Author Archives: Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor)

Despite Sequestration, Pentagon Finds $31,000 For Portrait



31k portrait
Sequestration? What sequestration?

Sequestration, which was enacted in 2012 after Congress failed to agree on a budget compromise, will cut some $1 trillion from the defense budget over the coming decade. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), said, “Sequestration was set up to be so stupid that no group of rational people would ever let it happen. Yet it’s happening.” Congress, defense contractors, Defense Department employees, and military experts, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee, warned on Tuesday, July 22, 2013, that an additional $52 billion in defense cuts scheduled for October 2013, will completely devastate the U.S. military. Sequestration has already caused all military branches to ground warplanes, cut training, reduce operations, furlough employees, and severely reduce troop levels. Current Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, said that the $52 billion reduction will cause the Air Force to ground one-third of its fighter and bomber squadrons.

Tom Donnelly, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and a military expert, says:

“There’s no way the world is going to stay the same if the U.S. plays a lesser role in the world. It will be less secure, less prosperous, and less free.”

Yet, despite the budget cuts caused by sequestration, the Pentagon somehow found enough money to pay for a portrait of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. I guess that illustrates just where the priorities lie. Defending this country: NO! Portrait: YES!

The $31,000 for Panetta’s portrait is, admittedly, a “drop in the bucket” in the Pentagon’s overall FY2014 budget (which is, BTW, 17% of Obama’s proposed FY2014 budget, behind Social Security, Unemployment, and Labor [33%], and Medicare and Health [25%]). The portrait cost is only 4.8E-6% of the entire military budget. But the attitude, the symbology, springing for a portrait now, is rather unseemly.

Let’s see. A life size picture portrait costs less than $150. And a fancy frame, from an exclusive frame shop, goes for less than $150. So, for about $300, we could achieve similar results. In fact, the portrait that accompanies this article, gotten for no cost, could do. But, noooooooooooo, the Pentagon has to spend $31,000 on an oil portrait.

We’re broke, continue to borrow, can’t even support our military. Yet Obama, Kerry, et al., continue to give away millions of dollars we don’t have in foreign aid. Now, the Pentagon finds money for a portrait. Talk about a slap in the face! Talk about bad timing!

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Stupid Is As Stupid Does



stupid
Six people were killed, and seventeen wounded (including a six year old girl) last weekend in Chicago. There have been over 200 murders in Chicago so far in 2013. In fact, during to twenty days of the George Zimmerman trial, four children were murdered in Chicago.

In terms of numbers, Chicago is far and away the leader in murder. But, as the liberal web site PoliticusUSA says, on a per capita basis, Chicago’s murder rate is lower than forty other cities with populations above 40,000 residents. I’m sure that’s comforting to know for all of Chicago’s murder victims.

“That’s news?” you ask. Crime, including murder, goes unabated in Chicago, Obama’s hometown. And all Obama lackie mayor Rahm Emanuel does is offer platitudes about a moral code and how gang bangers should keep away from children.

Well, it seems as if Emanuel has been outdone. Illinois State Representative Monique Davis (above), on July 16, 2013, said:

“I’m going to tell you what some suspicions have been, and people have whispered to me: they’re not sure that black people are shooting all of these children. There’s some suspicion – and I don’t want to spread this, but I’m just going to tell you what I’ve been hearing – they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids.”

As if that statement wasn’t stupid enough, Davis doubled-down with this:

“I don’t know. I don’t know that they are, and I don’t know that they aren’t, since no one is being arrested, we don’t know who’s doing it.”

To say that the Chicago police were outraged by her statements would be an understatement. Mike Shields, the president of Chicago’s Fraternal Order of Police, said of Davis’ statements:

“I think it’s outrageous. … anybody that says that Chicago police officers are out there killing babies is insane.”

Davis is a Democrat who represents Chicago’s South Side district.

To quote Forrest Gump’s mother, “Stupid is as stupid does,” which means that stupidity is demonstrated by one’s actions. Well, Monique Davis, your actions (speech) demonstrates that you are, indeed, stupid!

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Detroit Bankruptcy – “Obviously” Republicans’ Fault



Ilegally dumped tires sit in front of a vacant, blighted home in a once thriving neighborhood on the east side of Detroit
Liz Harrison did a great job of documenting why Detroit filed bankruptcy. She says, “Detroit has been in a state of decline for many years, primarily due to residents and businesses moving out of the city – migration to the suburbs. To make up for shortfalls in revenue, the city has been borrowing not only for day-to-day operational expenses, but also to meet pension and health care obligations for retirees.” What Harrison says is true – its tax base moved away, but Detroit city officials continued their lifestyles, borrowed, borrowed, borrowed.

Who could ever forget, on December 5, 2012, Detroit City Council member JoAnn Watson saying that support of Obama in the presidential election was enough reason for him to financially bailout the struggling city. But guess what. Obama will NOT bail out Detroit, in spite of the fact that Obama and Democrats often said during the 2012 presidential election that “General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead.” The clear implication was that GM’s survival meant Detroit’s survival.

On July 19, 2013, Melissa Harris-Perry, on MSNBC’s program Now, said, “But this lack of tax base is also exactly the kind of thing that many Republicans would impose on us, even when our cities have sufficient populations, even when our communities have sufficient populations.” Knee-jerk reaction: blame Republicans. Harris-Perry is suggesting that Republicans would shrink the tax base by lowering taxes, and thereby worsen the problems of governments that cannot/will not cover their own expenses, live within their means. Oh, no! Never once did she mention that the Detroit government might have downsized due to a smaller population, that it could have reduced expenses. Never once did she mention that city’s financial troubles occurred while Democrats (like JoAnn Watson) were in power. Nor did she mention that the tax base reduction just may have been caused by the fact that crime (Detroit ranked No. 2 in crime), or that its median income, 46% below the national average, may have something to do with the bankruptcy. Nor did she mention the overwhelming retired city employee pension problem. Nor did she mention that citizens just might have used more private-sector, free-market means rather than look to government, thereby being able to reap the benefits of the subsequent economic growth. Don’t address those issues, just blame Republicans – that’s a lot easier. And it’s a way to deny the reality of what Democrats have done.

Additionally, never did Harris-Perry offer any substantiation of her statement. She just blamed Republicans. Was her statement challenged? On MSNBC? Not gonna happen.

I hope that Howard Dean, former Vermont governor, former DNC chairman, and former presidential candidate, who was seated beside Harris-Perry, was embarrassed by her remark.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

“MAY” – The One Little Word That Changes Everything



obamacare fallout
Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, in July 2009, said, “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period.” Now, in July 2013, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sibelius has interjected one little word into Obama’s statement: “MAY“. The HHS created and controlled website “www.healthcare.gov” has this statement: “Depending on the plan you choose in the Marketplace, you may be able to keep your current doctor.”   [emphasis mine]   What happened, Kathleen, to Obama’s one little word: “Period“?

Obama even offered a guarantee. He said, “Here is a guarantee that I’ve made. If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you’ve got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.”

Then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi, (of “So, that’s why I was saying we have to pass a bill so we can see so that we can show you what it is and what it isn’t.” fame), and Senator Harry Reid, in 2010, rammed ObamaCare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA) down our throats. Obama signed the bill into law fourteen days after Pelosi made her remark.

Obama also said, “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” But (and there’s always a “but” when Obama is involved), Healthcare.gov has this statement: “Depending on the type of policy you buy, care may be covered only when you get it from a network provider.”   [emphasis mine]   There’s that word may again. But wait! We may be misunderstanding Obama here, taking him at his literal word. Obama said, ” No one will take it away. No matter what.” But Healthcare.gov says, “Depending on the type of policy you buy…[.]” So, Obama can still make his “No one will take it away.” claim if you choose another plan (perhaps in order to get similar or any healthcare coverage and/or to keep your doctor). I predict that this is the “reasoning” that Obama (and Reid, and Pelosi, and ObamaCare proponents) hides behind. Is Obama quibbling? Your call!

Again, but wait. We got this from White House deputy chief of staff Nancy-Ann DeParle in 2011:

“… the president wasn’t saying the legislation would guarantee that everyone can keep his or her preferred plan, just that the legislation wouldn’t force anyone to change. What the president promised is that under health care reform, that he would make it more possible for people to have choices in these (health insurance) exchanges.”

Unbelievable. Was DeParle prescient, anticipating what was to come? Obama is getting more and more like Clinton: every word he utters must be carefully parsed. Why should we believe anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth if others come behind him and say we should not take what he says literally?

Pelosi, in March 2010, said, “We’re prepared for every eventuality, including success.” Well…, Nancy, it seems that you were not prepared for the one little word may, but you somehow forgot Obama’s use of the word period.

The word period sounds unequivocal to me. The word may is an equivocal word. Which is it, Nancy? Try as you may (and, sadly, in November 2012, you succeeded), you can’t have it both ways.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Domestic Propaganda – Here It Comes



manure
Have you ever heard of the Smith-Mundt Act, the "United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948" (its official name)? It was signed by Harry Truman on January 27, 1948, in order to "… combat the ‘weapons of false propaganda and misinformation’ that was preventing understanding of America’s policies, …[.]" It was initially intended to establish facilities to broadcast to foreigners "… the ‘urgent, forthright, and dynamic measures to disseminate the truth.’"   [emphasis mine]   The act established, among others, the Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe (RFE).


One original objective of the Smith-Mundt Act was to prevent the US government from broadcasting material it generated to US citizens. But that situation changed on July 2, 2013, as enacted in the "Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012," part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDSA) for Fiscal Year 2013.


The NDSA amended the Smith–Mundt Act, thus allowing materials (spelled "propaganda") produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to be broadcast to the US public. The NDSA struck down a long standing prohibition on the dissemination of such material in the US. US citizens have not, in the past, had to listen to government sponsored propaganda broadcasts. Now, however, Obama has concluded that enough US citizens are sufficiently stupid enough that they can be plied with taxpayer funded lies that sound as if they are truthful messages from "a caring government."


In an attempt to justify BBG actions, spokesperson Lynne Weil
said,
"Those people [the Samolis in St. Paul, MN] can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia. It was silly.” "Now
Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars — greater transparency is a win-win for all involved."


That sounds great. And it would be if the BBG and the State Department would stop there. History, however, suggests otherwise. Or if the State Department could be trusted (can anyone say "Benghazi?").


But (and there’s always a "but" when Obama and his administration are involved), if anyone needs a reminder of the dangers of domestic propagana, the Obama administration provides ample reasons:



Propaganda was a way of life in the USSR. The US, under Obama, has adopted Marxism, so government propaganda will now be a part of every US citizen’s daily brain training. Where is the MSM on this? Not a peep from them. And they will be the first to be shut down or become a government tool. Talk about being in Obama’s hip pocket. What’s really sad is that a majority of US citizens bought Obama’s propaganda and re-elected him, even as he was using his informal propaganda machine, the MSM. We ain’t seen nothin’
yet!


Bend over, because here it comes. What’s worst is that we taxpayers are paying for this propaganda, this coming manure spreading. Thank GOD for web sites like Conservative Daily News.

But that’s just my opinion

Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Liberals, Think Critically? Not Gonna Happen!



35_hateful

I was surfing the web the other day and ran across this article: "35 Hateful And Stupid Rush Limbaugh Quotes That Should Anger Everyone." One quote caught my attention: "If you feed them, if you feed the children, three square meals a day during the school year, how can you expect them to feed themselves in the summer? Wanton little waifs and serfs dependent on the State. Pure and simple." Limbaugh said that in December 2011.


Liberals find Limbaugh’s remark hateful and stupid. As Gomer Pyle used to say, “Shazam.” This attitude illustrates just how shallow, how superficial, how "un-critical" liberal thinking is. Liberals considered only Limbaugh’s words, while avoiding the message being conveyed. To see how depraved liberals are, consider this definition of critical thinking: “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.” Liberals are not clear, rational, or open-minded. They are certainly not disciplined. They purposely ignore any and all evidence that illustrates how incorrect they are. They looked only at the words Limbaugh used,
halted their “analysis” there. Liberals did not do any critical thinking.


Had the analysis gone any further, liberals would have seen that "Rush is right." Limbaugh was referring to the fact that we taxpayers feed the children during the school year, that the children are, indeed, dependent on the state, and the state cannot (for now) feed them during the summer months. His meaning was clearly that liberals make it possible for parents to shirk their responsibilities toward the children during the school year. Tell me, liberals, what is hateful about calling attention to shirking responsibility? Is there any evidence to show that parents accept responsibility and feed children during the summer months?


As these children grow up, they know of no other life, and vote to continue to allow parents to shirk responsibility.


Come on, liberals, cite any evidence that supports your contention that Limbaugh was speaking hatefully, was speaking anything but the truth. By failure to provide any evidence that supports your position, you liberals are making fools of yourselves. I know that the logic used here is far beyond most liberals, that they can’t possibly follow this argument. Liberals subscribe to the old saying, "If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, befuddle them with bulls***!"


Here is another "hateful" statement that Limbaugh made: "The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them." Of the quote, the article’s author said, "Rush Limbaugh, advocating for blowing up the world." Again, this illustrates that liberals avoid critical thinking. No discussion is ever offered of how this country can benefit, which was obviously Limbaugh’s meaning, from stopping people who want to kill us. I guess that, to liberals, being killed by enemy bullets (rather than stopping them) is the preferable way to die.


This is typical liberal “analysis.” They look only at the words, never consider how personally stupid they appear. They search only for phrases or sentences that they consider favorable to their agendas. Liberal readers of the words react exactly as desired, never pausing to think for themselves, to analyze what is actually being said. They react in a “knee-jerk” fashion.


Perhaps Limbaugh’s "problem" is that he assumes that liberals in his audience will critically think, that they will look beyond his words and perceive his message, his meaning, examine (rather than ignore) evidence. Liberals
automatically consider anything Limbaugh says as hateful and stupid. We conservatives think about what Limbaugh says, but liberals (on purpose?) don’t.


Here is another article I found while surfing, "50 Liberal Quotes Which Americans Should Remember,"


  • "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." – Robert Kennedy      A liberal offered this quote, but offered not one word about the causes of plenty and poverty. But that would have necessitated critical thinking.
  • "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." – Martin Luther King, Jr.      Not one word about personal responsibility, or the fact that if we ceased spending money on military defense (we currently spend more on social uplift), we will not have a nation, spiritual or otherwise. Nor were identified the social uplift programs our enemies will continue.
  • "It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." – Hubert H. Humphrey       Not one word about how liberals support and demand abortions, about the ever rising cost of ObamaCare and the resulting scarcity of healthcare availability, or about how welfare programs, evidence shows, keep people in poverty.
  • "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." – Abraham Lincoln      I’m surprised Lincoln’s “fruit of labor” comment was included, because there is no mention that capital is the direct result of labor, that capital results from disciplined saving.


These quotes were proudly presented by a liberal. It illustrates how liberals choose to focus on words rather than on evidence, on actual deeds.


Regarding "critical thinking," Rick Shenkman, in 2008, observed that the American public is "… willing to accept government positions and policies even though a moderate amount of critical thought suggested they were bad for the country" [emphasis mine] and "… were readily swayed by stereotyping, simplistic
solutions, irrational fears, and public relations babble." Liberals have dumbed-down public school curricula (in the name of “feel good”) to the point where analysis of evidence and critical thinking are no longer possible by those “educated” in public schools. They have created a nation of "mind-numbed robots" that vote liberal every chance they get. They give no thought to the future.

They’re not called "knee-jerk liberals"
for no reason!

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

S. 744: Here Comes Trouble



immigration
The immigration “Gang of Eight” has been instrumental in bringing Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act) to Congress in 2013.

Congress asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to examine S. 744. The CBO did, looking only at the effects of the first ten years of the bill. Knowing that, the “Gang of Eight” wrote the bill so that long-term effects don’t kick in until after the tenth year. What does all of this mean? TROUBLE!

One of the major provisions of S. 744 is the “path to citizenship.” A new “registered provisional immigrant” (RPI) status for eligible undocumented immigrants (illegal aliens) would be created. Those in RPI status also qualify for a Social Security number and state driver’s license. All registered immigrants (and spouses and children) could, after 10 years, seek to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs). Three years later, they would be eligible to apply to become US citizens. The only requirement is that aliens be in the US as of December 31, 2011.

The Heritage Foundation also examined S. 744, and their conclusions are, at best, disturbing. They examined the bill from three perspectives: reducing flow, effects on workers, and cost.

  • Reducing flow (of illegal aliens): S. 744 would, according to the CBO, reduce the future inflow of illegal immigrants into the US over the next two decades by only 25 percent, despite promises of a secure border. CBO estimates that by 2033, 7.5 million new illegal immigrants will have entered the US and taken up residence. Gosh, I may be naïve, but I’ll bet that they ALL will say they were here before December 31, 2011.
  • Effects on Workers: The CBO estimates that per capita Gross National Product (GNP) would lower by .7 percent by 2023, and per capita GNP will be lower until 2031. Further, the CBO estimates the bill would drive down their average wages for legal American workers. Wages will be depressed until 2024. It is important to measure post-tax wages as well as per capita GNP.
  • Cost: Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation estimates that the new 7.5 million illegal immigrants could cost the taxpayers (federal, state, and local) an additional $400 billion over 20 years. Rector comments:

    “S.744 provides only a temporary delay in eligibility to welfare and entitlements. Over time, S.744 makes all 18.5 million [11 million here now plus 7.5 million new ones] eligible for nearly every government program, including: Obamacare, 80 different welfare programs, Social Security and Medicare. When this occurs, spending will explode, but nearly all the real costs do not appear in the CBO score.”

    “… the most significant costs during the lifetime of would-be legalized immigrants are during their retirement years after they qualify for Medicare and Social Security. For the vast majority of unlawful immigrants, that is well past the 10-year budget window.”

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, said:

“The bill’s drafters relied on the same scoring gimmicks used by the Obamacare drafters to conceal its true cost from taxpayers and to manipulate the CBO score. There is a reason why eligibility for the most expensive federal benefits was largely delayed outside the 10-year scoring window: to mislead the public.”  [emphasis mine]

And, the “11 million” illegal aliens already here have established a track record. For example:

  • Fifty percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for non-immigrants.
  • Fifty seven percent of households headed by an immigrant with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for non-immigrant households with children.
  • Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than non-immigrants for food assistance programs and Medicaid. A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their US-born children.
  • Welfare use tends to be high for both new and established immigrants. Sixty percent of immigrant headed households with children who arrived since 200 used at least one welfare program.

Does anyone believe that the new illegal immigrants will be any different? If so, I own a bridge in which you may be interested.

BTW, the term “Gang of Eight” is applied to any bi-partisan group of eight Senators. There is presently a “Gang of Eight” for intelligence. Don’t be confused by that term.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

“Better To Have It …”

need it

We have all heard the expression, “Better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it.” That expression is most often used by people who favor gun ownership. That expression is quite true. A gun is very comforting and useful when it is needed – there is absolutely no substitute. But that expression applies to ALL items, be they material or mental. It means that some planning be done so that what is needed be available when needed. It also means that what is needed be used responsibly, sensibly, not wasted, not taken lightly.

Planning: It was General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower who said, “… plans are nothing, planning is everything.” The act of planning is more valuable than the plan itself. Planning makes you realize that you can’t just show up and wing it. Planning makes you think about what you are wanting to accomplish. You cannot have/put forth a plan without some planning.

As anyone knows, the plan is good only until the enemy (the other side) is met. You can plan and plan, but the enemy just will not cooperate. But planning gets you to think about what you are going to do. Planning provides flexibility, the ability to deviate from your plan, to respond as you want to what the enemy does. Planning lets you respond to what you have not foreseen in a way that you want. By planning and developing a plan, you are not reacting to what the enemy does. Any military tactician will tell you that when you start reacting to what the enemy does, the battle is lost.

That thinking applies to anything. It allows you to respond in the way of your choosing, rather than in the manner others choose (or have chosen) for you. YOU are in control.

Responsibility: This concept implies the freedom to assume a burden, a plan to properly rather than indiscriminately use the things you choose to have. There is no escaping this concept. If you possess it (whatever “it” is), you are responsible for it – period. There is, in today’s society, too much effort forwarded to try to shirk responsibility for our own actions, to try to blame others for our actions. As Sigmund Freud, in Civilization and Its Discontents, said, “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.”

There is an old saying in the military that applicable in any of life’s endeavors: “You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.”

These two requirements (planning and responsibility) are the primary reasons why Progressives/Liberals/Democrats (PLDs) are so adamantly against unrestricted (and unregistered) gun ownership. An armed citizenry may not like what they are up to, and may plan to not sheepishly go along with their schemes. And, all PLDs think that the entire citizenry cannot be free or responsible, that only they can be responsible enough to be free enough to possess what they want to prohibit the citizenry from having. That goes for guns, wealth, private property, … ANYTHING

Further, PDLs have a “knee jerk” reaction when they hear that expression, loudly proclaiming that they know what’s best for us, never pausing to think that we may have done some planning and take responsibility for our actions.

So, the next time you hear that expression, think about the attendant planning and responsibility that is expressed, that goes with it. You can be assured that PLDs won’t.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Obama And Kerry Are Fools With OUR Tax Dollars

kerry

Well, they’re at it again. The most transparent and open administration ever is secretly providing military aid to Egypt. It seems that Secretary of State John Kerry secretly gave Egypt $1.3 billion.

Under U.S. law, the Secretary of State must certify that the Egyptian government “is supporting the transition to civilian government, including holding free and fair elections, implementing policies to protect freedom of expression, association and religion, and due process of law.” The law, forwarded by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) gives the U.S. government the ability to waive that condition if it deems this in the U.S. national security interest and provides a detailed justification. But Kerry, despite his own misgivings, went ahead with the gift. Kerry, on May 9, 2013, said, “… we are not satisfied with the extent of Egypt’s progress and are pressing for a more inclusive democratic process and strengthening of key democratic institutions.”  [emphasis mine]

The news of that gift was never released to the public, and possibly not even to an inept Congress. Somehow, I missed Kerry’s “detailed justification” of his (secret) decision. Was it kept secret as well? The corruption continues.

Yes, that is the same Mohammed Morsi who called President Obama a “liar” in the same speech that he called Jews and Israelis “Descendants Of Apes And Pigs” and “Bloodsuckers.” That is the same Morsi who is the Muslim Brotherhood backed president of Egypt, the same Muslim Brotherhood that praised the jihad against America. That is the same Morsi who had a dissident jailed for insulting him. And that’s the same Egypt that this week sentenced 43 democracy workers, including 16 Americans, to up to five years in jail for working in Non-Governmental Organizations not registered with the government.

If Obama, et al, want to be fools, that is their prerogative. The “rub” comes in when their foolishness is financed with OUR tax dollars. One wonders what line must be crossed, what Morsi can say, before someone finally holds Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood accountable.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From The Tree

tyner

Jarvis Tyner, speaking at a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) rally on May 7, 2013, said, “Most of the 60 million SS [Social Security] recipients are barely making it and should get a subsidy or some kind of raise.” I guess that Tyner thinks that the subsidy or raise money will just magically appear, will not require raising taxes, will on no way effect the economy or working citizens. Tyner was preceded in his present position as executive vice chairman of the Communist Party USA by another “fine” American, Angela Davis.

In the same speech, Tyner said that the Koch brothers were comparable to Nazi enablers. This is the same Tyner who, in November 2009, said, “He’s [Obama] only the beginning I think he’s a transitional president. I think somebody else is going to come in and take it even further.”

So, the stage was/is/continues to be set.

Sam Webb, National Chair of the CPUSA, in November 2008, said of Obama, “We are speaking to a friend.” Does Webb’s statement mean that Obama is a communist? Directly, no. But (and there’s always a “but” when Obama is concerned) the fact that Webb made that statement means that Obama, at some time, indicated that he is sympathetic to (or at least will entertain) what has proven to be a failed doctrine. Further, Marxist academic Manning Marable said, “A lot of the people working with him [Obama] are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists.”

Is Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama a communist? Well, we know that he is/was a socialist, a member of The New Party, a socialist organization. Socialism and communism are alike in that both favor public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Communism is a refinement of socialism. Is it fair to consider Obama a communist? YES! Communism and socialism are two sides of the same coin.

Joe Bleifuss, in 2008, in In These Times magazine, wrote, “In particular, Obama can be linked to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Democratic Party-oriented organization that is a member of the Socialist International.” The DSA works inside the Democrat Party and has cross membership with the CPUSA. DSA is a Marxist organization, founded on the principles of Italian Communist Party founder Antonio Gramsci. Why examine the Obama-DSA connection? Here’s why! Consider these Obama appointees, ALL with DSA connections:

  • Carol Browner – Energy Czar, and Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy
  • Ron Bloom – Manufacturing Czar
  • Hilda Solis – Secretary of Labor
  • Rosa Brooks – Senior advisor to Michael Flournoy, the Under Secretary of Defense
  • Heather Higginbottom – Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy
  • Samantha Power – National Security Council, director for multilateral affairs

Let me remind you that Frank Marshall Davis, an Obama mentor, was a fervent communist. Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, at which time he was 10 to 18 years old. Davis was also in Hawaii at that time. Obama developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. Does the Obama-Davis association mean that Obama is a communist? Again, directly, no. But it’s difficult to imagine that Obama did not pick up any of Davis’ views and teachings.

Will the MSM ever bring these facts to light? Will the MSM expose the truth about Obama’s past and his circle of friends and people who have influenced him? Will the MSM have “low information voters” see just what a fraud and charlatan he really is? No way!

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Will We Ever See An Exit Strategy From The War On Poverty?

exit strategy

President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ), in his 1964
State of the Union speech, declared
"unconditional war on poverty in America." LBJ said:


"Our aim is not only to relieve the
symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent
it."
"We must enact youth employment legislation to put
jobless, aimless, hopeless youngsters to work on useful
projects."
"We must distribute more food to the needy
through a broader food stamp program."

The "poverty" rate, when LBJ said that,
was 19 percent, and, according to Cato
Institute researcher Michael Tanner
, "… falling
rapidly." Tanner also says that despite $12 trillion in federal
welfare spending and $3 trillion in state and local government
welfare spending over the past 48 years, "the poverty rate never
fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a
decade." (15.1 percent in 2012 and rising). As Tanner says,
"Clearly, we have been doing something wrong."


To add to the “something wrong” theme, Keith
Koffler’s article
is a good read. He states that Obama is creating his own “War On
Poverty” by increasing welfare spending to about 25 percent of GDP,
implementing his “ObamaCare,” and (what he calls) investing in new technologies.
Koffler states, “All while running up the deficit to new records.
At least Lyndon Johnson did Socialism in the absence of a roaring
deficit.” Koffler also says that, under Obama, the poverty rate
for blacks has grown from 25.8 percent to 27.4 percent.


Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the US’s
"War On Poverty," with no end in sight. Sargent Shriver,
tasked to implement LBJ’s "War On Poverty," said in 1964
that 1976 would be "the target date for ending poverty in this
land." Well, that date has come and gone, yet poverty is still
with us. Can we consider the "War On Poverty" to be a
failure? Can we “move on?”


Democrats called upon President George W. Bush for
an exit strategy from Iraq. They were advised to make an exit
strategy
the number one post-2004 election issue.


Here’s what Harry Reid had to say
in 2005:


"The president needs to spell out a
real and understandable plan for the unfinished work ahead. Most of
all, we need an exit strategy so that we know what victory is
and how we can get there; so that we know what we need to do and so
that we know when the job is done."   [emphases
mine]

Ironic, isn’t it, that Reid’s comments apply just
as well to the "War On Poverty" as they do to the war in
Iraq.


And, in June 2005, none other than Nancy Pelosi
offered
the "Strategy For Success" amendment to H.R. 2863. The
amendment would have required President Bush to submit to Congress a
plan for success in Iraq and a withdrawal timetable. But the
amendment was defeated 223 to 200. See page CRS-15 for more
information.


And here’s what Joe Biden had to say
in 2006:


"By misrepresenting the facts,
misunderstanding Iraq, and leading the war effort badly, this
administration has brought us to the verge of a national-security
debacle."

Biden was speaking of George W. Bush’s handling of
the Iraq war. Substitute "War On Poverty" for "Iraq"
in Biden’s statement, and it equally applies to ALL Democrat
presidents and administrations, especially the national-security
part.


And here’s a little nugget
from Barry
R. Posen
in 2006:


"The United States needs a new
strategy in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. The war is at
best a stalemate
; the large American presence now causes
more trouble than it prevents
. We must disengage from Iraq – and
we must do it by removing most American and allied military units
within 18 months. Though disengagement has risks and costs, they can
be managed. The consequences would not be worse for the United
States than the present situation, and capabilities for dealing with
them are impressive, if properly employed."   [emphasis
mine]

Again, substitute "War On Poverty" for
"Iraq and the Persian Gulf" in Posen’s statement, and it
equally applies to ALL Democrat presidents and administrations.


Here is a quote
from Bush in 1999 that Democrats are fond of marching out:


"Victory means exit strategy, and
it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit
strategy is."

Well, Democrats, that quote cuts both ways. Does
the fact that no exit strategy has been proposed mean that there has
never been (nor will there ever be) a victory in the "War On
Poverty?"


Democrats have, for some reason, yet to call for
an exit strategy from the never ending "War On Poverty," a
war that has not been won, a war that has lasted longer (49 years
versus 8 years) and cost far more than the Iraq war ($15 trillion
versus $811 billion). So, the (rhetorical) question is, "Are
Democrats hypocrites?" They want an exit strategy from Bush,
but do not seem to want one for a war that one of their heroes
started.


Perhaps the Iraq war exit strategy Dear Leader
Barack Hussein Obama used could also work with the "War On
Poverty." Obama, in October 2011, declared the
Iraq war to be over, saying, "After nearly nine years, America’s
war in Iraq will be over."


Naaaaaaaaaaah! It will not work here. Obama’s
exit strategy will not be used in this country because declaring the
"War On Poverty" to be over will not garner any votes for
Democrats. And votes is ALL Democrats think about.


Why, then, don’t Republicans call for an exit
strategy from the "War On Poverty?" Too many RINOs in
Congress is the only reason I can think of. Why rock the boat when
it’s not necessary? Their view is that the good of the country be
damned, reelection is just too important. Moving on is just not
going to happen.






But that’s just my opinion.


Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Leon Panetta, Political Hack

panetta

To say that Fearless Leader Barack Hussein Obama is having scandal problem would, indeed, be an understatement. There is not enough space at CDN to cover all scandals, so let’s look at one: the Benghazi cover-up. Let’s further focus on the Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta.

About the Benghazi attack, Panetta said:

“(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

Panetta was referring to head of U.S. Africa Command General Carter Ham and to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey when he made that statement to a Pentagon reporter.

But, regarding not “knowing what’s going on,” we have learned that CIA personnel at the Consulate annex, which was under fire for approximately 8 hours, were in constant radio contact with their headquarters. Also, two unmanned drones were sending real-time video images to Defense and State Department officials in Washington.

Did you know that Panetta was in the Army? There is one truism, one basic principle about ALL branches of the military, about ALL military personnel, about ANY situation: RESCUE! – NOW!. I can only suppose that Panetta forgot that basic principle when he became a political hack in order to further his career.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, Panetta said:

“I think with regards to those specific individuals that were involved in this attack there was a gap. We didn’t have the intelligence that would have given us a heads-up that this kind of thing was going to happen.”
“We’ve got a lot of resources that are there … but if you have an area where you don’t have resources there, if you don’t have good intelligence, then it’s going to create a gap.”

So Panetta, in CYA mode, blamed an “intelligence gap” for his non-response.

Panetta is living proof of what happens when one becomes a political hack.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

GDP Growth Increasing 3% In July – Not Because Of Obama Policy Change



gdp
What is this thing called Gross Domestic Product (GDP)? It is everything produced by all the people and all the companies in the US and in the world. Key upon the word “produced” in the preceding sentence. Until now, the word “produced” referred to the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year. But the definition of “produced” will change in July of this year.

Being generous and not including negative GDP growth that occurred during the first three quarters of Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama’s first reign (er, term), the GDP growth rate has been 2.12 percent, not something to crow about. The GDP growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2012, after Obama was re-elected, was a whopping 0.4 percent.

However, in July 2013, there will be a world-wide redefinition of the GDP, of what is produced. Government statistics will take into account components such as film royalties and spending on research and development. Billions of dollars of intangible assets will enter the GDP of the US economy. The redefinition is expected to add about three percent to the GDP growth rate. Brent Moulton, manager of national accounts at the Bureau of Economic Analysis, said:

“We’re capitalising research and development and also this category referred to as entertainment, literary and artistic originals, which would be things like motion picture originals, long-lasting television programmes, books and sound recordings. At present, R&D counts as a cost of doing business, so the final output of Apple iPads is included in GDP but the research done to create them is not. R&D will now count as an investment, adding a bit more than 2 per cent to the measured size of the economy.”

Redefinition is fine. Just remember that apples should not be compared to oranges. But that minor technicality won’t phase Obama. I’m betting that Obama and his economic team will take credit for the GDP growth increase. He and they will conveniently forget to mention the definition change, will instead trumpet their policies as the reason for the growth. And we can expect the MSM to go right along with him. There is, after all, precedent. Look at what the MSM did with unemployment numbers – particularly just before the 2012 election.

But (and there is always a “but” when Obama is involved), the GDP growth rate will be in excess of five percent, well above what economists say is the “ideal” growth rate of about 2 to 3 percent per year. Too much GDP growth causes inflation. Expect economists to change the definition of “ideal” in order to support Obama.

So, come July, when the GDP growth rate jumps due to some accounting miracle, just remember that the economy is not really heating up. Rather remember what is actually going on, that Obama’s economic policies have not changed.

H/T to Tom, who called the GDP situation to my attention.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

Will The Boston Marathon Bombing Be A Power Grab Excuse For Obama?

hahatango (CC)

hahatango (CC)

The bombing on Monday, April 15, 2013, at the finish line of the Boston Marathon and the fact that many innocent
people
were either killed or injured was, indeed, a tragedy.

As Jim Yardley said in an e-mail he sent to me that Monday afternoon: “My first reaction … was the similarity to the Reichstag fire in 1933 as a means to exert more government control over just about everything.” Further investigation suggests that Jim does make a compelling point.

On the night of February 27, 1933, Adolf Hitler was having dinner at the home of Dr. Joseph Goebbels, and was told of the Reichstag fire. Hitler and Goebbels went to the Reichstag, and were met there by Hermann Göring. Hitler, Goebbels, and Göring, without waiting for any evidence to be uncovered, declared that the fire was started by the Communists and Socialists, and the Sturmabteilung (SA, or Brown Shirts) was placed on alert to maintain order if and when the communist insurrection started. The SA rounded up as many communists as they could find. (On July 2, 2008, Obama said, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” That sounds eerily like the SA.)

As with almost all that they did, Hitler and the Nazis tried to “legally gloss over” what they were doing in the name of “for their (the German public) own good.” The German public was told that the communists had burned down the Reichstag, and that the SA was doing all that it could to save the nation from the coming unrest. The Nazis arrested Dutch communist Marius van der Lubbe and four accomplices for arson. van der Lubbe “confessed” to setting the fire, although he insisted that he worked alone.

We all know what Hitler did once Germany was under control. What is presently happening is very similar to what happened in Germany in 1933. Are we going to be subjected to “control?”

Hearing of the Boston Marathon bombings, Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama said:

“We still do not know who did this or why, and people shouldn’t jump to conclusions before we have all the facts, but make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of this, and we will find out who did this. Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups will feel the full weight of justice.”

We learned that the FBI and Boston police had a “clear picture” of a potential
suspect
and were trying to identify the suspect. The picture was taken by a security camera at the Lord & Taylor Department Store, situated along the marathon route. Is this suspect another Marius van der Lubbe?

We are now being told that this situation is the “new normal.” Retired General Michael Hayden, past director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA), said that the Boston-style attacks may be ‘The New Normal’ in the USA. Said Hayden: “This regrettably, if it does turn out to be al-Qaida based terrorism, might be the new normal.”

“Speculation” immediately started, even before anything was known and before the FBI released information about “persons of interest.” Peter Bergen, CNN national security analyst, twice said that “right-wing extremists” could be behind the bombings. Don’t you love the word “could” that Bergen used. Anyway, although Bergen said that “First reports are often erroneous,” that did not stop him from speculating about who set the bombs. Further, without even a shred of evidence, a government counterterrorist “expert” said: “… that pressure cooker bombs have also been a signature of extreme right-wing individuals in the United States who he said tend to revel in building homemade bombs.” The expert’s statement was completely unsubstantiated. The expert also failed to mention that al-Quadea used pressure cooker bombs.

“Damage control” has also begun. David Weigel, in a slate.com article entitled “Why the Conspiracy Theorists Will Have a Tough Time With Boston,” said:

“No politician really stands to gain. This was supposed to be the week of liberal breakthroughs on guns and immigration. Both of those issues, and related bills, fade from the priority list for a few days. If you give the 9/11
conspiracy theorist a ton of credit – and why would you? – he draws a line from the aftermath to the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War. The Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist points out that we got a debate on gun control. The reaction to a bombing at a marathon will bring … what? Unenforceable security standards on all city streets? Further militarization of police forces, something that was already under way?

May I suggest, David, that Obama, our Conspiracy Theorist-in-Chief, read your article, especially the part about “unenforceable security standards,” before he goes off half-cocked and starts ranting that dangers lurk behind every bush, that what is needed are more laws. After all, he has done that before. Witness what he is presently doing with gun control.

Gosh, but all of this sounds familiar. Or am I just being paranoid? Is Obama pulling another “Reichstag fire” caper? Is this the “new normal?” I don’t think (or at least hope) Obama and/or anyone in his administration would stoop so low as to plant bombs that kill and injure people. But similarities are stacking up.

Was the speculation and damage control just “setting the stage” for Obama to call for more laws, to exert more control? With the MSM backing him, heralding what Obama does to curtail our freedoms in the name of “for our own good,” is the Boston Marathon bombing all that is required for Obama to initiate another power grab? Is Obama going to call for more laws and issue more executive orders so that we are more secure? Is history repeating itself? Only time will tell. We do have an historical precedent for power grab actions, and we know the final outcome.

Update: as of April 19, 2013, the FBI has identified two Chechen Muslims, one of whom has subsequently been killed, as primary bombing suspects. Substitute Muslim for communist and you have yet another similarity. One suspect dead, one captured but unable to speak, and speculation about the reason for the bombing is rampant. I’m betting that the other suspect will also die, thus eliminating his offering any reason for the bombings, opening the way for Obama to have a “knee-jerk reaction,” to say that we need more laws. And I’m betting that Obama will call for more laws that will ultimately restrict our freedoms “for our own good.”

The similarities just keep mounting. As Pamela Geller says,
“American homeland security is an abject failure. … We’ve lost so many of our freedoms to be ‘more secure.’ How are we more secure?”

But that’s just my opinion

Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!

 

Illegal Aliens: Something’s Wrong Here

gauman

Did you know that, on August 20, 2011, drunk illegal alien Nicholas Gauman killed Matthew Denice of Milford, MA? Or that Gauman showed absolutely no emotion when police told him Denice was dead? Gauman simply shrugged when informed of that news. Gauman first hit Denice (who was on a motorcycle), then, despite pleas to stop from Denice and on-lookers, drove an additional quarter mile before stopping. Being in this country illegally is bad enough, driving drunk is bad enough, killing a person is bad enough, that his (lead) attorney, Peter Ettenberg, filed a mental incompetency defense is bad enough, but Judge Janet Kinton-Walker now says Guaman’s “unique cultural background” and lack of an Ecuadorian translator have made him incompetent to stand trial.

Ettenberg, in an e-mail, wrote:

“We have met with him a number of times and it has become clear to us that he simply can’t assist us in defending his case. That’s something to which he has a constitutional right to do. As a result, we retained a neuropsychologist to conduct an evaluation to render an opinion whether Mr. Gauman is competent to stand trial. The doctor’s opinion is that Mr. Gauman is not competent and we so advised the judge.”

Kinton-Walker has ordered Guaman’s attorney to find an interpreter and educate him on the court process. She also said that Gauman lacks the ability to consult with his attorney properly.

It’s interesting to note that Gauman was previously convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, and on three assault and battery charges, as well as several other charges. Denice’s mother, Maureen Maloney, said:

“In the past, he’s [Gauman] had other run-ins with the law. He’s been in court multiple times on other charges prior to all this in August 2011 and a Spanish interpreter or no interpreter was used for those hearings and he’s always managed just fine.”

Kinton-Walker was appointed in 2009 by MA Governor Deval Patrick (D). Yes, that’s the same Patrick who has prevented local law enforcement from contacting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and alerting them to criminal immigrants they’ve encountered. And repeatedly, some of those illegal alien criminals have gone on to kill, rape, and harm local citizens. What’s worse is that Patrick STILL opposes enforcing immigration laws.

Gauman was here illegally. The question, then, is: “Why was Gauman allowed to remain in this country so that he could kill Denice?” Gauman’s constitutional rights trump all that he has done. But, Gauman would not have (at taxpayer cost) those constitutional rights if he had been deported in the first place, as current law prescribes. Further, Denice would be alive today.

But that’s just my opinion
Please visit RWNO, my personal, very conservative web site!