen if you can somehow let the federal government know about the change in your circumstance. How do you do that? Don’t ask them. The Associated Press reports:

In questions and answers for insurers, the government said that the federal insurance marketplace will not be able to add a child until the system’s automated features become “available later.” It does not provide any clue as to when that might take place.

The federal marketplace serves 36 states through HealthCare.gov and call centers. The Medicare agency, which runs the government’s other major health programs, is also responsible for expanded coverage under Obama’s law.

The question-and-answer circular says parents with a new baby will be told to contact their insurer directly “to include the child immediately” on their existing policy.

After the federal system is ready to process changes, parents will have to contact the government to formally bring their records up to date. Albright said parents will be able to add a new child to their policy for 30 days.

Making your life better through government!

Supposedly they would have had this feature ready to go by now, but they had to postpone it because they were too busy dealing with the fact that the entire web site was completely dysfunctional. The fact that they had three years to build the web site doesn’t appear to matter, but then nothing makes sense in the development of this fiasco.

There is, of course, a bright side to this. Americans really don’t need to be checking in with the federal government every time a circumstance in their lives changes, and that’s one of the most insidious things about ObamaCare to begin with. Thanks for the subsidy offer, but if that means I need to keep you in the loop every time something happens in my life . . . no thanks.

Americans need to realize that when politicians offer to take care of your needs, that comes with a price you don’t want to pay. At best, you have to deal with their incompetence as we discover they are never as good at running things as their hubris tells them they will be. At worst, you turn yourself into their subject, hardly free to make a move without letting them know.

That’s why I keep telling you: It’s freedom you want, not free stuff!

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the ‘fair use’ exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1998-2014 the individual authors.
Site Copyright 1998-2014 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement

‘Decimated’ Al-Qaeda Captures Fallujah!

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:John Lillpop 

While Barack Obama vacationed in comfort and luxury in Hawaii, his foreign policy disasters continued to wreak havoc throughout the world.

This time it is the city of Fallujah, Iraq, scene of one of the bloodiest battles that US Marines fought in 2004.

As reported, that city has been captured by Al-Qaeda, the ‘decimated’ enemy:

BEIRUT — A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago.

The capture of Fallujah came amid an explosion of violence across the western desert province of Anbar in which local tribes, Iraqi security forces and al-Qaeda-affiliated militants have been fighting one another for days in a confusingly chaotic three-way war.

In Fallujah, where Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq war in 2004, the militants appeared to have the upper hand, underscoring the extent to which the Iraqi security forces have struggled to sustain the gains made by U.S. troops before they withdrew in December 2011.”

To those American families who lost brave warriors in Fallujah, this news is particularly distressing, since Obama’s policy is akin to spitting on the graves of those brave Americans who gave their all in the name of freedom and good.

To Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats who unquestioningly support Obama: Is the latest from Fallujah yet another smashing foreign-policy VICTORY for The One?

 

3 Unbelievable Food Stamp Statistics in America

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.capitalisminstitute.org

 

Food stamps cover steak, lobster, and caviar.

Yesterday, I made an image to post on Facebook explaining this, and it went viral. As of right now, almost 2,000 people have shared it, and plenty of people have reacted in anger, explaining that I hate the poor. I’ve deleted several comments telling me to go to Hell, telling me I’m a Nazi, and telling me I hate babies.

This is, of course, absurd. But let’s ignore the angry rhetoric and look at what’s actually going on when it comes to food stamps. People are horrified to talk about this, because they’ll instantly be labeled bad words, and theft has become a way of life in a post-bailout America.

But this is Capitalism Institute — the goal is to speak the truth no matter whose toes are stepped on.

Unbelievable Statistics About Food Stamps

This isn’t just a fringe problem. Food stamps are becoming an inherent part of American life as almost every grocery line has someone using a debit card filled with other peoples’ money to spend on whatever they choose. In fact:

• Over 45,000,000 Americans are on food stamps. That means 1 in 7. To visualize this, that means every pew in every church is filled with someone who is living — literally — off the money of everyone else sitting on that pew. Not family members, not kids living off parents — adults living off of other adults.

• Food stamps cover luxury items like lobster and filet mignon. An image circulated a few days ago of a receipt in which someone had $200+ worth of lobster tail and Mountain Dew and paid for it with a food stamp card. The grocery store confirmed it was true. When I was poor, I ate rice and beans and worried about paying my bills on time. For those on food stamps, eating cheaply isn’t necessary. This is disgusting, and is a backwards incentive. When I was poor I had a friend who began smoking pot an living off of welfare, bragging at how easy it was. Lives are ruined when you have broken policy.

• A family of five gets $700+ for food alone. However, people who are on food stamps get at least $100 per person, on average alone. That means people who are actually poor receive well over this per person. From the federal government alone, a family of five can receive $793 per month, not including the 180 free meals also offered at public school for the school-aged kids.

This is just food stamps alone. This isn’t about housing welfare, free college payments, infant assistance, free public schooling, or actual cash from the government. This is the food program alone. For many people, it makes far more sense to eat salmon on food stamps than to accept a part time job and risk losing the “free” money.

People on welfare eat better than many people in the middle class who don’t qualify. That is wrong. And no, this isn’t just an occasional bit of fraud. This is what the system is supposed to do. Someone told me yesterday that he worked in a grocery store, told a lady that food stamps didn’t cover the dog food she picked, so she went back and got t-bones.

That should upset you.

If you support welfare existing to stop starvation from being possible, then that’s one thing. I get it. Babies dying of malnutrition isn’t exactly what the goal is. But there’s no way around the fact that welfare should be reformed, cut, and that we should focus on giving tax cuts to the middle class to make it easier to leave poverty in the first place.

Why Welfare Reform Matters

Why does this matter? Because 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps. Average it out, and almost every house in America has a welfare recipient in food stamps alone — not counting Social Security, disability, or the billions in other programs.

This is insane. And to the libertarians reading this — this should upset you just as much as corporate welfare, if not more, because these people are voters. At some point, that number is going to be so high that it won’t matter anymore, because defeating a socialist when half the voters are getting checks will be impossible.

This isn’t about being anti-poor. This is about saving the republic and saving capitalism. Poor people not getting free lobsters at the cost of the middle class is just basic common sense — but if you dare say this in public, you’ll be demonized.

This isn’t a theoretical risk in the future. This is right now. The system is working as it’s planned to work — to create a dependent class of people who will vote for any socialist because they want cash and all the food they can eat. This is wrong. And that’s why welfare reform matters.

One in three lawmakers wants to repeal cuts to military pensions

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://thehill.com/blogs

Posted by:Jeremy Herb

Getty Images

More than 150 House members and 35 senators have signed onto efforts to repeal the cuts to military pensions included in the budget deal signed last month.

Roughly a third of lawmakers in both chambers have sponsored or co-sponsored 15 different bills. All the measures seek, one way or another, to repeal the reduction in the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for working-age military retirees.

The flurry of bills and number of co-sponsors highlights the sizable bipartisan opposition to the military retirement cuts that were included in the budget deal reached by Budget Chairs Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

But none of the bills introduced has identified a true bipartisan “pay-for” to replace the retirement cuts, raising doubts about the chances of any of them passing.

The only legislation that has attracted significant bipartisan support does not replace the $6 billion that was saved in the budget deal through the military retirement cut.

“People are allowed to go out there and say what they want, but it is not going away,” said a leading conservative strategist who is a deficit hawk. “How are they going to pay for it going away?”

The budget agreement signed into law last month provided $63 billion in sequester relief over two years and achieved $85 billion in deficit reduction, including $6 billion from reducing COLAs by 1 percentage point below inflation for working-age military retirees under age 62.

The military pension cuts attracted swift condemnation from service and veterans’ organizations, who have launched a full-court lobbying press to get Congress to reverse the provision.

The effort has spawned more than a dozen bills. In aggregate, those measures have been backed by 94 House Republicans and 64 House Democrats, 12 Republican senators and 23 Democratic senators.

Many of the lawmakers voted for the overall budget bill that quickly cleared both chambers last month.

Even so, the bills that offset the $6 billion savings do not appear likely to attract bipartisan support, making them long-shots to pass both the Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House.

Democrats in both chambers have signed onto measures that would replace the retirement cuts by closing offshore tax loopholes for corporations, a non-starter for Republicans.

The GOP bills target a number of cost-cutting issues. They would prevent illegal immigrants from claiming a child tax credit, make cuts to the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention and Public Health Fund, replace the COLA cuts with the Pentagon’s unobligated balances and stop aid to Egypt and Pakistan.

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) introduced a bill to restore the savings through limiting Saturday mail delivery.

No Democrats have co-sponsored any of those measures, with the exception of Rep. John Barrow (Ga.) backing the child tax credit pay-for in Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick’s (R-Pa.) bill.

The bill with the most support was introduced by House Veterans Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), which has 95 co-sponsors, including 32 Democrats.

That measure simply repeals the $6 billion cut to military pensions. But defense observers are skeptical Congress would pass legislation to undo deficit reduction already in place.

One senior defense lobbyist said the budget deal included all of the “low-hanging fruit” when it came to deficit reduction, making it unlikely that the COLA cuts would easily be replaced.

The military retirement cuts were one part of a carefully crafted deal, which also included reductions for civilian federal worker benefits.

“It’s all political in an election year,” the lobbyist said of the repeal bills.

“The ones the Democrats are offering to close corporate tax loopholes — Republicans are never going to go for that… The same thing on Republican side with credits for illegal immigrants. They know it’s not going to fly with the Dems.”

BOHICA the military takes it again.

House and Senate leaders have not said whether they plan to bring up any bills to restore the military benefits cuts.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) did not include the military pension issue in his January legislative agenda. A Senate leadership aide said retirement benefits legislation would not be considered next week, and could not elaborate beyond that.

One House aide said that leadership may be waiting before making a decision on the retirement benefits to see how strongly the issue resonates back in lawmakers’ districts.

“If members come back and go to leadership and say they’re really getting hit on this, leadership might be in a mood to adjust it,” the aide said. “If they come back and there’s not as much passion behind it, that tells you it will be a completely different story.”

There is likely to be at least one change made to the retirement benefit cuts: exempting medically retired veterans.

There have been an additional four bills introduced to address that issue, including from Murray. Both Murray and Ryan say that disabled veterans were included in the budget deal due to a “technical error” and they want to quickly fix the problem.

A list of the various bills offered to repeal the military-pensions cut can be found here.

— Erik Wasson contributed.

http://thehill.com/blogs

‘UNIVERSE-SHATTERING’ TWIST IN OBAMA BIRTH PROBE

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:BOB UNRUH

 

Arpaio investigator: ‘This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine’

Lead Investigator

The lead investigator in Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation of President Obama’s birth certificate says the case has taken a startling turn, and sheriff’s investigators now are assisting the Cold Case volunteers.

“When this information is finally exposed to the public, it will be universe-shattering,” Mike Zullo told WND. “This is beyond the pale of anything you can imagine.”

Zullo explained that because it’s an active investigation that could produce criminal charges, he’s unable to reveal details at the moment.

But the allegations, he said, which go far beyond a fraudulent birth certificate, could be public as early as March.

The issue arose once again because of the death Wednesday in Hawaii of state Health Department chief Loretta Fuddy in a plane crash. She was the official who waived state prohibitions and provided to the White House a copy of a document that Obama presented to the public as his birth certificate.

It’s the document that Arpaio’s investigators have concluded is fraudulent.

Amid conspiracy theories circulating the Internet, Zullo told WND Friday that Fuddy’s death – she was the only fatality among nine people aboard a small airplane that crashed off the coast of Molokai – appears to be a tragic accident, not foul play.

He said his investigation does not depend on any information from Fuddy.

In an interview today with author and talk-radio host Carl Gallups of PPSimmons News and Ministry Network and the author of “The Magic Man in the Sky,” and the new “The Rabbi who Found Messiah,” Zullo said his investigation of the Obama fraud case “does not hinge on Ms. Fuddy.”

“While her death certainly is a tragedy, it in no way hampers our investigation in this matter,” he said. “If people truly believe that her untimely demise was somehow related to an attempt to silence her for ‘what she may or may not know,’ then there are several more people in Hawaii who should be very, very concerned.

“Again, I want to emphasize,” Zullo said, “Sheriff Arpaio and I do not, at this time, believe her death was connected to any nefarious circumstances.”

The birth certificate dispute dates back to before the 2008 election. Critics, including Hillary Clinton, raised the issue about Obama’s status as a “natural-born citizen.” Not defined in the Constitution, it probably was thought at the time of the writing of the Constitution to be someone born of two citizen parents.

Obama fails that test because his father was a Kenyan student visiting the U.S.

Arpaio assigned his Cold Case Posse to look into the issue before the 2012 election, when constituents approached him and asked him to check whether Obama would be an ineligible candidate on the presidential election ballot.

In a recent radio interview with Gallups, Zullo affirmed the investigation had been expanded to the county sheriff’s office and was “moving in a direction that was not anticipated by us.”

“The whole [issue] is more nefarious than you can imagine,” Zullo said, crediting Arpaio for ordering the investigation and sticking with it.

“He knows in his gut that something is wrong,” Zullo said.

AIRLINE CRASH

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed without success. One case is pending before the Alabama Supreme Court for which Zullo provided evidence.

See a report of Fuddy’s death:

Still a live issue

Zullo has testified that the White House computer image of Obama’s birth certificate contains anomalies that are unexplainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document.

“Mr. Obama has, in fact, not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event,” he explained. “One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources.”

Zullo also has noted that the governor of Hawaii was unable to produce an original birth document for Obama, and it should have been easy to find.

See some of Zullo’s evidence:

Zullo’s evidence

More recently, Grace Vuoto of the World Tribune reported that among the experts challenging the birth certificate is certified document analyst Reed Hayes, who has served as an expert for Perkins Coie, the law firm that has been defending Obama in eligibility cases.

“We have obtained an affidavit from a certified document analyzer, Reed Hayes, that states the document is a 100 percent forgery, no doubt about it,” Zullo told the World Tribune.

“Mr. Obama’s operatives cannot discredit [Hayes],” the investigator told the news outlet. “Mr. Hayes has been used as the firm’s reliable expert. The very firm the president is using to defend him on the birth certificate case has used Mr. Hayes in their cases.”

The Tribune reported Hayes agreed to take a look at the documentation and called almost immediately.

“There is something wrong with this,” Hayes said.

Hayes produced a 40-page report in which he says “based on my observations and findings, it is clear that the Certificate of Live Birth I examined is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate, but a digitally manufactured document created by utilizing material from various sources.”

“In over 20 years of examining documentation of various types, I have never seen a document that is so seriously questionable in so many respects. In my opinion, the birth certificate is entirely fabricated,” he says in the report.

Investigator Douglas J. Hagmann of the Northeast Intelligence Network reported this month that in October an affidavit was filed in a court case, under seal, that purportedly identifies the creator of the Obama birth certificate.

He said Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years in an investigation of the authenticity of document.

Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted “exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 – not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood,” Hagmann said.

“Using their combined experience of 80 years in this realm, they conducted extensive examinations of the ‘copy’ that was used as the basis for the PDF document. They acquired the same type of equipment that was used back in the late 1950s and early 1960s in an attempt to recreate the document presented as an ‘authenticated copy’ proving the legitimacy of Barack Obama. Instead, they found 20 points of forgery on that document and detail each point of forgery in the affidavit,” wrote Hagmann.

“Even more interesting, Mr. Vogt claims to have identified the ‘signature’ of the perpetrator, or the woman who created the forged document, hidden within the document itself. Her identity, in addition to the identity of other conspirators and their precise methods are contained in a sealed document supplementing the public affidavit.”

Grounds for impeachment

Last month, WND columnist Christopher Monckton wrote that the controversy he calls “Hawaiigate” should be “the central ground of impeachment.”

“First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s advisers, once they realized the ‘birth certificate’ was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the ‘president’ has no clothes,” Monckton wrote.

“Secondly, not one of the numerous agencies of state, as well as federal government, whose duty was and is to investigate the Mickey-Mouse ‘birth certificate’ has bothered even to respond to the thousands of requests for investigation put forward by U.S. citizens.”

He said that in Hawaii last year, he watched “as a senior former state senator called the police and, when they came, handed over to them compelling evidence that the ‘birth certificate’ had been forged.”

“The police, correctly, passed the file to the state’s attorney general, a ‘Democrat,’ who did nothing about it,” he said.

“In Washington, D.C., I watched as a concerned citizen from Texas telephoned the FBI and reported the ‘birth certificate’ as being a forgery. They said they would send two agents to see him within the hour. No one came.”

‘You tell me about eligibility’

Donald Trump

One of the highest profile skeptics has been billionaire Donald Trump.

Trump said he can’t be certain that Obama is eligible to be president, and he pointedly noted that a reporter who was poking fun at the issue admitted he can’t, either.

Trump repeatedly has insisted Obama has not documented his eligibility. At one point, he offered $5 million to the charity or charities of Obama’s choice if he would release his passport records and authorize the colleges he attended to release his applications and other records.

Trump argues that those documents would show whether or not Obama ever accepted scholarship or other aid as a foreign student, which could preclude him from being a “natural-born citizen.”

Trump’s conversation with ABC’s Jonathan Karl started with Karl noting that Trump took on the “not serious” issue of eligibility.

“Why does that make me not serious?” Trump demanded. “I think that resonated with a lot of people.”

Karl replied: “You don’t still question he was born in the United States, do you?”

“I have no idea,” Trump said. “I don’t know. Was there a birth certificate? You tell me. You know some people say that was not his birth certificate. I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows, and you don’t know either. Jonathan you’re a smart guy, and you don’t know.”

When Karl admitted he was “pretty sure,” Trump jumped on the statement.

“You just said you’re pretty sure … you have to be 100 percent sure,” he said. “Jonathan, you said you’re pretty convinced, so let’s just see what happens over time.”

Among the many records the Obama camp has refused to release are the marriage license of his father (Barack Sr.) and mother (Stanley Ann Dunham), name change records (Barry Soetero to Barack Hussein Obama), adoption records, records of his and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens from Indonesia, baptism records, Noelani Elementary School (Hawaii) records, Punahou School financial aid or school records, Occidental College financial aid records, Harvard Law School records, Columbia senior thesis, Columbia College records, record with Illinois State Bar Association, files from his terms as an Illinois state senator, his law client list, medical records and passport records.

Monckton, citing Zullo’s sworn affidavit in a court case, published a sworn mathematical analysis demonstrating the near-zero probability that the White House “birth certificate” is genuine.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/universe-shattering-twist-in-obama-birth-probe/#Jij0dp7mQbbC14xA.99

A Letter to Michelle Obama

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

http://www.westernjournalism.com

 

Posted by:BECKY SMITH

 

Dear Michelle,

On the day that your husband was elected, you said that you had never been proud of the United States until that day. For the last three and a half years, I have been observing your husband and you, and I feel that it is time I share my thoughts with you. The day your husband was elected was the first time I was ever ashamed of this country, and today I am even more ashamed.

I was ashamed then because your husband was not elected because he was the best qualified to do the job, or because he was the most intelligent, or even because anyone really thought he could get anything worthwhile done. The reason your husband was elected, the only reason, is because of the color of his skin. Your husband was chosen by the Democratic Party to be their “token black”, and that is the shame of the American public. We deserve better than a community organizer who seems to look down on his fellow Americans while bowing to an Arab leader. We deserve a president who was thoroughly vetted by his party and the media, not someone whom the DNC now admits was never even eligible for the job. There are many other men, Black, Hispanic, of Asian descent, Native American, and even Caucasian who are many times more qualified and eligible to be the president. If he had even a shred of self respect, Barack would resign and convince Joe Biden to do so as well, so that someone with a backbone could fix the mess your husband (NOT George Bush) has made much worse.

Your husband said he would bring unity to the country; instead, he has brought class warfare and fanned the flames of racism by saying that his son would look like Travon Martin. When the Pharisees asked Jesus what the greatest commandment was, he replied, “‘you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’” “This is the greatest foremost commandment.” “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”(Matt.22:37-40 NAS). Notice that there is no modifying clause in the second commandment “You shall love thy neighbor as yourself.” NOT “You shall love your neighbor as yourself, so long as his skin is the same color as yours or he does not make more money than you.” In our home, race is not an issue; everyone is welcome and treated respectfully. My mother raised me right; she taught me these verses and the golden rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” I have lived this way all my life and never judge others; it is God’s job to judge, not mine. There is a big difference between loving the person and accepting the sin; I can love the person and still hate the things they do. The media was quick to condemn Sarah Palin’s daughter for getting pregnant (or was it because she chose to have the baby?), but at least she owned up and took responsibility for her actions, which is something your husband has said publicly he would not make his daughters do in that same situation. No, he would rather have them murder their baby should they be so shortsighted as to get pregnant before they were ready.

Make no mistake here, please; through Christ, I love you and your family, but I hate what Barack has done to this wonderful country of ours. He has no need to apologize for an accidental burning of the Quran anymore than they would apologize for a deliberate burning of the Bible or our Constitution. In fact, as a nation, there is nothing he needs to apologize for on our behalf, but instead much he needs to apologize to us for. He needs to apologize to us for his blatant disregard for the Constitution, the very foundation of our government, and the freedoms guaranteed to us by that document. I have family members who fought to protect that document and what it stands for; yet you and your husband treat it like toilet paper for all the respect you show.

You are fond of quoting the Scripture in Luke that tells us that “To those to whom much has been given, from them much shall also be expected”, but then you take it out of context and tell us that means that the federal government has the right to take what one man earns and give it to the man who sits on his butt all day doing nothing. Sorry, but I do not think that is what Christ meant when he said “take care of the widows and orphans.” He also told us that God loves a cheerful (or willing) giver. He did not want to force us to do what we so willingly do out of love. In case you had not noticed, when there is a crisis (i.e. Katrina) the American people pull together to help each other faster and better than the government (i.e. FEMA) could.

The recent decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the individual mandate of the “Affordable” Care Act was equally shameful and has added one hundred-fold to the stress of my daily life. Stress that was not a part of my life until Barack took the office that by rights does not belong to him. My husband has non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the treatments are expensive, and how long now before the committee decides that because he is not a “productive citizen” he cannot access the treatments he needs to stay alive? I clench my teeth at night wondering if he will be here when our daughter (now fifteen) walks down the aisle on her wedding day. When I had a heart attack last year, it was a Catholic-run hospital that picked up the greatest portion of the cost, allowing us to make payments on the rest when we could, not the government. Through the contraception mandate, Obamacare will shut down that hospital and hundreds like it, leaving people like me to fall between the cracks of your “perfect healthcare”.

I am also ashamed that the first family sees the Presidency as a lottery they won (how many vacations do you need in a year, really?) I have not had a job in two years, and our family would love to have a vacation in Europe, just one, someday. Yet your family has taken over seventeen vacations, at my last count, on the taxes people like me have paid. So, in effect, the middle class of America has been paying for you and your entourage of secretaries and secret service personnel to run around the world, shopping and sightseeing, when we cannot afford to go visit relatives who live in another state. Your husband’s policies have not created any jobs worth talking about, but they have kept businesses from creating jobs. Even a low-paying job would allow us the luxury of going to visit family.

So tell me Michelle, just what are you proud of? Are you proud of the fact that you are living in the White House because people did not want to be called racist? Or perhaps you are proud that your husband has chipped away at the civil liberties of the American taxpayers? Or perhaps you are proud of the race riots your husband instigated when he said that if he had a son he would look like Travon Martin, instead of keeping his mouth shut and letting the police handle the situation? The truth (whatever it is) will come out. I do not think there is anything that your husband has “accomplished” while in office that you should be proud of. Oh wait, I forgot all that golfing he has done that must have improved his game; I guess you can be proud of that.

In Christ Always,

Becky Smith

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-letter-to-michelle-obama/#Dpb2JDVKg2Uc82w7.99

Be prepared: Wall Street advisor recommends guns, ammo for protection in collapse

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://washingtonexaminer.com

 

Posted by:PAUL BEDARD

Image from Marotta‘s website warning investors to prepare a “bug-out” bag in case of a fiscal…Image from Marotta’s website warning investors to prepare a “bug-out” bag in case of a fiscal…

A top financial advisor, worried that Obamacare, the NSA spying scandal and spiraling national debt is increasing the chances for a fiscal and social disaster, is recommending that Americans prepare a “bug-out bag” that includes food, a gun and ammo to help them stay alive.

David John Marotta, a Wall Street expert and financial advisor and Forbes contributor, said in a note to investors, “Firearms are the last item on the list, but they are on the list. There are some terrible people in this world. And you are safer when your trusted neighbors have firearms.”

His memo is part of a series addressing the potential for a “financial apocalypse.” His view, however, is that the problems plaguing the country won’t result in armageddon. “There is the possibility of a precipitous decline, although a long and drawn out malaise is much more likely,” said the Charlottesville, Va.-based president of Marotta Wealth Management.

Marotta said that many clients fear an end-of-the-world scenario. He doesn’t agree with that outcome, but does with much of what has people worried.

“I, along with many other economists, agree with many of the concerns expressed in these dire warnings. The growing debt and deficitspending is a tax on those holding dollars. The devaluation in the U.S. dollar risks the dollar’s status as the reserve currency of the world. Obamacare was the worst legislation in the past 75 years. Socialism is on the rise and the NSA really is abrogating vast portions of the Constitution. I don’t disagree with their concerns,” he wrote.

In his latest note, he said that Americans should have a survival kit to take in case of a financial or natural disaster. It should be filled with items that will help them stay alive for the first 72-hours of a crisis, including firearms.

“A bug-out bag is a good idea depending on where you live even if the emergency is just power outages, earthquakes and hurricanes. And with your preparedness you will be equipped to help others who might be in need,” he wrote. “Be prepared. Especially because it keeps you from being scared.”

He provided a list of items and even a link to bug-out bags on Amazon.

Mark Levin warns: Obama preparing country for coup against Constitution

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.examiner.com

 

Posted by:Joe Newby

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Earlier this week, conservative talk show host Mark Levin warned that Barack Obama is campaigning and preparing the country for what amounts to a coup against the Constitution over the debt ceiling, Breitbart.com reported Sunday.

Levin said that it’s clear Obama has moved on from the shutdown and is now focused on the debt ceiling, paving the way for low-information liberals to support him as he bypasses Congress and unilaterally seizes control of the nation’s economy, Dr. Susan Berry wrote..

“Default, default, default…why is he saying that? Just to scare people?” Levin asked. “Well, that’s part of it, obviously. But, it’s more than that, ladies and gentlemen. Barack Obama is plotting, that if he can’t get what he wants out of the House Republicans, that if he can’t get his Plan A, and get Boehner and the Republicans to buckle – not just on the Continuing Resolution – but on the debt ceiling, then he’s got his Plan B.”

And what, exactly is “Plan B?”

According to Levin, that plan involves Obama unilaterally raising the debt ceiling by citing the 14th Amendment.

In essence, Levin said, Obama effectively plans to “seize from Congress the power of the purse” in what he called “the most egregious attack on our Constitution by a President” in all of U.S. history.

Examiner’s Anthony G. Martinsaid the 14th Amendment does not give Obama the authority to usurp Congress’ role regarding the debt ceiling.

“Nowhere does the Amendment mandate that overall federal spending be increased at the whim of a president, or anyone else in government, not even Congress,” he wrote.

Levin went further, saying that Obama is being encouraged “by Marxists dressed up as Constitutionalists, by people in his own party, he’s being encouraged to conduct himself as a dictator, and to bypass Congressand to bypass the Constitution.”

“They want a full-blown Constitutional crisis. Please, listen to me, this is what they want! So they can continue to shred it!” he added.

This isn’t the first time the subject has been brought up.

Last December, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Obama should be given dictatorial power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling to infinity.

In July 2011, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, urged Obama to rule like a dictator on the debt ceiling. Other Democrats, like James Clyburn and former President Bill Clinton, have also suggested Obama bypass Congress and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling.

Levin went on to warn listeners of dire consequences to the nation if Obama acts unilaterally.

“So, it is he who is prepared to extort and blackmail in ways that most of you, and most of my colleagues in this business can’t even imagine, or don’t even understand,” he said. “And, if the President of the United States unilaterally lifts the debt ceiling, you can kiss the core functions of Congress goodbye, you can kiss this Republic goodbye, once and for all.”

Indeed, it would be the ultimate “fundamental transformation” Obama promised at the beginning of his presidency.