Monthly Archives: April 2012

Winning in the courtroom could be more important than winning the Presidency

As conservatives rack their brains about how to take back the White House in 2012 two likely courtroom victories may eclipse the importance of a Romney win this fall. Supreme Court hearings on the Personal Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) codename Obamacare, and SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law could define the nature of our political system for decades to come.

The controversy surrounding both cases attracted large crowds gathered outside the courtroom, showing a level of excitement and interest in the Supreme Court not seen since the sixties. By choosing to hear these cases the judicial branch has launched itself into the political fray, sharing in the intense polarization of America’s public square. In a sense, the Supreme Court embodies America. It composes 9 justices – 4 conservative, 4 liberal, and 1 wild card (Justice Kennedy), the conservative leaning independent that tends to render the decisions.

SB 1070 and PPACA are about two completely different topics (immigration and healthcare) that boil down to a singular issue, federal versus state power. PPACA centers around the individual mandate, the right of the federal government to require citizens to buy health insurance, while SB 1070 focuses on the preemptive clause, the supremacy of federal over state immigration law.

Interestingly, after both hearings a common theme has rapidly emerged – a legal sea change may just be underway, something President Obama hinted at when defensively urging conservatives not to press for the kind of judicial activism they often bemoan. Of course the President, an erstwhile constitutional law professor, seems to be conflating activism with judicial review, the primary function of the Supreme Court.

President Obama’s malarkey has extended to the courtroom. Whereas government attorneys made inconsistent and at times incoherent arguments under scrutiny from justices unsatisfied with their positions, the other side seemed to quickly gain the upper hand.

Last month government lawyers came under fire from Justice Kennedy who argued pointedly that compelling Americans to buy health insurance “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” Indeed, justices expressed overall concern about the expansive authority PPACA grants the federal government, possibly outstripping constitutional limitations.

Government attorneys fared even worse during Arizona v. United States hearings this past week. One of the memorable highlights occurred when Justice Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice, remarked “You can see it’s not selling very well” to Solicitor General Donald B. Vorrilli Jr. And for good reason, the federal government is arguing that the states cannot enforce federal law because they aren’t enforcing it themselves, a completely untenable position.

The importance of winning these cases cannot be overstated. Presidents and lawmakers come and go but laws endure. As Alexis de Tocqueville noted almost two hundred years ago “There is no country in the world where the law has a more absolute voice than in America.” The linchpin of liberal dominance in American politics since the sixties has been the “rights revolution” that lay at the heart of it; what Democrats could not win at the ballot box they won in the courtroom. However, if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare and upholds Arizona’s immigration law it would decisively halt the relentless growth of federal power unimpeded for almost a century.

Predicting a Supreme Court decision is always precarious business. Both hearings seemed to favor the states but decisions will likely break along partisan lines. Plus Kennedy is well known for his unpredictability, meaning he could lean either way. That being said, there is the sense that the federal government and its advocates are losing momentum, embattled not just in the courtroom but fiscally, administratively, and in the minds of the American people.

If the Supreme Court upholds SB 1070, a host of new states will implement tougher immigration laws based on Arizona’s model. If Obamacare is repealed, the most celebrated achievement of Obama’s administration will have been refuted and another unaffordable entitlement averted. In the end, winning in the courts could do more to arrest the expansion of federal power now and in the future than a moderate Romney administration will.

Cameron Macgregor is a USNA grad and former Naval Officer. He is writing his first book America Resurrected.

The Death of Osama Bin Laden: One Year Later

On May 2, 2011, the alarming news of the death of Osama bin Laden spread like an electromagnetic wave all across the world. The world’s most notorious symbol of evil and the mastermind of the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was finally brought to justice.

Despite the division that so easily saturates the consciousness of America, it was indeed a moment of unity as Americans complimented the extraordinary efforts of the Navy Seals Team 6 that carried out the assignment of bringing down bin Laden.

It’s been a year since this has occurred. What exactly does this mean? Undeniably, it is a feat of accomplishment for the Obama administration. The courageous and disciplined call from President Obama to order the military to carry out the assignment is something that needs to be applauded from all sides of the political spectrum. And, it is important to point out that President Obama benefited from using elements set in place by his predecessor, George W. Bush, such as enhanced interrogation techniques.

One of the biggest questions looming in the mindset of many is this: Is America any safer since the death of Osama bin Laden? This is very complicated and complex.

As of right now, Al-Qaida is weakened and less organized. However, this does not mean that a legit threat against the sovereignty of the United States does not remain alive. It would be totally naïve and asinine for individuals to assume that the national security interests of the United States are no longer targeted. As long as the United States promotes freedom and liberty, it will be a constant target to our enemies and those who seek to bring an assault on our freedoms.

Due to a vast effort on behalf of the counterterrorism agencies, the U.S. have killed nearly half of Al-Qaida’s top leaders and have dismantled any of their networks. However, remnants of their regime still manages to be of some force. “It’s wishful thinking to say al-Qaida is on the brink of defeat,” says Seth Jones, a Rand analyst and adviser to U.S. special operations forces. “They have increased global presence, the number of attacks by affiliates has risen, and in some places like Yemen, they’ve expanded control of territory.”

Another complicated matter is where Osama bin Laden was captured—Pakistan. It calls itself an ally of the United States, but their reluctance to inform the U.S. that bin Laden was hiding within their borders and their sour response to his capture have raised many questions about their validity as an ally and if they are indeed a state sponsor of terrorism.

The death of Osama bin Laden was an ideal symbolic victory in the War on Terror, and may have provided a sense of closure for the families of the victims of 9/11. However, it all ushered in an era of uncertainty. We do not know what the next move is. We do not how, or if, Al-Qaida will retaliate. There is a fear that another terrorist leader will rise and attempt to carry bin Laden’s torch and carry out his unfulfilled goals.

One year later, the resolve of the American remain strong. We are prepared to meet any threat to our sovereignty with a strong military force and community of individuals prepared to defend freedom.

In 2012 and the years to follow, the capture and death of Osama bin Laden will serve as a kind, yet firm, reminder that good can prevail over evil and that the inhumane acts of those who live in darkness will never substitute for those who reject tyranny and oppression.

Jackson & Sharpton Exploit Another Tragedy

 

Last Thursday in Los Angeles Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson led a march and protest in South L.A in honor of slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin. Celebrities and citizens came from all corners to walk with Martin’s parents and hear Sharpton and others speak at West Angeles Church of God in Christ. However, there was another name being spoken among the protesters; a name those following the Trayvon Martin case may not be very familiar with…Kendrec McDade.  McDade- a 19 year old Black man from Pasadena, CA- was gunned down by (white) Pasadena police officers on the evening of March 24th, 2012.  Police were responding to a 911 call that identified McDade and one other teenager as possible suspects in a robbery. Police arrived on the scene and fired on McDade from their vehicle, claiming the teen had reached into his wasteband as he approached.  It was later determined that McDade was unarmed.  It wasn’t until the Trayvon Martin case went public that Kendrec

McDade’s case began being mentioned as a similar crime.  At the Thursday rally, Jackson expressed sadness at the loss of both young men and what it meant to the black community, and he encouraged the crowd to see it as the beginning of a movement. “We cannot stop evil men from crucifying the righteous, and they cannot stop us from resurrecting them,” he said.

But who, exactly, is Jackson hoping to resurrect? By now most people are painfully familiar with the details of the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Fewer know all the details in McDade’s case; including, it seems Jesse Jackson and company.  McDade was not simply an unarmed, well-meaning black man walking through a gated-community when he was randomly shot in cold blood by police.  26-year-old Oscar Carrillo-Gonzalez witnessed McDade and another teen breaking into his car and removing his backpack and laptop.  He immediately called 911 and told the operator that the two young men were armed. He later admitted that he lied about seeing a weapon in hopes that it would hasten police response.  At no point in the investigation or the resulting civil suit filed against the city of Pasadena by McDade’s parents has anyone disputed the fact that McDade was indeed robbing vehicles at the time of his shooting.  His 17 year old companion (who’s name has been withheld due to his status as a minor) is currently in custody on charges of burglary, grand theft and failing to register as a gang member. While the police may still be on the hook for some type of failure or misconduct, this is in no way an open and shut case of profiling. Jackson and company have twisted the details of this case and the Martin case for their own personal notoriety, creating unnecessary  strife across the country in the process.

Holding up the McDade case as a civil rights issue is irresponsible and dangerous. Jackson and Sharpton have to willfully ignore the fact that McDade was engaging in a crime at the time of his shooting in order to make this an example of racist brutality. Is this the best we can do as Black Americans? Making a martyr of a misguided young criminal? Are Jackson and Sharpton trying to tell us that personal actions are irrelevant when it comes to interactions betweens black people and police? Probably…and in my opinion, that’s what makes them even more dangerous to the Black community than so-called hate crimes.

President Obama Did Bin Laden a Huge Favor

Did President Obama do Bin Ladin a favor?

Let’s use some “critical thinking” by asking ourselves some obviously pointed questions.

Usama was a very sick man who we’ve expected to die of natural causes for quite some time.  It is likely he would have died soon anyway, but we just did him a small favor?

Rather than let Usama die of natural causes, we made him a martyr as he would have wanted to be.  Wouldn’t it have been just as easy to knock him out and bring him in alive to face us all in shame?  It just isn’t American to kill even the vilest man unnecessarily.

The all too garbled word is that he did not have a gun and he did not use a woman as a human shield.  How hard would it have been to render a sickly old unarmed man unconscious?  Is removing an unconscious man more difficult than a bloody dead one?

In no less than three books by former Islamic terrorists who later became Christian spilling all, at their own continuous peril, each one tells how they were brought up to believe, were trained to believe, and wholeheartedly did believed that dying by the hands of the enemy of Islam is the greatest honor.  It is the only way to be assured Allah’s greatest reward immediately regardless of anything they did in the past!  That is all too consistent with the honorable Islamic burial at sea for my comfort.  You see, if the body of a Muslim remains unburied it is no longer acceptable to Allah.

If the President had to kill him, it might have been appropriate to drop the body on the front lawn of Pakistan’s President Zardari with a note saying here’s what we found in your back yard, you decide what to do with it?  That way the chips fall where they should.  If the Pakistanis gave him an honorable Islamic burial it would implicate their conspiracy.  If not, Usama would have died in shame and not been considered acceptable to Allah.  Either way, it would not have been the US honoring an infidel or making him a martyr with an “honorable Muslim burial.”  Was the burial of thousands of US citizens under the rubble of the WTC honorable?

We killed a Muslim.  Why didn’t we see thousands of Muslims protesting in the streets of every city in the Middle East as well as Europe and NYC?  Because Muslims intrinsically know we did Usama a big favor.  Ask them.  When you look at the killing of Usama Bin Ladin from the Muslim point of view (radical or not) it is obvious that our President did a good thing for UBL

Prior to the killing of UBL, any strikes on Muslims or news that is degrading to Muslim causes (even radical ones) have been announced by the smiling VP Joe Biden or Secretary of State Hilary Clinton or anyone but President Obama.  However the President was quick and proud to take credit for the Killing of UBL, because he knows what it looks like from the Islamic point of view.

Where is the Islamic outrage?  Why should there be?  We fulfilled Usama’s dreams and destiny.  Then we insured Allah accepted him.  We made him a martyr and gave him an honorable Muslim burial at sea.  He would have been allot worse off dying slowly in bed, and denied the highest honor of “being killed by the enemy of Allah.”

Shouldn’t a true earnest non-radical Muslim have considered Usama Bin Laden an infidel for killing innocent people?  Christians might think of the US as being righteous even to our enemy but Islam will think of it as a sure sign of weakness, ‘we fear them to the point that we did not offend even their worst terrorist.”  President Obama knows he’s the big hero in their eyes as well as in ours, all the while sending a clear message to his Muslim friends.  He’s playing to both sides, except our side doesn’t understand it.

Why hasn’t everyone noticed this?  Is it because you haven’t informed them?

Counter Punch: Media Matters Twisted Information

Media Matters, what a joke.  One major difference between this so-called news website and a conservative website, is that conservative websites reports news with rational thought.  Media Matters just bashes Fox and well known conservatives.  Media Matters frames some of their articles with biased opinions before the articles actually begin such as this one did. This article that was under their research section did just that, put pieces of information and conversations together from different time periods to frame their agenda of misinformation.

This article titled;

Fox’s Hannity Denies That Women Face Discrimination From Insurers In The Absence Of Health Care Reform

If Media Matters was a website of truth, it would frame its titles, opening sentences with facts and context.  However, being that they have been proven to work with the Obama White House.  As well as being funded by George Soros, who is known in some countries as an economic terrorist,  uses its reporting by this website to push their agenda of lies.  This should be a concern to those who actually care about actual news reporting.

For instance, eight days ago, on April 22nd 2012, Matt Gertz from Media Matters wrote an article title;

    “Fox’s Voter Fraud Special Light On Voter Fraud”

wrote about how the South Carolina voter ID laws discriminate against everyone who is not white.  Let me just say this, for the left to assume that these laws discriminate is completely nonsense.  By this assumption, they are saying that black people or people of color are not smart enough to show an ID or have the know how to obtain one when voting.  So for any Liberal to say this is, is by nature assuming the least about an individual. Liberals are assuming that one group of Americans needs assistance from a group of masterminds from up on high.  The only way Liberals stay in power is by separating us from one another.  We are all Americans, just because someone has a different skin color does not make that individual more or less of a person, PERIOD.

Recently I went to my local DMV to ask about registering to vote.  The lady at the counter asked for a drivers license, she scanned it, then told me to have a seat.  She was black, I am white.  Is that racist?  Was she discriminating toward white males? After taking my seat in the waiting room, where there was more black woman working behind the counter and more white people waiting, is that racist?  When my number was called, I went up to the counter, and I was asked for my drivers license again.  Oh no! RACISM is rampart at the local South Carolina DMV’s.  What do I do? Or maybe those are the required laws.

   With that said, Matt Gertz is a typical Media Matters Liberal author,  Framing a conversation with misinformation.   There were 953 supposed voter fraud cases in this South Carolina article from The State that Gertz used, to spin his story into a discriminatory fashion.  The article;

     “Election Commission: No evidence of voter fraud,  But attorney general calls report ‘premature’”

Was reported back on February 24th 2012, where the 207 cases that Gertz referred to in his article, with no other mention of the remaining 696 cases.  The reason why these cases were not referred to by Gertz is because, it would hinder the misinformation by Gertz and Media Matters.  Why would it hinder his claim?  According to The State;

“The State Election Commission said Thursday that 95 percent of the 207 allegedly dead people who voted in the 2010 general election either were alive and cast ballots legally or did not vote.”

“But, citing limited manpower and money, the commission said its review of zombie voters did not include 696 other allegedly dead voters whom some state officials say cast ballots in elections before 2010.”

Therefore in order for Gertz and Media Matters to actually try to frame this conversation in the light that they want, they must distort and leave out certain bits of information, even though they use links to the articles they cited in Gertz’s article.  In Gertz’s article, he provide NO evidence what so ever about any case of how voter ID laws would suppress votes of non-whites.  Gertz wrote;

“The state’s Election Commission director didn’t just “dispute those findings”; the commission investigated and debunked them. Reviewing the 207 contested votes from the 2010 election, the commission found that 106 were clerical errors by poll workers, 56 were errors by the DMV, 32 were cases of people being credited as voting when they hadn’t, and three were absentee ballots cast by voters who died before Election Day. The commission said they had “insufficient information” regarding the final ten contested votes, but found no evidence of fraud.”

While the break down of the 207 cases, are pulled directly from article by The State, is correct.  Gertz and Media Matters continues to write and frame the conversation about a small portion of the 953 cases.  Never at all speaking about the remaining cases.  Therefore they are framing the conversation that Voter ID laws discriminate , while offering no evidence of discrimination.  They are using a case of supposed voter fraud as prove of discrimination, while none of the 207 cases, had anything to do with voter discrimination.  That is misinformation.

In the article above, that I started out with, speaks about how ObamaCare basically saved women from health care discrimination.  Liberals seem to think that America started when Obama was elected and that woman and children were just rampantly laying in the streets, sick and dying.  However, my mother and sister were just fine, I personally never saw any women or children laying sick and dying in the streets as I drove around to work and school.  Maybe it was just in other cities.  If that was the actual case, then why was there not massive media coverage everyday in the news while George W. Bush was president?  Why is there not stories of how ObamaCare has just scooped up people from the streets into safety and utopianism wonders?  Media Matters reported;

“This week, Fox News host Sean Hannity scoffed at the idea that women face discriminatory practices from the health insurance industry, arguing that it is “disinformation” to claim that repeal of the health care reform law, which bans such practices, will again subject women to unfair and discriminatory treatment by insurers. In fact, the law bans insurance companies from its current practice of charging women higher premiums for the same coverage as men, and forbids insurers from listing pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, which was often used by some providers as an excuse to deny coverage.

As I said before, framing a conversation to make it sound like something else.  Is the standard for Media Matters and those who contribute to their agenda of Liberalism.  The “War on Women”  is false, and is backed up with no actual evidence by doctors or those in the field.  The only evidence Media Matters offers is, bits of conversation taken out of context by people from Fox News and conservatives in general.

In order to actually debunk articles that are published by Media Matters, all you need to do is apply a little bit of common sense and rational thought to what they are claiming.  However, that being said, many Liberals do not know how to apply rational thought to their arguments.  They run off of emotion, and not thought.  They believe that the government should be the provider for everyone.  They believe that human beings can be molded into perfection one day.  Those of us currently living, are just a means to that end.  That Utopia, they wish to construct through legislation.  That is why they are called Progressives and not Communists.  They force the change slowly and not through revolution.  This is why everything they say and do, has to play on emotions and governmental intervention.  If liberals do not discredit those who have a different view or a rational view of how the world actually works, they will not be able to push their agenda.  They will lose their argument and be seen for what they really are.  Liberals live in a world where they believe that mankind lives in a constant “state of war” rather than a constant “state of nature.”  Therefore they believe that we need to be controlled, silenced, and shut down in order for them to control how we live and act on a regular basis.  The only way for them to try and force their agenda upon us, without an actual revolution of violence, they must use misinformation to change the conversation and shut down the other side of the conversation.   That is the goal of Media Matters and those who support and contribute to this website.

 

 

 

Europe: From the Welfare State to the Totalitarian State?

Thanks to the voters who put Obama in the White House in 2008 and Democrats in charge of Congress in 2006 elections, the hard-line left has been able to determine the course of America over the past 3.5 years. In the 2010 election a majority of voters issued a restraining order on the runaway leftists who thought they were invincible after 2008. But so long as we have a radical in the White House and a Democrat Senate majority that gives the president a pass on every decisive power grab he wants, we are going to continue down the path that the hard-line left staked out in ’08.

That path goes straight into the murky backwoods of big-government Europe. We have already seen numerous examples of how the Obama administration is Europeanizing America: from anti-business environmental regulations to health “reform” to socialization of student loans to the continuous assault on state sovereignty. Everywhere they can they create another government incursion into the lives of private citizens.

Since the Obama administration and its allies in the Senate want to continue down the path of Europeanization, we need to look at what is going on in Europe and learn from their mistakes. We already know about the disastrous fiscal situation in welfare states like Greece, Spain and Portugal and what that will mean for America, should we continue to build a European welfare state here. What is less known is that the harsh austerity policies used in Europe to save the welfare states from inevitable collapse, are also having serious repercussions beyond the realm of economics.

As a result of a continuous downward spiral of unemployment, higher taxes and economic deprivation, Europeans are becoming increasingly desperate. Even politically. Support for extremist political parties is rising all across the European Union. in the harsh economic realities created by a crumbling welfare state and destructive austerity policies, authoritarian political movements are experiencing a new dawn.

Not surprisingly, Greece is the scene of one of the strongest surges in extremism. Nazis and Soviet-style Communists are rapidly gaining ground among voters and could make big gains in the upcoming parliamentary elections. In France, the leader of the National Front, Marine LePen, got 20 percent of the votes in the first round of the presidential election, placing her a close third among all voters. Her support among first-time voters surpassed that of any other candidate, which puts her party in a very favorable position for local and regional elections in the next few years.

In Hungary, one of the youngest members of the EU, the new government has brought back an old-style, dingy European form of nationalism that is openly threatening the country’s parliamentary democracy. The success of the Fidesz and Jobbik parties was built on deep dissatisfaction among Hungarians with the austerity policies forced upon them by the European Union.

Even Britain, often considered the pillar of classic European liberalism, freedom and democracy, is tilting toward the shadows. The British National Party, which gained significantly in opinion polls back in 2009, seems to have survived internal faction-fighting and is a frighteningly resilient player on the British political scene. Its fellow traveller on the authoritarian side of the political spectrum, the English Defense League, is a fast-growing, street-wise anti-immigration movement with an authoritarian touch and a disdain for the British parliamentary system.

In Sweden, the openly un-democratic National Democrats have seats in several city councils and are preparing for participation in the 2014 national parliamentary elections.

All these parties have one thing in common: they want to preserve the welfare state and they blame its decline on a combination of economic freedom, free trade and immigration. They are generally prepared to save the welfare state by sacrificing or severely restricting political freedoms and parliamentary democracy. They propose far-reaching government control over the economy – the differences between them are limited to how much of private property rights they want to take away. Other than that, they all stand for higher taxes, preserved or expanded welfare programs and harsh control of businesses. They also want to restrict free trade and more or less close national borders.

What is emerging in Europe is nothing short of a totalitarian attempt at defending the inherently failing, and doomed, welfare state. If this movement becomes stronger, history from the 1920s Germany will eventually repeat itself. The German leaders during the Weimar republic did everything they could to preserve their welfare state in the face of enormous economic problems. Since the economy could not afford the welfare state, and since they were ideologically married to keeping it, the Weimar government tried its very best to shrink entitlements to make them fit the ever shrinking tax base. In a desperate measure to try and avoid the inevitable they started printing money en masse. The currency collapsed, economic and social chaos took over – and the road was paved for the NSDAP to march into Berlin.

With exception of the money-printing part, all the ingredients are there: a “higher” cause that motivates repealing political freedoms; a crisis to rally people around one leader; and a convenient group to blame. This group is not the Jews this time, but non-European muslims. It is a fact that Europe has received more muslim immigrants than the continent can handle, but this does not mean that they are the origin of the economic crisis. And it certainly does not mean it is legitimate for power-hungry, authoritarian-minded politicians to play the “blame game” on them.

The only ingredient missing is hyper-inflation. So long as countries like Greece stay within the European currency union they won’t be able to print money and destroy a currency in the name of saving the welfare state. However, there is a scenario where the EU can give up on Greece, and Greece give up on the EU. If the Greek government feels that their democracy cannot surviv another round of austerity, they may very well decide to leave the currency union, reintroduce their national currency and monetize their deficit. This would add the final ingredient and resurrect Weimar.

When one country has left the euro zone, pressure is going to mount for others to do the same. Spain and Portugal would be next, and the probability is high that they would take to the monetary printing presses to try and save their welfare states. It is not going to work, of course, but before they realize that they will also have stirred up the same ugly stew that brought Hitler to power in Germany.

A breakdown of Europe’s currency union was unthinkable two years ago. Today, more and more analysts are pointing to it as a credible alternative in the next couple of years. Likewise, the resurrection of authoritarianism in Europe has been unthinkable for a great long time, yet that is precisely what is happening.

With this in mind, and given the fact that America’s left is pushing hard to transform us into Europe 2 – how unthinkable is it that we might also experience a turn toward authoritarianism in the future? Just how far are American lefitsts willing to go to defend their welfare state project?

Are you on a “Block-List?”

As of late, conservatives have been dominating social media platforms including Twitter.  In 140 characters or less, conservatives have managed to get deep under the skin of the progressives using the site and in retaliation, it seems, some Twitter users from the left are creating “blocklists” to automatically get conservatives’ accounts suspended.

If you are conservative and using Twitter, you may be on a “blocklist.”

Chris Loesch is one such unlucky conservative who had his account suspended twice in one hour.  Apparently, Mr. Loesch got into a heated Twitter discussion with progressives who were threatening and harassing his wife Dana, who works for the Breitbart empire.

A group of “tweeps” from the left banded together and “spam blocked” Loesch’s account activating the automatic suspension tool woven into the Twitter technology.  If enough people click the “Block for Spam” button on an account, the user is suspended without warning.

Loesch’s initial suspension was less than 30 minutes old when the hashtag #FreeChrisLoesch started trending.  A conservative army of followers heard of the suspension and “flash mobbed” twitter with an outpouring of support for Loesch.  His account was reinstated only to have the very same thing happen minutes later.

Rumors on Twitter and other social media sites suggest that there are other conservatives who are being “targeted” not for actual spam, but for being conservative.  There are lists floating around that encourage Twitter users to abuse the auto-suspension tool to silence those who disagree politically.

If you have seen or can link to any such lists, DM me on Twitter.  This story isn’t over yet.

Barack Obama, Master of Lies

You know the feeling all too well.

You want to trust.  You want to believe.  After all, he is the President.

But you sense deception.  Dishonesty.  A dark and malicious, hidden agenda.

As your stomach tightens and your pulse begins to race an overwhelming desire to fight, flee or vomit begins to sweep over you—adrenaline surging.  Intense anger and deep disgust invade your soul.  It’s happening again.

Barack Obama is speaking.  And you’re being lied to.

All across America, this scenario is repeated every day as Americans listen to their president on radio, TV or over the internet.  There’s no argument.  No discussion.  No opinion polls necessary.  Americans know that Barack Obama is a prolific and, some say, pathological liar.  A say-anything-do-anything-to-get-what-he-wants kind of guy.

All politicians are accused of lying.  While some obviously do lie, others are guilty of the art of “spin.”  Everyone spins.  Especially parents.  “Eat your broccoli sweetheart it’s good and good for you.  It’ll make you big and strong.  Plus, you can have ice cream later.”

Spin is supremely annoying.  But it’s not necessarily lying.

Most Americans would agree that politicians should be forgiven for lies that protect national security or sensitive military and intelligence operations.  It goes with the territory.  It’s common sense.  We don’t tell the enemy our plans and we don’t jeopardize the lives of our military and intelligence personnel.

But a constant, repeated pattern of self-serving lies, deception and manipulation for personal and political gain is a different story.  It’s one thing for a red-faced politician to lie about personal failings, whether it’s a naked “tweets” scandal or a stained blue dress.  It’s quite another thing to lie to the American people as a matter of course, as a way to govern and as a way to legislate.  It undermines and destroys the social compact that we have with our elected officials.  Americans want honest politicians.  Honesty breeds trust.  And no relationship can survive long without it, be it parent/child, husband/wife, friend/friend, employer/employee or President of the United States/the American People.

Barack Obama lies so often and with such disturbing ease that multiple books have been written detailing his falsehoods and comfort with the untrue.  Obama’s lies cover virtually every aspect of his presidency and personal life.  His connections to numerous anti-American radicals like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah WrightObamacareThe unemployment rateAmerica’s “oil reserve.”  The Debt Limit debateThe Keystone Pipeline.  The fake issue of contraception.  The list goes on and on and on.  Obama’s dishonesty is so well known, so frequent and habitual that it, along with his famed arrogance, have become the defining traits of the 44th President of the United States.

Reagan was The Great Communicator.  Bush Sr. pledged Read my lips.”  Bill Clinton?  See Monica Lewinsky.  George W. Bush is forever linked to September 11, 2001.  How will history remember Barack Obama?

ArrogantConceitedNarcissistLiar.

So many questions surround Obama and his deceptive ways that it’s an overwhelming task to unravel it all.  And maybe that’s the point.  Maybe that’s the true, political genius of Barack Obama.

Under Obama, Americans face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Millions are out of work.  Millions more have stopped looking.  Businesses closing their doors.  Retirement and college funds raided just to pay bills and keep food on the table.  And millions upon millions of homes lost in foreclosure.   A reign of shattered dreams.

The prospect of another 4 years of the same, or worse, is truly frightening.  So, what does the most failed president since Jimmy Carter do to win re-election?

Change the subject.  Create a false series of crises.  “Republicans want to take away your contraception.”  “They want to take away your healthcare.”  “They hate the poor.”  “They hate women.”  “Republicans want dirtier air, dirtier water and less people with health insurance.”  “If you’re a self-respecting human being please vote for President Obama.”

In other words, lie.  Lie big.  Lie boldly.  Lie often.

Lie about what you said and did and then lie about your opponents.  Talk about how things would be so much worse if you hadn’t come along—and how bad they’ll get if you’re not re-elected.  Lie about your intentions and the consequences of your legislation.  And then lie some more.  Send your opponents scrambling as they try to disprove your lies.  Meanwhile, make up more stuff.  Tell more and even bigger whoppers.  Blame the other guy(s) and get the opposition to spend their time, energy and money responding to numerous and wildly false accusations, dutifully repeated of course, by your loyal media co-conspirators.

So, what do we do about it?  How should we respond to Obama, Liar in Chief?

Maybe you remember the story.  Jesus Christ was lead into the mountainous, desert wilderness.  There, He fasted for 40 days and 40 nights and was tempted by the father of lies.  With each temptation, Jesus responded by quoting Holy Scripture.  Truth.  He defended Himself with ultimate truth.

And so should we.  Not by playing defense and answering every false accusation.  But, by recounting the truth about Obama.  What he’s said and what he’s done.  His abysmal record on jobs and the economy.  His relentless attacks on freedom.  His commitment to wealth redistribution and Marxism.  His dictatorial exercise of executive power.  His numerous, flagrant violations of the Constitution.  His radical environmentalism.  His regulatory assault on American business.  His attacks on the oil industry, the coal industry and the firearms industry.  His racism.  His antipathy toward religion and most especially Christianity.  His anti-semitism.  Tell the truth about Obama’s corrupt administration.  The Solyndra scandal.  Fast and Furious. The Justice Department’s blind eye to blatant voter intimidation by the radical, racist Black Panthers.  Tell the truth about all of it.

Get informed.  Get the facts.  Get mad and get the word out.  Spread the truth about Barack Obama.  And make sure you’ve got your facts straight.  Truth has power.  Rumors and internet blogs are often wrong.  Check your facts and proclaim only the truth.  To remain silent in the face of Obama’s lies is to empower him and the dark agenda that he holds for America.

While we’re all researching and telling the truth about Barack Obama, maybe it’s time to fairly and honestly evaluate the evidence and claims of one of America’s most trusted lawmen and well known truth-tellers, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ.

Joe Arpaio is a maverick.  Not only does Sheriff Joe enforce the law in Maricopa County, he is universally known to be an honest man.  A rarity in elective office these days.  Joe tells the truth.  To the media.  To his constituents.  And to the powerful.  Even if it’s uncomfortable.  Even if it’s politically incorrect and regardless of whose feathers may get ruffled.  That’s why America loves him and why many Americans wish he was their sheriff.

An official law enforcement investigation conducted by Arpaio’s “Cold Case Posse” has determined that there is sufficient, probable cause to question the truth of Obama’s personal narrative.  Evidence gathered by seasoned law enforcement investigators has determined that Obama’s PDF birth certificate released on the White House web site is most likely a forgery.  Evidence has also led Arpaio’s team to conclude that Obama’s Selective Service registration card may be fraudulent.

Isn’t it reasonable to at least investigate these claims?  Yet, there’s been a virtual media blackout on the results of Arpaio’s investigation.  Sheriff Joe has been labeled a “Birther” in an attempt to discredit him.  Media attendees at his press conference were more interested in Arpaio’s motives than the facts of the investigation.

But, what is more likely?  That tried-and-true Sheriff Joe Arpaio has become a wild-eyed, Constitution-quoting, Obama-hating, conspiracy-theorizing Birther? Or that Barack Obama, known deceiver, consummate liar and pathological narcissist is hiding something critically important to the future of the American nation and doing so through the use of forged/fraudulent documents?

The truth about Barack Obama must be known and must be told.  All of it.  No matter how politically inconvenient or damaging.  No matter the consequences.  In a free and democratic society, truth is a requirement.  The press is constitutionally charged with uncovering it.  And the American people can handle the truth.  If only they are told.

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” -John 8:44

New American Standard Bible (NASB) Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmentalists, Please Watch “The Lion King” For A Lesson In Life

This is irony at its best! From the East Oregonian:

Oregon officials were successful in getting permission to kill sea lions that feed on protected salmon trying to swim upriver to spawn. Now they want federal approval to shoot a sea bird that eats millions of baby salmon trying to reach the ocean.

In an April 5 letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service obtained by The Associated Press, Oregon Wildlife Chief Ron Anglin says harassment has “proved insufficient” in controlling double-crested cormorants, and officials want the option of killing some of the birds.

Oregon needs federal approval to start shooting double-breasted cormorants because the birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

…the birds are threatening restoration of wild fish protected by the Endangered Species Act, as well as hatchery fish important to sport and commercial fishing.

So first, sea lions were a problem for the salmon, now birds, which are protected by the “Migratory Bird Treaty Act”, are causing problems for baby salmon. Looks like the “environmentalists” have gotten themselves into a bit of a quandry.

It would seem that something this simple would be understood by such “educated” people. Even the youngest of children understand the concept of the circle of life. Everything that has life will die some day. Simba and Nala taught us the lesson so well. Maybe “The Lion King” should be a required “documentary” for the “environmentalists”!

The Obama Enemies List




Rory Cooper, writing at “The Foundry,” said, “In 1971, America was introduced to President Richard Nixon’s ‘Enemies List’.” “In 2012, President Obama’s campaign has managed to make Nixon’s list look quaint, legitimate and even routine.”
At Obama’s “Truth Team” web site we get this: “A closer look at Romney’s donors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them. Here’s a look at just a few of the people Romney has relied on:” The site then lists eight people and their transgressions.

Cooper continues, “…Obama has relied on a vast grassroots network to coerce, bully, boycott and vilify individuals lawfully taking part in the political process ….” “Shouldn’t every American be protected against the heavy hand of governmental intimidation? The President must explain his intimidation of people who have lawfully participated in the political system and have borne no electoral injustice to our nation other than participating in lawful industries the President finds objectionable and supporting organizations and campaigns the President opposes.”

Kimberley Strassel, writing in The Wall Street Journal, says, “You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check. Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for ‘betting against America,’ and accuses you of having a ‘less-than-reputable’ record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.”

Any president who threatens a private citizen for his politics is engaging in government intimidation. But that fact did not stop Obama and his supporters. While the eight individuals listed are wealthy, all are private citizens. None of them is a criminal, holds an elected office, or has anywhere near the power of Obama. The only “crime” they committed is that they gave money to Romney.

Besides his list, Obama has threatened insurance and oil companies, as well as Wall Street firms. He has let it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll US elections. In the name of “full disclosure,” Obama has authored a (yet to be released) executive order that will require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts.

Obama and his campaign have justified their actions by saying that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable.” But that is a stretch as Romney’s name doesn’t appear on the list – only donors.

Obama swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation.

And where, you ask, is the MSM? They are, as usual when it comes to Obama, absent. The MSM, so far, has given this tactic a pass, has not made a “big deal” of it. Will it take the presence of the name of someone in the MSM before it will defend Constitutional freedoms? Don’t hold your breath. No liberal MSM person will ever appear on Obama’s enemies list.

For much more information on Obama’s “enemies list,” please visit this source and this source and this source.

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

Tonight on the Dark Side with Kira Davis

4/29/12 Tonight on the Dark Side: Jerome Hudson -of Project 21 andJeromeHudsonSpeaks.com-stops by to talk about the latest in the Trayvon Martin case and Sharpton’s LA rally. Also, Anna-Maria Hoffman from Lifefest. Plus predictions! Tune in tonight at 10pm EST, 7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on BlogTalk Radio.

Married To The Game: ConservaToni Stops By

Saturday’s show was a reflective and informative episode of Married to the Game.  Ai discussed changes that will be taking place with the show in the near future.  Some of the focus of the show will be changing to broaden out and cover more topics than just what’s “hot” in the 24 hour news cycle.  Ai is tired of us spending 2 weeks on a story about the Secret Service or more than half a week on whether or not Ann Romney was a good mother.  Married to the Game respects and understands the existence of the echo chamber, but doesn’t always want to be a part of it.  So, in the near future, the show, while (still) focusing primarily on politics, will begin to offer other topics into the weekly mix.

The real meat of this week’s show, however, was spent talking with Twitter’s @ConservaToni.  She’s a nice girl and recent college graduate from Georgia, who stopped by to talk about some of the issues facing young, black Conservatives in America today.  You might recognize her from another radio show she was recently on, and she was gracious enough to discuss that experience with us.  Her family has been involved in Conservative politics for years, and she’s the kind of youngin that really gives you hope for America’s future.  It was a delight to have her on the show, and we’re sure you’ll enjoy her insight and perspective that she shared with us.

Listen here now.