Saturday, May 24, 2014

This old Vn era Vet has had enough of the Jihad boys...#CAIR et al

all great movie We Were Soldiers quotes
Bottom line...y'all are very good at raping women and children...intimidation of the weak and vulnerable...let's go one on one...a David vs Goliath scenario...I ain't as good as I once was...but Good once as I ever was..ya up for the challenge? or ya just want to stay in the shadows and attack the weak ? Hell pick any old fart from the VietNam era or current active duty soldier to go one on one...I suspect ya will cower to the challenge and continue in your attempt to subvert our Constitution and Bill of Rights...We the People are a callin' ya out... put up or shut up and fade away into the desert from which you came [Self deportation]..Y'all are nothing but cowards and perverts who pray on women and children! and to be blunt we are sick of your proverbial shit! Ya'... you may have our weak kneed politicians cowering to your demands...but when the shit hits the proverbial will see what real Americans are all about...we kick ass and take names..politicians are a dime a dozen...however Patriots are who you will have to face in the end...and we have a history of going all out to defeat perversion !

Feds Force Oklahoma to Overturn Anti-Sharia Law

Editor’s Note: Frankly, it’s about high time that a governor with some guts stands up and says that they aren’t going to obey the feds in matters like this. The states retained this power. They didn’t give it to the federal government and Governor Mary Fallin should be ignoring the ruling and implementing the law. However, sadly she has demonstrated a reluctance to do so. 
Sharia Law has nothing to do with religion...this is a Barbaric 7th Century *Theocracy Law* and should be banned world wide!
President Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Davis Obama or whatever his real name is needs to be Impeached immediately for Sedition/Treason against the United States of America EOS #PERIOD 

[... Suffers At The Hands Of Indonesian Thugs Enforcing Sharia Law By Rape]
[Sharia law allows female genital mutilation]   

[Gang raped then stoned to death...crime~ being a Christian refused to convert to Islam]
WTFU people this is a Barbaric 7th Century Theocracy...that should be outlawed world wide!                                                            

The US government has forced the state of Oklahoma to overturn its anti-Sharia bill, after a Muslim man named Muneer Awad sued the state for supposed violations against “freedom of religion.”
CAIR also played a role in subverting the bill. Adam Soltani of CAIR said:
Sharia is the moral code of conduct for Muslims, and that includes certain aspects of laws, like marital laws, divorce, inheritance, wills…it encompasses part of that, but it’s also the moral code of conduct
The state of Oklahoma must now pay $303,333 to Awad for legal fees, costs and nontaxable expenses. The money is going into the hands of Muslims because the lawsuit was done by CAIR, a Muslim jihadist organization of Islamic lawyers. Awad himself is a lawyer and the executive director for CAIR. The state of Oklahoma is paying money right into the pockets of Muslims. The Muslim heretic Awad boasted the victory:
This was just politicians optimistically looking for an issue… Look what happened. Not only did the state question get struck down, but they’ll have to pay attorney fees and interest over three years.

Rep. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond, said that paying the fine “is an obligation of the state…I think that’s a disagreement with us and the courts… We passed that as a Legislature. We lost the lawsuit.
According to Jordan Sekulow, the bill never infringed on the Islamic religion, but was placed to prevent international codes of law from entering the government:
At its core, the amendment has nothing to do with infringing on a Muslim’s right to practice Islam or religious freedom generally. This amendment is about “judicial authority,” and is not a “demonization” of Islam.
70% of Oklahomans wanted the anti-Sharia bill, and trusted that the state would maintain it, but this decision shows that the government cannot be trusted, and that only a revolutionary measure though the populace, and not the total reliance on the state, will actually end the Muslim takeover the country.
This Islamic victory only shows one thing: American society is enabling the Muslims to advance their agenda. Unlimited freedom of religion will only lead to limits on Christianity. As I have written in my article, Religious Liberty Leads To Tyranny:

All of civilization, came as a result of religious intolerance:

“This is beyond outrageous. These damn Leftist/Marxist/Socialist/Communist are systematically destroying our freedoms and handing us over to murdering demons like Islamist who are determined to convert our Country into a Sharia Law stronghold. Not as long as there is breath in my body.” JB

The US government has forced the state of Oklahoma to overturn its anti-Sharia bill, after a Muslim man named Muneer Awad sued the state for supposed violations against “freedom of religion.”
CAIR also played a role in subverting the bill. Adam Soltani of CAIR said:


Republican star Mia Love gets second chance to make political history

By Jennifer Dobner
SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - Utah's Mia Love, a Republican darling who could become the first conservative black woman elected to U.S. Congress, is getting a second, and likely better, chance to make history after narrowly losing to a popular incumbent Democrat in 2012.
Love, 39, is a Mormon mother of three who is upending stereotypes about the state and its predominant faith. She locked up her party's nomination to vie for an open seat in Utah's 4th District at a state convention last month with an overwhelming 78 percent of the vote.
The seat became available when Jim Matheson retired after seven terms in Congress as the heavily conservative state's lone Democrat in Washington. Two years ago, the politically savvy son of a beloved Utah governor beat Love by fewer than 800 votes. 

If Love wins this time, she would become an unlikely champion in Washington of staunchly conservative views - limited government, fiscal discipline and state's rights. The daughter of Haitian immigrants is pro-life, pro-gun and holds a concealed weapons permit.
She also supports Utah's effort to reclaim public land from federal agency controls, a hot issue in the U.S. West among conservatives, and has said she would vote against regulations she believes would restrict economic development.
"I love the story of David and Goliath, because in that story, David runs toward Goliath. He ran toward a seemingly impossible challenge," Love said during a testy debate this week with her opponent, Doug Owens, a Democrat and first-time candidate.
"That's the type of confidence we need to have as we take on the Goliaths of our debt, out-of-control spending, Obamacare and that Godzilla we call the federal government," she said. 

In November, Love will face Owens in a conservative district created after the 2010 Census that encompasses parts of Democratic-leaning Salt Lake City, then runs south along the Wasatch Front into parts of rural Utah that are typically Republican strongholds.
Her competitor, a 50-year-old attorney, is the son of former Utah U.S. Representative Wayne Owens, also a Democrat.
Despite her 2012 loss, Love has never left the political scene. The former mayor of Saratoga Springs has continued to speak at state and local Republican and community events, and has been tapped as a conservative commentator by numerous conservative national media programs. 

Federal Election Commission records show that, as of April 6, Love had amassed a campaign war chest of more than $2 million. The 2012 Love-Matheson contest, with candidates chalking up more than $10 million in spending, was the most expensive House race in Utah's history.
Her exposure and experience should put Love in a stronger position than previously, said Chris Karpowitz, associate director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University.
But Love, who was named one of the Republican party's "Young Guns" to watch and given a speaking slot at the 2012 national convention, appears to have toned down some of the Tea Party-style rhetoric, he said.
"She is in a good position in the sense that she has run already, so people know her name," Karpowitz said. "And she seems to be running a campaign that is a little more focused on the kind of voters that Jim Matheson traditionally won." 

A spokeswoman for Love did not respond to questions about how the 2014 campaign would differ from her earlier run.
Owens, viewed as the underdog, told Reuters by email that he believes voters have tired of partisan rancor and extreme viewpoints.
"I will beat Mia Love the same way that Jim Matheson did," said Owens, a self-described pragmatist. "By focusing on the issues that are important to Utahns and not on national partisan ideology."
(Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Gunna Dickson)

Soylent Green...the ultimate plan of the Global Elite #Obama

Nothing works anymore...Health Care ,Green Energy and Food...coming to your neighborhood soon...!

Friday, May 23, 2014

Eeek! An Armed Citizen!

Eeek! An Armed Citizen!
This article was published by Pro Libertate on May 20.
“The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.” – A.E. van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher
The presence of a single, nonviolent citizen openly carrying a firearm is sufficient to cause panic in people habituated to the evil idea that only state functionaries should be armed. So acutely alarmed do such people become that their first reaction is to call the police, thereby inviting the intervention of additional armed strangers who — owing to the indoctrination they’ve received and the “qualified immunity” they enjoy — are immeasurably more dangerous than the first.
The actual presence of armed citizens is not necessary to induce a panic among hoplophobes. All that is required is public discussion of the right to armed self-defense.

On May 16, the Idaho Republican Liberty Caucus and the Boise State University chapter of Students for Liberty sponsored an event devoted to the right to keep and bear arms at the BSU Student Union building.
The featured speaker that evening was Dick Heller, a resident of Washington, D.C., whose lawsuit resulted in a Supreme Court ruling recognizing (albeit ambiguously) that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms. (Full disclosure: I was also on the program as one of several preliminary speakers.)
Unfortunately, the event was sparsely attended, which isn’t all that surprising for a Friday evening during graduation season. In fact, the police officers deployed outside the auditorium nearly equaled in number those who attended the speech.
Just hours before the event, BSU officials demanded that the sponsors pay an additional $510 to hire extra security in the form of 20 additional police officers, who were on hand for the specific purpose of harassing any attendee who was exercising the right being discussed and celebrated at the event.
The Idaho Statesman reported that the police had been sent to watch “for people trying to open carry guns into the Special Events Center” and to turn away any armed citizen who refused to divest himself of his weapon.

“Boise State’s policy prohibits guns on university grounds,” observed the Statesman, dutifully — and, I’ll warrant, thoughtlessly — retailing an official lie: That policy applies only to members of the non-coercive segment of society, who are prohibited from carrying guns on campus.
BSU’s administration thus did its part, however modest, to advance the Progressive vision in which the most dangerous elements of society — private criminals and public agents of state-authorized violence — would cartelize firearms ownership.
That cartel is a very unequal partnership: The state’s privileged purveyors of officially sanctioned violence pose a far deadlier threat to the lives and property of the innocent than do their private sector counterparts.
Taken together, all of the non-state criminal syndicates known to history have failed to compile a body count that represents a significant fraction of the death toll compiled by governments in the 20th century. Yet advocates of civilian disarmament — which is the expression honest people use to describe what collectivists call “gun control” — are perversely determined to provide the most dangerous element of society with a monopoly on the use of force.

All political constitutions are designed to ensnare the kind of earnest and credulous people who believe such documents can restrain the ambitions of those who consider themselves entitled to exercise authority over others. People who display such pathological impulses generally won’t allow Constitutional “limits” on their powers to interfere with their plans for the rest of us.
However, just as Stalin preferred to hold public trials and extract confessions from people he was going to execute in any case, those who are determined to disarm the American public would prefer to exercise “legal” authority in doing so. This explains a proposal by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to subtract rights by adding five words to the Second Amendment: “when serving in the militia.”
Stevens, a longtime opponent of the right to armed self-defense, insists that proponents of armed self-defense misrepresent the clear intention of the Framers by saying that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms. However, he also insists that the same Framers somehow neglected to make that intention clear in the plain language of that Amendment.
Exhibiting the peculiar generosity for which Progressives are renowned, Stevens has offered to fix the defects in the Framers’ handiwork by re-writing it to reflect what he pretends is the true meaning of their words.

Thus, he suggests that the phrase “when serving in the Militia” should be added to the 2nd Amendment, which would then read: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
In this way, Stevens says, government would be able to enact measures “designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands.”
Like most people of his persuasion, Stevens believes that firearms are endowed with peculiar properties: In the unhallowed hands of private citizens, they are implements of murder and mayhem; yet when touched by the blessed hands of the state’s anointed enforcers they are transmuted into instruments of peace, harmony and goodwill.
That point of view was expressed very candidly in “Armed to the Teeth: The World-Wide Plague of Small Arms,” a 2000 propaganda film produced by the United Nations. In familiar fashion, the U.N. agitprop film retailed the sympathetic fallacy, depicting firearms as objects endowed with an innate capacity for malicious evil: “Small arms are not fussy about the company they keep. They can murder indiscriminately. The gun that killed in Africa can murder again in Latin America, or in Asia.”

Rational people understand that a gun is a tool that can be used to murder human beings, or used to defend the innocent. The U.N.’s anti-gun film seemed to concede as much — while insisting that guns should be denied to everybody but designated agents of the state. Private ownership of firearms is “illegitimate,” the presentation insisted, and can bring only “insecurity, pain, suffering and devastation.” The only “legal” firearms, the film insisted, are those “used by armies and police forces to protect us.”
This arrangement is part of what the U.N. describes as its program for “human security,” which envisions, among other things, “norms of non-possession” of guns by citizens. Each national government would claim and exercise a territorial monopoly on force, overseen by the U.N.’s peacekeeping apparatus.
During the 2001 U.N. Conference on Small Arms and Light Weapons, Isaac Lappia of Amnesty International’s chapter in Sierra Leone offered one of the few dissenting voices regarding the world body’s vision of “human security.”
In his address to the conference, Lappia pointed out that “small arms and light weapons” — that is, firearms that are commonly owned by private citizens — “are now the principal weapons” that are used “to facilitate serious crimes by law enforcement personnel — including police, prison authorities, paramilitaries and the army — where they commit persistent human rights violations including torture, rape, ‘disappearances’ and arbitrary killings.”

Seven years before the U.N. held its first global civilian disarmament summit in 2001, the world body presided over a lurid demonstration of its “human security” program in central Africa. The result was the Rwandan genocide, in which between 800,000 and 1.1 million people were slaughtered over the course of 103 days. The indispensable prelude to that bloodletting was a U.N.-conducted mission to disarm all Rwandans except for the army, police forces and government-aligned militias.
For decades, Rwanda had been the scene of cyclical interethnic violence between Hutus and Tutsis. When the killing began in April 1994, the government was controlled by a “Hutu Power” faction. Obviously, most of the victims of were Tutsis, but the rampage also claimed quite a few Hutus who were seen as traitors by the “Hutu Power” regime.
The overwhelming majority of the victims were hacked to death by machete-wielding assailants. It is possible to outrun someone carrying a machete. However, behind the people armed with machetes stood agents of the government-aligned militia with machine guns.
“They take us from this building, this church,” recalled survivor Jeanne Niwemutusi, referring to the Hutu militias. “They have guns and knives and machetes, the people from the Government party, so we can’t fight back. We don’t have arms.”
Niwemutusi managed to survive because someone had broken the “law” by providing her with a hand grenade, which she used to frighten off several thugs who intended to hack her to pieces.

Within the past week, residents of a Nigerian village staged a desperate counterattack against the Boko Haram terrorist group (which, like most criminal bands of its kind, appears to have connections to the CIA).
At least some of the citizens who participated in the defensive action acted in defiance of Nigeria’s firearms laws, which — in keeping with U.N. mandates — established “norms of non-possession” by civilians.
Like armed citizen defense organizations that are coalescing in Mexico to deal with government-allied criminal bands, the Nigerians weren’t willing to prolong the pretense that the police and military were interested in protecting them.
Advocates of civilian disarmament routinely perform arias of outrage over a social problem they dishonestly call “gun violence.” Properly defined, the problem is aggression, which has no necessary connection with morally neutral inanimate objects called guns. If “gun control” of some variety is to be undertaken, the proper approach would be to deny that tool to people who advertise their intention to commit aggressive violence — which is why police should be the first to be disarmed.
“A gun is not a defensive weapon,” insists Emeryville, California Police Chief Ken James, who is a prominent supporter of civilian disarmament. James, who strikes me as someone whose mind boggles easily, said that his mind is “boggled” by the idea that guns could serve a defensive purpose.

“That is a myth,” he continues. “A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and used to show power. Police officers do not carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other [sic] officers. They carry a gun in order to do their job in a safe and effective manner, and face any oppositions [sic] that we may come upon.”
James’ candid assertion of the privilege to commit aggression underscores the wisdom of the arrangement described in A.E. van Vogt’s classic science fiction novella The Weapon Shops of Isher. That quasi-utopian story depicts a distant imperial future in which the dictatorial ambitions of the ruling empress are held at bay by armed citizens who enjoy a prohibitive advantage over the government’s police and military forces.
The guns designed by the weapons makers of that era can destroy all matter within the range of its owner, which means that “whoever possesses one of our weapons is more than a match for any soldier of the empress,” a weapons maker proudly explains to a time-displaced visitor from the 20th century. Understandably, he continued, “such a potent weapon cannot be allowed to fall, unmodified, into irresponsible hands. Accordingly, no gun purchased from us may be used for aggression or murder.” This is why no gangster, soldier or police officer was permitted to obtain one.
The objective was “to ensure that no government every again obtained complete power over its people,” explains weapon maker Lucy Rall. “A man who felt himself wronged should be able to go somewhere to buy a defensive gun” — one that was indestructible, “tuned” in such a way it could only be operated for defensive purposes by its purchaser.

It wasn’t necessary that every individual be armed: “What counts is that many millions of people have the knowledge that they can go to a weapon shop if they want to protect themselves and their families. And, even more important, the forces that would normally try to enslave them are restrained by the conviction that it is dangerous to press people too far. And so a great balance has been struck between those who govern and those who are governed.”
That “balance” could be described thus: The “rulers” pretend to govern, and we allow them to indulge that fantasy as long as they don’t attempt to coerce others into playing along.
Regrettably, a personal energy weapon of the kind described in The Weapon Shop of Isher isn’t currently available. The advent of open source 3-D printed firearms does suggest, however, that ere long it will be impossible for aspiring rulers to impose a firearms monopoly.
That prospect should be as heartening to those who love freedom as it is horrifying to people, like the execrable Charles Schumer, who believe they have the right to rule others.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Rainbow Flag Flies over U.S. Embassy in Madrid...!

oped: Just *SMH* Thanks to Gay Obama the world will think the USA is 97% gay instead of the actual 1-3%...Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Davis Obama 's whole Presidency has been about pushing the GL:AAD and LGBT movement down everyones collective throats...#IMPEACH  NOW!

Are we trying to give terrorist a target? Unreal.
The Obama administration seems to have forgotten the International Day of the Family last week that was celebrated at the UN and around the world May 15.
Yet the administration was very enthusiastic about the May 17th celebration of the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, issuing proclamations by the Secretary of Defense and a statement by the President. Moreover, at least one ambassador flew the rainbow flag over his embassy.
Spanish papers reported that the rainbow flag flew over the U.S. Embassy in Madrid for at least one day last week and that former Home Box Office executive, now openly gay U.S. Ambassador James Costos flew the rainbow flag over his official residence.
President Obama compared gay rights to the fight for civil rights of African-Americans:
This year, the United States celebrates the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, and the 45th anniversary of the Stonewall riots. In doing so, we reflect on lessons learned from our own civil rights struggles and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that the human rights of all people are universally protected.
Continue Reading on ...

When Obama Resigns…


Despite the best efforts of the mainstream media and the political establishment to protect Barack Obama, they can no longer hide the incompetence and criminality of the most divisive and sordid administration in American history.
Former National Security Council Spokesman Tommy “dude, this was like two years ago” Vietor is the poster boy of the Obama Administration: a collection of inexperienced, emotionally immature ideologues, whose “the ends justify the means” mentality permits them to tell any lie, violate any law, and indifferently sacrifice lives as long as it serves their political objectives.
This bungling and scandal-prone gaggle of amoral nitwits, led by a talking teleprompter, survives only because the extent of their dishonesty is matched by that of the political-media establishment and the public’s inexplicable willingness to tolerate it.
It is, in fact, explainable. Just as certain banks were “too big to fail,” Barack Obama is, quite simply, too corrupt to fail.

The “too big to fail” theory asserts that certain financial institutions are so large and so interconnected that their failure would be disastrous to the economy; and they, therefore, must be supported by government when they face difficulty.
Likewise, politicians and the media know that exposing Obama would reveal their own dereliction of duty, their complicity to undermine the Constitution, their continuous flouting of the rule of law, and uncover their willful ignorance of his alleged felonies and confirm their participation in the greatest election fraud and Constitutional crisis in American history. They know that the truth would topple the corrupt status quo and terminate their exclusive grip on political power, allowing the American people to regain control of their government. The political and media elite will do anything to prevent that, even risk the survival of the country, rather than risk their careers and the financial benefits.

Thomas Jefferson warned Americans of the danger of “elective despotism” now fostered by corrupt politicians, enabled by wealthy special interests and facilitated by a compliant press:
“They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price.”
Malfeasance is defined as the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law.
Federal governmental malfeasance fueled by political corruption is the single, most important issue of our time.
The American establishment media follow a script supplied by the Obama Administration to support its radical policies. Rather than restraining the power of the federal government, they have become an extension of it, a government that has become lawless, operating outside of Constitutional constraints and harmful to the American people.

The United States now has a government, which has been transformed from one based on traditional values, articles of faith, and the support of individual liberty into one in which moral relativism, political expediency, and crony capitalism take precedence. 

The resignation of Barack Obama would be a victory for the American people, create an opportunity for the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law, and allow citizens to regain control of the government. At the same time, the departure of Obama will elicit a torrent of revelations that will likely taint the highest officials in government, the leadership of both political parties, and the upper echelons of the media.
Like Obama, the establishment considers itself too big to fail; but no government can survive if the interests of its officials conflict with those of the people.
It is time for Obama to resign and let a hopelessly corrupt government fail.


As Predicted, Comrade De Blasio Will Show The Nation What Democrats Really Want To Do To Us


Keep talking, Comrade Bill; keep talking. There is now no question about whether this devoted Communist will damage the Democrat brand; the question is by how much?
Comrade Bill de Blasio, New York City’s mayor, is living up to predictions that he will serve as the foul-mouthed three-year-old at the family Thanksgiving table. The child keeps saying embarrassing things while his parents act shocked and wonder out loud where he learned such words. Make no mistake about him; he is a true Communist, not a Democrat. But the D behind his name will hang him around Nancy Pelosi’s neck like a millstone.
De Blasio is a true believer in the destruction of America. He will continue to be a reminder to America of why Democrats must never be given power over us at any level.
Last week, de Blasio rolled back welfare reform regulations for New York City’s able-bodied childless adults. Now, thanks to Comrade Bill’s largesse with our money, they will be required to do exactly nothing but stick out their hands to receive the food stamps we pay for. Under Comrade de Blasio, Food Stamps for anyone have just become an absolutely unconditional entitlement that demands nothing in return.

New York City has discontinued putting about 40,000 able-bodied food stamp recipients into any kind of work program. The Comrade has ended the rule that these people, who have no dependents, be enrolled in a work placement program performing assigned tasks for 20 hours a week.
Although federal law restricts childless people who refuse to work to just three months of food stamps during a three-year period, Barack Obama regularly waives this rule merely for the asking. Democrats don’t want anyone to escape poverty.
This is the Democrat plan; cheat and steal from the makers to cripple their taker slaves so they can NEVER leave their plantation. De Blasio is putting this Democrat plan on display, and there will be more examples to come.

De Blasio is on record as saying that New York City’s 1.9 million food stamp users (21% of the town’s population) should be expanded by at least another 250,000 recipients.
National Democrats are considering bringing their 2016 convention to New York City. Won’t that be fun? Comrade Bill will be hiding the homeless and arresting “Occupy” protestors every day. The Democrats may even give us a redo of the 1968 Chicago convention. How did THAT one work out, Nancy?
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

"This vs That" wild accusations against "MythBusters"

(Mr Hotchkiss accusations are barely worth one dollar...with inflation added!)

First and foremost I read the accusations posted on... drum roll: 'The Huff Post' that was the first red flag..! 

In the accusations Mr.Jon Hotchkiss states MythBusters violated his copyrights on three segments, in general terms without any collaboration of evidence to prove his case....*speculation* ?
Mr Jon Hotchkiss further states MythBusters stars (Adam & Jamie) are silent on the matter...well golly gee Mr Wizard I am pretty sure they are attorney'd up and are acting on their counselors advice!

I also read Mr.Jon Hotchkiss web site:  Front page upper right corner asking for donations to fight his case...once again Golly Gee Mr. Wizard if you had proof and a great case I am pretty sure  many high profile attorney's would be lining up for a pro bono case...I don't have all the facts on your case just your diatribe making accusations...if not proven you are open to a liable/slander response... Just a fact Jack and a lil advice to boot!

Also I don't think so dude I like the MythBusters:

This vs That Urges: Stop Following Mythbusters on Twitter ...

Harry Reid’s Senate Dictatorship The Real Reason For Congressional Gridlock

Harry Reid’s Senate Dictatorship The Real Reason For Congressional Gridlock
Even though President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats have spent the better part of two years hammering obstructionist Republicans for refusing to compromise on legislative measures, it’s interesting to take a step back and look at Senator Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) conduct as Majority Leader during that time.
Reid’s domineering control over Senate Democrats, as well as his ironfisted grip on Senate procedure, reveals a dictatorial leadership style that has stifled activity in the Senate to a degree that Republicans — as well as his predecessors in the Majority Leader’s role — surely must envy.
The Hill — an ostensibly impartial observer of political goings-on in Washington, D.C. — released a report on Reid’s leadership style Thursday that carried a remarkable headline for a publication that attempts to play things down the middle: “An imperial majority leader?”

The story stated flatly that no Senate Majority Leader has ever enjoyed the power that Reid now wields, thanks largely to his historically unprecedented use of “strong-arm tactics” and his eagerness to freely promote an acrimonious partisan atmosphere that, combined with his orchestrated rule changes in Senate deliberative procedure, make it virtually impossible for Republicans — and even collegial Democrats — to get a damn thing accomplished.
“Reid’s tight leadership reins have protected vulnerable Democrats from having to take tough votes and helped them amass a 55-seat majority,” the story states. “He routinely puts legislation on the floor as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, denying the minority and even members of his own caucus the chance to amend it.”
Here’s an interesting bit of insight into the way in which Senate leaders can, if they choose, fuse the chamber’s inscrutable rules of procedure with non-binding Senate custom to exercise monopolistic control over the manner in which proposed legislation travels through the markup process:

"Experts say the Senate rules do not formally empower Reid to block colleagues from offering amendments to bills and steering the course of the political debate.
Instead, Reid has made extensive use of the precedent set by Vice President John Nance Garner, a Democrat, who as president of the Senate, granted the majority leader the right of first recognition on the floor. The five-term senator [Reid] has used that right of recognition to repeatedly fill the available slots for amendments to various bills, a process known as filling the tree, leaving colleagues no opportunities to offer their own ideas.
Senate historian Donald Ritchie agrees that Reid has controlled the floor debate more than any previous leader.
“Sen. Reid is certainly doing it more than his predecessors,” he said."

As the story notes, Republicans haven managed on only nine occasions to vote on amendments they’ve proposed since last July. They have Reid’s gavel style to thank for that.
Yet Reid joins the Obama narrative that shifts blame for repeated stalemates in the Senate to the GOP, beholden as its establishment is (so the narrative goes) to its wacko, intractable Tea Party base.
“If that makes me powerful, that’s too bad,” he told The Hill, “because the only reason that we’re doing this is because for five and a half years, everything this president has tried to do, they’ve stepped in the way. They’ve done it with… unrealistic demands.”

FBI Director Says ‘People Should Be Suspicious Of Government’

FBI Director Says ‘People Should Be Suspicious Of Government’ As House Lawmakers Strip Reforms From Anti-Spying Bill
As privacy advocates complained that House lawmakers have watered down a bill designed to limit government spying, FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers in the Senate Wednesday that he welcomes Americans to be suspicious of government power.
“I believe people should be suspicious of government power. I am,” Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“I think this country was founded by people who were worried about government power so they divided it among three branches,” he added.
Comey, who took over as FBI director shortly after Edward Snowden’s explosive revelations about government spying last summer, was explaining to lawmakers how his agency uses Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-authorized spying programs.

The FBI head told Senators that his agency can tap into Internet data networks using the PRISM program to access emails, documents and photos of people under investigation. The agency also uses national security letters to track terror suspects in the United States. Comey also told lawmakers that the programs are “extraordinarily valuable” to the FBI.
The Senate hearing was an effort by Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to raise concerns about the newest version of the USA Freedom Act making its way through the House.
House lawmakers are scheduled to vote today on the bill, designed to reform the government’s surveillance tactics. The Freedom Act, as originally written, would have introduced new constraints to bulk data collection and how U.S. agencies are allowed to use programs like PRISM. Earlier this week, however, House leaders made a series of changes to the legislation, which privacy advocates say make it overly broad and ineffectual.
Leahy, who has sponsored a version of the bill in the Senate, said that he is “glad the House is poised to act on a revised version of the USA Freedom Act,” but he is disappointed that lawmakers in the lower legislative chamber stripped “important reforms” from the legislation. The Senate is set to take up surveillance reform this summer.
Harley Geiger, senior counsel at the Center For Democracy And Technology, accused House lawmakers of pushing a useless reform bill in an effort to “end the debate about surveillance, rather than end bulk collection.”

“As amended, the bill may not prevent collection of data on a very large scale in a manner that infringes upon the privacy of Americans with no connection to a crime or terrorism. This is quite disappointing given the consensus by the public, Congress, the President, and two independent review groups that ending bulk collection is necessary,” Geiger added.
The privacy advocate contends that the bill lawmakers are likely to vote on today will do nothing to stop the government’s mass, untargeted collection of Americans’ communications data.
House lawmakers have acknowledged that the once-tough anti-surveillance bill is now little more than a symbolic gesture. California Democrat Adam Schiff told The Hill that there was broad consensus among his colleagues that the bill is too weak — but he added that there is little that can be done if they want it to pass.
“[My] gut sense is that the bill overall, even with the manager’s amendment, is probably about as good as we’re going to get,” he said.

Obama Administration just got caught in a massive lie.

karikatur für titelseite-barack pinocchio 
via: WVOC  Jonathon & Kelly
The LA Times has been as friendly as possible to the Obama administration, but they can't ignore this. Today they broke the story that another massive lie around Obamacare has been told to the Congress and the American people. As you know "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan" was ranked as the biggest lie of the year by the Washington Post.  Well here comes an early contender for this years award.
The Republicans have been accusing the Obama administration of building into Obamacare an insurance plan for the insurance companies. A bailout if the insurance companies lost money under Obamacare. Their claim was that in the law was something called the temporary risk corridor program. Under that Republicans said the administration had allowed themselves a way to take tax dollars and bailout an insurance company that lost money. But the administration and the Democrats have denied that. Apparently the administration and the Democrats had been telling the truth...and didn't like it.

The LA Times reports that late last week hundreds of pages of new regulations were added to Obamacare. Their reporters went through it and found a few key paragraphs. The change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls. This could be hundreds of billions of dollars!
This is a classic bait and switch. The middle class will feel like they're getting a break on insurance premiums. As long as they don't look at the governments check book, they'll believe the Affordable Health Care Law is working. It only unravels if they realize they are paying double for their insurance, because the increase is being charged to their account in the form of more debt.

The Republicans are expected to go nuts over this, and the Democrats will point at the scene they are making and say 'look how fanatical those people are'. I would warn Republicans against making a big deal out of this. In the medical field it's called bedside manner. You're about to inform the patient (America) that it has a potentially fatal disease (debt). They are going to get a 2nd opinion from the Democrats that will contradict your diagnosis. If you come off as raving lunatics, the patient will believe the diagnosis of the other doctor who is telling them they're fine. Conservatives don't have the luxury of showing anger anymore. They have been rightly angry over a number of scandals, but it turns the middle off. It's vital that the middle hears and comprehends what your message is.

This won't be classified as a scandal by the media, so we shouldn't either. Talk calmly about the disappointment you feel in the administration burying new regulations into the law, that Congress didn't get to vote on, that will cost us potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. Talk about how crony capitialism between this administration and a select few insurance companies has perpetrated a fraud on the American tax payer to make it seem like the Affordable Healthcare Act is helping to keep costs low when in actuality it is forcing prices to skyrocket while making it more difficult for all Americans to receive treatment. Encourage them to read today's LA Times story. Don't get into arguments with liberals who support wholeheartedly what is happening out of a blind belief that this is helping. You will not win an argument with someone who refuses to look at the facts honestly. And in your rage will potentially dissuade fair minded folks from investigating for themselves. I don't believe Obamacare will the law of the land for long. Sometime around 2017 it will either move to socialized medicine or as the Democrats have branded it "single payer", or it will turn into some free market based system which probably includes some government subsidies and Health Savings Accounts. There is a lot depending on the way this argument is settled and it's important that the patients understand what their decision means for their health.

Fox News anchor Jarrett released after Minneapolis airport arrest

(Reuters) - Fox News anchor Gregg Jarrett was released from jail early Thursday after running into trouble with the law in a Minneapolis airport.
Jarrett, 59, was arrested by airport police Wednesday afternoon in an airport restaurant and bar for not cooperating with officers. One reason for the arrest was cited as a "tab charge," according to the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department.
"Mr. Jarrett was intoxicated and belligerent and non-cooperative," said Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

Jarrett was released Thursday morning after posting a $300 bond, according to the sheriff's department. He is due to appear in court June 6, booking records show.
Fox News issued a short statement Thursday morning, saying it was not clear when Jarrett might return to work at the cable news channel.
"We were made aware late last night that Gregg Jarrett was arrested in Minneapolis yesterday and charged with a misdemeanor," the Fox News statement said. "He is dealing with serious personal issues at this time. A date at which Gregg might return to air has yet to be determined."
Jarrett serves as co-anchor of FOX News Channel's America's News HQ on Saturdays and Sundays. He joined the network in 2002 and is based in New York. He began his television career as an anchor and producer at KCSM-TV (PBS) in San Francisco, California.
(Reporting By Carey Gillam in Kansas City; Editing by Nick Zieminski)

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Explaining Sharia Law, Part 3: Its Only Tangible Product Is…


The everyday rules for how Muslims must live their lives come from the Qua’ran. Hate has been codified into Sharia Law. Sharia Law is a plan for worldwide dominance of Islam with all other humans being held as slaves- often sex slaves living in misery.
The cruelty displayed by the Boko Haram is a reflection of true Islam, not an aberration. These seventh century creatures are merely following what they have been taught by their leaders. It is doubtful that most, if any, of this band of animals even knows how to read; so it’s a good bet they have been spoon-fed the hatred that drives them onward.
In Kuantan, the capital of Malaysia’s third largest state, where Sharia rules people’s lives, an apologist for Islam’s barbaric nature recently said “Islam already protected the rights of all, regardless of race, language or religion.” The truth is that “all” are safe, provided those not born Islamists convert to Islam under threat of death or enslavement. “Apostasy is very dangerous to our faith” he said.

[Shades of KKK attire]

A recently released survey of anti-Semitism around the world revealed that 93% of Palestinians are anti-Semites. Yet, Muslims outside of the North African and Middle Eastern regions are much less anti-Semitic. This strongly suggests that those living under Sharia Law are taught to hate anyone not a Sharia-adherent Muslim.
Islam’s Sharia-driven war on those they call “infidels,” especially defenseless women, is not just happening in Nigeria at the hands of the Boko Haram. Sudan, another dangerously Sharia-controlled country, is preparing to murder a young mother who is living her life as a Christian (although her father was a Muslim.) To these people, that makes her a Muslim who has left her religion and must die for her “sin.” She is currently under a death sentence and will be hung for her “crime.”

[ Meriam Yahya Ibrahim]

To avoid death at the hands of these animals, she has to renounce her Christian faith, never see her Christian husband again, and presumably raise her children as Islamists. She is eight months pregnant and has a two year old son. Without some kind of intervention, she will be murdered according to the laws of The Religion of Peace.
This is what Sharia Law brings. Let Muslims force Sharia into our courts and, eventually, we will see these atrocities here; don’t kid yourself about that.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Shocking: Proof That Michelle And Barack Obama Are Racists

[Black Panther Party...power salute]
Okay, I’m just gonna say it.  Taking in the national press on a daily basis for the last several years, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that our first family is racist against white people.  This conclusion flies in the face of the trumpeted post-racial America the Obama administration was supposed to usher in.  Newly elected President Obama was supposed to bring us a multicultural utopia; after all, he is half white.  The world was supposed to be saved, and seas would stop rising.  Yes, we’ve all heard that famous quote from our president.
I don’t come to this conclusion lightly. It has been developed over the years as I watch example after example brought to the light of day in our national media.  Of course, he doesn’t come right out and say it.  However, I learned a long time ago that if it looks, walks, and talks like a duck, well, you know.

Let’s take the New Black Panther Party controversy for a moment.  This is a group that blatantly espouses anti-white and antisemitic views.  Even the Southern Poverty Law Center has called them a black racist hate group.  When several of their thugs showed up at polling centers at Philadelphia in 2008 carrying police batons and calling out racial slurs at voters, the Obama administration declined to prosecute that for voter intimidation.  It’s not hard to imagine what would have happened if members of the Klu Klux Klan showed up at an Alabama polling station carrying weapons.  Enough said.
One of the most shocking comments I have heard an American president make were the words uttered about Russian president Vladimir Putin.  After the media pressed Obama on his relationship with Putin in 2013, Obama stated, “He’s got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom.”  Can you imagine a white president saying that about a black African leader? Could this be the reason our relationship with Russia has deteriorated so badly?

Then there is the incident where Harvard professor Skip Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct after police were called to the house for a possible burglary.  Obama admitted he knew none of the details but proceeded to state that the police acted stupidly in arresting the professor.  Don’t we have due process in this country?  Is that comment not borne out of an anti-white worldview?  Obama is the president of the United States as he famously said, not the president of black America.
Michelle Obama stepped into the fray once again last week by suggesting during a speech to a high school graduation ceremony that students should monitor their relatives and friends for anti-minority comments.  Hmmm.  I’ve never heard Michelle Obama talk about black racists and their comments around the dinner table.  I wonder what the reason could be?

I think it’s clear we are not living in a post-racial society today in the United States. In fact, I believe the contrary is true.  The Obamas have taken the country backwards and divided the population among racial lines.  There is more animosity between the races than I have ever seen in my lifetime.  (And, I grew up in the deep south.) Yes, there are racist white people.  However, their views are not mainstream, nor are they accepted in society.  On the other hand, black racism is tolerated.  Just look at the actions and words of our first family.  How’s that post racial America working out for ya? 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Former State Trooper: Feds Killing Off Bundy Ranch Militia Members?

oped: This appears to be a little over the top...just posted to show all sides of the Bundy Ranch issue I'm taking it with a grain of salt!

Two militia members who protested at the Bundy Ranch are dead, one from a hunting accident and the cause of the other death is ‘undetermined’, according to former state trooper and whisteblower, Greg Evensen.
In this interview Evensen also discusses where we are headed as a nation, “Are we ready for what is coming in this great transformation in the United States. It is underway now, it will not stop until it reaches a conclusion that has been set up by an agenda driven machine in Washington that does not have the best interest of the people at heart.”
The discussion of the death of the militia members is at the 44 minute 45 second mark in the video.
You can find Dr. Evensen’s patriot website :  


In Texas, Another ‘Why-You-Should-Never-Call-Police’ Moment

More and more, police have ruled themselves judge, jury and executioner. Unfortunately, another family has learned too late that you should never call police.
On Nov. 4, 2013, Michael Blair, a paranoid schizophrenic, suffered a delusional episode, grabbed a knife and claimed he wanted to kill himself. He locked himself in a bathroom. His family called 911.
While police were en route, a family member placed a cellphone in the hallway to monitor the police response. This video is the result. (Caution: Extremely graphic)

It shows that, as soon as they arrive, deputies from the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s department escalated the situation by threatening Blair. A deputy kicked in the door, pulled his weapon and began barking commands. Officers used a Taser on Blair several times, and he can be seen writhing in the bathtub. Despite repeated warnings to drop the knife and repeated shocks from the Taser, Blair refuses.
Finally, with the deputy shouting, Blair steps toward the door and the deputy unloads his weapon, continuing his rapid fire long after Blair hit the ground. In all, 11 shots were fired.
The situation is said to be under internal review. That’s code for the officer will get a paid vacation. The family says they intend to file a lawsuit.

Black And Gay Sycophants Are Deconstructing America

Black And Gay Sycophants Are Deconstructing America
“We don’t need no education
We don’t need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher, leave them kids alone”
– Pink Floyd, “Another Brick In The Wall”

Liberals are having a difficult time defending Islam. And so they should after a death sentence was imposed on a Christian woman in Sudan for the high crime of not denouncing her personal savior, Jesus Christ.
Meanwhile, the pro-black and pro-homosexual media, such as CNN, focused almost exclusively on NFL wannabe Michael Sam and on the racist of the century, NBA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. There was only a passing mention that a Sudanese court had sentenced a pregnant woman to death.
Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, 27, was convicted of apostasy (the renunciation of Islam) by a Khartoum court, even though she was born and raised a Christian and married a Christian. The court also convicted her of adultery and sentenced her to 100 lashes because her marriage to a Christian man is considered void under Sharia law.

Two thousand years after killing Christians, all that is missing in some Muslim countries are the Romans and the lions. I would tell my liberal friends this, but I no longer have any. I can’t stand their hypocrisy over their pro-rights stance for women along with their defense of Islam, which at its very core robs women of any rights.
And while there is some outrage in America about Ibrahim, so far we haven’t heard a word from President Barack Obama. Obama has plenty of time on his hands when it comes to congratulating NFLer (soon to be ex-NFLer because he is too short and too slow) Sam, who made a spectacle of himself when he was drafted almost dead last by kissing, crying and shoving cake down his male lover’s throat, or when it comes to commenting on a religion near and dear to his heart, Islam. Yet once again, Islam has been revealed for what it is, a werewolf in shepherd’s clothing.
Americans should be shaken that Obama dedicated the National September 11 Memorial Museum in New York last Thursday without one mention of Islam, Muslims or al-Qaida. According to Obama, it is a memorial whose cause was plain-vanilla terrorism, the kind that might spring up in Oklahoma City by homegrown terrorists or in New York City by terrorists from out of the country. I’ve been to the Pearl Harbor Memorial, and I definitely remember the tour guide saying “Japan” and “Japanese” during the tour. But Obama won’t ever make a mention of Islam. He is perhaps too worried about prejudice against his religion or perhaps his Islamic agenda.

Muslims And Their Liberal Supporters Are No Laughing Matter

I suspect Bill Maher is not liked by many of you, but on a typical Friday evening I watch his HBO comedy show so I can see the liberal take on things (best to know one’s opposition) and appreciate his sometimes libertarian views that must make his liberal fans physically sick. Such was the case two weeks ago when Maher and guest Arianna Huffington, the syndicated columnist, got into brouhaha over Islam and its malevolent goals.
Maher was talking to his three panelists about the recent kidnappings of hundreds of Nigerian girls and how little mention there is of the fact that the kidnappers are Islamists. “That (is) the religion at large, (where) women are seen as property, second-class at best, often property,” said Maher.
Huffington argued that it is “dangerous for people to stereotype all Muslims as terrorists.”
Maher answered back: “Where it becomes dangerous is that liberals like yourself do not stand up for liberalism. Liberalism means, one, mostly, equality of women.”
If Maher keeps up this kind of talk, he will be the next Sterling, who is being stripped of his NBA team for sharing his thoughts in what he believed was a private and intimate moment with a parasitic woman who wanted to tape and extort him. Maher doesn’t like Islam, which is mostly black or brown peoples. This must be intolerable to liberals, and even he could be persecuted for sharing his thoughts. But I have a news flash: Millions of minorities don’t like white people either. And I, for one, am not saying they should have to. If you want to hate me, fine. I won’t agree, but I will defend your right with my life to say bad things.

And would someone please stick a secret microphone next to Spike Lee so we can hear what his private conversations are about white people? But do you really think such a recording would ever see the light of day? And if it did, do you think Hollywood would boycott his movies and actors and that set people would refuse to work for him? Do you believe that if he were exposed at his worst, Lee would or even should be washed up? I don’t. I like some of his movies. And even if I didn’t, he should have the right to make them if people are willing to pay to see them. If people don’t like Lee, they shouldn’t pay to see his movies. Regardless, Lee should have his right to privacy. This means that inside his home he should be able to share his worst thoughts on any subject with anyone and not be recorded and then publicly crucified by the media.
Not so, says Kathleen Parker, who makes a living out of writing her opinions for The Washington Post. On April 29 Parker wrote that Sterling had no right to privacy even in his own home:
"First the practical: If you don’t want your words broadcast in the public square, don’t say them. The Orwellian taint to this advice is not meant to be harsh but is offered in recognition of the world in which we live. We’re not so much a global village as a small town of gossips.
On a higher note, such potential exposure forces us to more carefully select our words and edit our thoughts. This isn’t only a matter of survival but is essential to civilization. Speaking one’s mind isn’t really all it’s cracked up to be, as any well-balanced person reading the comments section quickly concludes."

Let me get this straight, Kathy. Nobody can speak his mind, especially your readers, and that’s a good thing? So while you get paid big bucks to speak your mind, everyone else should just shut the hell up!
Here is what I want to know: What have you, Ms. Parker, said at your worst private moments when you were tired, drunk or just stupid? Have you never, ever once said the “N” word (isn’t it silly or is it just cowardice on my part that I am intimidated and don’t feel I can actually write that word even though it is on rap radio ad nauseam?)? Or have you never said a derogatory sentence about homosexuals, Mexicans, Republicans, Canadians or the favorite target of the media to which you belong, white, heterosexual men? To prove it, can we implant your body with a recording device. And if you ever once utter such things you consider private, we “judges of society” can have you stripped of your career and property, as is the case with Sterling.

Three Things I Hate Most About Liberals

Liberals seem to see only one side of the coin — their side, which is:
  • Pro-homosexual: I want to vomit every time I hear proud to be gay; when did anyone ever say be proud to be straight? And the more demonstrative gays are (ever notice the overt touching and kissing), the more gay pride they have.
  • Pro-black: If anyone (especially a straight, white man) ever says anything close to a racist comment, liberals want to hang him in the court of public opinion — so much so that white people are afraid of what they say, while black people can spout off as much as they want.
  • Pro-Islam: This is the most dangerous one because it could tie America into a Hundred Years War. And with liberal leaders like Obama, Islam may win it in 20. Muslims are already the fastest-growing segment of the world’s population. And extremism is worse today, according to polls, than it was on 9/11.
All of the above are eating away American values that made this country great. Sorry if liberals think the late 1950s were a terrible period, but I happen to be nostalgic — especially when my feelings are consistent with many positive truths.
Yet Lee told CNN last week that America is never going back to the days of Ozzie and Harriet. I see nothing wrong with the days of Ozzie and Harriet, President Dwight Eisenhower and a dynamo economy. The 1950s were a time when private speech really was private and you could have an opinion and make it public. But that America is being dismantled. And every time the extremists win, the liberals rip away one more brick in our wall.
Yours in good times and bad,

Hypocrite Reid Receives $5 Million From Leftist Billionaire


by: Greg Campbell
The Democrats have been engaged in a war with political expression ever since Citizens United. In recent months, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has led the charge in a single-minded vendetta to stir outrage over Republican campaign contributions and, not coincidentally, distract voters from the plethora of outrages and scandals that surround the Democrats going into election season.
Senator Reid has railed against the Koch Brothers, the Republican benefactors who often give generously to campaigns and causes (including hospitals and other charities). Like the braggart that people avoid at parties, Sen. Reid has a way of awkwardly turning each and every discussion into a diatribe against the Koch Brothers. He has unabashedly accused them of hijacking American politics and has unapologetically rung the alarm bell to stir liberals to action. 

Meanwhile, however, Sen. Reid is lining Democrat coffers with millions solicited from- you guessed it- big Democrat contributors.
A new report from the New York Times notes that leftist billionaire Tom Steyer has donated $5 million to a super PAC linked to Harry Reid that is dedicated to helping the Democrats keep control of the Senate.
“What’s the difference between Tom Steyer giving money and the Koch Brothers giving money?” you might ask.
The answer: nothing. Not a thing. 

Billionaire Tom Steyer is a retired hedge fund manager who has made a fortune from industry. Now, the man who once made a portion of his money from the much-maligned capitalists guilty of pollution and greed now works for liberal causes and crusades for Democrats who will actively advance Steyer’s agenda of combating “climate change,” a vague term preferred by liberals to encompass any weather variances.
Steyer is chiefly dedicated to blocking the Keystone Pipeline which would reduce the costs of energy and employ thousands of Americans, but is hated by environmentalist activists because it produces fossil fuels, an energy source reviled by the left. 

On Monday, an energy efficiency bill died in the Senate after Democrats blocked Republican efforts to mend the bill to include an approval of the Keystone Pipeline.
In February, TPNN reported on the influence of Steyer who has claimed that he intends to dump $100 million into the 2014 midterm elections to help elect Democrats who will combat climate change.
Steyer’s own super PAC NextGen Climate Action, has already begun running ads dedicated to inducing climate change hysteria.
While Sen. Reid and other top Democrats posture as if big money infusions in elections are adulterations of the election process, they continue to reach out for hefty campaign contributions and violate the integrity of elections by crusading against voter ID laws. 

As we near November, it’s important to remember that the crusade against Republican “big money” is a distractor dedicated to removing scrutiny from the failure of Obamacare and the disastrous economic policies pushed by the left.
The simple fact is that money is political expression and it is in politics. It has been for centuries. We don’t have to like it, but it’s inherently dishonest for Democrats to pretend that Republicans are the culprits when it’s certainly a bipartisan modus operandi.

Obamacare Will Kill Far More Than the VA Scandal

by: Alan Caruba

The news that some forty veterans died whlle waiting to receive care from a Phoenix Veterans Affairs hospital—care that was denied because of bureaucratic chicanery—will seem small in comparison to the numbers of Americans who will die from the implications of Obamacare.
At this point, some nineteen VA hospitals are under suspicion of engaging in similar practices, but as large as the VA bureaucracy is, it will be small in comparison to what Obamacare requires. The original legislation that combined the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act represented nearly 2,700 pages. 

The regulations that are being created to implement it will run to several volumes. By late 2013, the Obama administration had published 11,588,500 words of final Obamacare regulations. If looks can kill, that many words will surely kill. Too many people will be unable to get the care they need because there will be a regulation to prevent it.

What is making headlines now has long been known in other nations with national healthcare systems. It is about rationing, not dispensing care; if for no other reason that is why healthcare should remain in the private sector.
Unless a future Congress repeals Obamacare, the death toll will mount. There have been some forty or more pieces of legislation to repeal it passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. No Republican voted for Obamacare when it was introduced. 

What we know is that, while serving on the oversight committee, then-Senator Obama was aware of the VA problems before he ran for President. In 2009, as President, he promised veterans to fix the problems. How concerned is he in 2014? There has been a noticeable lack of public comment from a President famed for having something to say about everything that makes headlines.

Add the VA scandal to the long list of Obama administration scandals from the IRS to Benghazi, but it is Obamacare that has already been a monumental failure and, as we begin to receive news of those who will die as because a local hospital closed or because they lost the care of a personal physician familiar with their problem, it will emerge as the greatest scandal of his presidency. 

On March 23, 2010 Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. By October, the Obama administration abandoned the long-term-care insurance program that was in the law. It was later formally repealed by Congress, but the changes that the President has initiated since then ignore the fact that only Congress, as the legislative branch, has the power to make such changes.

December 2012 was the deadline for states to decide on running their own insurance exchanges; 36 states left all or part of the job to the federal government. In the lead up to the October 2013 launch of more delays were announced by the White House and the website turned out to be a complete disaster. That same month, insurers notified thousands of policy holders that their health plans were not compliant with Obamacare and would be cancelled. 

In effect, Obamacare caused hundreds of thousands of people with healthcare plans they liked to lose them, thus artificially increasing the number of “uninsured”. In April the White House announced that seven million had signed up for Obamacare. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, gave notice she was resigning. The figure cited by the White House is likely dubious.

In May, an article in The Fiscal Times reported that “A handful of state-run exchange websites—which cost nearly a half a billion dollars to build—still don’t work, nearly seven months after they first went live.” The Fiscal Times estimated that Obamacare websites had cost $5 billion and so many were not functional that the original plan to transition signups to them from was likely to be abandoned. 

To mark the anniversary of Obamacare’s enactment, in March 2014 the American Action Forum released a report that the law’s regulatory burdens are twice as great as its alleged benefits. “From a regulatory perspective, the law has imposed more than $27.2 billion in total private sector costs, $8 billion in unfunded state burdens, and more than 159 million paperwork hours on local governments and affected entities.”It’s rarely mentioned or reported, but the implementation of Obamacare will also require an increase in the number of people either full-time or under contract with the federal government. The highest estimate for new Internal Revenue Service hires is around 16,000 as the IRS has been put in charge of enforcing Obamacare. It already employs about 100,000 people nationwide which means there is one IRS employee for every 3,000 Americans. 

In an April 4 Forbes magazine article, “Obamacare Shows America Suffers from aPresident Dangerously Disconnected From Reality”, Peter Ferrera, a Heartland Institute Senior Fellow specializing in entitlement and budget policy, concluded that the numbers of those insured by Obamacare were largely a fabrication or invalidated in some cases by data that the Health and Human Services Department released.

“Obamacare,” wrote Ferrera, “has been a major drag on the economy, preventing full recovery from the recession. Employers trying to avoid the costs of the employer mandate have reduced many full time jobs to part time jobs. Or that have frozen hiring, and the associated costs due to Obamacare. This is contributing to income stagnation and decline for the middle class, the working class, and the poor.” 

L. Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center asked “How do we know Obamacare is failing? They’re burying the story. They aren’t in denial. They know the truth. They’re just choosing to ignore it.”

A Center analysis of the three network evening news broadcasts from January through March found only twelve full stories about Obamacare. “None of the networks dared to report the ongoing opposition of the American people to Obamacare” over that period of time, even when they were the ones doing the polling!The real story of Obamacare, however, isn’t about who signed up or not. The real story of Obamacare that is not being reported is about those who have died and will die as the result of this horrendous experiment in socialized medicine. 

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Just what America Needs ...!

Michelle Obama: Monitor Parents For Racism

First Lady Michelle Obama encourages high school students to monitor their parents and other for racist comments last Friday.

oped: ...let's address Michelle Obama...sorry Michelle your own background is seething with dare you attack others on how to raise a married a homosexual/bi-sexual (?) and most are wondering if your two daughters are in fact the bi product of Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Davis Obama ? or whatever his real name Dear are in fact a racist and you play the race card every chance you get.
You and Barry attended the racist church of Rev Wright and continue ranting his teachings on and on and on.
To be blunt we the people are sick and tired of your,Barry and Eric Holders race baiting ,lies and corruption! Bottom line you are suffering from the Kettle Black syndrome...a hypocrit you are...raise your children however you want but stay the hell out of others business!

Y'all seem to forget there is documented history on you and yours:  
Michelle Obama's radical background:  

Michelle Obama Whitey Comments at Reverend Wright's Church 


Shocking comments from Barack Obama's wife!! 



Michelle Obama: Monitor Parents For Racism 

via: The Right Perspective

First Lady Michelle Obama evoked shades of the German Stasi on Friday, after she told graduates to monitor their parents and others for racist comments.
In remarks made by the First Lady at the Topeka School District Senior Recognition Day, Mrs. Obama said students to keep a vigilant ear open for racist remarks, or even jokes, made by family members, including aunts and grandparents.
“You can politely inform them that they’re talking about your friends,” Mrs. Obama said.
The First Lady went on to advise students to bring the argument into later stages of their lives, such as pushing for “diversity” at college sororities or fraternities, and later in corporate board rooms.
Be Sociable, Share! 

Michelle Ask Kids To Keep Tabs On Their Racist Grandpa 


Though she stays busy regulating what the American people are allowed to eat, Michelle Obama still manages to find time to spread accusations of racism wherever she goes. One of her most recent excursions into the fertile world of race-baiting came during her address of graduating seniors at a Topeka, Kan. high school.
In a surprising break from tradition, the first lady actually admitted there are some things federal law cannot force Americans to do.
She told students that “laws may no longer separate us based on our skin color, but nothing in the Constitution says we have to eat together in the lunchroom, or live together in the same neighborhoods.”
According to Spike Lee, society is apparently better off when whites are excluded from black communities. Michelle Obama, however, used the absence of such mandates to make a different point.

“There’s no court case against believing in stereotypes or thinking that certain kinds of hateful jokes or comments are funny,” she added.
Taking her advocacy a step further, Obama encouraged the teenagers in the audience to turn against their older relatives in the ostensible goal of creating a more tolerant America.
“Maybe that starts simply in your own family,” she said, “when grandpa tells that off-colored joke at Thanksgiving, or you’ve got an aunt [that] talks about ‘those people.’ Well, you can politely inform them that they’re talking about your friends.”
She also encouraged the next generation to view every aspect of their lives through the lens of potential racism.
Continuing her call for activism, she said, “maybe it’s when you go off to college and you decide to join a sorority or fraternity and you ask the question, ‘How can we get more diversity in our next pledge class?’ Or maybe it’s years from now when you’re on the job and you’re the one who asks, ‘Do we really have all the voices and viewpoints we need at this table?’”

She concluded that students should “never be afraid to talk about these issues, particularly the issue of race,” before asserting that “today, by some measures, our schools are as segregated as they were back when Dr. King gave his final speech.”
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom