Here’s Why Obama Will Get A Third Term…

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.western

journalism.com

 

Posted by:DAVE MERRICK

Predicting our downfall is not anything that I ever wanted to write. Indeed, just a few years back, I still hadn’t imagined that we would ever really allow the things we have without a fight. But we have.

---

There is a strong likelihood that our next president will be the incumbent, Barry Soetoro, or – short of overhauling the 22nd amendment – whatever other liberal candidate the Democrats may produce. We conservatives have pretty much sealed our fate and, if we continue as we have, don’t have a snowball’s chance in perdition of ever again occupying the nation’s chief office. My prediction is just as unpleasant to me as it may be to any of my readers. Nevertheless, those are my sentiments, and I would almost be willing to take bets on the accuracy of my words.

Here is why it will happen …

First off, conservatives have allowed themselves to completely fall asleep at the switch. In our resting on the fantasy that everyone else basically thinks as we do, we went and forgot that the price of freedom really is constant vigilance. All this time, while we were driving back and forth to work, paying bills, and saving what we could for a rainy day, we lost sight of the fact that there is a growing crowd of people out there who genuinely want only to work the system and collect a paycheck for doing nothing. We’ve allowed our history lessons to fade off into uselessness as we’ve ignored the truth that ‘liberalism’ is just the soft-boiled precursor to socialism and slavery. We let slide Lincoln’s dire warning about the recurrent reality of lazy tyrants consuming the fruits of the working diligent. And now we are walking right into that reality with our own government freshly wired to give muscle to the lazy tyrants.

Professional, power-hungry politicians and their constituency comprise the lazy tyrants. Both are seeking after their own bottomless ATM cards, which they fully intend to supply from the labors of the working diligent.

Forever, the liberals have ridden the system in order to try to maintain themselves in a manner in which they would like to become accustomed. They artfully use narcotic, PC words like ‘fairness,’ ‘balance,’ ‘tolerance,’ and ‘equality’ as pry tools for taking stuff that doesn’t belong to them. From day one, the liberal presents himself as a humanitarian and champion of the underdog, while in fact, he’s fighting to establish a utopian set of ‘rights’ that simply can’t exist in the real world.

Our current president and his entire administrative staff/enablers are the living example of how this racket works: Use the taxpayers’ money to buy votes from the burgeoning swarm who are convinced their votes will ensure their leader’s promised panacea. This old formula is job security for the leftist politician – since, after all, what parasite in his right mind would shoot himself in the foot by voting against his own free ride? It’s a circular plan that must eventually crash because nobody – none of the working diligent, anyway – is stupid enough to keep on laboring in order to underwrite someone else’s dreams.

Eventually, the cobweb of liberalism’s pitched fantasy is bound to collapse when the bank finally calls and reports that all available resources are depleted. When that happens, history shows, the fattened politicians simply pack up shop and head for cover – and the lightheaded mob that voted them into office is once again left destitute and holding the bag (an empty bag).

Tragically, in the process of chasing a mirage, our rights and freedoms will have been lost in that fool’s bargain.

As all this drama unfolds, the bigger picture of social collapse and revolution will naturally take on a life of its own. A new, desperately clamoring throng emerges looking for someone to save the day. And, because our determined and methodical president has prepared himself for just such a day, we’ll then painfully discover that he holds all the cards.

If Marx and the big names of socialism could be assembled to review the moves reformer obama has made up to this point, they would joyously stand and give him a teary-eyed ovation for having installed – in just five fast years – every cog of the sinister machine that had been designed to demolish our free capitalist West. And he did all that without so much as even a genuinely threatening investigation from our generally spineless Congress.

Predicting our downfall is not anything that I ever wanted to write. Indeed, just a few years back, I still hadn’t imagined that we would ever really allow the things we have without a fight. But we have.

Years ago, whoever coined the term ‘silent majority’ should have been taken out in the street and horsewhipped. That senseless title gave an air of virtuous credential to the indolent conservative who enjoyed suddenly feeling justified in his laziness. Rather than periodically leaving the comfort of his Barcalounger, beer, and remote – and even minimally participating in our dying democracy – he was handed a lofty-sounding indulgence that seemed to accommodate his selfish, personal peace.

Now we’re ambling along under the misconception that the right conservative candidate will somehow unwind the effects of our sloth and turn everything around for the better. But, even if we found such a man, that won’t work – given that most of us can’t seem to be bothered with even making it to the polls now and then.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-why-obama-will-get-a-third-term/#PMshgGudwYgy3dOv.99

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

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://nypost.com

 

Posted by:JOHN PODHORETZ

 

Photo: Illustration by Leah Tiscione

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What gives?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEE A SHRINK, LOSE YOUR GUN

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:BOB UNRUH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Wrong hands’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting veterans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A front

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

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

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

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

And be banned from having a firearm.

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

Paul Ryan vs. the Military

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Posted by:Elise Cooper

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama Administration’s Benghazi Bombshell

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.weeklystandard.com

 

Posted by:THOMAS JOSCELYN

The Washington Post reports that U.S. officials suspect Sufian Ben Qumu, an ex-Guantanamo detainee, “played a role in the attack on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya, and are planning to designate the group he leads as a foreign terrorism organization.” Ben Qumu is based in Derna, Libya and runs a branch of Ansar al Sharia headquartered in the city.

U.S. officials have found that some of Ben Qumu’s militiamen from Derna “participated in the attack” and “were in Benghazi before the attack took place on Sept. 11, 2012.”

Ben Qumu was fingered early on as a suspect in the Benghazi attack, but his name dropped out of much of the reporting on the assault for more than one year.

In November 2013, however, THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported: “U.S. intelligence officials believe that Sufian Ben Qumu, a Libyan ex-Guantánamo detainee, trained some of the jihadists who carried out the attacks in Benghazi.” Ben Qumu, TWS reported, “has longstanding connections with al Qaeda leadership.”

Ben Qumu’s biography is rich with al Qaeda links:

Ben Qumu is one of the original “Arab Afghans” who traveled to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. In the years that followed the end of the anti-Soviet jihad, Ben Qumu followed al Qaeda to the Sudan and then, in the mid-to-late 1990s, back to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was eventually arrested in Pakistan after the 9/11 attacks and transferred to the American detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.

A leaked Joint Task Force Guantánamo (JTF-GTMO) threat assessment describes Ben Qumu as an “associate” of Osama bin Laden. JTF-GTMO found that Ben Qumu worked as a driver for a company owned by bin Laden in the Sudan, fought alongside al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and maintained ties to several other well-known al Qaeda leaders. Ben Qumu’s alias was found on the laptop of an al Qaeda operative responsible for overseeing the finances for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The information on the laptop indicated that Ben Qumu was an al Qaeda “member receiving family support.”

An August 2012 report published by the Library of Congress in conjunction with the Defense Department, titled “Al Qaeda in Libya: a Profile,” identified Ben Qumu as the possible “new face of al Qaeda in Libya despite” his denial of an ongoing al Qaeda role. The report also noted that Ben Qumu and his Ansar al Sharia fighters are “believed to be close to the al Qaeda clandestine network” in Libya. According to the report’s authors, that same network is headed by al Qaeda operatives who report to al Qaeda’s senior leadership in Pakistan, including Ayman al Zawahiri.

The reporting on Ben Qumu’s ties to the Benghazi attack directly refutes an account by David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times. Kirkpatrick reported that “neither Mr. Qumu nor anyone else in Derna appears to have played a significant role in the attack on the American Mission, officials briefed on the investigation and the intelligence said.”

The Post reports that, in addition to Ben Qumu and Ansar al Sharia Derna, the branches of Ansar al Sharia in Benghazi and Tunisia are going to be designated as terrorist organizations by the State Department.

Two other individuals, Ahmed Abu Khattala and Seifallah ben Hassine, are going to be added to the list of “specially designated global terrorists.”   

Seifallah Ben Hassine (a.k.a. Abu Iyad al Tunisi) is the head of Ansar al Sharia Tunisia, which assaulted the U.S. Embassy in Tunis just three days after the attack in Benghazi.

In its annual Country Reports on Terrorism, published in May 2013, the State Department noted that Ben Hassine “was implicated as the mastermind behind the September 14 attack on the US Embassy,” which involved “a mob of 2,000 – 3,000” people, “including individuals affiliated with the militant organization Ansar al Sharia.”

The ties between Ben Hassine, Ansar al Sharia and al Qaeda are longstanding and well-established.

According to multiple published reports, Ben Hassine relocated to Libya after the Tunisian government labeled Ansar al Sharia a terrorist organization and cracked down on its operatives. The Tunisian government has repeatedly alleged that the Ansar al Sharia groups in Libya and Tunisia are tied to one another, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). 

The Post’s report concludes: “In addition to Qumu and Khattala, American officials are eager to question Faraj al Chalabi, a Libyan extremist who might have fled the country.”

As THE WEEKLY STANDARD reported on multipleoccasions, Chalabi is considered a key suspect by U.S. intelligence officials. Two U.S. intelligence officials say Chalabi once served as a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and is suspected of brining materials from the compound in Benghazi to senior al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan.

Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Hillary Clinton will run on repealing Obamacare

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 Joel

 

 

 

With all the talk abuzz about an inevitable Hillary Clinton candidacy, I wager that her platform will include repealing ObamaCare. Hillary will declare late in the spring so that she can positively impact the midterm elections to benefit the Democrats.

 

What would Hillary gain from a repeal-ObamaCare platform?

First, such a position would effectively neuter the Republican position of anyone running in 2014 (and beyond). All the hand-wringing and fundraising, all the sob-stories and alarm bells about ObamaCare would be utterly weakened if Hillary was out there saying the exact same thing. Any Republican candidate on the same policy page as Hillary Clinton would be disastrous for them. The Republicans are hoping for strong gains in 2014 — possibly even taking the Senate — and are banking on a fledgling ObamaCare to do it. This objective could not be achieved with Hillary added to the mix.

Second, a repeal-ObamaCare position from Hillary would give vulnerable Democrats a free pass to sever close ties and loyalty to Obama. Obama is toxic right now; his popularity is in the mid 30’s and his signature legislation is overwhelmingly disliked across the country. With Hillary jumping in, Democrats would be able to rally around a more popular and likeable Democrat (what Democrat doesn’t like the Clintons?) and distance themselves from Obama and ObamaCare without hurting the Democrat brand. In fact, she enhances it right now.

Finally, Hillary herself was intimately involved in health care reform after Clinton’s election in 1992. The legislation she helped champion via the Taskforce For Health Care Reform was aptly dubbed “Hillarycare”. Twenty years later, in comparison to ObamaCare, it doesn’t look so bad, does it? Perhaps not anymore. Hillarycare had its own, but different, mandate: for all employers to provide healthcare for their workers. Is this the alternative solution and finally Hillary’s day in the sun? Or is it possible that Hillary would take healthcare reform even further than ObamaCare? Knowing the growing disdain for mandates perhaps Hillary would instead lobby for a single-payer system — which is a dream of many progressives.

Whatever the case, running on repealing ObamaCare is a win-win for Hillary. She gets to directly impact and help the midterm elections for the Democrats. Six years after her primary defeat against Obama, Hillary will emerge as the better, wiser, and more likeable Democrat (revenge is a dish best served cold?). And finally, Hillary will have the unprecedented opportunity to finish the healthcare reform she started two decades ago, since practically anything will be seen as better than ObamaCare now.

‘Decimated’ Al-Qaeda Captures Fallujah!

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://canadafreepress.com

 

Posted by:John Lillpop 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

3 Unbelievable Food Stamp Statistics in America

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

 

Food stamps cover steak, lobster, and caviar.

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

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

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

Unbelievable Statistics About Food Stamps

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

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

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

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

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

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

That should upset you.

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

Why Welfare Reform Matters

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

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

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

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

One in three lawmakers wants to repeal cuts to military pensions

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

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

Posted by:Jeremy Herb

Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOHICA the military takes it again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Erik Wasson contributed.

http://thehill.com/blogs

America on The Verge of Martial Law, DHS Insider Says Big Events Imminent

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://thelibertydigest.com

 

Posted by:Notta Govslave

“The U.S. is a captured operation. The lie is bigger than most people realize or are willing to confront.” That’s the final boil down of an article by Doug Hagmann as he details what he describes as his final meeting with his DHS inside informant.

That informant, whom he calls “Rosebud”, is leaving his position with DHS, retiring as a means of escaping the bureaucratic monstrosity. Their meeting is made more difficult by the cultural fear tactics now being employed by FEMA and DHS department heads. There are departmental policies which are being strictly enforced to seek out any potential leaks and leakers for termination and possible criminal prosecution.

“DHS is like a prison environment, complete with prison snitches,” Rosebud said, “No one trusts anyone else and sources are drying up. The threats being made go beyond what has been seen in the past, including threats against people’s lives and those of their families.

Regarding people’s response to his information, he said, “take it or leave it, disregard it at your own peril. It’s up to each American to act on the information for themselves or suffer the consequences.”

He claims to have seen internal documents which show preparations have been finalized for the response to an upcoming crisis. This crisis is not specifically identified, as all information and operations are compartmentalized. Whatever the event or events are, the scale will be overwhelming and unparalleled. The response will include the use of lethal force against American citizens under the direction of B. Hussein Obama.

The foundation of the crisis will be an economic collapse. Those who are waiting for a “big bang” to signal the beginning are off the mark. The big bang will come at the end, when people wake up one morning and simply don’t have access to their finances. Their ATM cards, and bank accounts won’t respond; they will learn that their private pension funds and other assets have been confiscated.

Rosebud said he uses the word created when describing the events as this will be a completely manufactured event. With the initial event underway, a secondary event will take place concurrently or immediately thereafter, to confuse and compound the disruption caused by the events.

Of the several scenarios discussed, the most commonly agreed upon initial event will be some type of cyber attack. That will be an internally driven ruse, but it will be effective in getting people off balance and setting them up for the second event.

That second event is likely to be a terror attack of major proportions upon the US and on US soil.

The government response will be just what has been expected, controls and restrictions on travel, business, and every aspect of our daily lives in America. Particular attention will be given to gun owners and those whose speech incites people to rise up against the government. This is the beginning of what many would call Martial law.

There exists a relationship today between DHS and the executive branch that would be alarming to most Americans, if they were aware of it. DHS has become that private army of the White House which Hussein Obama described in the 2008 campaign. The NSA and IRS also take their orders directly from the Occupant of the White House.

The instructions that Hussein Obama gives are subject to the wishes of his superiors in the global government. They are the ones who put him into power in the first place.

He is their lackey, an actor playing a role who does just as he is told. Decades of planning have gone into this operation.

In closing Rosebud reminds us that this situation exemplifies the need to enforce the Logan Act. The Logan Act is a federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. By enforcing the Logan Act we could put most of the criminals in DC behind bars, for starters.

http://thelibertydigest.com

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

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

Harry Reid: Government Needs to Steal More from the Middle Class

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.infowars.com

 

Posted by:Kurt Nimmo

If Reid really cared about poor people and a dwindling middle class, he would help us get rid of the Federal Reserve

Corporatists and banksters controlling government and the money supply is the problem. Illustration: David Dees

Senate Majority Leader, Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, wants the government to steal more money from the middle class and dole it out to the victims of the Federal Reserve created economic depression.

“Even as the economy creates jobs, too many Americans find themselves on the sidelines watching as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class are getting squeezed and squeezed,” Reid said on Thursday.

“There is no greater challenge this country has than income inequality. And we must do something about it.”

Reid’s solution to income inequality is to tax and borrow more and give money to the unemployed. Democrats like to tell you this money will come from the super rich. But they know the super rich don’t pay taxes. From offshore tax havens to shell games, foundations and equity swaps, the rich rarely if ever pay taxes. Large multinational corporations with teams of lawyers don’t pay taxes either. GE, for instance, avoided paying taxes by socking $108 billion overseas.

So when Harry Reid talks about redistributing more money to the unemployed, he’s talking about taxing the middle class. He’s also talking about taxing the small businessman who can’t afford fancy tax lawyers and does not have the option to move money to the Cayman Islands or Lichtenstein.

According to recent Small Business Administration and the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, around 85 percent of all new jobs are created by small business. If Harry Reid and the Democrats raise taxes on small business, the net result will be less capital for business and less jobs created. Higher taxation leads to business cutting expenditures and laying off people. Harry Reid and the Democrats will create even more unemployment and misery.

There is, however, an upside to Reid’s demand, at least for Democrat career politicians. It will create more Democrat voters. Many of them will not have jobs. But they will vote for Democrats in order to continue receiving unemployment insurance and food stamps. Amnesty is basically the same thing. It will create millions of new Democrat voters.

If Reid and the Democrats really cared about poor people and a dwindling middle class, they would get rid of the Federal Reserve, throw out the bankers who designed the last so-called recession, and restore honest money instead of fiat currency based on nothing and exploited by fractional reserve criminals.

Corporatists and banksters controlling government and the money supply is the problem. Harry Reid knows this. His top election donors include JP Morgan Chase, AT&T, MGM, Comcast and big gambling casinos.

That’s who he answers to. Not the American people.

 

Ten Broken Obamacare Promises

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.heritage.org

 

Posted by:Alyene Senger

Since the passage of Obamacare in 2010, many of the President’s famous promises have been routinely broken. As he so ironically threatened in 2009, “If you misrepresent what’s in this plan, we will call you out.”[1] To that end, here are 10 promises of Obamacare that have already proved to be broken.

Promise #1: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”[2]

Reality: Millions of Americans have lost and will lose their coverage due to Obamacare.

Obamacare has significantly disrupted the market for those who buy coverage on their own by imposing new coverage and benefit mandates, causing a reported 4.7 million health insurance cancelations of an existing policy in 32 states.[3]

For those with employer-sponsored insurance in the group market, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that 7 million fewer people will have employment-based insurance by 2018.[4]

Moreover, the Administration itself has admitted that employers would not keep their existing health plans. Federal regulations written in 2010 estimated that 51 percent of small and large employers would lose their “grandfathered status” by 2013—meaning a majority of employers would not keep their existing health plans.[5]

Promise #2: “[T]hat means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.”[6]

Reality: Many Americans might not be able to keep their current doctor without paying extra.

Many plans offered on Obamacare’s exchanges have very limited provider networks, decreasing the chances consumers will be able to keep their current doctor without paying more money.[7] Furthermore, many Americans who purchase coverage on their own have had their existing health plans changed or canceled due to Obamacare, resulting in some people being unable to keep their current doctors without paying additional money to do so.

Due to the significant payment reductions included in Obamacare, seniors with Medicare Advantage plans may be forced to find new doctors. The largest provider of these plans, UnitedHealth, has recently reduced its provider networks in several states.[8]

Promise #3: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”[9]

Reality: Premiums for people purchasing coverage in the individual market have significantly increased in a majority of states.

A Heritage analysis shows that, on average, consumers in 42 states will see their premiums in the exchanges increase, many by over 100 percent.[10]

For people with employer-sponsored coverage, costs also continue to increase. For families, premiums from 2009 to 2013 have increased by an average of $2,976.[11]

Promise #4: “[F]or the 85 and 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing’s already happened. And their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”[12]

Reality: Obamacare imposes certain new benefit mandates on those with employer-sponsored coverage—a majority of Americans.

These mandates increase the cost of coverage. In fact, federal regulations written in 2010 assumed “that the increases in insurance benefits will be directly passed on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. These assumptions bias the estimates of premium changes upward.”[13]

But higher premiums not only cost people more money; they have other impacts on coverage as well. For instance, as a response to the direct cost increases associated with Obamacare, UPS dropped coverage for spouses of employees if they are offered coverage through their own employers.[14]

Promise #5: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”[15]

Reality: Obamacare contains 18 separate tax hikes, fees, and penalties, many of which heavily impact the middle class.

Altogether, Obamacare’s taxes and penalties will accumulate over $770 billion in new revenue over a 10-year period.[16] Among the taxes that will hit the middle class are the individual mandate tax, the medical device tax, and new penalties and limits on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts.[17]

Promise #6: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.”[18]

Reality: Obamacare’s new spending is unsustainable.

Obamacare was passed into law relying on a wide variety of unrealistic budget projections. A more realistic assessment reveals that it will be a multi-trillion-dollar budget buster. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated the cost of Obamacare over the long term if certain cost-containment measures were overridden. Under that alternative scenario, which assumes that “historical trends and policy preferences continue,” the GAO found that Obamacare would increase the primary deficit by 0.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[19]

Senator Jeff Sessions (R–AL) and the Senate Budget Committee staff, who commissioned the GAO report, translated the 75-year percentage estimate into today’s dollar amount, which would be $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years.[20]

Promise #7: “[W]hatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.”[21]

Reality: Health spending is still rising and is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.8 percent from 2012 to 2022.[22]

While growth in health spending has been slower recently compared to the past, that is largely due to the sluggish economic recovery. Indeed, Obamacare’s new entitlements will help drive greater health spending in 2014 and beyond.[23]

Promise #8: “I will protect Medicare.”[24]

Reality: Obamacare cuts Medicare spending.

Obamacare makes unprecedented and unrealistic payment reductions to Medicare providers and Medicare Advantage plans in order to finance the new spending in the law. The cuts amount to over $700 billion from 2013 to 2022.[25] If Congress allows these draconian reductions to take place, it will significantly impact seniors’ ability to access care.[26]

Promise #9: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American.”[27]

Reality: Millions of Americans will remain uninsured.

Despite spending nearly $1.8 trillion in new spending from 2014 to 2023, the law falls far short of universal coverage. Indeed, Obamacare is projected by the CBO to leave 31 million uninsured after a decade of full implementation.[28]

Promise #10: “So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.”[29]

Reality: Obamacare has not increased insurer competition or consumer choice.

In the vast majority of states, the number of insurers competing in the state’s exchange is actually less than the number of carriers that previously sold individual market policies in the state.[30] And at the local level, for 35 percent of the nation’s counties, exchange enrollees will have a choice of plans from only two insurers—a duopoly. In 17 percent of counties, consumers will have no choice—a monopoly—as only one carrier is offering coverage in the exchange.[31]

—Alyene Senger is a Research Associate in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

 

Report: Obamacare provision will allow ‘forced’ home inspections by gov’t agents

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

Win McNamee/Getty Images

 

 

Citing the Heath and Human Services website, a report posted Wednesday at the Freedom Outpost says that under Obamacare, government agents can engage in “home health visits” for those in certain “high-risk” categories.

Those categories include:

• Families where mom is not yet 21;
• Families where someone is a tobacco user;
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and
• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

According to HHS, the visits fall under what is called the “Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program” allegedly designed to “help parents and children,” and could impact millions of Americans.

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown said that despite what HHS says, the program is not “voluntary.”

“The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks,” he said. “A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to ‘intervention’ in ‘school readiness’ and ‘social-emotional developmental indicators.’ A farm family may be subject to ‘intervention’ in order to ‘prevent child injuries.’ The sky is the limit.”

Joshua Cook said that while the administration would claim the program only applies to those on Medicaid, the new law, by its own definition, has no such limitation.

“Intervention,” he added, quoting Brown, “may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

According to Cook, the program will require collection of a massive amount of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

One of the areas of emphasis mentioned by HHS is the “development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum.”

Last session, Cook added, South Carolina State Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a measure that would make the forced home visitations illegal in his state. The measure passed in the House but died in the Senate.

In 2011, he noted, HHS said $224 million would be allocated to support these home visiting programs.

http://www.examiner.com

 

Ever heard of this? The Dick Act of 1902! Not a Joke

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.civilrightstaskforce.info

 

Posted by:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and will lose both.

Ben Franklin

The Dick Act of 1902! Not a Joke

Truth or Fiction and Fact Check are silent on this as of 2:27 PM CST Feb. 23, 2013 

Snopes, of course, tries to weasel out of the truth.  Go here to find the truth as it is written in law:

https://www.unitedstatesmilitia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=854

Dick Act of 1902 – Gun Control FORBIDDEN!

Are you aware of this law?

DICK ACT of 1902 – CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government

It would appear that the administration is counting on the fact that the American Citizens don’t know this, their rights and the constitution. Don’t prove them right.

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws.

It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities. ** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE ** The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

 

Source: http://www.civilrightstaskforce.info/gun_control_forbidden.htm

 

Obama Breaks Promise to Veterans to Support Ryan-Murray Budget Deal

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:Mike Flynn

---

Mike Flynn

President Obama gave almost immediate approval to the budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), even as top Democrats expressed skepticism. In doing so, Obama breaks a promise he made to veterans and military personnel just a few months ago.

In September, Obama released his “key principles” for reforming the military’s compensation and retirement systems. As the Army Times reported:

President Obama wants to consider sweeping changes to the military’s retirement and compensation system, but he also said that all current troops should be grandfathered under the current retirement plan if they choose.

From Obama’s “principles”:

The Commission’s recommendations for change must grandfather any currently serving members and current retirees in the current military retirement systems, but may allow current service members and current retirees the choice to change to your proposed retirement system (emphasis added)

The “Commission” is the Military Retirement and Compensation Modernization Commission, created by Congress to make recommendations on overhauling the military’s compensation and benefit systems. The Army Times noted that Obama’s requirement that any change would grandfather current personnel and retirees reassured troops who worried that the system would change before they reached retirement age.

It was a promise Obama made to members of the military anxious about the future. It is also a promise he broke when he endorsed the Ryan-Murray budget deal. As is often the case with Obama, “principles” are just temporary suggestions for how to proceed.

One of the spending cuts in the budget deal lowers the pension benefits of future and current veterans. The deal lowers the cost-of-living adjustments that are part of the military’s current pension system. Under the deal, future COLA adjustments would equal inflation minus 1%. The deal, and pension cuts, don’t grandfather current active-duty service members or veterans.

The $7 billion saved over the next decade would cover a portion of the increased federal spending in the deal.

The Ryan-Murray deal also made some changes to the pension system for federal employees. Future federal employees will be required to contribute a higher portion of their pay to their pension. Of course, this only applies to new employees. Existing federal employees are grandfathered and face no changes. 

Only the military pension changes would apply to existing personnel.

The federal employees have a union to protect their interests. Member of the military, however, have only their faith in the government to keep its word protecting them.

OBAMA: EVERYBODY HATES ME!!!

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.nationalenquirer.com

 

Posted by:NATIONAL ENQUIRER online staff

AS his popularity plummets to historic lows and his presidential legacy is in tatters, BARACK OBAMA has suffered a shocking secret meltdown.

Oh did the little boy get his feelings hurt well think about all of the folks that lost their insurance because of YOU !!!!!

White House insiders say the deeply depressed Commander-in-Chief is hardly eating or sleeping, hasn’t talked to First Lady Michelle, 49, in weeks and is convinced everyone hates him!

“Barack is shattered that his presidency and his life are in free-fall,” says a source.

 “He can’t believe the American public has turned on him so viciously, mainly because of the Obamacare disaster. No one has been able to help him.

“Michelle has tried everything she can to comfort him, but he just snaps, ‘Go away. Leave me alone.’

“Barack watches news reports, reads the papers and sees the shocking poll results – and he loses it.

“When he saw one report that his approval rating had plummeted to a staggeringly low 37 percent, he had a total meltdown.

“He buried his head in his hands, saying, ‘Everybody hates me.’ When he raised his head, his eyes were glistening with tears.

“He’s lost the confidence and affection of the public that he so desperately needs to go on with the hardest job in the world.

A recent CBS poll said the 52-year-old President has a lower job approval rating than Toronto Mayor Rob Ford – who admitted to smoking crack and is still five points HIGHER than Obama!

“That was the last straw for Barack,” says the insider. “He was mortified and humiliated.”

OH WELL LIVE WITH IT YOU SCREWED IT UP NOW LIVE WITH YOUR MISTAKES JACKWAD

 

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

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

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

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

 

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

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

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

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

 

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

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://freebeacon.com

 

Posted by:Elizabeth Harrington

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

HENRY WAXMAN LEADS NEWEST ATTACK ON GUNS

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

 

Plan would ban ‘virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon‘

A few months back, Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama had Democrats bring into Congress a long list of new gun laws, restrictions and regulations, only to see them slapped down.

You didn’t think they were done with their gun-control plan, did you?

The newest move comes from Rep. Henry Waxman and several others who have introduced H.R. 2910, the “Gun Violence Prevention and Reduction Act of 2013.”

It is getting attention among bloggers who monitor gun rules already, because of what they fear is going to be happening with it.

At Freedom Outpost,Tim Brown writes that the plan “would ban the sale and possession of 80 percent AR-15 receivers.”

“However, the way the legislation reads, it actually bans much more than receivers. It appears to include virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon.”

He wrote that the ban is a little deceptive, because the part that is referenced “is one that is not considered a firearm because it still requires some basic machine work before it is ready to be used in building a firearm.”

He said the possibility with an 80 percent completed lower version, versus a finished product, is that the finished product is required to have a serial number.

“There is no need for the gun to have a serial number or be registered as long as it remains in your possession for personal use,” he notes.

But he notes instead of plugging a “hole in the law,” Waxman aims for much more.

Specifically, the proposal makes it “unlawful” for any person “to sell, offer for sale, manufacture for sale, or import into the United for sale, to a consumer – an assault weapon parts kit.”

That includes “any part or combination of parts not designed and intended for repair or replacement but designed and intended to enable a consumer who possesses all such necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic assault weapon.”

“Basically, this ends up targeting any rifle part that can be used to build a firearm,” he noted. “In theory, any parts on a firearm are essentially covered with this legislation.”

He noted it’s now in committee, with only Democrat sponsors.

The bill itself proposes that it is “to protect American children and their families from the epidemic of gun violence by banning access to certain weapons…”

In a recent commentary from WND CEO Joseph Farah, he cited a video that reveals Holder’s own plans for weapons in America:

And it recently was discovered that Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”

The 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” also urges gun-control advocates to use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.”

The manual offers a step-by-step guide on how to stir up sympathy for victims, arrest the “moral authority” from opposing groups like the National Rifle Association and keep the debate emotional instead of allowing facts to interfere.

“Essentially it’s a how-to book on inciting a moral panic,” comments James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal.

The guidebook, discovered by the Second Amendment Foundation and reported by Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner, was prepared by four strategists including Al Quinlan of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which touts it is “committed to progressive goals,” and includes among its clients the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, among dozens of other left-leaning organizations.

Jeff Knox, director of the Firearms Coalition, warns gun-control campaigns like this specifically direct advocates to shy away from facts because they’re based on trying to fool the public.

“That gun-control playbook is full of lies,” Knox told WND, “with the biggest one being in the opening statement that they have the facts and logic on their side, but that we use emotion and money to advance our cause.

“The opposite is true and demonstrated by the suggestions in the book,” he continued. “They depend on emotion and fear, because reality does not support their position. Gun control doesn’t work. It never has. If it did, there would be ample evidence, but the only evidence they have is so weak and suspect, even anti-gun panels for the Centers for Disease Control and the Science Foundation couldn’t find any strong evidence of gun-control efficacy.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/henry-waxman-leads-newest-attack-on-guns/#B84mahBZ9RBZETI5.99