Bobusnr

Uncatagorized

Archive for the category “Uncategorized”

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

National ID headed for your wallet


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

 

e8abd2aa75c6

Big Brother to require digital features in driver’s license

(Tea Party) – Just when you wondered how much more intrusive Big Brother could be in your life, along comes the National Identity Card and Western Hemisphere-compliant travel document. You’re getting it whether you want it or not if you plan to drive in the United States or travel via airways or railways.

It’s bad enough that your medical records will be floating around in some obscure online storage area that likely won’t have airtight security like they will claim, but now the federal government will soon demand that state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards comply with Department of Homeland Security standards.  (This as the administration continues to fight voter ID cards. A double-standard indeed.)

Just before Christmas the DHS announced a final schedule for fully enforcing its REAL ID Act of 2005.

Starting in January of 2014 a phased enforcement will begin with full-scale enforcement set for May 2017. At that point a state-issued driver’s license or ID card that does not meet minimum security standards set by DHS will no longer be accepted.

Unfortunately for Americans that remember World War II the implementation of REAL ID is a flashback to fascist, totalitarian states where innocent people were stopped by authorities demanding “Your papers!”

REAL ID in the US came about as a result of the concern for increased travel safety after 9/11 when the 9/11 Commission documented that several of the terrorists held valid state-issued driver’s licenses. As such, they freely boarded the planes that they would turn into death chambers—despite the fact that they were terrorists and had entered the US illegally.

New DHS requirements for state-issued driver’s licenses include a valid birth certificate, verification of Social Security Number, or documentation that shows the person is not eligible for SS, and proof of US citizenship—or proof that the applicant was lawfully admitted to the US as a permanent or temporary resident.

In addition to the DHS requirements, the federal government will set its own strict requirements as well.

To qualify as DHS-compliant the licenses or ID cards must contain built-in security features such as those that prevent tampering, counterfeiting and duplication of the documents for purposes of fraud.

REAL ID cards must establish the individuals identity which may include digital photographs and bar-coded information that captures key printed information on the card, such as name, address, gender, unique identification numbers, expiration date and more.

State-issued enhanced driver’s licenses—EDLs—are required to be issued in state facilities. Employees at such facilities will undergo background checks and federal and state criminal record searches. State-issued cards must fully comply with travel rules that are issued under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI)and EDLs must meet valid passport minimums for travel with the US, Canada and Mexico in addition to Central America, South America, the Caribbean and Bermuda.

By May 2017 state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards will not be considered valid by the federal government. Those individuals with non-compliant identification may not be allowed to pass through TSA checkpoints in airports or rail stations within the US or internationally.

“States have made considerable progress in meeting the need identified by the 9/11 Commission to make driver’s licenses and other identification more secure,” said David Heyman, DHS assistant secretary for policy. “DHS will continue to support their efforts to enhance the security in an achievable way that will make all of our communities safer.”

As of December 20, there were 21 states that were commended by the DHS for currently meeting the minimum standards for leadership in improving security for state-issued driver’s licenses and ID cards. They are as follows: Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

DHS also announced extensions for 20 states and territories that have shown they are moving toward full compliance: Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Guam, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Virginia.

According to DHS, those states/territories that are not REAL ID complaint include: Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Marianas, Oklahoma, and Washington State.

Currently, 75 percent of all US drivers hold licenses either from states identified as meeting the REAL ID standards or from those who have received an extension.

The TSA will accept driver’s licenses and state-issued ID cards until at least 2016 from all jurisdictions which means that enforcement for boarding aircraft will not begin before that time.

Big Brother is watching.

– See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/national-id-headed-wallet-32574/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=social#sthash.qu1wtDc7.dpuf

 

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility


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://dailycaller.com

 

Posted by:Patrick Howley

DNC sends email defending Obama from impeachment possibility

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

The DNC email discussed the “I-Word” and said that “Republicans are actually excited about the idea.”

“Show these Republicans that they are way, way off-base, and give President Obama a Congress that has his back,” according to the DNC email, noting that Democrats need to win 17 GOP House seats to reclaim a majority.

The DNC, which recently expanded its political tactics to include boycotting independent news outlets, previously supported the last president to be impeached: Bill Clinton.

Obama’s staff changed key talking points on the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack; his Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle; and Obama personally lied to the American people when he told them that they could keep their existing doctors and health insurance plans under Obamacare.

Obama’s expansion of executive branch authority is “setting the stage for something very dangerous in the future” according to Republican Rep. Justin Amash.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/28/dnc-sends-email-defending-obama-from-impeachment-possibility/#ixzz2orC4uvhK

Obama Administration Hits New Low, Threatens 1st Amendment Rights Of Military Personnel


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

ChaplainsPraying

The Obama administration has just reached a new low. Sure, we all know that the left is naturally antagonistic towards religion even in the best of times. And certainly now with the government shut down the administration has an excuse to do basically whatever they want…but how does threatening to arrest military chaplains for simply doing what they have promised to do?

You see, in Obama’s eyes, when certain military chaplains try to pray during the government shut down or minister to their flock (even on a volunteer basis), that is an arrestable offense. They are not only preventing the chaplains from doing their job but they are also violating those who are serving as far as their 1st Amendment rights are concerned.

This is the situation: during the government shut down, Obama has announced that all contract military chaplains are prohibited from ministering to their flock. They are not allowed to say Mass, perform any type of religious ceremony (baptism, wedding, funeral, etc…), or really do anything related to their normal duties. There are several problems with this, but the main thing is that the military does not have enough chaplains to serve the needs of their troops without having to reach to the civilian sector and hire contract chaplains.

Another problem, of course, is that the actual members of the military are also, in essence, being prohibited from the free exercise of their religious faith. This is in direct violation to the first Amendment of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Interesting, but it just goes to show you what Obama really thinks about religion and the Constitution. Of course, he has a certain amount of freedom in what he chooses to shut down and what is chosen to remain open or operational. Just as an example, consider the fact that a contract chaplain right now could literally be arrested for walking onto a military base and praying, yet the website of Michele Obama called ‘Let’s Move,’ is considered more important than taking care of military people. Simply amazing.

For all practical purposes, Obama has served to literally block all types of religious services and activity on many military bases, especially those on foreign soil. So, all those military men and women who had been planning on having a baptism, a confirmation, or a wedding will likely find those services to be canceled. Not to mention the fact that they will probably be denied the chance to go to mass as well.

I suppose we already knew that Obama would do anything he can to attack our religious freedoms. Now, he is using the government shut down as an excuse…and not even a very good one. This is par for the course from our amazing community organizer in chief. I hope that all this military men and women remember this move and then vote for the appropriate party in November 2014…especially considering that now there are several GOP representatives looking into exactly what can be done to help improve this situation.

What do YOU think? Do our servicemen and women deserve better than this type of treatment at the hands of the Obama Regime? What should be done about it?

 

Here’s 5 Things Obama Won’t Take Responsibility For


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:Brian Carey

obamacjd1

By now the whole world knows that President Obama, while speaking today about the crisis in Syria, has flatly said that he didn’t draw a “red line” with Syria, but instead “the world” drew that line. It’s an obvious lie, but he’ll get away with it thanks to a complicit media and the naivete of millions of Americans.

The crux of the matter is this: President Obama will not even accept responsibility for a statement he made that will likely lead our nation into another Middle Eastern conflict. That’s a grotesque abdication of leadership if ever we saw it.

Unfortunately, behaving irresponsibly is par for the course with this administration. Here’s 5 other examples to prove that point.

1. President Obama won’t take responsibility for raising taxes

When he was campaigning for President, Barack Obama clearly said that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year.

Obama promise not to raise taxes

Of course, that pledge was violated when the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare. The individual mandate in ObamaCare is structured as a tax that affects everybody who doesn’t have health insurance, no matter how much money they earn.

Oh, yeah. Then there’s this.

2. President Obama won’t take responsibility for the state of the economy

We’ve endured a fairly long period of higher than 7% unemployment. Keep in mind: the unemployment rate that you see in the headlines masks the reality of the downtrodden economy. People who have quit looking for work aren’t counted. So, in reality, the economy is worse than the way it’s reported.

Does President Obama take responsibility for this lousy economy, 5 years after he’s been in office? Nope. Does he change his policies to do something that might actually improve the economy? Nope.

He’s not a leader. He’s the “it’s not my fault” guy who runs the executive branch of the federal government.

3. President Obama won’t take responsibility for IRS-gate

The IRS targeted certain groups for excessive scrutiny under President Obama’s watch. Oddly enough, most of those groups were non-profit organizations with a mission in stark contrast to the President’s agenda. In other words: the President used the IRS to harass right-wing organizations, like the Tea Party.

Does he take responsibility for this act of political hardball? No, instead he sends David Axelrod to MSNBC to complain that the federal government is just too big to effectively micromanage.

By the way, if the federal government is too big as it stands, why do Obama, Axelrod, et. al. want to make it even bigger?

IRS GATE

4. President Obama won’t take responsibility for the failure of American security in Benghazi

This one is particularly difficult to understand because 4 Americans are dead. Instead of taking responsibility for what was an obvious failure on the night that those attacks occurred, President Obama trots out his Ambassador to the U.N. to blame the attacks on a video. After that line of subterfuge was exposed, the President still hasn’t come clean on what really happened that night nor has he accepted any level of blame for an obvious breakdown in security.

5. President Obama won’t take responsibility for lying to you about ObamaCare

We have already mentioned the broken promise about raising taxes and how that connects to ObamaCare. However, there are numerous other broken promises surrounding ObamaCare. The President promised you that you could keep your current health insurance under his plan. That’s not true. The President promised that it would lower health care costs. That’s not true, either. The President promised that ObamaCare would lower the deficit. Nope.

Does President Obama man-up and own up to any of these broken promises? Nope.

 

New Year’s Message From Vladimir Putin To America: Wake Up, Take A Closer Look At Your Supposed Freedoms


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

putin

As Vladimir Putin has become more involved in international politics this year than ever before, it seems that he also has a lot to say. There is an interesting piece I found on Brietbart today, that I think every American should take a close look at. This is basically an open letter from Putin to all of us. Yes, there is a lot of arrogance shining through this letter; he is ultimately not a lover of the West and wants to restore Russia to its 1914 borders. But even still, there are some strong and important points made in this letter that many of us need to hear.

Putin begins by taking a look at how our American system of government does not really live up to its promise of freedom. Basically, he argues that we are beholden to a group of elite non-democratic dictators who trickle down their sheer lunacy upon all of us. We are no longer free to do as we wish or even as we should. Rather we are simply free to either choose to obey these heavy handed rules or not. By contrast, a federal judge is rather free to do as he pleases. Then, we need to comply.

Of course, this would not necessarily be a bad thing if we had decent leaders who were governed by moral principles and respected the rule of law rather than thinking they are activists who have the power and even the obligation to make laws.

One of the examples given is that of the issue of gay marriage, something very close to Putin’s heart. As a nation, we had a national discussion and debate on this issue. There were many different states who even went ahead and passed specific laws to ban homosexual marriage. We voted against the idea of homosexual marriage by the tens of millions. But now, much of this has been overturned. The courts have gotten involved and now unelected judges have essentially overturned the will of the people. We now have homosexual marriage as a legal reality throughout much of the country.

Ultimately, this is not freedom. Judges are acting as dictators to overthrow the laws of our country and the laws of God. As Putin accurately points out, these laws are clearly spelled out in both the Bible and in Christian tradition.

While it might be hard to accept these words coming from someone like Putin, he is correct nonetheless. We should all wake up and ask ourselves if this is the type of freedom that we want to have in our country? Does the will of the people mean nothing anymore if we have given away our power to unelected judges and officials?

On top of all this, many of us are blind to the fact of what is happening. We continue to allow ourselves to be fooled by the media, which is part of same ruling elite as those judges and the idiot politicians we continue electing. Putin is also right when he wonders at how long it took us to wake up to the ineptness of Obama and also the growing geopolitical incompetence of America under the leadership of such morons as Obama and Kerry.

What do YOU think about all this? Does Putin make at least a few good points? Should we be more and more concerned about our freedoms as they continue to be taken away in 2014?

 

Saudis lament, ‘we have been stabbed in the back by Obama’


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:FoxNews.com

 

Posted by:Richard Miniter

Obama lying more

Arabs don’t trust Obama either.

As 2013 ends, President Obama has lost credibility with many people who trusted him at the start of the year. Thanks to the Healthcare.gov debacle, polls find support for the president among women and independents has dropped to the lowest ebb of his presidency. Obama’s words — promising Americans they could keep their doctors under his health care plan — didn’t match his deeds.

Surprisingly, the same thing is happening on the other side of the world among Arabs in the Middle East and for the same reason.

Too often, Obama’s speeches and actions don’t match.

“We are glad the Americans are here,” said Ahmed al-Ibrahim, an adviser to some of Saudi Arabia’s royals and officials, when I met with him recently, “but we fear that the president has lost credibility after Syria.”

Astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain.

The Saudi official is referring to Obama’s “red line” vow of military action if the Syrian dictator Bashir Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Assad did and Obama didn’t. Saudi officials were stunned.

Next came the revelation earlier this year that Obama was secretly negotiating with Iran, the mortal enemy of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. Officials in both nations have told me that they simply don’t believe that the president can sweet-talk the mullahs out of the weapons they have coveted for years.

“The bond of trust between America and Saudi Arabia has been broken in the Obama years,” al-Ibrahim said. “We feel we have been stabbed in the back by Obama.”

“Every time that Obama had to choose between his enemies and his friends, he always chose his enemies,” he said. “We don’t know what he’s putting in his tea.”

Al-Ibrahim also pointed to Obama’s “dangerous inaction” during violent Iran-backed uprisings in Bahrain, and now his negotiations with Iran, and his separate, secret negotiations with Iran’s terrorist proxy Hezbollah. Since American officials cannot legally negotiate with terrorist groups and Hezbollah is a State Department-listed terror organization, the administration has been using British diplomats to carry messages to Hezbollah. The Obama administration reportedly favors a “warm up to a direct relationship in the future” with Hezbollah.

Obama is sending conflicting messages. In Washington, the president says negotiations are all we need to meet the Iranian threat. He issued a rare veto threat to try to halt tougher sanctions against Iran.

At the same time, in the Middle East, the president has dispatched more than 40 U.S. Navy vessels (including a carrier-strike group) and sent his secretary of defense to detail America’s vast military assets in the region.

Speaking to Arab defense ministers, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel itemized America’s military commitment to immediately respond to Iranian aggression:

• More than 35,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in the theater;
• Even after exiting Iraq, the U.S. Army maintains more than 10,000 forward-deployed soldiers as well as tanks, artillery, and attack helicopters;
• America’s most advanced fighter jets, including F-22s, are deployed less than an hour’s flight time from Iran;
• American surveillance aircraft, ground listening stations, satellites, and sea patrols continue to scan for threats across the region;
• America’s missile defense systems–on ground, sea, and air–remain on high alert. That includes the U.S. Navy’s ballistic missile defense ships, Patriot missile batteries, and phased-array radars.

“The Department of Defense will work with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) on better integration of its members’ missile defense capabilities. The United States continues to believe that a multilateral framework is the best way to develop interoperable and integrated regional missile defense. Such defenses are the best way to deter and, if necessary, defeat coercion and aggression,” Hagel told the Gulf News on Dec.18.

With little fanfare, Obama has also quietly lifted the ban on selling sensitive missile-defense technology to Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies living within reach of Iran’s new Shahab-3 missiles. The Shahab-3’s range is 1,242 miles–placing Israel and most of America’s Arab allies within striking distance.

However, Obama’s quiet efforts to provide new missile defenses and renewed security guarantees may be too little, too late.

The Saudis are now seeking their own military arrangements because they no longer trust the U.S. The GCC, a regional alliance of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, recently announced the creation of a joint military force based in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. 

“There will be a unified command of around 100,000 members, God willing,” Prince Miteb bin Abdullah told reporters. This new force represents a massive expansion of the 30,000-strong Peninsula Shield force.

“We no longer believe that America alone can safeguard our freedom from Iranian aggression,” said al-Ibrahim, “that’s why we are expanding our forces and integrating our missile defenses with our neighbors.”

He added, “the world should understand that the GCC will not stay quiet and leave our member-states vulnerable to bad actors and bad deals in the region. It is our duty to protect our region.”

And now, astonished Saudi officials are contrasting Obama’s quick actions last weekend in South Sudan with his unwillingness to act in places like Syria or in Bahrain where thousands of U.S. troops and the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet are based.

“The president has shown that he can take action when he chooses to. He chose not to act after the chemical weapons attacks in Syria, but as soon as things started to go wrong in South Sudan, Obama jumped on it,” said al-Ibrahim.

On Saturday, Obama dispatched three CV-22 Osprey aircraft, the sort that can fly like an airplane and an helicopter, to South Sudan to evacuate Americans caught in ongoing violence in the city of Bor. The aircraft came under small arms fire and were forced to retreat as they attempted to land. Four U.S. service members were injured in the attempted evacuation. American citizens were rescued successfully on Sunday using civilian and U.N. helicopters.

In his June 4, 2009 Cairo speech, the first American president raised in a Muslim land came to offer a bold promise: “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.” Four and a half years later, Arab leaders like al-Ibrahim say that “mutual interest” is sundered and “mutual respect” squandered.
If the Saudi exasperation sounds familiar, it is because it is the same tone you hear in Tel Aviv and in Washington.

Hypocrisy of Hollywood Liberals


 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://patriotupdate.com

 

Posted by:David L. Goetsch

It stands to reason that most Hollywood actors, directors, and producers would be liberals because Hollywood is all about fantasyland, that place that does not exist but where liberals are most comfortable.  There are a few notable exceptions, but for the most part Hollywood is synonymous with liberalism.  I do not begrudge Hollywood types their political views, but I do wish those views were better informed and less hypocritical.  What chaps me about Hollywood is that it is filled with people who are quick to criticize the very nation that made their stardom and financial success possible.

Think about it.  Actors are entertainers.  They make their living doing the same thing little children do: playing let’s pretend. They do not invent new technologies that improve the quality of life.  They do not conduct agricultural research that feeds starving children in faraway places.  They do not start companies that employ hundreds of people and give them a chance to be self-supporting.  Hollywood actors—no matter how good or bad—are just entertainers.  They inhabit the land of fantasy.  No matter how much we enjoy a given movie, in the final analysis it is nothing more than a brief vicarious diversion from reality.  Of course, those of us who have real jobs and real lives can use a little vicarious diversion every now and then, so movies can serve a positive purpose.  But people who watch movies and those who make them need to remember that movies are just that: movies.  They do not convey upon those who make them any special knowledge or insights into politics.

Hollywood gives actors fame, money, and an audience.  There is nothing wrong with any of this. But fame, money, and an audience are assets that should be used responsibly.  This is where I part company with the majority of Hollywood actors, directors, and producers.  Some of the most irresponsible, hypocritical public statements on socio-economic issues are made by Hollywood actors whose knowledge of the subject in question is thinner than a sheet of paper.  For example, actor Marin Sheen decries the wickedness of corporate America but acts in movies developed, produced, and paid for by corporate America.  Hollywood movie studios and production companies are corporations.  In fact, they are some of the most entrepreneurial corporations west of Wall Street.

Director George Lucas made not millions but billions from his movies, yet he is a critic of what he calls “capitalist democracy.”  He would prefer a socialist democracy.  What hypocrisy.  George Lucas made his billions from the most capitalistic, entrepreneurial business in America.  In fact, a substantial part of his fortune was earned from retailing movie related merchandise.  Actor Russell Brand favors a “socialist, egalitarian system based on the massive redistribution of wealth.”  Well Russell, if you are so interested in redistributing wealth get out your checkbook.  There are charities galore just waiting to hear from you.

Brand is typical of the hypocrites now so closely associated with Hollywood. They want to redistribute all of the wealth of the world; all of it that is except their own.  If you have grown weary of the hypocrisy emanating out of Hollywood, I can recommend a book that will make you feel better.  Hollywood Hypocrites was written by Jason Mattera.  Mattera makes his living confronting Hollywood hypocrites with their own hypocrisy.  Here is an example of his good work: Mattera confronted Harrison Ford who was spouting the usual Hollywood tripe about global warming with the fact that he owns seven airplanes; a fact that gives Harrison a carbon footprint bigger than Al Gore’s ego.  Congratulations to Jason Mattera.  It’s about time someone held Hollywood actors accountable for their hypocrisy.

Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/hyposcrisy-hollywood-liberals/#z2iuhqw8pHqiDkbw.99

 

Obamacare: Highly Compensated Individuals & the Second Amendment


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://freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Sid Wolf

gun

“Prohibition on Discrimination in Favor of Highly Compensated Individuals” is a section found in Obamacare. Within in it is a sub-section protecting Second Amendment gun rights, with respect to wellness and prevention programs. The language appears, on the face, to prohibit the use of any data collection with regard to the ”the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.” However, does this section really provide adequate protection for gun owners, and more specifically our veterans?

The Section reads as follows:

SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION IN FAVOR OF HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUALS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan (other than a self-insured plan) shall satisfy the requirements of section 105(h) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to prohibition on discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals).

(b) RULES AND DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

(1) CERTAIN RULES TO APPLY.—Rules similar to the rules contained in paragraphs (3), (4), and (8) of section 105(h) of such Code shall apply.

(2) HIGHLY COMPENSATED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘highly compensated individual’ has the meaning given such term by section 105(h)(5) of such Code.”.

(e) Section 2717 of the Public Health Service Act, as added by section 1001(5) of this Act, is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections

(d) and (e), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (b), the following:

(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.—A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to—

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.—A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon—

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.—No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to—

(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

To imply that the healthcare database would not be used in any database is to ignore history and an earlier Executive Order: a) Action #2 Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system and b) Action #16 Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, Public Law 103-159 basically requires the Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) to request background checks on prospective firearm transferees and that the US Attorney General establish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Under this law some military veterans are being denied their right to own a gun ….not for any crimes committed, but because of psychiatric determinations or evaluations based on issues related to PTSD (post-traumatic stress syndrome).

Here are just a few reasons, under the Brady Law, where an individual can be denied, when undergoing a background check: a) 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; b) 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution; and c) 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.

Given the above, one conclusion can be drawn –”It does not prohibit the use of a database to determine who has a psychological ‘disorder’ like ADHD or PTSD. And it does not prohibit the ATF from trolling the database for persons with these disorders (independent of any issue of gun ownership) — and sending their names to the FBI’s database of prohibited persons because of any of the reasons stated above under 18 USC §922 (g). Further, HIPAA would not prohibit this ‘law enforcement function,’ and Obamacare has significantly broaden the list of people whose determination is an ‘official’ determination similar to the VA psychiatrists who have disarmed approximately 150,000 veterans.”

Everyone goes to the doctor for one reason or another, so under this law and the Executive Order issued by this administration, questions about guns in the home will be asked of literally every individual in the nation and not just those with “mental health issues.” Kris Zane rightly asks, “What about post-partum depression or other ‘depressive’ disorders? This and PTSD could be easily—but falsely—’proved’ or be temporary issue. What about a child who tells the doctor that mom and dad have been arguing? Would this be considered a ‘mental health’ issue because at any one time any one of us could be categorized as being ‘depressed going through a difficult time in our lives?’”

What has not been discussed in the media is the reference to Section 105(h) of the IRS code and ramifications for employers as well as employees regarding health insurance and compliance.

There are other sections in Obamacare that reference and require fully-insured plans which lose “grandfathered” status comply with the requirements of section 105(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

According to a memo from Davis & Harman LLP, titled “New Nondicrimination Requirements for Insured Group Health Plans,” the rules “prohibit health plans from discriminating in favor of “highly compensated individuals.” These rules already apply to self-funded plans, but will now apply to fully-insured plans, which have lost grandfathered status, which went into effect on the first plan year beginning after September 23, 2010.

“The penalty for an employer who sponsors a fully-insured plan which violates these rules is severe,” the memo continues. “They would be liable for an excise tax of up to $100 per day per employee ‘discriminated against.’ Below explains some of the rules and what must be done to make sure their benefits, eligibility, and contribution structure are in compliance.”

Suppose a “highly compensated individual” is promised benefits for life under a self-funded health care plan and he incurs $100,000 of medical costs in connection with an illness. The $100,000 of benefits will be taxable income under Section 105(h). Most lawyers warn organizations that self-insured plans should not create exclusive eligibility rules only for higher-ranking executives in connection with retirements or separation of employment. Under Section 105(h) only highly compensated individuals are subject to the above adverse tax consequences. However, most of these individuals comprise roughly 25% of the workforce, and are usually an employer’s most senior and vital employees.

Section 105(h) defines“Highly compensated individuals (HCI or HCE)” as individuals who are:

  1. one of the 5 highest paid officers,
  2. a shareholder who owns (with the application of section 318) more than 10 percent in value of the stock of the employer, or
  3. an individual who is among the highest paid 25 percent of all employees (other than excludable employees who are not participants).

Benefits Testing: Under the benefits test, all benefits provided to “highly-compensated employees (and their dependents), must be provided for all other participants (and their dependents). In other words, HCEs must not be provided better benefits (or the opportunity to elect better benefits) than NHCEs.”

However, for testing purposes, employers may exclude from testing:

  1. employees who have not completed 3 years of service;
  2. employees who have not attained age 25;
  3. part-time or seasonal employees;
  4. employees not included in the plan who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, if accident and health benefits were the subject of good faith
    bargaining between the employee representatives (UNIONS) and the employer; and
  5. employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(d) (2)) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States (within the meaning of section 861(a) (3)).

Hopefully, this section protects the rest of us, but I have not been able to get clarification of this since this “entire” section of the Act addresses “highly compensated individuals” and the “exclusion” portion of this section seems to protect “unions” excluding the rest of those individuals that do not fall into the other 2 categories.

I did find this on a BCBS website in South Carolina which relates to what is currently being discussed in the news regarding “grandfathered plans” but this statement is troubling. “Prohibition of Discrimination Based on Lawful Ownership or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition – Plan may not base eligibility, premiums, discounts, rebates or rewards on the lawful use, ownership, or possession of firearms or ammunition, nor may a plan request this information as part of a wellness program or for any use related to the Health Care Reform Act. These prohibitions do not apply to a grandfathered plan.” It’s apparent, the healthcare law is mandating insurance companies drop current healthcare plans, not only to include all the new requirements, but to have everyone bound by this section of the law with the intent of everyone ultimately being included in any database that currently exits under the Brady Act.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obamacare-highly-compensated-individuals-second-amendment/#l7DwG2Cjt1yezX8w.99

Arizona Sheriffs Smack Down Feds Over UnConstitutional Demands regarding Public Land


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://freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Jim White

arizona sheriffs

As the saying goes, “along with tremendous power comes tremendous responsibility.”  I cannot think of any person in public service who fits that saying more than a county sheriff.  However, the major networks have spent many years brainwashing the populace into thinking that Federal Agents are the top cops.

How many times have you seen a cop show on TV where the Feds show up, flash their badge and relieve the local sheriff? Then, local sheriff storms off in frustration because the Feds took over the case.  That, good people, is brainwashing.

What many people are unaware of is that your sheriff is the top law enforcement official in your county.  He or She has jurisdiction, even over the Feds.  There are many people, with whom I have spoken, who believe that the only chance that this country has is for good, honest sheriffs to stand up and assert their power.  Perhaps not a silver bullet, but if every sheriff of every county found their constitutional spine, it would set the Feds plan of dominating the population back 25 years.

The first thing that we could do is kick the Feds off of our lands.  But, I digress.

In Arizona, the Arizona Sheriffs Association is asserting their power over the Feds… or at least their power not to comply.  When the Feds “ruled by decree” that any trailers left in the National Forest in AZ would be towed if left more than 72 hours, the ASA shot back.  Click here to read ASA resolution.

The document bears the signature of ASA President Joseph Dedman, Jr. and it concludes with the following resolve:

That the Arizona Sheriffs are opposed to the policies of the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests limiting the parking of trailers on National Forests limiting the parking of trailers on National Forests to a 72 hours period during hunting season and will not enforce any federal government regulation imposed on our citizens depriving them of their right to utilize their public lands.

Take note of this resolution and hold your own county sheriff to the same Constitutional standards that the ASA have adopted for themselves.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/arizona-sheriffs-smack-feds-unconstitutional-demands-regarding-public-land/#u3BX461cA8LA4bUr.99

New ObamaCare Video Slammed by Gay Republican Group


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://newsbusters.org

 

Posted by:Randy Hall

Just when it seemed that proponents of the Affordable Care Act couldn’t sink any lower, they’ve gone ahead and approved an offensive advertisement trying to get gay men to enroll in healthcare exchanges that has managed to get everyone disgusted.


The ad — which features muscular men dancing in colorful underwear and Christmas headgear as they tout the benefits of enrollment in insurance exchanges — was praised by Rep. Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey who said he supports “whatever it takes to get people enrolled.”

Participants in the two-minute video produced by the organization known as Out2Enroll sing a parody of the tune “Let It Snow,” which has new lyrics encouraging gays and lesbians to “Get Enrolled”:

Hope you’re stuffed from your Thanksgiving,
Now ’tis the season of giving.
‘Fore the doctor brings a lump of coal,
Get enrolled, get enrolled, get enrolled!
And when it’s time for resolutions,
A health insurance solution,
Don’t get left in the cold,
Get enrolled, get enrolled, get enrolled!
When you finally meet Mr. Right,
Never again will you be alone.
You’ll be glad you went to the site.
Together you’re a happy home.
Pre-existing conditions won’t stop ‘em.
New plans are better; can’t top ‘em.
Whether bronze, silver or gold,
Get enrolled, get enrolled, get enrolled!

It didn’t take long for leaders of the Log Cabin Republicans — self-described as the “only LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) advocacy organization on the ObamaCare Repeal Coalition,”  to issue a statement on Sunday denouncing the video for “exploiting gay stereotypes.”

“This cynical ad betrays the depths ObamaCare advocates will sink to in order to pad their pathetic enrollment numbers,” executive director Gregory Angelo declared. “As a self-proclaimed ‘fierce advocate’ of gay equality, President Obama would do well to distance himself from this nonsense and denounce it immediately.”
Angelo then noted:

This ad is also an example of the left promoting harmful stereotypes that gay men are nothing more than sex-crazed lechers. If anyone on the right made such a comparison, liberals would be apoplectic.
At a time when left-wing propagandists are
decrying Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson for equating homosexuality with promiscuity and deviance, Out2Enroll and others should take a look in the mirror and ask if the truth is that they are the ones responsible for promoting such harmful stereotypes.

Then on Monday morning, MSNBC Live anchor Craig Melvin played a clip of the controversial video and asked for Pallone’s response to it.

“Whatever it takes to get people enrolled,” the New Jersey Democrat said before attacking Chris Christie, the Republican governor of his state, for not using more of the $7.5 million allocated to promoting the ACA and driving up enrollment.
“At this point, whether it’s an ad, whether it’s, you know, TV ads, or newspaper ads, or people going door to door, I just want people to sign up because the more people that sign up, the larger the insurance pool, and the more likely it is that the insurance becomes affordable,” he noted.
“So I’m not going to prejudge what types of ads are being promoted,” Pallone added. “The main thing is to get people signed up.”
As NewsBusters has previously reported, this is far from the first time that advocates of ObamaCare have crossed the line between good and bad taste.
The first instance took place in Colorado during the month of October, when an ad targeting young men promoted “brosurance” because “Keg stands are crazy. Not having health insurance is crazier. Don’t tap into your beer money to cover those medical bills. We got it covered. Now you can, too! Thanks, ObamaCare!”
Just one month later,
an ad focused on young women was hammered for portraying them as “cheap sluts who don’t care about their health or well-being other than getting cheap birth control pills to have sex with strange men.”
And in December, ACA proponents released a display ad containing a
photo of a grown man in children’s pajamas holding a cup of hot chocolate. The text on the ad stated: “Wear pajamas. Drink hot chocolate. Talk about getting health insurance.” Ethan Krupp soon became known as “PajamaBoy”.
Before long, Krupp became the target of jokes from both sides of the political aisle. While some people considered him an “emblem” of people who are not white, others declared him “one of the whitest people on the planet.”
Who knows what kind of misfire the next promotion of ObamaCare will contain? It’s impossible to guess, so check back on this site regularly for coverage of the ACA defenders’ latest stumble. One thing is for certain: You won’t hear much about such ridiculous ads in the self-proclaimed mainstream media.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2013/12/25/new-obamacare-video-slammed-gay-republican-group-praised-new-jersey-demo#ixzz2ogs1AFNo

 

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

 

25 wacky Joe Biden moments from 2013


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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://washingtonexaminer.com

 

Posted by:CHARLIE SPIERING

Although he wasn’t on the campaign trail much this year, Vice President Joe Biden still managed to put his foot in his mouth and entertain the world with his bloopers.

Here are 23 of the most wacky and spectacular moments of Biden being Biden in 2013.

1. When he took the oath of office on his massive family bible

That’s an oath you had better keep.

2. When he asked a Senator’s husband to spread his legs

“Spread your legs. You’re going to be frisked,” Biden said to Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s husband as he was being asked to put his hands at his side for the mock swearing-in.

3. When he made fun of a woman for taking too long to take a picture

“It’s not hard work.”

4. When he got frisky with a Senator’s wife

Biden got a little frisky with the wife of Sen. Angus King during a swearing-in at the Capitol. Watch it there.

5. When he thought he was the President

“I’m proud to be President of the United States.”

6. When he made fun of the ‘black helicopter’ crowd on gun control

“Kinda scary man, the black helicopter crowd is really upset.”

7. When he gave self-defense advice to his wife

“I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.”

8. When he said gun owners might accidentally shoot their kids if they owned a AR-15

“You know, they make fun of my saying about use a shotgun if someone’s invading your home — guess what, use a shotgun someone invading your home and you don’t kill your kids — use an AR-15, it goes through your wall and it can kill your kid in the bedroom.”

9. When he compared gun owners to people who drive Ferraris

“There is a whole new sort of group of individuals now who — I don’t know what the numbers are — that never hunt at all,” Biden said. “But they own guns for one of two reasons, self-protection or they just like the feel of that AR-15 at the range. They like the way it feels.”

Biden imitated holding a weapon and added, “You know, it’s like like driving a Ferrari, Do you know what I mean?”

10. When he called for a new world order
New World Order
11. When he insisted Al Gore was really elected president instead of Bush

“This man was elected president of the United States of America,” Biden said according to the pool report. “No, no, no. He was elected president of the United States of America. But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision in my view was made, he did the right thing for the nation.”

12. When he told people to shoot their door with a shotgun

“Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

13. When he took a picture with a camel

“Guess what day it is?”

14. When he referred to Republicans as the ‘Neanderthal crowd’

I’m going to say something outrageous.”

15. When he entertained the notion of being a co-president with Obama

“I kind of like that notion of co-presidents. But I couldn’t talk Barack into it,” he said. “That’s a good idea, I’ll have to bring this up with Barack at lunch.”

16. When he told reporters he was not running for Pope

I’m not running.”

17. When he denied being a geek

“Neither he or I are technology geeks and we assumed it was up and ready to run” for the Oct. 1 rollout.

18. When he bought so many subs, he had to borrow money from an aide to pay for it

“Fran, you got ten bucks?

19. When he suggested he might run for office in India

I might run here in India for office.”

20. When he embarrassed himself while meeting with Japanese professional businessmen

“[Do] your husbands like you working full-time?”

21. When he told everyone that ‘malarkey’ was a Spanish word
Malarkey’ was a Spanish word

22. When he backed a park ranger after she got yelled at by a Republican for closing the World War II memorial

I’m proud of you.”

23. When he got too cozy with a reporter during his Christmas party

Hmm.

24. When the White House launched a online show about ‘being Biden’

Listen to all 12 episodes FOR FREE.

25. When he tried to get funny with Veep star Julia Louis-Dreyfus

“Hey, does your husband like to sleep with the Vice President, because I’m trying to convince Jill it’s a good idea!”

 

Report: Healthcare.gov couldn’t verify Barack Obama’s identity


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

Healthcare.gov could not verify Barack Obama's identity.

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

December 24, 2013

President Obamanot exactly leading by example — was finally signed up for Obamacare in a symbolic move showing support for his own law. But, Fox News’ Ed Henry reported Monday, the healthcare.gov system couldn’t verify his identity, so his staff had to sign him up in person.

The reason, Henry said, is that Obama’s personal information is not in particular government data bases.

“So healthcare.gov could not actually verify his identity, oddly enough,” Henry said.

I would think that, Social Security database would be used?

If so why wasn’t his SSN# showing up?

So Obama himself did not sign up for healthcare. Instead, an official told Politico that his staff went to the D.C. exchange in person to sign him up.

“Like some Americans, the complicated nature of the president’s case required an in-person sign-up,” the official said. “As you’d expect, the president’s personal information is not readily available in the variety of government databases HealthCare.gov uses to verify identities.”

“Granted, he waited until the very last second to do it despite pleading with people for months not to wait,” a post at the conservative blog Hot Air said. “And sure, okay, his special status allowed him to bypass the website and delegate to his subordinates the aggravation of enrollment, unlike the millions of poor saps who had to be patient and keep trying during the Great 404 Meltdown of 2013.”

Nevertheless, Obama will now be paying hundreds of dollars per month for a plan he’ll quite likely never use just like millions of others. And, Hot Air observed, Obama also purchased a plan that appeals to many others — a “bronze” plan that is cheaper but carries such a high deductible one might as well not have insurance.

According to the White House, Obama’s plan will cost less than $400 per month, and does not cover the First Lady or his children.

“The president’s wife and daughters, who already have health care, did not enroll,” NPRsaid.

Of course, Obama will still get his health care from the military, since he is the Commander-in-Chief, so the move was symbolic in nature and had no real meaning.

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

 

Noah’s Ark Has Been Found. Why Are They Keeping Us In The Dark?


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://joeforamerica.com

 

Posted by:Mark Martineau

  I’m often amazed at our lack of knowledge about history. Ordinary people are hungry for this information, yet the organizations responsible to disseminate these facts seem to have an agenda to keep us in the dark. This is especially true when it comes to our ancient human history.

I won’t hold you in suspense with this article: The Ark of Noah has been found. It’s real. I’ll describe the evidence in some detail and end with the historical and religious implications.

How It Was Discovered

In 1959, Turkish army captain Llhan Durupinar discovered an unusual shape while examining aerial photographs of his country. The smooth shape, larger than a football field, stood out from the rough and rocky terrain at an altitude of 6,300 feet near the Turkish border with Iran.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Capt. Durupinar was familiar with the biblical accounts of the Ark and its association with Mount Ararat in Turkey, but he was reluctant to jump to any conclusions. The region was very remote, yet it was inhabited with small villages. No previous reports of an object this odd had been made before. So he forwarded the photographic negative to a famous aerial photography expert named Dr. Brandenburger, at Ohio State University.

Brandenburger was responsible for discovering the Cuban missile bases during the Kennedy era from reconnaissance photos, and after carefully studying the photo, he concluded: “I have no doubt at all, that this object is a ship. In my entire career, I have never seen an object like this on a stereo photo.”

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

In 1960 the picture [above] was published in LIFE magazine under the heading of Noahs Ark? That same year a group of Americans accompanied Capt. Durupinar to the site for a day and a half. They were expecting to find artifacts on the surface or something that would be unquestionably related to a ship of some kind. They did some digging in the area but found nothing conclusive and announced to the anxiously waiting world that it appeared to be a natural formation.

Most of the global media turned away from the find and it became a non-story.

In 1977 Ron Wyatt visited the site. Obtaining official permission, Ron and others conducted more thorough research over a period of several years. They used metal detection surveys, subsurface radar scans, and chemical analysis — real science — and their findings were startling. The evidence was undeniable. This was the Ark of Noah.

The Visual Evidence

The first part of the survey was to examine the object and take its measurements. The shape looked like hull of a ship. One end was pointed as you would expect from bow [below: D] and the opposite end was blunt like a stern. The distance from bow to stern was 515 feet, or exactly 300 Egyptian cubits. The average width was 50 cubits. These were the exact measurements mentioned in the Bible.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

On the starboard side (right) near the stern there were four vertical bulges protruding from the mud [B], at regular intervals, that were determined to be the “ribs” of the hull [see below]. Opposite to these, on the port side, a single rib [A] protrudes from the mud. You can see its curved shape very clearly. Surrounding it are more ribs, still largely buried in the mud, but visible upon close examination.

Remember that this object, if it is the Ark, is extremely old. The wood has been petrified. Organic matter has been replaced by minerals from the earth. Only the shapes and traces of the original wood remain. Perhaps this is why the expedition in 1960 was disappointed. They anticipated finding and retrieving chucks of wood, long since eroded.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

From the position of the object in the middle of an obvious mud flow, it is obvious that the object slid down more than a mile from its original location. Geologists believe it was originally over 1000 feet higher in the mountain and encased in a shell of hardened mud. They think that an earthquake in 1948 cracked the mud shell and revealed the structure. This is confirmed by stories from the surrounding villagers who tell of its “sudden appearance” around that time.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Biblical accounts of the Ark describe it as having as many as six levels. The assumed shape of the Ark seems consistent with the bulge [C] in the middle of the object. In fact, as we will soon learn, radar scans of the structure suggest that this bulge is the collapsed debris of these levels.

Although most people think of the Ark as being rectangular, that only applies to the top decks. The sleek shape of the hull is necessary to enable the huge ship to remain stable in the water and survive tremendous waves.

Ground Penetrating Radar

The human eye needs to see reflected light to recognize an object. To visualize what remains below the earth, scientists use microwaves which can penetrate the ground and bounce back when they hit something solid. This technique is commonly used to locate oil and other minerals. Called Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), the apparatus us made from an antenna that transmits, then listens to receive the “echo” and prints the result on a piece of paper. The delay and strength of this echo tell the geologists how solid and at what depth the objects are under the earth.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

The team of geologists didn’t scan the entire object. Instead, they marked out lines that crossed the object with yellow tape. Then they dragged the antenna (about the size of a lawnmower) over the lines and watched the output on the paper recorder. When they got a strong “hit” — meaning there was something solid underneath — they would record the position on the tape [above]. Later, when they made a map of the object, the tape and the location of the “hits” they realized that there was indeed a structure underneath the mud.

“This data does not represent natural geology. These are man made structures. These reflections are appearing too periodic… too periodic to be random in that type of natural pace.” – Ron Wyatt of SIR Imaging team

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

The radar cans revealed this structure [above] under the mud. The symmetry and logical placement of these objects shows that this is unmistakably a man made structure, most likely the Ark of Noah.

Artifacts Retrieved From The Ark

Using the GPR, Ron Wyatt discovered an open cavity on the starboard side. He used an improvised drill to make core sample inside this cavity and retrieved several very interesting objects. Below you can see the artifacts which were sent for laboratory analysis. On the left is the bore hole [see below], followed by what turned out to be petrified animal dung, then a petrified antler and lastly a piece of cat hair.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Perhaps the most significant find from the Ark itself is a piece of petrified wood. When this was first found it appeared to be a large beam. But upon closer examination it is actually three pieces of plank that have been laminated together with some kind of organic glue! This is the same technology used in modern plywood. Lamination makes the total strength of the wood much greater than the combined strength of the pieces. This suggests a knowledge of construction far beyond anything we knew existed in the ancient world.

noahs ark found
Tests by Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, Tennessee, showed the sample to contain over 0.7% organic carbon, consistent with fossilized wood. The specimen was once living matter. Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Examination reveals the glue oozed from the layers. The outside of the wood appears to have been coated with bitumen.

Even more surprising were laboratory analyses which not only revealed that the petrified wood contained carbon (proving it was once wood) but there were iron nails [above right] embedded in the wood!

We like to imagine that humanity evolved in a neat sequence of eras, each named after the technology that was discovered. We have the Stone Age (where man developed arrows and stone tools), the Bronze Age (where metals were combined and heated to make tools and household items) and lastly the Iron Age (where iron and steel objects were made by heating iron ore and adding other material — like charcoal — to strengthen it). The Iron Age is usually placed at 1200-1000 BC, yet we have iron nails being used in this extremely old construction

But Wait… There’s More!

The most surprising find was discovered with sensitive metal detectors. The team located several strong “hits” that, when dug up, revealed large disc shaped rivets. From simple observation of the metal it was possible to see where the rivet had been hammered after being inserted through a hole [below].

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

If rivets being used in ancient construction doesn’t impress you, this surely will.

An analysis of the metal used to make the rivets revealed that they were a combination of iron (8.38%), aluminum (8.35%) and titanium (1.59%). Remember these trace metals have survived petrification and so do not indicate the exact content in the original material. (see Report from Galbraith Labs)

We know the aluminum was incorporated in the metallic mixture because it does not exist in metallic form in nature. This implies an extremely advanced knowledge of metallurgy and engineering. Characteristics of an iron-aluminum alloy have been investigated in The Russian Chemical Bulletin (2005) and reveal that this alloy forms a thin film of aluminum oxide which protects the material from rust and corrosion. The addition of titanium would provide added strength. This seems to have worked. The rivets have survived from antiquity!

The Surrounding Areas

Several miles from the location of the Ark, huge stones were discovered, some standing upright while others lying on the ground. These stones, weighing many tons, have holes carved in them. Scientists have determined that they were anchors and the holes would have been their attachment to a ship with hemp rope.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

Often these stones will have crosses carved in them, from centuries ago when pilgrims made the journey to visit the Ark. Yes, the Ark was well known in the Middle Ages and even before. And its location was recorded in many historical documents.

“And the Ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.” – Genesis 8:4-5

The Gilgamesh Epic (650 BC) gives Mt. Nisir as the landing place of the Ark. The local name for the town where the Ark was found is Nasar.

The annals of Ashurnasurpal II of Assyria (833-859 BC) places it south of the Zab river (correct).

Theophilus of Antioch (115-185 AD) said the Ark could be seen in his day in the Arabian mountains. Later Church Fathers also mention the Ark as late as the mid 7th century.

In the 13th century, Willam, a traveler, stated for the first time that Mt. Masis was the Ark location (present-day Mt. Ararat).

Ptolemy’s Geographia (1548) mentions the mountains of Armenia as the place of landing. So does the traveler Nicolas de Nicolay (1558).

Pilgrims to the site would gather bits and pieces of the petrified wood which would be used as charms to ward off evil. When they encountered the anchors, they had no doubt about their association with the Ark. They often carved one big cross to represent Noah and smaller crosses representing his family.

noahs ark found
Photo:
http://www.viewzone.com/noahx.html

The huge anchors would have been suspended from the keel of the ship. This was a common practice among ancient mariners to stabilize a heavy ship and ensure that the bow is always facing the on-coming waves. A “top heavy” ship, such as the Ark, could easily be capsized by a wave approaching from the side. This is yet further proof that Noah’s Ark was a reality and that it has indeed been found in Turkey.

Source / By Dan Eden

Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2013/12/noahs-ark-found-keeping-us-dark/#ttXvWsQkrog8FCue.99

 

Russian Designer of AK-47 Assault Rifle Dies at 94


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.newsmax.com

 

Posted by:

Image: Russian Designer of AK-47 Assault Rifle Dies at 94

 

The inventor of the world’s most famous firearm – the AK-47 assault rifle — has died of undisclosed causes in his hometown of Izhevsk, near the Ural Mountains, a spokesman for the Udmurtia republic says. He was 94.
The “self-taught tinkerer” created the Avtomat Kalashnikov in 1947, nine years after joining the Red Army. He was driven to conceptualize the weapon while recovering from wounds suffered when a shell hit his tank. He was determined to create something equal to or better than the Nazis‘ superior cache.

“Blame the Nazi Germans for making me become a gun designer,” Kalashnikov once said. “I always wanted to construct agricultural machinery.”

Though not known for its accuracy, the AK-47 is rugged and simple and performs in inclement conditions that jam more sophisticated machinery, the AP reports.
“During the Vietnam war, American soldiers would throw away their M-16s to grab AK-47s and bullets for it from dead Vietnamese soldiers,” Kalashnikov said in July 2007 at a ceremony marking the rifle’s 60th anniversary.
With more than 100 million AK-47s in circulation around the world, the gun has earned the distinction of being the firearm most “favored by guerrillas, terrorists and the soldiers of many armies.” It remains a staple of Russia’s armed forces and police and is at the heart of the gun control debate in the United States.
Though his name is synonymous with his invention, Kalashnikov never made a cent off the rifle, which was never patented.
The weapon, he said, was designed to protect his motherland, not to be used by terrorists or thugs,
according to The New York Times.

“This is a weapon of defense. It is not a weapon for offense.”


The Kalashnikov Museum opened in 2004 in Izhevsk, Russia.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ak47-inventor-dies/2013/12/23/id/543440#ixzz2oLiyzJie

 

Obama Must Be Forced to 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://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:Alan Caruba

Author

A December 17 Reuters article was titled, “Obama’s Current Approval Rating Is The Ugliest Since Nixon.”

President Barack Obama is ending his fifth year in office with the lowest approval ratings at this point in the presidency since President Richard Nixon, according to a new Washington Post/ABC poll released Tuesday.”

Nixon was forced to resign on April 22, 1974, after two long years that followed the revelations about Watergate, a break-in of the Democratic Party offices in Washington, DC. The backlash against the horrors of ObamaCare, concerns about the “deal” with Iran, and a succession of scandals from Fast and Furious to Benghazi, have raised fear and anger over his judgment, competence, and behavior in office.

Having lived through the years that led to Nixon’s resignation, I am seeing the same national resistance that Obama’s five years in office have led to. Nixon was never a “popular” President, widely seen as “Tricky Dick”, but, like Obama, he was twice elected to the office. His Vice President, Gerald Ford, who assumed the presidency, was defeated by Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and, four years later, an unhappy electorate defeated Carter and elected Ronald Reagan who would serve two terms. Even the popular Bill Clinton faced impeachment.

Not since the days of the Great Depression in the 1930s have Americans endured an economy that has failed to overcome slow growth despite Obama’s full first term in office and another year in his second term.

Ignoring the central role of a free market prolongs bad economic conditions and high taxation to maintain an ever-expanding central government led to big problems for European nations and promises the same—or worse—for the U.S.
When you add in the increased debt imposed in Obama’s first term you are looking at the road to ruin.
Blaming “millionaires and billionaires” or “income inequality” is the very essence of communism. It is a rejection of our capitalistic economic system.

Financial ruin for America is embedded in its huge debt, its deficits, and its multi-trillions of dollars in unfunded debt that already insolvent Social Security and Medicare programs represent. And Medicare was looted to fund ObamaCare!

The destruction of our healthcare system, one sixth of the nation’s economy, is widely regarded as a disaster and it bears the President’s name. Passed late at night prior to Christmas in 2009 and signed into law by Barack Obama, ObamaCare is distinguished by the lies the President told all Americans about their right to keep their healthcare insurance plans, retain their personal physicians, and see their costs reduced. It has done the opposite and it is impossible to believe the President did not know this would occur.

The nation has reached a point when the President must be told to resign.

Whether a Congress, also held in extraordinary low esteem, can or will do this is unknown. While I have said in the past that Obama cannot be removed by impeachment, I now believe that if the House would initiate impeachment proceedings that in itself would focus public attention, for example, on the President’s excessive use of executive orders to by-pass Congress and his unconstitutional altering—tweaking—of the ObamaCare law.
His first term was filled with scandals that included using the IRS for political gain. His role in dragging down the nation’s international position as an exemplar and protector of freedom has made the world less safe. These and other issues need a review and discussion that would not occur in the mainstream press in any other way.

This isn’t about a President who authorized a break-in. This is about a President who is a current and future threat to the Constitution, the nation’s military strength, and the restoration of its economy.

This is about a President who can use existing laws to declare martial law based on a manufactured crisis. Existing law would permit him to seize control of all aspects of life in America.

The nation’s mainstream print and broadcast media is showing signs of disillusionment, but not enough to abandon a President they have supported with deliberately biased reporting.

Complicating a demand for his resignation is a divided Republican Party whose elites have rejected the Tea Party movement that has already elected a number of members to Congress. Many find little to differentiate the GOP from the Democratic Party, but there are differences and the House of Representatives is proof of that.

Many Americans sense that the nation is at a very dangerous point.

Dramatic action is needed. A demand for Obama’s resignation via petitions and other measures is needed to save America from the worst President ever elected to that office.

 

 

Details of the Obama forgery exposed


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:Doug Hagmann

Author

Every American is the victim of one of the most insidious crimes ever perpetrated on the collective – the capturing of our nation from within. The set-up process occurred over decades, but culminated with the selection and installation of Barack Hussein Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, as the front man in this silent coup.

One important piece of evidence to support this crime exists in the controversial Certificate of Live Birth, but not in the way you have heard, and not in the manner that you might suspect. The revelation of the manner and methods now exist in a document that the criminal elements of our government and the complicit media do not want you to see. And the evidence is as compelling as it is damning.

Based on the popularity of television shows like Criminal Minds, Law and Order: Criminal Intent, and Profiler from the late 1990s, a large number of people are fascinated by the investigative science of criminal profiling. One aspect of such behavioral profiling includes understanding the difference between a perpetrator’s modus operandi or “M.O.,”  and their “signature.”

While all criminals have a modus operandi, analyzing a perpetrator’s “signature” is a bit more involved. Signature behaviors serve to satisfy some need of the criminal, and might be viewed as a “calling card” of sorts that link them to the crime. This is particularly true in cases of forgery, where the forger leaves a usually well hidden “signature” to identify them as the creator of the forgery. The preceding is provided as a formal introduction to the most important forgery of our time: Barack Hussein Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth.

So far, the managed mainstream media has ignored the October 18, 2013 filing of two affidavits, one public and the other sealed, that identify twenty-(20) points of forgery on the most controversial document concerning the most controversial figure of our time: Barack Hussein Obama. In my view, this is undoubtedly the most detailed and compellingly damning document ever created pertaining to the controversy surrounding the long form birth certificate.  It provides critical insight into the people behind the forgery, their methods, and more importantly, their mistakes.

Douglas Vogt, an author and the owner and operator of a scanning business who also has an accounting background, invested over two years conducting an investigation into the authenticity of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. Mr. Vogt, along with veteran typesetter Paul Ivey, conducted exhaustive research of the document provided to the White House Press Corps on April 27, 2011 – not the online PDF, a critical distinction that must be understood.

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

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

In my extensive research of the open source evidence revealed by Mr. Vogt in the affidavit publicly released, I have been able to connect the dots myself. Mr. Vogt released additional and even more specific details in a nearly 3-hour long radio interview last evening on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report.

The elements of the alleged criminality behind the creation of this forged document, along with the forgery of the short form birth certificate are indeed staggering. The phrase that was born out of the exposure to the crimes related to Watergate, “plausible deniability,” has now been thrust forward to the present day.

The release of the long form birth certificate at a press gaggle three days before the reported killing of Osama bin Laden seemed to be ripped from the playbook used by the men behind Nixon’s Watergate. Some who were involved knew exactly what was taking place, while others served as useful dupes to quiet the growing number intent on seeing evidence of Obama’s eligibility. Early on, the perpetrators made a few key mistakes that they could not undo. Instead, they attempted to cover their mistakes through additional forgery.

In addition to the errors they attempted to cover, the alleged forger of the COLB covertly “signed” the forged document, leaving her signature on one of the most important forgeries of our time. Whether it was done out of personal hubris or to provide her own level of “plausible deniability” in a most convoluted sense, it is apparent once you know where to look. Then, it all begins to make sense.

The affidavit filed by Mr. Vogt asserts that violations of federal law, from misprision of felony to misprision of treason occurred by the hands of Obama himself, his White House counsel, the Hawaii Department of Health, Savannah Guthrie and her employer at the time, certain other media companies, and those listed as “John and Jane Does” in the unsealed affidavit. The John and Jane Does are identified in the sealed affidavit.

Using a brilliant legal tactic unlike anyone else who has attempted redress against this treasonous activity, Mr. Vogt tapped into a section of federal law that necessitates action on the part of the federal judiciary via a federal judge – currently in the hands of the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington in Seattle.

It is this method or loophole in the federal statutes that separates this filing with all others. Additionally, it makes this filing by orders of magnitude much more dangerous to those involved in the alleged conspiracy to insert a foreign agent in the highest office in America.
This is a very big deal. This is a very viable threat to those who believe they are impervious to legal action for their seditious and treasonous activities, and the very people who have and continue to facilitate them. This is the best evidence yet that America is a captured operation.

To listen to the most compelling presentation of the affidavit filed detailing the forgeries,

click here.
The affidavits filed with the U.S. Federal Court can be accessed
here and here.

AL SHARPTON’S CHICAGO TOWN HALL ERUPTS INTO REVOLT AGAINST MACHINE POLITICS


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:

Sharpton-Town-Hall-Breitbart

On Thursday, a town hall meeting hosted by Al Sharpton and the National Action Network to address gun violence exploded into a revolt against “Chicago Machine” politics, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and the aldermen in City Hall, with panel and audience members calling to vote out their elected officials.

One 82-year-old preacher even called for Tea Party style meetings in some of Chicago’s south side communities such as Altgeld Gardens and Trumbull Park.

 “This was a historic event,” Paul McKinley of V.O.T.E. (Voices of the Ex-Offender) and former 2nd Congressional District GOP nominee to replace Jesse Jackson, Jr. told Breitbart News. “Not because of Al Sharpton coming to town,” he continued. “This was first time since electing Mayor Harold Washington in the eighties that all of these grassroots groups and community organizers have come together under one roof to talk about the problems plaguing our community.”

While the stated goal for Sharpton was to bring the many different groups together to discuss solutions to the city’s violence epidemic, he may not have gotten the types of responses he was looking for. Calls for more gun control laws and getting guns off the streets were nonexistent and not mentioned by residents throughout the session.

Instead, attendees offered solutions addressing the problems facing their community as a whole rather than just taking on “gun violence” itself. Audience members addressed the need for jobs and solving the foreclosure crisis plaguing Chicago’s south and west sides. Perhaps the loudest message—and one that Reverend Al or the Chicago media have yet to report on—echoed by several different people in attendance as well as panel members was that it is time for the black community to start voting differently.

“The manner in which we have been voting needs to change,” Wendy Pearson, an activist against Chicago school closings, told the room. “I’m here to say to you that we have been trained to vote in a specific manner… we need to start looking at the manner in which our elected officials have been voting… if they have not voted in a manner that is beneficial to you, yours, and your community, then you need to start voting them out.”

McKinley told the room, “Stop blaming just anybody for the violence in the city of Chicago. Blame the right people, not just white people, but the right people. Because it’s not just white folks a part of this, but it is on the fifth floor. The fifth floor took your schools, the fifth floor just took your jobs that he said that he gave to the ex-offender… and every single alderman was a part of this criminal process.”

McKinley called on President Obama to help the grassroots by discontinuing aid and government grants that go through Chicago’s political machine to “name-brand-blue-ribbon-negro-organizations” such as the NAACP and Urban League. McKinley told Breitbart News those groups “are poverty pimps, and are part of the problem and not the solution.”

VIDEO HERE: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/21/Al-Sharpton-s-Chicago-Town-Hall-Erupts-into-Revolt-against-Machine-Politics

Post Navigation

Brittius

Honor America

China News

News and Opinions From Inside China

My Opinion My Vote

America needs saving

hillbillysurvival

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

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

JUSTICE FOR RAYMOND

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

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

U.S. Constitutional Free Press

Give me Liberty, Or Give me Death!

swissdefenceleague

Swiss Defence League

NY the vampire state

Sucking the money from it's citizens as a vampire sucks blood from it's victims. A BPI site

The Clockwork Conservative

All wound up about politics, history, culture... lots of stuff.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

LeatherneckM31

Weapons-grade blogging; quips, quotes and comments 'cause we live in a world gone mad.......

%d bloggers like this: