Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “Conservative”

SARAH PALIN: I WENT TO FOX TO ‘PISS OFF THE PEOPLE’ WHO WANTED ME DEAD


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:TONY LEE


Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said that she went back to Fox News to piss off the people who wished she were dead, which is exactly the reason Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes gave for bringing her to the network in the first place.

“Fox’s Roger Ailes says he hired me ‘to piss off the people that wanted her dead,’Palin wrote in a Facebook post Wednesday in response to a report in the Hollywood Reporter in which Ailes said he hired Palin to drive her haters crazy. “Hmmm. Funny. I accepted for the same reason!”

In the same interview, Ailes also spoke about how much Palin resonates with the Tea Party, which Ailes said “started as a group that [the government] could make go home to bake meatloaf at any point in the last three years by simply doing two things: Stop raising taxes and stop stealing their money.” Ailes said that Palin “represents a certain group of people” who successfully are rising up “against their own party, which you rarely see.”

In reference to a forthcoming book by Gabriel Sherman, the George Soros-funded writer who has stalked Ailes and his family, Palin mentioned yet “another book coming out about Roger Ailes and Fox News” that intends to smear the most successful cable news channel and the brains behind it. She asked her Facebook readers to “stay tuned” for more thoughts.

Palin then linked to a Breitbart News article by Editor-at-Large John Nolte that detailed how Fox News has won the cable news wars and is driving out CNN and MSNBC from the news business. According to Nolte, they simply cannot compete with Fox News which has a hammerlock on primetime ratings.

The Hollywood Reporter conceded as much as well after it conducted an extensive interview with Ailes and wrote that he runs the modern news world. As Breitbart Newsreported, Random House, which is publishing Sherman’s book, refused to fact-check allegations made in the book with Fox or Ailes. Random House, as well as the New York Times, tried to smear Ailes by implying that he made an anti-Semitic slur at another television executive even though the publisher and the publication knew that both have denied that the incident in question ever occurred:

What makes this episode extraordinary is the fact that Random House decided to go forward with publication knowing that both men denied it—and that the Times would make it the centerpiece of a story on the book two weeks before publication.

It may be reflective of the rest of Sherman’s project that he completed it without ever speaking to Ailes or anyone in his inner circle. This alleged – and debunked – incident from the past is reportedly a big part of his book, which may be short on major scoops.

MICHAEL SAVAGE’S ‘DREAM COME TRUE’


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:

‘It’s the culmination of everything I have worked for’

Michael Savage is set to take his patented “borders, language, culture” talk show to the coveted East Coast, afternoon drive-time slot, beginning New Year’s Day.

Savage, whose first live show from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time will air Thursday, called the move “my dreams come true.”

“It’s the culmination of everything I have worked for and dreamed of from the day I started in radio,” he said in an interview with WND.

The 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time slot on Cumulus Media Networks stations has been held by Sean Hannity, who has ended his relationship with the network and is now with Clear Channel-owned Premiere Networks.

“The Savage Nation” will be heard for a final time in the 9 p.m. to midnight Eastern Time slot Tuesday tonight.

Wednesday’s show, the first at the new time, will be a “best of” program, and Thursday Savage will begin a new chapter in his two decades of national talk radio.

Savage gave WND a hint of what he will say in his first drive-time show.

“To my regular listeners, I’ll say: We made it. Thanks for being with me all these years. The best is yet to come.’

“To my new listeners, who may have heard about me but have never heard me, here’s what I’d like to tell you: This show is an ongoing serial that has been going on five days a week for almost 20 years. Each show follows the one before it, and I hope you’ll tune in each day to find out where the serial goes.”

Savage said his show reminds him of his childhood days when he would go to the movies regularly to see “The Lone Ranger” serial.

“We’d go back every week to see what the next installment would be,” he recalled. “And there was the masked man, there was his loyal assistant, there was his horse. And it was a different story, even though it was the same characters and players.”

Cumulus said in a statement the show will air in the new time slot on more than 200 of its affiliates, including 60 stations it owns and operates. Some of the cities where it will be heard during drive-time are New York (WABC), Chicago (WLS), Dallas (WBAP), Washington (WMAL), San Francisco (KSFO) and Detroit (WJR).

“I’ve always wanted to be on these original, flamethrower stations, which are the best in the country,” Savage told WND.

John Dickey, executive vice president and co-chief operating officer of Cumulus, called Savage a “proven ratings winner.”

“Just as we anticipated when we announced Mike is moving to drive-time, excitement is building and stations are quickly signing up to make sure they have ‘The Savage Nation’ available for listeners and advertisers,” he said.

Storytelling

Savage said he’s “very elated” with the move.

“If you want to get spiritual – and I don’t want to get corny – but this was done through the hand of destiny, or if you want to say, the hand of God,” he said. “There’s no other way to explain this.”

Cumulus said Savage is “the conservative king of storytelling and has moved millions with his candid insights, humor and versatility.”

Michael Savage

“With a Ph.D. from the University of California and having authored 28 books, including six New York Times bestsellers, Savage has become ‘the Mark Twain of our time’ to many,” the network said.

“It is Savage’s unique views and wide variety of discussion topics reaching beyond politics that have made ‘The Savage Nation’ immensely popular and also the number one streamed talk radio show on the Internet,” Cumulus said.

Savage bested Rush Limbaugh as the No. 1 rated show via the Internet, according to TalkStreamLive’s second quarter rankings.

See the entire Savage collection in the WND Superstore.

The big issues

Savage sees the move as timely, believing he “could have a big effect on the midterm elections.”

“People will be exposed to my views of the world,” he told WND. “I know a lot of people are middle-of-the-road or independent, and they don’t quite understand what’s going on around them. I think my plain-talking, down-to-earth manner will bring people to understand the danger this country is in, and they should vote accordingly.”

Two big issues, he said, are what he calls Islamofascism and one of his signature subjects, illegal immigration.

The threat of radical Islam has only gotten worse, he said, because of political correctness in the military that began with President George W. Bush.

“Cutting back on our combat troops. The rules of engagement. The inability to fire on the enemy until being fired upon. It’s Vietnam all over again,” he said. “I study this in great detail.”

He believes the proposed immigration bill in Congress, which he considers amnesty, will bring a further “flood of illegal aliens that will destroy America’s demographics forever, for the worst, because they will bring Mexico to America.”

“They will not become American, ever. They refuse to learn the language,” he said. “They don’t respect our culture. And so, therefore, what kind of absorption into the melting pot can we expect from a massive group of this size, 30 to 60 million people?”

He said Obama and the Democrats and Republicans who support amnesty “must be fought tooth and nail over this.”

“We have to hammer, hammer against the few Republicans left who can block this disaster before the midterms and tell them we’ll throw them out of office if they do this to us,” he said.

Savage noted he weighed in on “socialized medicine” long before Obamacare was introduced to Congress.

One of his listeners called his show recently and asked him to read from his 2003 book “The Enemy Within,” which has a chapter foretelling the damaging effects of socialized medicine, which already are appearing.

“My listeners are very loyal, and they do remember,” Savage commented.

No more Indian buffets?

Savage’s regular listeners enjoying hearing vignettes from his daily life in San Francisco, and the new time slot will certainly shake up his routine.

Michael Savage and his dog, Teddy

For one thing, he said, he’ll be able to have a normal dinner for the first time.

“Secondly, they won’t hear much about Indian buffets,” he said, laughing. “I won’t be able to go. They’re all closed at 3 o’clock.

“The most they can expect is to talk about the dinner the night before, because I never talk about breakfast,” he said. “What can you say about a bagel, avocado, tomato and coffee?”

One of the constants will be his faithful dog, Teddy.

“He’s still going to be the RCA Victor dog sitting underneath the desk,” he said. “He’s gotta be the smartest dog in America; he’s sat through every show I’ve done for 10 years now.”

Teddy has his own routine.

“He get’s up before the last segment of every show and stretches,” Savage said. “He’s not going to know what hit him now from noon to three.”

Sage advice

Listeners also will continue to turn to Savage as a sage adviser, particularly when he announces to his audience that “the doctor is in.”

It seems he’s had to console many who are distraught with life under Obama.

“I have an ancient view of the world, which is, yes, things are terrible; yes, he’s pulling us down a bad road; yes, we must resist; but, conceptually, we’re still living in great times,” Savage said. “The world is still a good place. There is still the eternal beauty of nature, family, God; and we mustn’t forget that.”

He pointed out “our ancestors lived through so much worse than what we’re going through under this character,” Obama.

“We mustn’t forget that. We must draw strength from history,” he said. “We’re not living through pogroms, we’re not living through starvation. We’re not living through mass insurrection.”

He then paused, however.

“And I should say, yet.”

As a son of Russian immigrant, persecution is in his family history, and he’s a student of the subject.

“I steep myself in the history of peoples who have been, and are being, persecuted, which is why I identify with the little guy and why I identify as an outsider,he said.

“I’ve never been an insider,” Savage said, noting that he has never been invited to the White House.

“It actually makes me a better talk-show host.”

    Read more at

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/michael-savages-dream-come-true/#G5IExyjHUWxK0B19.99

GENERAL CALLS FOR MASSIVE MARCH ON WASHINGTON


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:BOB UNRUH

‘We need to get off our derrieres. … Hope is not a strategy’

author-image  obamafrowns

Video

The retired American military commander who earlier said in a statement released to WND that Americans need to confront Barack Obama’s tyranny now is recommending the Egyptian model through which to do that.

The Egyptian model, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely explained on a podcast of an Internet radio show, was that 33 million people stood up to their government and told officials no.

The result was that the Egyptian Muslim Brother was removed from power and then-President Mohammed Morsi was removed from office, Vallely explained,

His call for a massive march on Washington came recently on the WBTM (We Become The Media) show.

He was asked whether America can be restored as the shining light on the hill for freedom when the electoral process, which resulted in two presidencies for Obama in 2008 and 2012, “are known to be corrupt.”

Vallely said the absence of leadership in the White House and Congress makes it difficult, and he said, “I’m not even sure our traditional process will straighten our government out in time to save us.”

And he said processes like impeachment simply won’t happen.

Then he suggested the Egyptian model, and he said millions of Americans need to “stand up” to Washington “within the next 12 months.”

He said doing nothing is not an option, because Washington won’t fix itself and “hope is not a strategy.”

“We need something … a no confidence vote,” he suggested. And perhaps legislation that could create a national recall process.

“We need to get off our derrieres, march at the state capitol, march in Washington,” he said. “Make citizens arrests.”

He said when there are those who are “conducting treason … violating the Constitution, violating our laws,” it should not be overlooked.

“When you have a president and his team who don’t care about the Constitution, they will do anything they can to win,” he said.

Vallely has been immensely popular among tea party organizations that are seeking a way to restore the rule of law to Washington.

Among other things, they cite the Obamacare law, and the 15 or more times Obama has changed the law – without consulting Congress.

In a statement earlier to WND, Vallely said a vote of no confidence could be used.

The founder of Stand Up America, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and activists based on the values of the Founding Fathers, said:

“Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history,” Vallely said. “It is true that not all who ply the halls of power fit under that broad brush, but most of them are guilty of many egregious acts and we say it is time to hold a vote of no confidence. It’s time for a ‘recall.’”

Vallely believes the “credibility of our current leadership is gone.”

Now, he said, “we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies and all manner of chicanery.”

He admitted there is no legal authority in a vote of no confidence, but he argued it will “take back the power of discourse.”

“What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule-of-law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?” he asked.

Vallely believes impeachment likely wouldn’t lead to conviction and doesn’t solve the problem, anyway.

“Harry Reid still controls the Senate, so like in Clinton’s day, forget about a finding of guilty,” he wrote. “Incidentally, if Obama was found guilty and removed from office, Joe Biden would step in, Valerie Jarrett still wields all the power, and likely we get more of the same.”


The Constitution can be amended without going through Congress, he pointed out, but it would take too much time, “a luxury we just do not have it we are going to save our republic.”

Sign the petition urging Congress to pursue impeachment right away!

“That brings us to the other word no one wants to utter, revolution. In our opinion, this is the least palatable option. … Others talk about the military taking over as we saw in Egypt; again, we do not support this route,” he said.

Vallely listed a sampling of Obama’s broken promises and lies, crediting Peter Wehner at Commentary Magazine:

  • His promise not to allow lobbyists to work in his administration. (They have.)
  • His commitment to slash earmarks. (He didn’t.)
  • To be the most transparent presidency in history. (He’s not.)
  • To put an end to “phony accounting.” (It started almost on Day 1 and continues.)
  • And to restore trust in government. (Trust in government is at near-historic lows.)
  • His pledge to seek public financing in the general election. (He didn’t.)
  • To treat super-PACS as a “threat to democracy.” (He embraced them.)
  • His pledge to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. (It remained above 8 percent for the longest stretch since the Great Depression.)
  • To create five million new energy jobs alone. (The total number of jobs created in Obama’s first term was roughly one-tenth that figure.)
  • To identify all those “shovel-ready’ jobs. (Mr. Obama later chuckled that his much-hyped “shovel-ready projects” were “not as shovel-ready as we expected.”)
  • To lift two million Americans from poverty. (A record 46 million Americans are living in poverty during the Obama era.)
  • His promise to bring down health care premiums by $2,500 for the typical family (they went up) … allow Americans to keep the health care coverage they currently have (many can’t) … refuse to fund abortion via the Affordable Care Act (it did) … to respect religious liberties (he has violated them) … and the insistent that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was not a tax (it is).
  • Obama’s pledge to stop the rise of oceans. (It hasn’t.)
  • To “remake the world” and to “heal the planet.” (Hardly.)
  • To usher in a “new beginning” based on “mutual respect” with the Arab and Islamic world and “help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East.” (Come again?)
  • To punish Syria if it crossed the “red line” of using chemical weapons. (The “red line” was crossed earlier this year – and nothing of consequence happened.)
  • That as president “I don’t bluff.” (See the previous sentence on Syria.)
  • And of course the much-ballyhooed Russian reset. (Tensions between Russia and the United States are increasing and examples of Russia undermining U.S. interests are multiplying.)
  • And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s promise to bring us together. (He is the most polarizing president in the history of the Gallup polling.)
  • Or his assurance to us that he would put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division and conflict and cynicism.” (All three have increased during the Obama presidency.)
  • And his counsel to us to “resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.” (Remind me again whose campaign allies accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the cancer death of a steelworker’s wife.)

“It is time to recall the reprobates and reclaim the power of the people,” Vallely said. “We need to start with the White House and all of Obama’s appointees, especially Eric Holder. … Then on to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi – the architects who shoved Obamacare down our throats. We also cannot forget John Boehner and company who openly castigate the tea-party caucus which are only doing that which they campaigned upon.”

Read the definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

Vallely quoted commentator Andrew C. McCarthy, who said that “absent the political will to remove the president, he will remain president no matter how many high crimes and misdemeanors he stacks up. … and absent the removal of the president, the United States will be fundamentally transformed.”

Vallely noted that while the U.S. Constitution lacks a provision for a “recall” at the federal level, “there is nothing to prevent its use as a comprehensive de facto indictment and conviction for contempt of Congress, violations of oath of office and of the Constitution itself – for all the reasons stated in such a resolution.”

He warned of growing “tyrannical centralized rule” without action.

There may be advances in the 2014 elections, but will that be a solution?

“Obama is still the president, and his Cabinet and appointees still remain in power. … Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect. His track record shows us that no matter what the make-up of Congress is, he will twist his way around it with a pen and secure even more power reminiscent of a dictator,” Vallely said.

“When that does not work, he will manipulate the courts and law enforcement will be run by fiat, choosing winners and losers.”

Congress already is addressing charges that Obama is violating the Constitution.

WND reported when Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.

Rep Trey Gowdy

“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he said. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”

Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.

His proposal is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through a resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., that would authorize the House to sue the Obama administration. It has 30 co-sponsors.

Rice said that because of “this disregard of our country’s checks and balances, many of you have asked me to bring legal action against the president.”

“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” he said.

A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.

“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”

Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees.

WND reported Turley’s concerns earlier this month.

Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.

He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “Professor Turley, the Constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”

Turley replied: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power.”

Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”

“There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”

Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.

Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.

WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”

“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.

“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”

Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”

Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.

See the Hannity segment:

Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely

Vallely explained that a “no confidence” vote now “would also tell the world that we recognize the mess this administration has wrought upon the world and we do not support his actions. Despite what supporters of Obama say about our standing in the world, the world is laughing at us. We are not pleased!”

Without that action, he writes, “Obama will just continue to subvert the Constitution he took an oath to faithfully protect.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/u-s-general-calls-for-massive-march-on-congress-white-house/#THccKGm3xIZCQBpl.99

 

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

Mark Levin says Obama preparing coup against Constitution

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.

 

Disposable: Paul Ryan’s Budget Epitomizes How Washington Actually Sees Veterans


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.businessinsider.com

 

Posted by:TONY CARR

, Paul Ryan budget

AP

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) wants to look tough on budget issues.  In an editorial published in USA Today explaining his decision to lead the passage of a budget that reduced vested veteran pensions by an average of $84,000 to $120,000, Mr. Ryan founded his message on the urgent need to “do the right thing.”  

In doing so, he created a painful irony;  Ryan’s budget seeks to save $6B over the next 10 years  – equivalent to less than six-tenths of one percent of projected federal spending over that period — by extracting it from compensation already guaranteed to people who earned it risking their lives and defending their country.  In other words, despite his assurances to the contrary, he wants to do exactly the wrong thing.

The military and veteran population stand in awe at Ryan’s explanation.  He apparently believes we are not only naive enough not to overlook the gaping moral maw between his words and actions, but also dumb enough not to see this for what it is: just the beginning. 

If he can decouple vested veteran pensions from inflation while we still have people dying in combat, there will be nothing to stop him from continually enlarging the legitimacy of  promise-breaking until veterans wake up one day and realize the pension package they’re getting bears no resemblance to what they and their families earned.

Ryan presents a classic false dilemma.  He wants us to believe the nation must choose between keeping promises to veterans and remaining secure. He admonishes us that “since 2001, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost per service member in the active-duty force has risen by 41% in inflation-adjusted dollars.” 

What he doesn’t mention is that when the $6T eventual price tag of those wars is counted, personnel costs will define a tiny percentage of their total price tag, despite the fact that any success we register from those conflicts will have been wholly earned not by machines, but by the people who fought and died to carry out the nation’s will.  Paying people isn’t something we do instead of staying secure as a nation . . . it’s the very way we stay secure.  People win wars, not machines, bureaucracies, or defense contractors.

What Ryan also doesn’t mention is that part of the reason money is running short these days is that he voted to authorize and expand the two wars whose costs have now finally become so inescapable that he and others can no longer deny them. 

As these costs fall due, the search is growing frantic for the most politically expedient way to ameliorate them, and politicians like Ryan are finding it easier to target troop pensions than to engage DoD in genuine reform. Mr. Ryan obfuscates his purpose by hiding behind Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and his generals, claiming their desire for pension reform vindicates his attempt to extract budgetary savings on the backs of warriors who have just endured the most punishing operations tempo in national history.

But notwithstanding that the Chief of Staff of the Air Force claims DoD wasn’t even consulted before the Ryan-Murray provision was inserted, what Ryan doesn’t advertise is that Hagel and the generals are struggling to make ends meet because Congress and the President have underresourced the department without granting it  mission relief, leaving them with a problem they can’t legally solve and have a solemn duty not to abandon. 

Hagel, Dempsey and the service chiefs desperately want reform, and are entitled to the presumption they’d rather not achieve reform in the predatory manner thus far undertaken.  But this isn’t reform.  This is the opposite — it’s the avoidance of reform. This is cheating . . . by saving money without having to engage in reform. This is back-door budgeteering. Nothing more.

Reform is deliberate, methodical, and transparent.  This is an attempted legal heist. Mr. Ryan clearly hoped it wouldn’t be noticed. He now laments being caught red-handed by veterans and their representatives, who now rightly wonder whether Congress has already forgotten what it promised in exchange for a dozen years (and counting) of voluntary misery. 

The unease now sensed from among the veteran population should be taken as a dire warning: haphazardly breached promises that send the wrong kinds of signals to current and past service members will fundamentally disrupt the eagerness of Americans to serve in the future.  Abraham Lincoln said this during the Civil War and it holds true still, especially  given the dozen years of abusive management practices that have already ground down our all-volunteer force.

Ryan wants to have an economic discussion masquerading as a moral one, but the veil he constructs is as thin as the paper upon which he scribbles down new promises certain to be broken when it becomes politically expedient.  Ryan admits he seeks to take $100,000 dollars out of the retirement accounts of veterans who earned that money by risking their lives in combat.

This is morally repugnant, but clearly Ryan and his colleagues are more compelled by economic convenience. He thinks veteran pensions are just another lavish government handout to be squeezed in the name of fiscal conservatism.  Incredulous, veterans find themselves on the wrong side of socialist impulses undertaken by an avowed counter-socialist; Ryan seems to be saying working age retirees don’t need  all that money, so it should be taken from them and given to some other budgetary recipient who needs it more.  Ryan has made a career railing against this very thing, saving his lone exception for a most unfortunate notion.

Paul Ryan says of military members, “[w]e owe them a benefit structure they can count on.”  This is the most revealing sentence in his editorial, because he uses the word benefit.  No, Mr. Ryan doesn’t owe them a benefit.  Military retirement isn’t a social benefit. He owes them the compensation promised by their country.  It’s not a benefit.  It’s a vested pension.  It’s earnings they already paid for.  That they earned those benefits in ways Paul Ryan doesn’t understand because he’s never served doesn’t change that fact.

He and his colleagues owe those who already acted in reliance on their promised pensions exactly what they were warranted, and not a penny less. Two million retired veterans (and hundreds of thousands currently serving) made career decisions based on this reliance, and cannot now go back and change those decisions.  Ryan understands the irrevocable nature of these decisions on some level, given that he now wants to make sure disabled retirees don’t lose any pension money. 

His theory is that they made decisions that ended up limiting their horizons.  What he seems to be missing is that most military retirees did the same thing.  Perhaps what he’s really saying is you only really earned your pension if you bled for it enough to be disabled.   Those who bled less, and merely risked life and limb for 20+ years, deserve something less. Again we find ourselves talking about who needs or deserves to be paid a pension, rather than starting by viewing an inflation-adjusted pension as the inviolate obligation we all understood it to be at the time it was offered in exchange for service in combat in time of war.

Mr. Ryan, speaking directly to you now, if you’re truly going to engage with veterans, you’ll have to learn to knock off the nonsense and talk straight.  Stop playing pretend, admit what you’re doing, and either stand by it or don’t.  You were part of the movement that imposed sequestration on the DoD, over the objections of everyone who knows anything about national defense.

Now that the generals are telling you they can’t maintain readiness without more funding or fewer missions, you’re looking to avoid tough decisions by grabbing for some easy cash, and have chosen the place where resistance is least likely – a constituency that isn’t allowed to speak out on its own behalf and has been socialized to refrain from complaining even when abused.

Well, you miscalculated.  We noticed.  We noticed you didn’t bother forcing DoD to reform itself (or even pass an audit based on current practices) before you allowed it to prop up a false narrative of runaway personnel costs – notwithstanding you and others voted for the current levels of compensation in order to carry out the wars you advocated without having to advertise their true costs to the American people.

We noticed you didn’t ask the President to shut down the war in Afghanistan any faster, even though doing so just one month earlier than planned would completely finance the  savings you instead chose to take from  pensions we earned with mortal risk and one kick in the gut after another over the last dozen years.  We noticed that you didn’t bother dialing up the uber rich – those who extract the most from the free-market system guarded by veterans – and asking them to contribute a little more in exchange for their freedom to earn riches insulated from threats to national security. To do so has long been an honorable American tradition.  You chose a different path, and we noticed.

Most of all, we noticed you didn’t acknowledge you were breaking a promise.  You, the President (as recently as September of this year), previous generals, and two previous Defense Secretaries reassured veterans time and again that any reform of the pension system would not touch the compensation of those who already paid their dues.

You haven’t acknowledged that by slipping this back-door provision into the budget, you spearheaded a successful effort to break those promises, which we consider sacred and fundamental.  But you underestimated the American veteran, who is typically an unselfish team player averse to complaint, but never stupid.  We have families who rely on us to fight for them, so we have no intention of going quietly while you pass off  quasi-larceny as “reform.”

Paul Ryan is a futurist.  He’s concerned with what runaway compensation costs might do to the national debt over the course of the next ten years.  Not so concerned that he wants to look at reducing Congressional pay or the pay of generals, admirals, and senior executives. Just concerned enough to cut the pensions of the military’s middle class.

Those who do the hard fighting for twenty years or so and exhaust themselves and their families in the process before heading out onto the open job market . . . where they find, at a disproportionately high rate, that learning to conduct organized violence isn’t always a boon in the private sector.  But before we trust his credentials as a futurist, we should consider what he foretold ten years ago.  He was then busy voting to send America’s sons and daughters into Iraq without a clear objective, a proper declaration, or even a legitimate cause.   He now wants to keep the benefits of his decision while disowning the obligations.  That is not only an impeachment of his futurist bona fides, but the textbook definition of doing the wrong thing.

The war Ryan supported in 2002 and doubled down upon in 2007 broke the spine of the all-volunteer force, and we’ve spent the subsequent years concealing that fact with personnel abuses and a heavy reliance on the sense of duty of our volunteers.  In that time, they’ve stayed because they believed in their teammates and knew someone had to help get this country out of the mess it had gotten into.

But they relied heavily on the fact they’d be able to take care of their families when the time came to re-purpose themselves, and in doing so came to depend on the pensions they earned. The Ryan-Murray provision has many of them feeling like they’ve been made fools for trusting their country’s word as a bond. If Ryan and his colleagues are allowed to proceed with taking the easy way out, Americans will regret ten years from now (or  sooner) that they allowed such casual promise-breaking to inflict a slow-bleeding but mortal wound upon the all-volunteer force . . . which depends fundamentally on the reliability of promises to function.

Paul Ryan wants us to do the right thing.  I agree with him.  Accordingly, I encourage Mr. Ryan and his colleagues to move swiftly in reversing course and grandfathering all currently-serving career military personnel and their predecessors who’ve already retired in any reforms. Anything less might save some money, but will do so at the cost of moral bankruptcy.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-budget-veterans-pensions-2013-12#ixzz2oZ61mMes

 

BOHICA ! ! Report: Budget Plan Could Cost Service Members $124,000 in Retirement Pay


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://freebeacon.com

 

Posted by:Elizabeth Harrington

Sens. Wicker, Graham, and Ayotte oppose cuts to military personnel

Military retirees face loses in budget deal

Military retirees could face as much as $124,000 in lost retirement income if the bipartisan budget agreement is enacted, according to the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA).

The Washington Free Beacon reported that under the budget agreement crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.), military retirees younger than 62 will receive 1 percentage point less in their annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).

While new federal employees who are hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will be required to pay 1.3 percent more of their pay into their pension plans, federal retirees will continue to receive their generous pension benefits and current employees will not be required to pay more.

Current civilian government workers will be grandfathered in at their current contribution rate of 0.8 percent.

According to the MOAA, the nation’s largest association of military officers, the proposal would have a significant impact on military retirees, including many who retire in their 40s after two decades of service.

A loss of one percentage point in their COLA translates into thousands of dollars in lost retirement income.

For instance, a 42-year-old who retires as an enlisted E-7 could lose a minimum of $72,000. E-7 refers to the ranks of Sergeant First Class, Chief Petty Officer (CPO), Master Sergeant, and Gunnery Sergeant.

A 42-year old Lieutenant Colonel could lose a minimum of $109,000 over a 20-year period.

If an E-7 retires at 40, they would lose $83,000. Commissioned officers could lose much more. Lieutenant colonels and commanders (an O-5 rank) who retire at 40 would lose $124,000.

Opposition to the deal grew when it became apparent military retirees would see their retirement pay take a hit.

“I do not support paying for increased federal spending on the backs of our retired and active duty troops,” Sen. Roger Wicker (R., Miss.) said in a statementThursday. “Congress should not change the rules in the middle of the game for those who have chosen to serve our nation in the military.”

“We can and should do a deal without cutting the benefits of our men and women who have volunteered for a military career,” he said. “The plan should be rejected.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called the deal “unacceptable.”

“After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,” Graham said in a statement. “Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.”

On the Senate floor Thursday, Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, spoke out against the changes to military retirement pay.

“This penalizes current and future military members who have served our nation for over 20 years,” Inhofe said.

“Keep in mind, people go into the military quite young sometimes knowing that the time they would serve would be for 20 years, many of them longer,” he said. “That’s kind of a given. And they do this predicated on the assumption that retirement benefits and all these things are going to be there.”

Though he is still undecided on whether to vote for the budget plan, Inhofe said the military retiree provision would have to be removed before he could vote for it.

“I know it’s not an easy job,” he said, of crafting a budget proposal. “I know that we had a Democrat and Republican working very hard on it, but that’s one thing […] I believe that can be changed.”

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) has also come out against the deal late Thursday.

“I cannot support a budget agreement that fails to deal with the biggest drivers of our debt, but instead pays for more federal spending on the backs of our active duty and military retirees – those who have put their lives on the line to defend us,” Ayotte said in a statement.

“My hope is that both parties can work together to replace these unfair cuts that impact our men and women in uniform with more responsible savings, such as the billions that the Government Accountability Office has identified in waste, duplication and fraud across the federal government.”

 

Republicans and Tea Party Activists in ‘Full Scale Civil War’


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://abcnews.go.com

 

Posted by:ABBY D. PHILLIP

Abby D. Phillip

Bipartisan Budget Deal Creates Rift in GOP


PHOTO: Speaker of the House John Boehner answers questions during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol November 21, 2013 in Washington, DC.

Boehner and company

Years of growing friction between the Republican Party leaders and its Tea Party faction has erupted into what one conservative said today was “full-scale civil war.”

House Speaker John Boehner, whose strategies have been repeatedly thwarted by Tea Party revolts in recent years, was blunt today when asked whether he thought the ultra-conservatives should get in line.

“I don’t care what they do,” Boehner replied.

and this is the reason folks want you out of the leadership

The speaker lashed out at Tea Party activists.

“Well, frankly, I think they’re misleading their followers,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters today. “I think they’re pushing our members in places where they don’t want to be.”

“And frankly, I just think that they’ve lost all credibility,” Boehner said.

Boehner’s frustration is perhaps matched by the fury among tea party conservatives who believe they have been betrayed by conservative leaders in Washington.

“It’s just another example of D.C. elitism. They think they know what’s best for the rest of the country and they want us to just sit down and shut up,” Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, told ABC News today.

Wednesday brought a double dose of betrayal from Republican leadership, in the tea party’s view.

The budget proposal crafted by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-W.I., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., was warmly embraced by Republican leadership.

The tea party followers believe the deal was inadequate, but they were also angered when Boehner slammed outside groups for their ” ridiculous” criticism of the deal.

Boehner said today he has decided to take his conference in a different direction after conservatives in his party pushed a showdown to defund Obamacare that led to a government shutdown — and some of the Republican Party’s worst approval ratings in public polling.

“You know, they pushed into this fight to defund ‘Obamacare’ and to shut down the government,” Boehner said. “Most of you know, my members know, that wasn’t exactly the strategy that I had in mind.”

“But if you recall, the day before the government reopened… one of these groups stood up and said, well, we never really thought it would work,” he added. “Are you kidding me?”

Relations were further strained when Republican leaders on Wednesday fired high level staffer Paul Teller, who often served as the liaison between members of Congress and outside activists.

“It’s sad that this conflict has broken out into full-scale civil war, but this moment has been festering for years,” wrote Daniel Horowitz, the policy director of the Madison Project, a conservative group that has sought candidates to challenge Republican incumbents in primaries, in a statement. “There can be no reconciliation between those who seek power for power’s sake and those who seek to serve in order to restore our Republic.”

Teller, the executive director of the Republican Study Committee, an independent research arm for House Republicans, was reportedly accused of leaking private lawmaker-only information to these outside groups.

Brent Bozell, chairman of For America, a Tea Party group that undersigned a letter to Republican leadership Wednesday night from more than 30 Tea Party groups angry over Teller’s dismissal, said that his removal was an act of war.

“They were just out to get rid of him in a declaration of war on conservatives which is really, really stupid,” Bozell said. “They’re trying to intimidate conservatives and this one is going to backfire on them.”

“They’ve now made it personal,” he added. “It is now a personal attack on conservatives.”

NEW OBAMA ADVISER WANTS TO CEDE U.S. OCEANS TO U.N.


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:AARON KLEIN

President seeks his help on executive orders, climate change

author-imageAARON KLEIN

ocean

President Obama’s new staff adviser, senior progressive strategist John Podesta, is a key player in an initiative seeking more government regulation of the oceans and the ceding of U.S. oceans to United Nations-based international law.

That background could inform Podesta’s agenda in the White House, where he is to serve for one year as a “counselor” to the president. The New York Times reported he will focus on executive orders and so-called climate change issues along with Obamacare.

Podesta, a former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, is founder of the highly influential Center for American Progress.

He is also a member of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which seeks to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

“I am delighted to be joining the Global Ocean Commission, which I see as one of the most dynamic initiatives developing commonsense ways to manage fully 45 percent of the globe that remains common property, outside any national jurisdiction,” said Podesta when he joined the commission.

The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to “accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform.”

Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Other recommendations of Podesta’s Joint Ocean Commission Initiative include:

  • The administration and Congress should establish a national ocean policy. The administration and Congress should support regional, ecosystem-based approaches to the management of ocean, coastal and Great Lakes.
  • Congress should strengthen and reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  • Congress should strengthen the Clean Water Act.

Last year, Obama’s Interagency Ocean Policy Taskforce, created in 2010 also by executive order, recommended the U.S. join the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Convention.

The convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.

Republican lawmakers mounted fierce opposition to the U.S. joining the U.N. law.

‘One world government’

Podesta’s Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, meanwhile, is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a “future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”

In what world does does Joint Ocean have to do with abolishing war ?  (The convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world’s oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.)

CGS states it works to “build the political will in the United States” to achieve this global vision.

Or in other words to change the views of the Americans view of Communism

The organization currently works on issues that fall into five general areas: U.S. global engagement; global health and environment; peace and security; international law and justice; and international institutions.

John Podesta was a chief of staff to President Bill Clinton

CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which openly seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.

The movement brings together organizations and individuals that support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

The movement’s headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine. The doctrine formed the basis of Obama’s justification to launch NATO airstrikes in Libya.

In 2008, Podesta served as co-director of Obama’s transition into the White House.

A Time magazine article profiled the influence of Podesta’s Center for American Progress in the formation of the Obama administration, stating that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan’s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway.”

The center is funded by billionaire George Soros. Its board includes Van Jones, Obama’s former “green jobs” czar, who resigned in September 2009 after it was exposed he founded a communist revolutionary organization.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/new-obama-adviser-wants-to-cede-u-s-oceans-to-u-n/#EzR8kvETiPPd8p6g.99

 

AFRICAN-AMERICAN PASTOR: IF THE PRESIDENT HAD A SON, HE’D LOOK A LOT LIKE THE ‘KNOCKOUT GAME’ PERPS


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!

 

 

 

Posted by:PASTOR AUBREY SHINES

Pastor Aubrey Shines

By now you have probably heard the news of the ridiculous game Knockout. The rules of the game are quite simple. You go up to a perfect stranger and punch them in the face in an attempt to knock them out in one punch.

The more the media reports these attacks a few things become clear.

First, the perpetrators are young black men.

Second, the victims are white and most often Jewish. Because the victims are white, the game is also referred to as polar bear hunting.

Third, there has been radio silence from black national leaders condemning the acts. Al Sharpton finally condemned the game at one of his weekly National Action Network meetings. But the outrage pales in comparison to the outrage that Sharpton and his fellow Race Warriors are able to muster when it benefits them financially and politically.

knockout game

Image source: YouTube

Sharpton is so skilled at ginning up crowds to protest injustice that his ability to pull together a rally of thousands in a matter of hours is called “rent a demonstration.” It is no secret that he uses his power as a tool of intimidation to encourage corporations to bend to his will.

Like Sharpton, Cornel West, Jesse Jackson and Eric Michael Dyson are men who have platforms and audiences who will listen and follow. Even though the NAACP is shrinking in members, it too has a voice in the black community that should be more vocal on this knockout game.

You can be sure if the victims were black, the Race Warriors would demand 24-hour news coverage.


You can be sure if those doing the knocking out were white and the victims were black, Sharpton and the Race Warriors would be demanding 24-hour news coverage. The truth is that while the knockout game is a rather new phenomenon, the problem of black-on-white crime is not. Statistics from all credible sources reveal that whites are the victims of crimes committed by blacks far more frequently than the reverse.

As much as I would love to hear strong reproaches from these black leaders, the most deafening silence comes from President Barack Obama. Some people have argued that Obama should not weigh in on these issues of race because a white president would not. But Barack Obama is not a white president and we all would be wise to stop pretending that his race does not matter.

African American Pastor: If the President Had a Son, Hed Look a Lot Like the Knockout Game Perps

Rev. Al Sharpton participates in a news conference outside the West Wing of the White House Monday, July 29, 2013. Sharpton and the other ‘Race Warriors’ have yet to speak out against the ‘Knockout Game.’ Credit: AP

While President Obama’s approval ratings suffer among most Americans, he continues to maintain high poll numbers in the black community. Whether rational or not, nothing (Benghazi, NSA scandals, IRS scandals, Obamacare fiasco, a black employment rate twice as high as that of whites) will remove the halo above President Obama’s head in the black community.

The young black men committing these crimes have an inextinguishable respect and pride for President Obama. He should speak to them and say in no uncertain terms that their behavior only reinforces stereotypes of black men as violent under-educated criminals. Their behavior moves Black Americans further away from achieving Dr. King’s dream. Continuing down the path that the knockout game leads also destroys any dream they have for themselves of a bright future.

The President has weighed in on issues of race that had far less global consequences in the past. Remember the beer summit with Black Professor Henry Louis Gates and James Crowley, the white police sergeant who arrested him as he entered his own home? Remember the recent response to a reporter’s question where President Obama said if he were the owner, he would change the name from Redskins? Remember after the Trayvon Martin verdict, President Obama reminded us that if he had a son, he would probably look like Trayvon?

I can think of no better reason for him to talk about a race issue than in an attempt to speak directly to the young men who would look like his son, if he had a son.

When he speaks out, other black leaders will join the chorus and speak out. For that reason alone, President Obama must use his influence to create a ground swell against the immoral foolishness that comes with sucker punching a perfect stranger for sport.  If he doesn’t speak out, Black America will be the ones that are sucker punched in the end.

Pastor Aubrey Shines, a Chicago native, began ministering in the Cook County Correctional System in Chicago, IL as an evangelical minister licensed by the late Bishop D. Husband (Churches of God in Christ).

He has earned a degree in Computer Science, a Bachelors Degree in Theology, and a Masters Degree in Divinity.

In 1987 God moved greatly upon Pastor Shines’ heart and he became founder of Glory To Glory Ministries. The ministry has since transcended denominational, cultural, and ethnic boundaries. Throughout the country, Pastor Shines has been featured in various leading newspapers, magazines, and TV and radio broadcasts as a leading prophetic voice. This call upon his life has positioned him to be called upon to minister prophetic insight into the lives of key spiritual leaders, top athletes, entertainers, and governmental officials.
Pastor Shines had a zeal for God’s people to know Him in a greater and more personal way, rather than solely through human emotions. In May 2002, he began teaching a basic theology course to train leaders in the Tampa/St.Petersburg, Florida area. The curriculum focused on the Patristic Period and the impact that the First through Fifth Century Fathers of the Church had on our global society. As a result of the consistent weekly Bible teachings, the attendance to these classes grew steadily in number during the first year. Saturating his desire with prayer, God began to clearly speak to him and it became apparent that God was leading him to shepherd this newly assembled flock of believers as their Senior Pastor.
Glory To Glory Ministries is now located in the inner city of Tampa, Florida. Over the past eight years, this congregation has grown tremendously because of the anointing that God has placed on Pastor Shine’s life. Pursuing God’s vision, Glory To Glory Ministries currently has filed the formal papers for the establishment of a charter school which will have an emphasis in both law and finances.
Pastor Shines most recent accomplishment is being one of the seven founders of the International Communion of Evangelical Churches organization under the dynamic leadership of Presiding Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr. ICEC is A Communion of God’s Design in which he serves in the Communion of the Prophetic Voice and Public Affairs.

 

And This Is Exactly Why You Never Judge Someone By Their Looks. Whoa…


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.viralnova.com

 

Posted by:

Bikers strike fear into the hearts of many. They’re seen as rough thugs… but there is more to a biker than you think. This gang, for instance, is happy to intimidate people. However, they only intimidate people who dare hurt children. They are the Bikers Against Child Abuse International. And they mean business.

These bikers stand out because of their soft spot: innocent victims of child abuse.

These bikers stand out because of their soft spot: innocent victims of child abuse.

imgur.com

You may be taken aback by their kind and generous attitude, but there are more to bikers than just leather and chains. These bikers act as guardians for abused children.

You may be taken aback by their kind and generous attitude, but there are more to bikers than just leather and chains. These bikers act as guardians for abused children.

imgur.com

The girl chewing on her lip was abused by a relative, according to police reports – someone she should have been able to trust. He’s not in the state any longer, but the criminal case is progressing slowly, so he’s not in jail, either. She still leaves in fear, but this unruly-looking mob in her driveway is there to help her feel safe again. They are members of the Arizona chapter of Bikers Against Child Abuse International, and they wear their motto on their black leather vests and T-shirts: “No child deserves to live in fear.”

The girl chewing on her lip was abused by a relative, according to police reports - someone she should have been able to trust. He's not in the state any longer, but the criminal case is progressing slowly, so he's not in jail, either. She still leaves in fear, but this unruly-looking mob in her driveway is there to help her feel safe again. They are members of the Arizona chapter of Bikers Against Child Abuse International, and they wear their motto on their black leather vests and T-shirts: "No child deserves to live in fear."

imgur.com

A biker’s power and attitude can help a vulnerable child feel safe… and BE safe. If this little girl has to testify against her abuser in court, they will go, too, walking with her to the witness stand and taking over the first row of seats. Pipes will tell her, “Look at us, not him.” And when she’s done, they will circle her again and walk her out.

A biker's power and attitude can help a vulnerable child feel safe... and BE safe. If this little girl has to testify against her abuser in court, they will go, too, walking with her to the witness stand and taking over the first row of seats. Pipes will tell her, "Look at us, not him." And when she's done, they will circle her again and walk her out.

imgur.com

The bikers even welcomed this little girl into their gang, making her a denim jacket with the name “Rhythm” on it, for a girl who dances and loves music.

The bikers even welcomed this little girl into their gang, making her a denim jacket with the name "Rhythm" on it, for a girl who dances and loves music.

imgur.com

The bikers are all volunteers, giving five, 10, 20 or more hours a week. There’s no reimbursement for gas or the time they take off work. The bikers must be tough, not only to protect the kids but to be able to stomach knowing what their young charges may have been through. An 8-year-old beaten by Mom; a 6-year-old molested by his mother’s boyfriend. A girl, 10, raped.

They are trained by a licensed mental-health professional affiliated with the chapter. Each biker must be fingerprinted and undergo a thorough criminal-background check, the same one required for state child-welfare workers and law-enforcement officers, before they can join the group.

 

The bikers are all volunteers, giving five, 10, 20 or more hours a week. There's no reimbursement for gas or the time they take off work.</p><br /><br /> <p>The bikers must be tough, not only to protect the kids but to be able to stomach knowing what their young charges may have been through. An 8-year-old beaten by Mom; a 6-year-old molested by his mother's boyfriend. A girl, 10, raped. They are trained by a licensed mental-health professional affiliated with the chapter. Each biker must be fingerprinted and undergo a thorough criminal-background check, the same one required for state child-welfare workers and law-enforcement officers, before they can join the group.

imgur.com

 

These bikers aren’t looking for trouble. The only thing they want to do is make sure innocent children don’t feel so alone, or so powerless.

“It’s scary enough for an adult to go to court,” he says. “We’re not going to let one of our little wounded kids go alone.”

President Obama Fires High Ranking Nuclear Chiefs


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://benswann.com

 

Posted by:Sonya Sandage

clip_image002

Major General Carey

In an unprecedented move, reports of the Obama administration firing a second military commander of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons system have surfaced. These officers have some of the highest clearances you can get, and have been in charge of the nation’s most sensitive nuclear arsenals.

Reuters reported on Friday, Oct 11th that Major General Michael Carey was fired from his job as Commander of the 20th Air Force. The role is responsible for three wings of intercontinental missiles, a total of 450 missiles at three different US bases. He has served for 35 years per his Air Force bio, with numerous awards.

The Air Force is reporting the firing is due to the current administrations “loss of trust” in . A Pentagon official told Reuters on Friday that the decision to fire the 2 star general was made by Lieutenant General James Kowalski. Kowalski has replaced him with Major General Jack Weinstein.

On Wednesday, October 9th, President Barack Obama himself fired the Navy head of nuclear weapons, according to ABCNews Chief Global Affairs Correspondent Martha Raddatz. Navy Vice Admiral Tim Giardina, the second-in-charge at US Strategic Command, was fired by the President. Official statement indicates firing was due to use of counterfeit poker chips at an Iowa casino.

Some say the firings of these two, along with two Marine Corp Generals, an Army Brigadier General, an Army 2-star General, and a Navy 1-star General are part of an effort to clean up operational failures, such as the 2007 incident of the Minot missing nukes.

According to a wide range of reports, several nuclear bombs were “lost” for 36 hours after taking off August 29/30, 2007 on a “cross-country journey” across the U.S., from U.S.A.F Base Minot in North Dakota to U.S.A.F. Base Barksdale in Louisiana. Reportedly, in total there were six W80-1 nuclear warheads armed on AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles that were “lost.” The story was first reported by the Military Times, after military servicemen leaked the story

The rare firings of military nuclear chiefs follows another recent incident of nukes making headlines.

As reported by CBS local Charlotte affiliate station on September 3rd, Senator Lindsay Graham told reporters in Goose Creek that if the US didn’t invade Syria, and launch a first strike war against Iran, that nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists could result in a bomb coming to Charleston Harbor. After the US Congress refusal to authorize war in Syria, Senator Lindsay Graham has not provided clarification for that statement made on September 3rd.

Read more: http://benswann.com/president-obama-fires-high-ranking-nuclear-chiefs/#ixzz2mCy1pKNw

 

Is THIS missing piece to Benghazi puzzle?


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:Aaron Klein

Congressional probe lacks crucial detail

author-image

hillary-clinton-gesture

JERUSALEM – A House Republican report released this week on the Obama administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terror attack is missing one essential piece that could help to answer many of the questions raised in the report.

That piece is the alleged illicit activities transpiring inside the U.S. facilities that were attacked.

The 46-page report by five committees of the Republican-led House says the White House scrubbed terrorism and al-Qaida from talking points and misled the American public by blaming the attack on an obscure YouTube film.

The report further questions why the White House falsely claimed the U.S. facilities were targeted in unplanned, popular street protests while it was known to the government almost immediately that the Benghazi mission and nearby CIA annex were attacked by militants in a premeditated fashion.

One key question of the congressional probe centers on why the State Department chose to reduce security at the U.S. Benghazi mission and to deny multiple requests for more security assistance.

The report rejects State Department claims that funding was the reason for the security reductions.

States the report: “It is clear that funding – or a lack thereof – is not the reason for the reductions in security, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Lamb testified and as emails reviewed by the Committees attest.

“Moreover, a lack of funding would not have been at issue with respect to the rejection of the request to extend the deployment of the [U.S. Military Security Support Team], as that team was provided via the Defense Department at no expense to the State Department.”

A key accusation in the report alleges the White House generated talking points for the public that “excluded details about the wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya, an exacerbating factor that contributed to the lethality of the attacks.”

The report does not mention that the weapons and fighters may actually be the reason for the coordinated assaults on the U.S. facilities. According to Middle Eastern security officials, the U.S. mission was allegedly used to help coordinate arms and other aid to the jihadist-led rebel; insurgencies in Libya and in Syria.

The U.S. mission’s alleged role in arming the rebels, as first exposed by WND, may help to answer many of the questions in the probe, including why the White House did not want to draw attention to al-Qaida’s role in the attacks.

It also could explain why security was reduced as the compound. An increased security presence at the U.S. mission would have drawn attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly being used for such sensitive purposes.

WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who described the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, including the transfer of weapons to rebels.

Two weeks after the Benghazi attack, WND also broke the story that murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

In November 2012, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Among the tasks performed inside the Benghazi facility was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Assad’s regime, the security officials said.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya, Egyptian security officials told WND. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

White House officials previously denied aiding arms shipments to the rebels.

However, confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times last month reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding the Arab governments and Turkey in shopping for and transporting weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Previously, multiple establishment news media reports described the U.S. role in helping to arm the Libyan rebels attacking the regime of Moammar Ghadaffi. At the same time it was widely reported that al-Qaida groups were among the Libyan rebels.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/is-this-missing-piece-to-benghazi-puzzle/#8Mxd8Oi1usQ4iuqG.99

 

Media Matters snagged in Benghazi deceit


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: Aaron Klein

Book claims Republicans, talk radio using attacks for partisan gain

author-image 

david-brock

JERUSALEM – In their new e-book, “The Benghazi Hoax,” Media Matters for America executives David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt dispute the claim that highly trained Special Forces were available and could have been deployed in time to make a difference in the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

The authors, however, fail to inform readers that Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, conceded highly trained Special Forces were stationed just a few hours away from Benghazi on the night of the attack but were not told to deploy to Libya, as WND was first to report.

Brock and Rabin-Ravt also did not raise the many questions prompted by Dempsey’s testimony, including an admission to the highly unusual move of changing command of the Special Forces in the middle of the Benghazi attack.

Instead, Brock and Rabin-Ravt attempt to refute an exclusive Fox News interview aired April 30 in which a special government operator, speaking on condition of anonymity, contradicted claims by the Obama administration and a State Department review that there wasn’t enough time for military forces to deploy the night of the attack.

“I know for a fact that C-110, the EUCOM CIF, was doing a training exercise in … not in the region of North Africa, but in Europe,” the special operator told Fox News’ Adam Housley. “And they had the ability to act and to respond.”

The operator told Fox News the C-110 forces were training in Croatia. The distance between Croatia’s capital, Zagreb, and Benghazi is about 925 miles. Fox News reported the forces were stationed just three and a half hours away.

“We had the ability to load out, get on birds and fly there, at a minimum stage,” the operator told Fox News. “C-110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in a matter of about four hours … four to six hours.”

The C-110 is a 40-man Special Ops force maintained for rapid response to emergencies such as the Benghazi attack.

Fox News’ interview with the whistleblower:

Whistleblower interview 

Brock and Rabin-Ravt assail the Fox News interview.

“It was a compelling argument, especially for a typical news consumer who possesses only a casual knowledge of military affairs,” they write.

“Military experts, however, dismissed these notions,” they said.

The authors quote former Defense Secretary Robert Gates stating the suggestion the military could have responded in time was based on “sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces.”

Brock and Rabin-Ravt further quote former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta saying last February a military response during the attack was unfeasible.

“The reason simply is because armed UAVs, AC-130 gunships or fixed-wing fighters, with the associated tanking, you’ve got to provide air refueling abilities; you’ve got to arm all the weapons before you put them on the planes; targeting and support facilities, were not in the vicinity of Libya. And because of the distance, it would have taken at least nine to 12 hours, if not more, to deploy these forces to Benghazi.”

Brock and Rabin-Ravt entirely ignore the news-making remarks of Dempsey, who not only conceded the C-110 Special Forces were stationed just a few hours away but also stated command of the forces was transferred from the military’s European command to AFRICOM, or the United States Africa Command, during the attack, a move that may warrant further investigation.

Dempsey did not state any reason for the strange transfer of command nor could he provide a timeline for the transfer the night of the attack.

Also, Dempsey’s comments on the travel time between Croatia and Benghazi were incorrect.

Dempsey was asked about the Fox News report on the C-110 Special Forces by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis, at a senatorial hearing over Defense Department Budget requests.

Video of Johnson’s questions to Dempsey:

 Johnson’s questions Dempsey

Dempsey confirmed the C-110 was indeed at a training exercise. At first he claimed the Special Forces were training in Bosnia and then later stated they were training in Croatia. But he did not explain the discrepancies in his statements about their location nor did he note the discrepancies.

“It (the C-110) was on a training mission in Bosnia, that is correct,” stated Dempsey.

Dempsey had been asked whether they were training in Croatia, not Bosnia.

In further remarks, he stated the forces were in Croatia.

Dempsey was asked whether he agreed with the Fox News timeline that the C-110 could deploy in four to six hours.

“No, I would not agree to that timeline,” he stated. “The travel time alone would have been more than that, and that is if they were sitting on the tarmac.”

However, even a large passenger jet can travel from the furthest point of Croatia to Benghazi in about two and a half hours or less.

Dempsey further stated the command of the C-110, or the EUCOM CIF, was transferred the night of the attack, but he didn’t explain why.

“There was a point at which the CIF was transitioned over into Africom” from European command, he said.

He could not give a timeline of when the command was transferred, telling Johnson he would take the question for the record.

Asked whether the C-110 left Croatia that night, Dempsey stated, “They were told to begin preparations to leave Croatia and to return to their normal operating base” in Germany.

Dempsey’s statements confirmed the forces were not asked to deploy to Libya.

The whistleblower operator told Fox News the C-110 could have made a difference.

“They would have been there before the second attack,” he said. “They would have been there at a minimum to provide a quick reaction force that could facilitate their exfil out of the problem situation. Nobody knew how it was going to develop. And you hear a whole bunch of people and a whole bunch of advisers say, hey, we wouldn’t have sent them there because, you know, the security was unknown situation.”

Also, in his testimony, former U.S. deputy ambassador to Libya and whistleblower Gregory Hicks said he contacted Africom the night of the attack but received no support.

Stated Hicks: “At about 10:45 or 11 we confer, and I asked the defense attache who had been talking about AFRICOM and with the joint staff, ‘Is anything coming? Will they be sending us any help? Is there something out there?’ And he answered that, the nearest help was in Aviano, the nearest – where there were fighter planes. He said that it would take two to three hours for them to get onsite, but that there also were no tankers available for them to refuel. And I said, ‘Thank you very much,’ and we went on with our work.”

Aviano, Italy, is 1,044 miles from Benghazi, about 100 miles further than the Croatian capital.

Hicks’ testimony:

Hicks’ testimony

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/media-matters-snagged-in-benghazi-deceit/#KmTzeecQX0UV9HiX.99

 

Thwarted Assassination Attempt Uncovered


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://thelibertydigest.com

 

Posted by:Jenna Natas

images

A truly grim Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) report circulating in the Kremlin today claims that the “traditional” Western allies of the United States are “in total shock” today over the near assassination of President Barack Obama during what was planned to be a massive terror attack on the subway and rail systems of Washington D.C. that were being “false flagged”&nbsp;by dissident elements of the US military.

According to this report, this false flag attack was timed to occur during past  week’s two-day GridEx II terror exercise that simulates a nationwide collapse of the electric grid due to cyberterror or other attacks upon the United States, but was thwarted when its chief architects were discovered and this plot was unmasked.

These chief architects have been identified by the GRU as Vice-Admiral Ted Branch and Rear Admiral Bruce Loveless who were the US Navy’s top intelligence officials, both of whom were removed from duty by Obama this past Friday.

Important to note about this current false flag attempt, this report says, is that Russian intelligence experts have long suspected that renegade elements of the US Navy intelligence services were “deeply complicate” in the 11 September 2001 (9/11) attacks upon the United States that was only able to be stopped after their main headquarters in the Pentagon were destroyed by a cruise missile.

Also, this report continues, it is important to note that the US militaries pattern of using a GridEx II type exercise as cover for a planned assassination and/or false flag terror attack was more than evidenced on 9/11 when no less than 5 terror exercises were currently ongoing when the Twin Towers were attacked and brought down.

In this current plot, the GRU says in their report, at least 5 casualties have been reported that include 4 US Marines killed yesterday when they attempted to defuse one of the explosive devices removed from a Washington D.C. subway car, and a “major co-conspirator”&nbsp;named Ronald Kirby who was gunned down in his home by loyal Obama forces on Monday.

Kirby, this report says, was described as a “giant in the room” due to his institutional knowledge of the Washington region’s transportation system — both on the highway and on the rails — that was unmatched and knew the most vital vulnerabilities of the D.C. subway system.

Two former US Naval Seals who were part of Obama’s Secret Service protective detail, Ignacio Zamora Jr. and Timothy Barraclough, have also been linked by the GRU to this plot, and like their US Naval intelligence overseers were likewise dismissed from duty this week.

As to why the US military would want to eliminate Obama this GRU report says can be gleaned from the information released by Secret Service agent Dan Bongino who this past week warned the American people about the Obama regime by stating:

We’re in a lot of trouble.

The President sees government – and I think it’s because of his lack of experience and maybe community organizing in the past – as this shiny new toy.

For all the disagreements I had with Clinton, Carter and Bush there were always limits… there was that line you just didn’t cross… We cross it seemingly every day. We’re lost in the scandals…

The Jamie Dimon shakedown at Chase… the HHS scandal.. Kathleen Sebelius shaking down the health care industry for money… the IRS… it’s to the point where these scandals in and of themselves would be huge back-breaking scandals [but] are just lost in the scandal fog of this administration…

It’s worse than people know… and I’m not trying to scare you either.”

The precedent for killing an American President for abusing his office, this report says, was established in 1963 with the planned assassination of John F. Kennedy who was a secret drug abuser and deathly ill due to Addisons Disease and whom the US military-industrial-complex detested for his failure to stand up to Soviet communism.

Kennedy, indeed all of America, had been warned about this danger when on 17 January 1961 President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued his prophetic warning about the military-industrial complex, anticipating the increased political, economic, military and even cultural influence of the Pentagon and its allies.

Several weeks earlier, he had privately told his senior advisers in the Oval Office, “God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn’t know the military as well as I do.”

Where Kennedy failed to heed Eisenhower’s warning, this report concludes, the same cannot be said of Obama who has during the past 5 years has purged the US military of nearly 200 of its top officers, created a Department of Homeland Security “spy grid”across the entire United States, established a National Security Agency that can track the location of each citizens phone even when it is turned off and the batteries have been removed, and now rules over a nation that has more prisoners in its gulag than high school teachers and engineers combined.

To the only modern-times world leader Obama can be compared to, this GRU report ends, is former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin who during the 1934-1939 Great Purge, likewise, eliminated his military and political opposition while at the same time creating a police-state that has not been rivaled until the present day United States.

 

So You’re Offended, Are You?


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:Jim Yardley 

Author

Every day we see news stories in the main stream media reporting that activist atheists and non-religious groups, such as those involved in the LGBT community, attack any demonstration of religiosity.  Catholic hospitals, schools or charitable organizations, for example, who employ anyone who is not a nun, priest or brother, are being forced to ignore their own religious doctrines and supply contraceptives and abortifacients as part of the health insurance that they offer to their lay employees under the mandates of ObamaCare.

 

Christmas particularly seems to drive atheists wild for some reason.  The idea that a community wants to put up a Christmas tree in a public space (even when no public funds are involved) seems to cause the vapors among those groups.  And their passive-aggressive posture of being “offended” by any demonstration of Christmas, or singing Christmas carols in a school that have any connection to the idea that Christmas is actually connected to, you know, the birth of Jesus, will cause them to have a figurative brain hemorrhage.

This particular and peculiar obsession with Christmas makes one wonder why they never seem to sue to get the Saint Patrick’s Day parade shut down.  It is all about a saint, after all.

There seems to be ongoing and vicious assaults on Judeo-Christian beliefs in this country, and directed against Christians even more than Jews.  Many Christians are outraged at this assault in direct contravention of the First Amendment’s protections of religious freedom, of course when Christians find this to be offensive, they are simply viewed as being borderline retarded, and so they are ignored and marginalized.

Even non-religious organizations are bowing before the non-God of atheistic conformity, so we have stores referring to “holiday trees”, the “holiday season” or printing “holiday greeting cards.”

So what should Christians do?

My (sarcastic) answer to them would be very simple.  Offer to cooperate with the posturing fools who want to kill Christmas.  Let’s suggest to the atheists and Democrats (or is that redundant?) that they eliminate Christianity and Judaism altogether.  Wouldn’t that be great!  Think of all the benefits that would accrue to the country if actually did eliminate Christianity and Judaism along with their antiquated and obviously wrong-headed and ignorant ideas that form the basis of Judeo-Christian morality. 

Since Judeo-Christian morality is the basis for all law and governmental intrusion to moderate the activities of human beings in Western Civilization, what might happen?  Well, just hypothetically speaking of course, here are a couple of possibilities:

  1. The crime statistics would drop to nearly zero.  After all, 99.9% of all the laws in this country are based on the biblical Ten Commandments.  Get rid of that relic of a time long past and VOILA!  No crime, therefore no crime statistics.  It would be every man for himself in the realm of jurisprudence and police activity.
  2. Once crime is eliminated, think of the vast reductions in government spending that would ensue.  Welfare?  Gone.  It’s based on the religious concepts of three major religions (Judaism, Christianity as well as Islam) that preach that people should act charitably toward the less fortunate.  Get rid of religion, then charity, in all its governmentally coerced forms such as welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, unemployment insurance, workers comp insurance, food stamps and all their supporting bureaucracy would vanish.  Cool, right?  We could save hundreds of billions, perhaps even a trillion or so, each and every year and wipe out our entire national debt in less than ten years.
  3. Gun and ammunition manufacturers would find their revenue stream increasing rapidly, since without those pesky, antiquated laws based on the so-called Ten Commandments, there would no longer be any restraints on anyone’s behavior.  So you’re daughter gets raped, what are you going to do?  Call a cop?  It’s not a crime anymore, right?  So get your gun, and start killing everyone that remotely resembles your daughter’s rapist.  Murder isn’t a crime either.  Well, maybe it would be classed as “Felony Littering”, although I don’t recall one of those Ten Commandments saying, “Thou shalt not litter.”  It follows Point #1 above:  You’re on your own.
  4. Divorce attorneys might be upset when the divorce laws become inoperable.  That whole “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife” business would be a thing of the past, wouldn’t it?  And while you might not have to worry about alimony anymore, you might want to review Point #3 about murder not being a crime either.  Just sayin’.
  5. And changes need not be limited to domestic affairs.  Think how different foreign relations would be if we could ignore the Judeo-Christian tradition.  For instance we could eliminate all that nonsense about the Geneva Convention, and torturing enemy combatants.  The concept of innocent civilians would be gone, so the rules of engagement for our military would be soooo much simpler.  If it moves, kill it!

I feel sure that all the atheists and other anti-Christian, anti-Jewish rabble rousers would just love those kinds of changes, right?  And if they don’t, what rationalization could they offer to replace laws based on the Ten Commandments?  No matter how they twist and turn, the simple truth is that the Ten Commandments offer the same thing that our Constitution offers – a simple, understandable guide for how to conduct the affairs of human beings to inflict the least suffering on one’s self or on others. 

So if these individuals who object to the observance of these simple rules want them eradicated because, to use the words of Karl Marx, “religion is the opiate of the masses”, and want to lead all of us away from the basis for all law that controls our behavior, how should Christians and Jews respond?  When one of these rabid atheists claim that they are “Offended by (fill in the blank however you prefer)”, there can be only one rational answer:

So what? Who cares if you’re offended?

No matter what a person or group is offended by, I see nothing in the Constitution that equates having hurt feelings with, say, unreasonable search and seizure.  Even the Bible doesn’t say “Thou shalt not hurt anyone’s feelings”. So long as whatever is used to “fill in the blank” does not actually cause physical harm to an individual or restrict in any way their constitutionally enumerated and protected rights, the fact that they are offended is utterly irrelevant.  Saying that they’re offended is just one of those passive-aggressive ploys that the left uses to get everyone else to change their behavior to avoid “friction” or “bad feelings” and to enhance “cooperation” (meaning, simply, do it my way).  How about we simply ignore the fact that their feelings are hurt?  If they can’t handle that, well, ObamaCare offers psychiatric care, doesn’t it? 

There, that should make them happy.

U.S. general: Let’s make Obama resign


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

Cites Nixon resignation, urges citizens ‘to save republic’ from Washington leadership

author-image

obama_with_military

WASHINGTON – A retired Army general is calling for the “forced resignations” of President Obama, other administration officials and the leadership of Congress for the direction they’re taking the nation, his list of grievances including the systematic political purge of hundreds of senior military officers in the U.S. military.

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely told WND he is calling for nationwide rallies and protests to demand the resignations and added that a peaceful “civil uprising is still not out of question.”

In his capacity as chairman of the organization Stand Up America, Vallely issued what he termed a “National Call to Action” to force the resignations of Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Vallely, formerly the deputy commanding general of Pacific Command, said the current crop of leaders must be forced to resign by the “demand resignation” process, which he explained requires massive grass-roots protests and social networking. As an example, he cited the public and media pressure that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

Impeachment, Vallely said, is not a viable option because of “partisan politics.”

“Our federal government continues down the path of destroying America,” he said. “Americans must now stand up and put America back on the right track.”

In issuing his national call to action, Vallely said the federal government has not subsided in “sucking the oxygen” out of America.

“And we call to action all branches of government to do your constitutional duties and not be led astray in the cultural and moral decay of America. We have witnessed far too many lies,” he said, as well as “deception and the corruption of the republic.”

Vallely reminds Americans that the Declaration of Independence itself states that whenever “any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem more likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

Vallely said the nation he long defended is self-destructing “before our very eyes,” because of “our inept and incompetent leadership in Washington.”

“The battle is on,” he added, “and we shall not retreat.”

Vallely, who has also served as a Fox News military analyst, claimed the Obama administration and leadership of Congress have been leading the nation down a road of “progressive socialism.”

The retired general said the U.S. faces a battle that is unknown to generations of Americans, and that the fate of the nation is “now in our hands” to enforce the Constitution and “severely limit the federal government and its out-of-control spending.”

He said conditions today are approaching those of the time of the inaugural address of President Abraham Lincoln, who said at the time that people have a “right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one.”

“Shake off,” said Vallely, “means replacing government leaders.” He argued America today bears “many similarities to the fall of Rome.” America, he added, is not immune to collapse or even revolution, which he notes “has happened many times in history. … External and internal threats could precipitate this as well as any financial collapse.”

Vallely added that “politics as usual will not be effective or sufficient enough to turn the country around.”

“We are in a war for America,” he told WND, adding that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Dr. Ben Carson, the noted brain surgeon and author of “America the Beautiful” and other bestselling books have made similar observations.

Americans have had enough, he said, and the Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress “must now depart from a progressive socialist and treasonous death march and bankrupting the country beyond expectations.”

“A civil uprising is still not out of the question as ‘pain’ grips the country more each day,” Vallely said, adding that there is time to change the country in a peaceful way.

“This means raising your voice now to your neighbors, family, co-workers and friends,” he said. “Be the captains of your souls. I pray for another George Washington to appear within the year and lead us.”

One of the issues that alarms Vallely is the high number of senior officers in the U.S. military who have been fired under the Obama administration, a toll estimated at one officer per week. Indeed, Vallely has been very outspoken to what he calls a “purge” of the U.S. military by the Obama administration — with a stunning nine generals and flag officers relieved of duty this year alone.

WND has been reporting on the surge of firings, suspensions and dismissals, for which Vallely has assigned a good portion of the blame to Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett. Rampant “political correctness” due to her influence, Vallely tells WND, is now permeating the military and negatively affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.

According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing the U.S. as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely equated the current treatment of U.S. senior military officers watching over what is said and done among mid-level officers and enlisted ranks to that of the “political commissars from the Communist era.”

He also told WND that the White House won’t investigate its own officials, but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

He’s far from alone in his concerns about the military purge, as J.D. Gordon, a retired Navy commander and a former Pentagon spokesman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, says the Obama administration is rushing to unload senior officers whom he believes have become “political pawns” dismissed for questionable reasons.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, similarly has told WND that Obama needs to apply the same standards to his political appointees as he does to the military.

“Just when you thought the leadership of this government could not get any worse, it does,” Brady said. “Never in history has an administration spawned another scandal to cover the current one.”

This was a reference to the recent firing of a number of generals to mask “Obama’s serial scandals, all prefaced by lies – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA, IRS,” among others, said Brady, former president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, tells WND it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said. “I believe there is a purging of the military. The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/general-lets-make-obama-resign/#si9jTySSu7B77Bwa.99

 

What would Reagan do?


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.latimes.com

 

Posted by:Frank Keating

Immigration reform is the most Republican of causes.

Ronald Reagan

The last major immigration reform in the U.S. took place in 1986, during the Reagan administration. Above, President Reagan is seen before delivering a televised address in 1985. (Scott Stewart / Associated Press)

Like many Republicans — what’s more, like many Americans — I regard Ronald Reagan as my political hero and inspiration. For conservatives who came of age in the 1960s and ’70s, President Reagan offered a principled and compassionate argument for individual freedom and an equally compelling case for personal responsibility.

In 1989, Reagan described his view of America “as a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Unfortunately, too many conservatives — though they aspire to walk in Reagan’s footsteps — have forgotten that immigration reform is the most Republican of causes. We cannot support open borders for trade but not for people. We cannot support the unfettered exchange of goods and ideas while building razor-wired walls that separate children from their parents. We cannot make America stronger and more prosperous by excluding tomorrow’s talent and industry.

From my perspective as a Reagan Republican — indeed, as a senior official in the Reagan administration during the last major immigration reform process — I am convinced that we stand on the precipice of opportunity.

In numbers that we haven’t seen since the early 20th century, immigrants have been coming here to work and to build a better future for their families. Just as immigrants helped fuel the engine of America’s emerging industrial economy 100 years ago, today they are filling two critical job gaps: high-skilled professions in science, technology and advanced manufacturing, and low-skill service and industrial jobs in fast-growing regions. We need immigrants of all skill levels to help build the 21st century economy.

Offering opportunities to new Americans doesn’t take jobs from citizens. The economy is not zero-sum. It’s dynamic, and bringing new talent to American jobs will enlarge the economy for everyone. In June, a Congressional Budget Office report estimated that the Senate’s bipartisan immigration reform bill would boost economic growth by 5.4% after 20 years and reduce the deficit by $900 billion over that period.

Immigration would also help address a critical long-term gap in funding for America’s two signature entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare. In 1950, there were about 16 workers for every retiree. Today, there are only about three. But according to Social Security’s chief actuary, immigrants, who tend to come to the United States at the start of their careers, would enrich the Social Security trust fund by $500 billion over the next 25 years, and by an impressive $4 trillion by the end of the century. That’s a game-changer.

These numbers underscore an important point. Immigrants are coming here to work, not to become dependent on the state. People don’t make perilous journeys and risk their life savings and sometimes their lives for the goal of getting a welfare check, a food-stamp card or a housing voucher. And welfare reform has made America even less attractive for those who would go on the dole.

But the considerable economic benefits aren’t the main reason we should reform immigration. America was the world’s first nation to be based on principles, not ethnicity. Citizenship is at once narrow and broad — available to those who share our principles, regardless of race or national origin. It is unconscionable to leave a class of neighbors who share our values in perpetual second-class status.

The promise of citizenship has always drawn pioneers who have made America the strong country it is today. Immigration reform fulfills the promise of the American dream for new generations who will make our country even stronger.

The Senate bill also protects the rule of law by securing the border and ensuring that only law-abiding immigrants receive legal status. Border security is the indispensable lintel that shoulders the load. Without it, the entire structure would be in jeopardy. President Obama can help calm concerns by pledging not to use delays or waivers to weaken the bill.

Future Americans with will, resolve and heart are waiting. As Ronald Reagan might have put it, it’s time to open the doors.

Frank Keating, a former Republican governor of Oklahoma, is president and chief executive of the American Bankers Assn.

http://www.latimes.com

 

Truth wins: The facts that destroy the allegations made against me in 2011


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:Herman Cain

I refuse to leave my reputation under a dark cloud that has no relation to the truth.

 

Author

On September 24, 2011, I won the Florida Republican Presidency 5 Straw Poll by a large margin over the next closest candidate. It was an upset victory and helped propel me to the position of frontrunner in the national polls for the Republican presidential nomination. My messages of common sense solutions and tax code replacement were clearly resonating with the American people.

What happened next brought my campaign to an abrupt and unexpected end – a series of scurrilous accusations, sensationalized by an onslaught of media coverage. All this made it impossible for me to continue without subjecting my family – particularly my wife of 45 years – to more pain than any decent man could ask his family to endure.

The accusations were false. I have never sexually harassed a woman and I did not have an affair with Ginger White. Until now, I have never offered the facts that expose these accusations as lies, although I have been in possession of them. It is now time to do so, not only because the false accusations have received renewed attention with the publication of a book that discusses them, but more importantly because I refuse to live my life, pursue my radio and professional career or do anything else that God has left for me to do in this world with a dark cloud attached to my reputation that is not consistent with the truth.

Here are the facts:

During the week of November 14, 2011, a news story was reported about me having been accused of sexual harassment while I was president of the National Restaurant Association. The female employee who made the charges was being terminated and wanted a large sum of money as part of her termination. She threatened to file a lawsuit and the Association decided to let the litigation proceed because the Association had concluded that the charges were false.

The accusation never made it to court. A review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that the charges were baseless. Despite trying to thereafter negotiate a settlement greater than normal, the accuser ended up receiving typical termination pay.

During the week of November 21, 2011 (a week later), another former National Restaurant Association female employee went public with sexual harassment charges. My campaign staff and I had no idea that this was coming. We first heard the charges when she read them during a press conference carried by CNN with her attorney, Gloria Allred, attending and also speaking at the press conference. The former employee had been employed by the Association’s Educational Foundation based in Chicago.

As we watched the press conference and heard the outlandish charges being read by the employee, I commented to staff members in the room that I did not even remember the accuser, especially since I was based in the Association’s Washington, D.C. office. At the time of the Allred press conference, we were in San Francisco, where I was giving a speech, following which we headed to Phoenix, Arizona, the next day for another event.

We decided to hold a press conference in Phoenix where I could address the charges directly to the media. At that event, I unequivocally denied the charges by Allred’s client, which was appropriate because they were absolute fabrications. We wanted to address the false accusations quickly and directly so they would not become an ongoing distraction from my campaign and the important issues we were discussing with the American voters.

But less than one week later, the week of November 28, 2011, an individual named Ginger White emerged and claimed that I had had a 13-year affair with her. This false accusation fanned the media flames and led to an even larger media firestorm. But, again, the simple truth is that there was no affair. I acknowledged that I had known Ms. White for about that period of time, and had helped her from time to time with some ongoing personal financial problems she had been experiencing.

Her “proof” of the affair – beyond her own words – consisted of some of my published books that I had signed for her, and some text messages and phone calls exchanged. I have published five books and have signed thousands of them, and there was nothing unusual about how I signed the books she had in her possession. But some media stories showed the signed copies as if they were evidence of wrongdoing. Innocent acts were being transformed into something else to support mistruths.

The text messages over the limited period of time she referenced, based on obtaining my actual telephone records, show a pattern of contacts by Ms. White to me 2.5 times for each response to her. The exchanges were usually around the end and middle of a month when she was asking for help with another money crisis such as being unable to pay her rent or buy food for herself and her two children during times when she was unemployed.

I was soft-hearted, and admittedly naive, for continuing to help her, as her situation seemed to never get on a stable financial track. She asked me for advice on several business ideas she was considering, and I gave her my opinion, as I have done hundreds of times with many people.

As my presidential campaign consumed more and more of my time and my resources, I finally told her that I could no longer help her. This was about a week before she went public claiming a 13-year affair.

While she was all over the media enjoying her “fifteen minutes of fame” (see attached timeline), she was being sued by a former business partner for libel – in lay terms, for making false statements. She did not show up for the court appearance and the court subsequently ruled in favor of her former business partner. All of this is a matter of public record.

What follows is a timeline of how things unfolded as this story became almost the exclusive focus of the media. The constant recycling, repeating and repackaging of the same unsupported accusations over and over caused some people to lose confidence in me and my campaign. But more importantly, what my family had to endure was too painful for me to ignore. As a result, I ended my campaign for the presidency.

Here is the timeline:

11/28/2011:  I was already scheduled to appear on CNN with Wolf Blitzer on his late afternoon show from Washington, D.C.  Apparently, the local Atlanta Fox affiliate WAGA had a reporter who tweeted that their I-Team was “breaking a story with HUGE implications on the presidential race.” They were about to broadcast their first interview with a woman who claimed to have had a 13-year affair with me.  I told the anchor that I did know Ginger White, but since I had not seen the story, I would “see what the story’s going to be.”

11/28/2011:  Fox Atlanta affiliate WAGA breaks the news with a sit-down interview of Ms. White by Dale Russell.  Ms. White said she decided to talk after she was contacted by “numerous news outlets who had been tipped off to the affair.” She went on to say she was “bothered by watching Cain’s attacks on the other women who accused him of sexual harassment.” Ms. White stated, “It bothered me that they were being demonized, sort of.”  Ms. White said she met me in the late 1990s when I was president of the National Restaurant Association. This may be the only truthful statement about me that she has made other than that I sometimes agreed to help her with her personal financial problems. For the record, I did meet Ms. White in the late 1990s and I have never demonized her or anyone else in my life. 

During her first interview of many, she was asked if the relationship was still going on and she indicated that it had stopped just before I officially entered the presidential race, which was in May 2011. She also produced copies of two of my books I had personalized for her.  I have personalized books for hundreds of people!  I also wrote words of encouragement, as I had done for other friends. She also pulled out her cell phone and copies of cell phone records indicating that there had been some 61 texts or phone calls.  I, too, have copies of my cell phone records. Yes, there were text messages to and from Ms. White, mostly from Ms. White by a ratio of 2.5 to 1 from her to me.

11/30/2011:  Ms. White appears on Good Morning America and tells George Stephanopoulos that I “would not make a good president.”  Rather than focusing on our nation’s problems, the focus was clearly on my candidacy.  George Stephanopoulos was a former White House staffer and policy advisor to President Bill Clinton. 

12/3/2011:  With my wife, Gloria, at my side, I announce that I am dropping out of the race, due to the stress the false accusations and media coverage of them was putting on my family, especially Gloria.  As I said that day:  “The pundits would like for me to shut up, drop out and go away, and I am not going away.”

12/5/2011:  Ginger White gives an interview to The Blaze, in which she makes more unbelievable remarks about me.  I think this speaks volumes that she would continue to voluntarily put herself in the public spotlight with such tawdry comments within days of her claims that her reputation was “stolen from her.”

12/5/2011:  White gives an interview to Leslie Bennetts of the Daily Beast, where she laments that “Cain wasn’t the only man who helped her financially; her work history and her sex life have long been intermingled in complex and contradictory ways.” She also tells Ms. Bennett, “I wasn’t the only one he was helping.”

12/16/2011:  White hires a Tampa-based public relations firm to “help her repair her reputation, which was stolen from her.” Her publicist’s other clients include former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, now serving a 14-year prison sentence for corruption, as well as Drew Peterson, who was convicted of the death of his third wife, only after his fourth wife went missing.

12/21/2011:  White gives Fox Atlanta affiliate WAGA another interview where she feigns amazement at the personal attacks against her, telling the reporter that “it has been tough.” 

2/29/2012:  White walks the red carpet at an Oscar party in Beverly Hills, California as the guest of her new attorney, Gloria Allred.

3/26/2012:  White’s former business partner in the spin cycle business wins a libel lawsuit against Ms. White.  At a later hearing, a judgment (Civil Action #11A-37341-7) is awarded against Ms. White in the amount of $23,842.50 in Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. As of the writing of this commentary, the plaintiff has not received any payment(s) of this judgment. 

10/24/2012:  White gives an Internet interview to Howard Kurtz and Lauren Ashburn of the Daily Download.  She tells the interviewers that she plans to write a “tell all” book about her relationship with me.  The exclusive interview garnered six, yes only six, comments on their new website, two of which came from the reporters.

We haven’t heard anything about Ms. White in 2013.

I decided to write this piece and publish it now for several reasons. Candidates for office who are untrustworthy in their personal lives should absolutely be held accountable. But it is equally true that those who make false and scurrilous accusations against others need to be held to account for what they do. And the media should demand factual evidence of accusations before shouting “guilty” 24/7.

When a person is running for president and is faced with charges such as these, the media are not focused on whether the charges are true or the source credible. The media focus more on how the candidate and the campaign “handle the situation,” as if smooth public relations skills are the primary attribute we seek in our presidents. If that were the case, we would be doing great under Barack Obama.

But an even more relevant reason is this: Today I have a powerful platform through my radio show and this website, both of which are growing in their audience and influence, and I have much to say about what ails this nation – as well as what is good about this nation. There still exists a school of thought that I have no business addressing certain issues because, it’s said, Herman Cain is “a womanizer” or “a sexual harasser” or whatever.

No. I am not. And I never have been. And I refuse to silence myself on any issue because some dishonest people and publicity-seeking attorneys care little or nothing about the truth.

These are the facts. You don’t have to believe them, but facts are what they are. I know who I am and what I am and so does God, and that is more than enough for me. I remain at peace with the truth.

 

Obama Changes Direction Of US Military Command, Fires 9th General In His Purge


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://downtrend.com

 

Posted by:Joseph R. Carducci

mcdb

 

Have you been paying attention to all the changes that Obama has been making in the US Military? I mean beyond all the political grandstanding and doing stupid things like locking the chaplains out of their posts during the government shut down (for which a Catholic priest in now suing the president). It seems that Obama has been engaged in his own private ‘purge’ of generals and other leaders at the very top of the US Military.

On October 12th, this story was even noticed by Dianne Sawyer of ABC News. You see, there have 9 top level military leaders and commanders fired or relieved of duty since April. Is Obama preparing things for some sort of big event? Nine top-level generals and commanders could definitely be considered a purge of sorts. Perhaps Obama is thinking about some options that the majority of Americans would be loathe to even consider? Several Pentagon Officials have been trying to warn the people to expect radical changes very soon. The Chinese are also thinking about getting out of the dollar and forming their own currency alliance. There is even the strong potential for 16 US States being shut down and handed over to the federal government due to such high levels of debt. Could martial law be coming?

There have also been reports that seem to indicate Obama has a litmus test for military officers these days. Apparently, he only wants officers who do not have trouble firing on US citizens. Several of these now retired officers have come forward and said that they think Obama is preparing for war against the US. We have also heard Obama himself talk about ‘My Military.’ Whatever you think might be happening, it is certainly clear that Obama is looking to change and move things in a different direction.

 

By the way, these 9 top military officers and commanders were this that Obama has fired or replaced or relieved from duty just in 2013. It does not include a rather long list of those who were also relieved of duty last year (and the year before that). Even Dianne Sawyer felt that this is bizarre and wanted to try and get to the bottom of it.

Take a look at some of the nine who have been fired or relived of duty. General Carter Hamm, US Army, served as the head of the US African Command and in charge during the Benghazzi incident. After being extremely critical of Obama (calling him a liar about reinforcements in the area), he was ‘resigned and retired’ in April. Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, US Navy, Commander of Carrier Strike Group Three was in charge of aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea on the night of September 11, 2012. He was fired and relieved of duty for ‘utterance of a racial slur.’ And there are plenty more examples, all within the year.

This is an incredibly alarming series of events. It is one of the largest and fastest purges of military commanders that has ever been recorded. These ‘purges’ even included two heads of nuclear strategic commands. This has even made veteran reporter Dianne Sawyer step up and public ask what is the next step that Obama is planning. This is something that every American should be asking themselves as we watch the evidence of what is happening.

What do YOU think? What is the reason for this purge of the military? Can the firing or relieving of duty of 9 top-level generals and admirals this quickly be considered a mere coincidence? What do you think Obama is planning? Why does he want to remake the military to HIS liking? Will the military some day be called upon to fire on US citizens?

 

 

 

The ‘White Poppy President’


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

 

Posted by:Judi McLeod

 

Author

The same president, who barely two months ago tried to keep 80-plus-year-old war veterans from visiting their open-air Washington war memorials, will participate in a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery on Veteran’s Day this Monday.

The same president, who is gutting the U.S. military, will host a breakfast to honor veterans and their families that is closed to the press. (White House Schedule)

For reasons above and more, President Barack Obama fully qualifies as ‘The White Poppy President’.

The White Poppy is the symbol of the ‘conscientious objector’.

Both here and overseas, the White Poppy is piggybacking the Red Poppy as an equal symbol for public display on Remembrance Day and Veterans Day.  The pacifist and bedraggled White Poppy has much in common with politicians of the day who piggyback the internationally celebrated day to honour the world’s war dead with the same empty words and photo-ops.

Around since 1926, the White Poppy has never, in any way that can be called significant, come down off the shelf. (Canada Free Press, November, 2006)

“In 1926, a few years after the introduction of the Red Poppy in the UK, the idea of pacifists making their own poppies was put forward by a member of the No More War Movement (and that the traditional black centre of the British Legion’s red poppies should be imprinted with the words “No More War”). (Wikipedia).  “Nothing seems to have come of this, until in 1933 the Women’s Co-operative Guild introduced the White Poppy; their intention was to remember the war dead (as with the red poppy), but with the added meaning of a hope for the end of all wars.

“The White Poppy was at first produced by the Co-operative Wholesale Society, because the British Legion refused to be associated with its manufacture.  In 1934, the recently formed Peace Pledge Union joined the CWS in production of the poppies, and eventually took over production and distribution altogether.  The annual White Poppy Appeal is still run by the PPU.”

In Canada, the White Poppy is brought to you courtesy of Canada Tides Foundation funding.

Canada’s White Poppy-pushing Rideau Institute doesn’t qualify for charitable status because it is not involved in charitable activities.  “They are all about political activism and political activism doesn’t get you a charitable number.” (Brian Lilley, Sun Media, Nov. 7, 2013)

“So what do they do?  Well, if you click on the donate button at the Rideau Institute’s website, it takes you to the website of the Tides Canada Foundation.  Tides is a far-left clearing house that supports all kinds of progressive causes.”

In Britain, Peace Pledge Union was awarded a 95,800 grant for a project to honour conscientious objectors.  It follows a Heritage Lottery fund’s refusal to fund a 92,200 Royal British Legion scheme to help children seed millions of poppies. (Daily Mail, Nov. 9, 2013).

The White Poppy project of the Peace Pledge Union is intended to honour the 16,000 conscientious objectors who refused to bear arms during the First World War.  Many were jailed for their beliefs.

In the burgeoning battle which raises its head every Remembrance/Veterans Day, no one describes the White Poppy more aptly than Rod Stewart, a vice-president of the Legions’s Alberta-Northwest Territories Command.

Stewart said the white poppies “piggyback” an inappropriate political message onto Remembrance Day. He said a more appropriate day might be September 21, the (United Nations) International Day of Peace, and suggested the groups involved sell olive branches instead of poppies.

In 2006, the Legion issued a statement condemning the White Poppy campaign. “This practice is not only disturbing, but illegal,” the press release stated.

The poppy, in any form other than a real poppy, is a registered symbol of the Legion and can’t be used without permission, Stewart said.  He added that the Legion would ask groups selling white poppies to stop.  Legal action has been used in the past to enforce trademark infringement.

Meanwhile, the bloodless White Poppy has been dying a slow death from anemia since its none-too-noble birth, and is not likely to replace the ones that grow in Flanders Field anytime soon.

 

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China Daily Mail

News and Opinions From Inside China

sentinelblog

GOLD is the money of the KINGS, SILVER is the money of the GENTLEMEN, BARTER is the money of the PEASANTS, but DEBT is the money of the SLAVES!!!

Politically Short

The American Reality Outside The Beltway

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

America: Going Full Retard...

Word: They are acting. They are creating. They are framing their reality around you. And we … we bark at the end of our leashes. Our ambition for freedumb is at the end of our leash.

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

I am removing this blog and I have opened a new one at:

http://texasteapartypatriots.wordpress.com/

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

Lissa's Humane Life | In Honor of George & All Targeted Individuals — END TIMES HARBINGER OF TRUTH ~ STANDING FIRM IN THE LAST HUMAN AGE OF A GENOCIDAL DARKNESS —

— Corporate whistle blower and workers’ comp claimant, now TARGETED INDIVIDUAL, whose claims exposed Misdeeds after the murder of my husband on their jobsite by the U.S. NWO Military Industrial Complex-JFK Warned Us—

Linux Power Wordpress.com

Just another WordPress.com weblog

redpillreport.wordpress.com/

The ‘red pill’ and its opposite, ‘blue pill,‘ are pop culture terms that have become symbolic of the choice between blissful ignorance (blue) and embracing the sometimes-painful truth of reality (red). It’s time for America to take the red pill and wake up from the fog of apathy.

The Mad Jewess

Mirror Site For Reflection

Freedom Is Just Another Word...

Rules?? What Are rules? I don't need no stinking rules!!!

sharia unveiled

illuminating minds

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

Sudden, unexplained, unattended death and a families search for answers

THE GOVERNMENT RAG BLOG

TGR Intelligence Briefing

Flyover-Press.com

Dedicated to freedom in our lifetimes

News You May Have Missed

News you need to know to stay informed

Automattic

Making the web a better place

%d bloggers like this: