Tag Archives: Obama

The BO Behind the Obamacare Numbers

If there was one thing that then presidential candidate Barack Obama had right it was his assertion that words matter. That understood, it has always seemed a bit odd to me that a man who presents and proudly proclaims himself a full blown Progressive – if not the quintessential Fabian Progressive – would have alerted the electorate to this fact. Why, you ask? Well, because Progressives are notorious for manipulating the meanings of words to suit their objective needs. Remember, Progressives are the ones who insist that the United States Constitution is a “living document,” meant to facilitate the needs of the times (read: allow government to morph into any authority that the elites believe is needed at any given time).

So, it is with a gigantic grain of salt – a Guinness Book sized grain – that I consume the declarations being made by the Obama Administration on the “numbers of people who have signed up” for health insurance through the federal health exchange. There is a stark difference between “signing up” for the website and purchasing health insurance. Even then, there is a lot of ground between applying for health insurance through the exchange and actually paying the premiums each month.

The truth is, we won’t know how many people have successfully attained health insurance coverage through the “Obamacare Exchange” until after the first month of coverage has completed. This is because for coverage to be in effect it must be paid for. To that end The National Journal reports:

“One of the biggest players in Obamacare’s exchanges says 15 to 20 percent of its new customers aren’t paying their first premium – which means they’re not actually covered.

The latest data come from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose members – known collectively as “Blues” plans – are participating in the exchanges in almost every state. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of people who selected a Blues plan through the exchanges went on to pay their first month’s premium, a BCBSA spokeswoman said Wednesday.”

It would seem that some – oh, maybe 15 to 20 percent – of those who “signed up” for health insurance through Healthcare.gov have figured out that as long as it appears as though they have signed up for health insurance through the exchange they might be able to circumvent the inaugural Obamacare fine (read: tax, per SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts) for not actually having health insurance. Of course, this remains to be seen, but given that the Obamacare website is the laughingstock of the tech world, maybe – just maybe – they might get away with it.

And another facet of this totalitarian Progressive overreach of government – this unconstitutional encroachment into our private lives – is the question surrounding the employer mandate. To date, there have seen so many exemptions given to both organizations and corporations alike, the idea that this is actually a “mandate” is becoming laughable. Let’s face it, when a mandate becomes something only applicable to select factions and demographics, it is less a mandate and more a punishment, and a punishment for “not thinking correctly.”

This Progressive line of thinking is typical of an elitist faction that truly believes – truly believes – they know what is best for everyone, even if the overwhelming majority views the “opinion(s)” of said Progressive elitists as undesirable and oppressive. It is for this reason – the elitist narcissism of the Progressive Left – that a recent declaration by former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs shouldn’t surprise anyone.

TheHill.com reports:

“Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs predicted Wednesday that the oft-delayed Obamacare employer mandate will never go into effect.

“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect. It’s a small part of the law. I think it will be one of the first things to go,” Gibbs told a crowd in Colorado, according to BenefitsPro.com.

“The website described the audience as being surprised by Gibbs’s comments…

“Gibbs argued that most employers with more than 100 workers already offer health insurance, and only a relatively small number of companies have between 50 and 99 employees.”

Putting aside, for a moment, Mr. Gibbs’ contention that only a small number of companies have employees numbering between 50 and 99 employees, this is another example of the “words matter” bait and switch, and with ramifications.

We the People, were told – in no uncertain terms – that the employer mandate was essential to the success of Obamacare. The Obama Administration has been so obstinate about this point that they were willing to fight the Hobby Lobby Corporation all the way to the US Supreme Court in an effort to force them to provide “end-of-life-causing” contraception options to their employees – against the moral and religiously-based objections of the company owners. The Obama Administration even tried to strong arm Catholic charities operated by nuns to do the same. Yet now we have one of the “soldiers of the Obamacare Movement” shrugging his shoulders insisting that the employer mandate is no big deal? If that’s true, why coerce nuns and those objecting to the mandate on religious grounds?

Looking further down the list of forced mandates, what could we expect next? Should we get ready for the individual mandate to become expendable, but for, of course, the demographics that are “not thinking correctly”?

If words matter, as now President Obama claimed in the days before his presidency, why don’t they matter now, now that he is president? He promised that Americans could keep their doctors and the insurance plans they enjoyed “period.” Yet that turned out to be a lie, bald-faced. He and his cronies said that the mandates were non-negotiable. But now one of the primary mouthpieces who trumpeted the need for these mandates during this blatant coercion of the American people says the need to mandate employer participation is “not so much.”

Truth be told, there are some provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are beneficial to the American people (dealing with the purchase of health insurance across state lines and addressing pre-existing conditions being two). But the negatives of this legislation far, far out-weigh the positives. Additionally, if federally elected politicians weren’t playing the whore for the behemoth insurance companies and their heartless lobbyists on K Street (let’s remember who was “all in” on getting Obamacare passed) purchasing health insurance would have been open to a national market, thus lowering prices through competition and creating viable options to address the issue of pre-existing conditions.

Don’t look now, but Capitalism is the answer to high health insurance prices and accessibility.

Yes, worlds matter. And where Obamacare is concerned, the only applicable words that matter are these, spoken by then candidate Obama:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Ukraine Sanctions With Teeth Instead of Gums Are Still Possible

Putin-laughing-at-serious-steps-memeFor a very brief moment it looked like the White House and I were finally going to be in agreement on the topic of misrule in the United States. Obama’s White House Press Office released a statement with harsh criticism of government actions that threaten “peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets.”

It appeared the president had seen the light and was finally going to stop his abuse of office and his promiscuous use of executive orders. But then I read further and saw he was talking about Vladimir Putin and his beachfront trespassing in the Crimea. I thought Obama likes trespassers. Could it be that Putin rejected his offer of in–state tuition?

Of course there are differences between the strongman’s approach and that of the girlyman. Putin’s misrule is designed to advance the interests of Russian nationalism, while Obama appears content to undermine US standing and interests in the world.

With the result that Russian oligarchs will soon have prime sites for expansive vacation homes within the border of a newly expanded Russia. While our leaders launch deadly cutting remarks that include “wrong side of history” and “19th century thinking” mimicking Harvard faculty lounge habitués criticizing the NFL 1st round draft choice that gets the millions and the girl.

I know this criticism is not entirely fair. The Obama administration has decided to impose sanctions on Russia. Out of a current population of 141,924,000, the Obama administration has singled out seven (that’s right, seven) for punishment. The original intent of White House strategists was to just single out a certain percentage of cells in each of the seven individual’s body for pinpoint sanctions — gas pains, lumbago, toenail fungus, impotence — but the surgeon general informed the White House that either those maladies took to long to manifest or present technology didn’t support the goal.

Instead the administration opted for financial sanctions that make it harder for the Moscow 7 to gain access to any funds they have deposited in Western banks. The Washington Post described the strategy as an attempt “to see whether a symbolic first gesture would be sufficient to give Putin pause….” sorta like the famous “red line” in Syria.

Like much of Obama’s strategy, whether in health care or the economy, this gambit backfired. The Russian stock market went up after the announcement, instead of going down.

But that doesn’t mean the great minds in this administration are going to give up. Much like Robert McNamara carefully calibrating just the right amount of ordinance necessary to bring North Vietnam to its knees, Obama’s financial calibrations have room for expansion.

An administration insider has leaked a plan that will escalate the impact of the next round of sanctions to an almost superhuman level of intensity, while expanding the reach of inconvenience for the Russian Revanchists beyond just the financial realm.

None of the Seven are now allowed to make wire transfers withdrawing their funds from Western banks, but after the sanctions are escalated, they will be limited to a maximum ATM withdrawal of $40 per day AND the Coinstar machine will be completely off limits.

If any of the sanctioned try to travel to the US it’s also No More Mr. Nice Guy. The TSA’s expedited ‘Pre’ lane will be off limits. The Crimean Criminals will be assigned to the rubber gloves and high–school–field trips line for the foreseeable future and they will always be relegated to the last boarding group regardless of their frequent flyer status.

Assuming the Seven can’t take a hint and come to DC in spite of Obama’s disdain, anytime they attempt to use the Uber app to arrange transportation it will result in a fast busy signal, forcing them to use DC taxis. Even worse their lodgings will be in hotels built by Sochi Olympics construction firms.

Since unrepentant aggressors like these will no doubt try to bypass this sanction, even if they rent a car both the GPS device and their E–ZPass transponder will be jammed by NSA, meaning that even if they can find a toll road, they will be forced to use the exact change booth.

And finally, to show Obama really means business, if any of these Russian Reprobates have more than 15 items in their cart when shopping, they will be ejected from the express lane.

There’s also a role in this for Vice President ‘Uncle Joe’ Biden — a nickname freighted with meaning for Russians. Proving irony isn’t dead in this administration, Biden will be visiting many of the Western nations were Obama earlier canceled plans to install anti–missile batteries after Putin objected.

While looking due East, Uncle Joe will advise these buffer states to buy shotguns and if they see any Russian troops playing footsie with their borders, go out on the balcony, point the muzzle skyward and fire a couple of rounds to scare the bear away.

What Western powers should do in response to Russia’s aggression

 

ReaganPeaceQuoteThe Russian aggression against Ukraine, initiated by President Vladimir Putin, has surprised many but not me, and should have surprised no one.

It is simply an inevitable consequence of the West, and especially America’s, shameless appeasement policy towards Russia combined with a long-running policy of unilateral disarmament (while Russia, under Vladimir Putin, has been arming to the teeth).

For many years, and especially the last five, Western nations have been dramatically cutting their militaries, defense budgets, weapon programs, and ambitions, while Russia has been dramatically expanding its own.

And for the last five years running, this writer has been sounding the alarm about these suicidal policies, warning that they would only lead to Russian intimidation, coercion, excesses, muscle-flexing, and eventually, aggression.

This writer most notably sounded the alarm in May 2009, writing that:

“Unless European states and America suddenly adopt a hawkish foreign policy and strengthen their militaries, Europe will become a mere province of the Russian empire.”

And as usual, this writer was right all along.

Meanwhile, all those who falsely claimed that “the Cold War was over”, “Russia is our friend/partner, not our enemy”, “you are a Cold War dinosaur”, “you need to shed this Cold War mentality”, and “the 1980s are asking to have their policy back” were dead wrong.

All those who claimed Russia was a partner and not a foe, that it should be appeased and accomodated, that Obama’s “reset” policy was right, that the US could afford to cut its nuclear arsenal further – from Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and the Cato Institute, to the CNAS, Michele Flournoy, Michael McFaul, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Henry Kissinger, and Pat Buchanan – were DEAD WRONG ALL ALONG.

These people should now publicly admit being wrong and shut their ignorant mouths up. But we should be under no illusions that they will.

Now Ukraine, a strategically important country and a weak neighbor of Russia, has been invaded by that country under the utterly false pretext of protecting Russian citizens and ethnic Russians in the Crimea – who were not threatened by Kiev in any way – just like Hitler annexed the Sudetenland in 1938, ostensibly to protect the Sudetenland Germans from the Czechoslovakian government.

In any case, what can and should Western powers do to stop Putin from going any further?

The first and most important thing is to immediately and permanently STOP listening to the advice from the Powell-Kissinger-Flournoy-Clinton school of foreign policy, which has once again (but not for the first time) been proven DEAD WRONG.

This means no more cuts in the West’s nuclear or conventional arsenals, no more “arms control” treaties, no more accommodating of the Russians’ demands. By committing such a blatant act of aggression, they’ve forfeited the right to be heard on any issue and to make any wishes or demands.

But the West must do much more to convince Vladimir Putin that it’s serious. Mere promises of toughness, verbal condemnations, and “dialogue” won’t stop him from committing further aggression.

Therefore, the US, Canada, and European countries should, until such time as the Putin regime collapses:

1) Immediately institute a TOTAL embargo on ALL Russian products except raw minerals.

2) Hasten the deployment of all stages of the European Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in Europe, and build an East Coast missile defense site.

3) Immediately withdraw from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the New START, and the CFE Treaty.

4) Ban the Russian national air carrier, Aeroflot, from flying into US, Canadian, or EU airspace.

5) Warn Russia that any of its military aircraft that venture into US, Canadian, or EU airspace will be shot down without warning.

6) Expel Russian ambassadors from Western countries.

7) Boycott the upcoming G8 summit and Paralympic Games in Sochi.

8) Reverse all defense (budget, programmatic, force structure) cuts undertaken in the last 12 years and start building Western militaries up. In particular, the US should reverse all the cuts in its nuclear arsenal and fully modernize it; revive the MEADS, Airborne Laser, Kinetic Energy Interceptor, and Multiple Kill Vehicle programs; cancel the F-35 program and resume F-22 Raptor fighter production; develop the Reliable Replacement Warhead and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator; increase its inventory of MOP bombs; reintroduce S-3 Vikings into service; improve its Navy’s ASW equipment and skills; build a Conventional Prompt Global Strike system; develop ASAT weapons; order more THAAD brigades; speed up naval railgun and laser development and deployment; and make more Aegis-class warships BMD-capable.

9) Lastly, and most importantly, Western countries should strike Russia where it is weakest: its economy. Specifically, Western countries, led by the US, should:

a) Impose total economic sanctions, including a total embargo and asset freezes, on Russia; and

b) Start freeing itself from Russia’s oil and gas domination by opening the Outer Continental Shelf, the ANWR, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, all shale oil and gas deposits throughout the West, and the reserves in the Everglades; liquifying coal; using methane in lieu of natural gas; cancelling the South Stream pipeline; authorizing the Keystone Pipeline; and building the Nabucco Pipeline instead (and as quickly as possible). In addition, the US, which is already a net oil and gas exporter, should immediately start exporting these fuels to Europe to help it wean itself off Russian hydrocarbons.

The Russian economy is terribly dependent on raw minerals exports; 66% of the Kremlin’s revenue comes from these exports, while manufactured goods exports account for only about 10%. Moreover, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has already caused significant unrest at the Moscow stock exchange, whose main index has seen a 10% fall (and a 20% decline in the Russian currency’s value to the dollar) just today (as of 8:24AM ET, 18:24 Moscow time).

Moreover, Putin’s totally incompetent interference in the affairs of Gazprom, the Russian gas producing and exporting company, has driven it into a debt of $50 billion – equalling its turnover of one year.

This invasion, and Vladimir Putin’s entire buildup of the Russian military, would NOT have been possible absent the boon provided by high oil and gas prices (oil now stands at $105/barrel) and Russia’s stranglehold on their supplies to Europe. If that stranglehold is broken, and if these prices decline dramatically and soon, Putin will have no choice but to withdraw his troops, and his wannabe Evil Empire Redux will fall like a deck of cards.

Those who advocated the ridiculous policy of appeasement and unilateral disarmament that brought us into this mess in the first place now falsely claim that the only alternative to dialogue with Russia is war with that country. That is completely false.

No one wants war with Moscow. And since the Russian military is already more than strong enough to defeat the US military easily, it would be ill-advised.

But as stated above, Russia has one great glaring weakness – its economy – and as Sun Tzu wisely counseled, the right way to defeat your opponent is to strike his weaknesses, not his strengths.

Just as Ronald Reagan (who was vilified as a warmonger who would cause nuclear war) won the Cold War without firing a shot, the West, if it applies the right policies, can defeat Russia today, also without firing a shot, by pulling the economic lever. It absolutely can do so. The question is whether Western leaders will now have the intellectual courage to acknowledge the utter failure of their appeasement policy.

Obama, The New Bernie Madoff

At another boring State Of The Union address last week, Obama made another attempt at getting into the pockets of the American people. It is not enough that the Government taxes everything under the sun, now Obama has come-up with a plan that supposedly will make Americans just want to hand over our money to the Government.

To better enable Americans to save for retirement, Obama said he would order a new starter savings plan called My-RA geared at low-income households. The My-Ra account would function like a Roth IRA, allowing savers to put in after-tax money that would then grow tax-free. Now, on the surface that sounds pretty good, but, I have to ask you, after the disastrous Obama-Care roll out, does anyone actually trust the Government to do anything right?

Let me point something out to Mr. Obama, after five years of his so-called leadership, the poor have gotten poorer, people are having a hard time just surviving day to day, what makes him think they have any spare money to give to the Government? Mr. Obama, why don’t you concentrate on what you promised the American people five years ago, creating jobs and fixing our economy, it seems you try to do everything else except what the country really needs?

People who are now investing in a traditional IRA have their money invested in a variety of different platforms, but unlike traditional Roth IRAs, the accounts will solely invest in government savings bonds. I don’t know about you, but I would not give my money to a Government that is drowning in debt and cannot manage its own spending habits.

Obama has the nerve to ask the American people to invest in a Government that has lost billions of dollars in failed green energy companies. What about the Governments investment in the automobile industry, I think they lost somewhere in the neighborhood of ten billion dollars on that one alone. Let us not forget the billions wasted every year on senseless projects like the shrimp on the treadmill. How can we forget the IRS spending tens of thousands of dollars on stupid parody videos of Gilligans Island and Star Trek and we are expected to trust the Government with our hard-earned money?

Americans have so many different ways to invest, we do not need government. There are 401k’s, IRA’s, Roth IRA’s, there are tons of banks around, yet Obama thinks it is necessary to have a government run savings vehicle, which will pay a much lower rate of return I might add. Does anyone really want the IRS to have more oversight into our lives?

While President Obama tried to see the plan as a safe and secure bet for our nation’s retired population, the introduction of the My-RA essentially confirms the notion that the U.S. government can longer find anyone to lend them money. What can an investor in Obama’s new My-Ra expect in return? 1% maybe 2%, why, that doesn’t even keep up with inflation, nice try Obama, but not for me.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

Madoff-ObamaThis is one man’s opinion.

The Unbridled Hate of Hate Speech Laws

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This quote, often attributed to Voltaire, is at the heart of our First Amendment right to free speech, at least where the authority of our government is concerned. A free society, and, in fact, a free people, must be able to speak freely in order to challenge power, ideological aggression or the coercion of faction. To limit or eliminate this fundamental right; this essential check to balance, is to limit or eliminate freedom in its most cursory form. Put succinctly, limiting free speech rights is tyranny in its most basic form.

It is for this reason that the Progressive Movement’s continued assault on free speech rights – both here in the United States and throughout the free world – is of such immediate concern.

On January 16, 2014, TheHill.com reported:

“Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

“The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (P-NY) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to ‘advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.’

“The Hate Crime Reporting Act, HR3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

“Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades…

“‘This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection.’”

The other co-sponsors of this bill include: Reps. Gregory Meeks, (D-NY); Ann Kuster, (D-NH); Michael Honda, (P-CA); Judy Chu, (P-CA); Bobby Rush, (P-IL); Carolyn Maloney, (P-NY); Pedro Pierluisi, (D-PR-At Large); Tony Cardenas, (D-CA-29); Mark Pocan, (P-WI); Eleanor Holmes-Norton, (P-DC-At Large); and Ron Kind, (D-WI).

Again, the entirety of the issue of “hate speech” is predicated on who is defining “hate.” Put another way, one person’s “hate” is inevitably another person’s “free speech.” Cases in point: Nazi, Soviet and Communist Chinese censorship.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis added)

So, the desires of the sponsors of HR3878 – and, in fact, the whole of the Progressive Movement – are juxtaposed to the guarantees of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” then no speech – no matter how offensive, societally unacceptable or politically incorrect – can be abridged, sans speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government.

Therefore, assurances made by the sponsors of HR3878, that only “criminal and hateful” speech occurring “outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection,” are presented disingenuously at the proposal’s genesis because no speech can be considered – short of speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government – “criminal” and/or “hateful” by constitutional measure.

Understanding this as fact, it is not out of line to charge that the sponsors of HR3878 are either, constitutionally illiterate, deceptive in their intentions or both. Only the constitutionally illiterate would fail to understand the First Amendment free speech clause was meant to prevent factions from silencing dissenters of the majority, thus executing one of the pinnacle purposes of the Charters of Freedom: protecting the rights of the minority. Conversely, if the sponsors of this piece of legislation do understand the unconstitutionality of their proposal, they advance the measure for nefarious reasons; reasons antithetical to true freedom and liberty for all.

But this shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention to Progressive Movement from its inception.

In a recent analysis entitled, It’s Not a War on Christmas, I make the observation:

“If the elitist oligarchs of the modern day Progressive Movement are to assume complete control; complete authority to execute social justice, economic justice and redefine the many ideas of equality, then they must dispense with the idea that they – themselves – are not at the top of the power pyramid; at the top of the intellectual ‘food chain’…

“By playing on emotions – the most potent tool in the Progressive arsenal – and painting those who hold true to their…beliefs as being “un-inclusive,” “intolerant of others,” and “insensitive”…, Progressives aim to ‘shame’ the truly tolerant and inclusive… By shaming or making the majority of Americans ‘uncomfortable’ for the accusations of intolerance and insensitivity, Progressives aim to force an abdication of traditional American values and beliefs. In doing so they inch closer to their goal of expunging the notion of Natural Law from the societal and then governmental lexicons, successfully achieving elitist, oligarchic and totalitarian control over the defining of rights, the common good, and the role of government in our lives.”

This reality applies to the false-flag concept of “hate speech” laws. It can also be applied to the totalitarian “double-jeopardy” of “hate crime” laws as well. To the latter, a crime is either a crime or it is not a crime. By creating a more severe punishment for a “class,” “demographic” or “preferred faction” of people, Progressives seek to artificially elevate the severity of a crime only when that crime is committed against the few, while citing the crime as less severe when committed against all others.

In the end, it is the Progressive Movement’s modus operandi to manipulate the citizenries of free nations through emotion and “feel good” sounding pieces of legislation, all sold to us as a bill of goods addressing the “common good.” In reality, these false-flag, emotion-based pieces of legislation – these “social justice” initiatives – serve to usurp the freedoms guaranteed to us in the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

They are exercises in soft tyranny meant to create power for – and deliver power to – the elitist oligarchs and the tyrannical.

They serve to pollute the airs of freedom; to smother Lady Liberty; and to, eventually, oppress the masses into subjugation.

Of course, to Progressives, those are words of “hate.”

Now! Now It’s Job One?

Obama first took office in January of 2009, now, January of 2014 the Democrats are saying, to quote New York Senator Chuck Schumer, “The debt and Obama-Care are important, but our number one focus should be on the economy and jobs,” where were the Democrats six years ago?

In 2009 we were at the height of the recession, where was the concentration on jobs then? The Democrats instead pushed a stimulus package that did nothing and forced Obama-Care down our throats, that is in the process of not only hurting the economy but also killing job creation. This same Senator Schumer also said “Many of our Republican colleagues say: ‘Oh, unemployment benefits keep people from work.’ That is insulting,” I think Senator Schumer is smoking that funny stuff that Liberals like to smoke. Not only him, but Obama also said, “Voting for unemployment insurance helps people and creates jobs. And voting against it does not,”

Let me explain something to our Liberal pals, even though it will never sink in, paying people not to work, will keep them not working, if we keep extending unemployment until it becomes another entitlement, it will only keep unemployment high. The December jobs report came out, 75,000 jobs created in that month, 75,000 jobs, it has been three and a half years since the economy created that few amount of jobs. Where are the four million jobs that were supposed to be created “almost immediately” with the passage of Obama-Care, at least that is what Nancy Pelosi promised, another Democrat promise that went nowhere.

The Democrats wouldn’t know a jobs plan if it bit them on the ass, their full concentration seems to be on keeping people out of work by paying them to do so. Now Obama has another bright idea that will go nowhere, ‘promise zones’ when you sit down and examine them, they are nothing more than welfare on steroids. This President does not seem to get it, LBJ tried it in the mid 1960’s with his war on poverty, that only grew generations of Government dependency. I have to hand it to the Liberals, they keep trying over and over, what are nothing more than failed policies, just putting a different name to them, they are persistent I must say.

Ronald Reagan said it best when he said “I believe the best social program is a job.” Why don’t Liberals understand this philosophy, why don’t they see that people would rather have a job than an unemployment check, is it so hard to understand? Liberals seem to be good at creating more and more entitlements, but why don’t they learn how to create what people want, which is a job.

FDR kept this country in a depression for ten years with his big Government spending, you would think that Obama would learn from that, all he is doing is following in FDR’s footsteps, thank God Obama can’t be elected to another term or we would see another four years unemployment checks instead of jobs. I have to hand it to Obama, he is good at giving people hope, but sooner or later people are going to realize you can’t live for long on hope. Going into the sixth year of the Obama Presidency and the Democrats are now starting to concentrate on jobs, but they are not fooling me. The only reason they are shouting income equality, and jobs is to get the heat off the failure of Obama-Care.

I am far from an economist, but even I know Government spending does not create jobs, the private sector does that. Oh, the Government can start a job for a month or two, but when the money runs out, so does the job. These Liberals need to understand, if you get the Government out of the way, the private sector will take care of the rest, but why am I wasting my breath.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids.” Available here.

Poor

This is one man’s opinion.

Roberts Rules Again…Poorly

Now comes news that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has doubled down on his middle finger to the American citizenry by turning away – without comment, which the SCOTUS gets to do – an emergency stay request, filed by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA, to block the implementation of Obamacare.

In an almost ignored story, FOX News reports:

“Chief Justice John Roberts turned away without comment Monday an emergency stay request from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. and the Alliance for Natural Health USA.

“They asked the chief justice Friday to temporarily block the law, saying Congress had passed it incorrectly by starting it in the Senate instead of the House. Revenue-raising bills are supposed to originate in the lower chamber. They also wanted blocked doctor registration requirements they say will make it harder for independent non-Medicare physicians to treat Medicare-eligible patients.

“Still pending is a decision on a temporary block on the law’s contraceptive coverage requirements, which was challenged by a group of nuns.”

With an overwhelming number of Americans standing against the implementation of this law, an ever increasing realization of consequences that make the law he most expensive entitlement program ever launched, and the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional manipulation of the law’s provision via executive caveat, Chief Justice Roberts had a golden opportunity to rectify his atrocious ruling that allowed for this law to become binding to the American people. Again, Mr. Roberts has cheated the American people from the benefits of constitutional justice.

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states clearly:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

That The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) originated out of the US House of Representatives as the Service Members Home Ownership Act (HR3590), which has absolutely nothing – nothing – to do with health insurance mandates or so-called reforms. Per the Obama Administration’s own Justice Department rebuttal to a suit brought on the same subject by the Pacific Legal Foundation:

“…attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as ‘gut and amend’ and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

“Using HR3590 as a ‘shell bill’ may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.”

So, the Obama Administration admits that the bill was foisted on the American people disingenuously and nefariously, Justice Roberts ruled it a tax, and yet Roberts refuses to allow the Supreme Court to hear a case that examines and rules on the constitutionality of exactly the unconstitutional aspects everyone says exist.

The big question is this. Why is Chief Justice John Roberts running interference for the Obama Progressives?

Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution states:

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

One has to ask, with the caveat that Supreme Court Justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” we should all be asking – and asking our elected officials: What shall be done about Chief Justice Roberts; “bad behaviour”?

Stupid Senators Suckered By Obama On Nuke Deterrence

 

nukeexplosion

URGENT PLEA: A number of Senators have introduced amendments to the NDAA that would bar Obama from cutting the nuclear deterrent unilaterally, scrapping any ICBM squadrons, or honoring arms reduction agreements that no one abides by. Dear Readers, please call your Senators (and other states’ Senators) and tell them to vote for ALL of these amendments.

Over three years ago, way back in 2010, well before the treasonous New START treaty had even been ratified by the Senate, I warned the Senators and the public to reject that dangerous treaty, as it would unilaterally reduce and undermine America’s nuclear deterrent while permitting an unrestrained Russian nuclear buildup.

Nonetheless, 13 Republican Senators voted for the treaty, because Obama promised that in exchange for the Senate’s consent to ratification, he would fully modernize all three legs of the nuclear triad, as well as the warheads and its supporting facilities, and implement all four Phases of his so-called “European Phased Adaptive Approach” to missile defense (EPAA).

I warned publicly that Obama’s promises were not to believed or trusted, that Obama was blatantly lying just to obtain Senate ratification and would never keep his promises, and that once New START would be ratified, the cuts to America’s deterrent would be deep and immediate, while the promised modernization of what’s left would not occur or be defunded and delayed ad infinitum.

Everything that has happened since then has proven me right.

Since New START’s ratification, Obama has delayed the construction of the vital Nuclear Metallurgy Research and Replacement Center by five years; delayed the ballistic missile submarine and bomber replacement programs; has unilaterally retired and scrapped all W80 warheads for Tomahawk cruise missiles; and has, to date, failed to initiate any replacement program for the USAF’s air-launched cruise missiles and silo-based ICBMs. He has also cancelled the fourth phase of his EPAA.

But Obama has decided to go even further. He has now decided to reduce America’s arsenal unilaterally further by retiring the powerful bunker-busting B83 bomb and by eliminating an entire ICBM squadron with 50 missiles.

It is not yet known which squadron at which base will be eliminated – whether in Wyoming (Francis E. Warren AFB), Montana (Malmstrom AFB), or North Dakota (Grand Forks AFB). What is certain is that not only will the missiles themselves be scrapped, but their siloes will be destroyed so that no future President could reuse them and deploy ICBMs in them if he needed to (which a future President WILL need to do, given the relentless growth of Russia’s and China’s nuclear arsenals).

And what is also certain is that this act of unilateral disarmament will significantly undermine America’s nuclear deterrent and thus the security of the US and all of its allies.

As a result, the US will have FIFTY fewer missiles with which to deliver nuclear warheads if retaliation against an aggressor is necessary, and a significantly smaller (and thus less survivable) nuclear deterrent.

Russia, by contrast, is GROWING the number of ICBMs (and bombers) it has. It currently wields 434 ICBMs (58 SS-18s, 136 SS-19s, 171 SS-25s, 78 SS-27s, 18 SS-29s) capable of delivering at least 1,684 warheads to the CONUS. On top of that, Russia’s bomber fleet can deliver over 1,700, and Russia’s ballistic missile submarine fleet another 1,400 warheads to the CONUS.

The smaller a nuclear arsenal is, the less survivable and less credible it is, and thus the less secure its owner nation is. Cutting America’s nuclear arsenal only makes the US (and all of its allies) LESS secure, not more.

Such deep cuts will also prod some of America’s allies to develop their own nuclear arsenals, because that of the US wll no longer be credible. 66.5% of South Koreans ALREADY want to do so, and Saudi Arabia has already ordered nuclear weapons in Pakistan, according to the BBC. Japan has recently opened a facility that could produce enough fissile material for 3,600 nuclear warheads in a matter of months if need be.

You see, Washington’s best-kept secret is that America’s nuclear arsenal, far from being a part of the proliferation problem, is actually America’s best tool for confronting and limiting it. It protects over 30 allies of the US, thus making it unnecessary for them to develop their own nukes, and deters all potential troublemakers, thus significantly limiting the proliferation problem.

Continually cutting the US nuclear deterrent will only AGGRAVATE that problem.

Indeed, since 1991, while the US has cut its arsenal by over 75%, China, India, and Israel have significantly increased theirs, Russia has begun rebuilding its own, and two new members have joined the nuclear club: Pakistan (1998) and North Korea (2006). Iran and Saudi Arabia are well on their way there – and they are racing to get there first.

So cutting the US nuclear arsenal deeply, by over 75% since the Cold War’s end, and signing a plethora of arms control treaties, has UTTERLY FAILED to solve or even slow down the problem of nuclear proliferation.

Indeed, all arms control treaties signed to date by the US have done nothing but dramatically REDUCE the security of the US and all of its allies while emboldening America’s enemies. Over twenty years of continually cutting and refusing to modernize the US nuclear arsenal have utterly failed to convince other states to give up their nukes, to stop them from modernizing their arsenals, or even to prevent the emergence of new nuclear powers.

Arms control treaties have resulted in ONLY the US (and for a while, Russia) significantly cutting its nuclear arsenal. They do nothing but gravely UNDERMINE US and allied security. This is especially true of the New START treaty, which obligates ONLY the US (not Russia) to cut its nuclear arsenal. God forbid that Obama have any opportunity to sign more treaties like that!

Arms control treaties serve NO purpose but to hog-tie and disarm the West unilaterally. As Ronald Reagan rightly said, “We honor our arms control treaty obligations. Those who wish to do us harm don’t.”

The Obama administration claims that it needs to dismantle those ICBMs in order to comply with New START.

This is utterly false: under New START, it doesn’t have to destroy any siloes, just warhead delivery systems like ICBMs. Even then, it doesn’t have to dismantle as many as 50, or instead of dismantling ICBMs it could simply disable some missile tubes on the Navy’s ballistic missile subs.

Most importantly, New START is a treasonous treaty which is only UNDERMINING America’s nuclear deterrent and national security. It should’ve never been signed, let alone ratified. The US should immediately WITHDRAW from that treaty.

In addition, Russia has, this year, flagrantly violated another arms control accord – the INF treaty – by testing intermediate range ballistic missiles, which is strictly prohibited by that treaty. Why should the US comply with arms control treaties when Russia never does?

But Obama isn’t merely content with disarming America unilaterally. He’s going even further and will make it much easier for Russian missiles to target the US.

The Obama State Department, led by John Kerry, has just approved Russia’s request to build a network of signalling stations for Russia’s GLONASS satellite navigation system (their version of GPS) in the United States. The Obama State Department approved this without even telling the DOD and the Intelligence Community – both of which are reportedly angry about it.

This is, of course, yet another part of a long list of unilateral Obama administration concessions to the Russians in the name of his utterly failed “reset” policy with Russia.

So not only is Obama unilaterally and deeply cutting America’s own nuclear deterrent – to make America unable to deter and if need be retaliate for a Russian nuclear first strike – he’s also allowing the Russians to build satellite navigation ground stations in the US to help make such a strike more likely and more accurate! What is this, if not treason?

Congress – and by that, I mean BOTH the House AND the Senate – must act IMMEDIATELY to protect America’s nuclear deterrent, and in particular, the ICBM fleet. This means they must:

  1. Pass a National Defense Authorization Act containing a firm PROHIBITION on the retirement of any ICBMs below the treshold of 420, the elimination of any ICBM siloes, or the construction of any Russian sat nav stations in the US.
  2. Fully fund, and direct the Obama administration to dramatically speed up, the modernization of America’s entire nuclear deterrent, in particular, the bomber and submarine replacement programs, the construction of the metallurgy center, and the development and deployment of a new ICBM and air-launched cruise missile. Set firm target dates.
  3. Prohibit the use of any funding for the implementation of New START or the dismantlement of any elements of the US nuclear triad, or for the retirement of the B83 bomb.

This must be done THIS YEAR, not a year from now when 1/3 of Senators will be busy running for reelection.

In addition, all Democrat Senators running for reelection next year – including Mary Landrieu (LA), Kay Hagan (NC), Mark Begich (AK), and Mark Pryor (AR) – must be punished for voting for the treasonous New START treaty, which has enabled Obama to conduct this process of unilateral disarmament in the first place. They ABSOLUTELY must be voted out of office. This means supporting whichever Republican has the best chance of beating them in a general election. No ifs, no buts. In Lousiania, that Republican is Bill Cassidy; in Alaska, Mark Begich; in AR, Tom Cotton; in North Carolina, this is yet to be seen, though it currently appears to be Greg Brannon.

Landrieu, Hagan, Begich, and Pryor are not “moderate Democrats”; they are strident liberals, loyal footsoldiers of Obama and Reid. They must not be allowed to hide behind their utterly false mask of “moderate Democrats”; they must be exposed for whom they really are. They, in fact, loyally vote with Harry Reid over 90% of the time.

In 2010, they cast two fateful votes for leftist policies. The first was for Obamacare. The second was for New START. They must be voted out of office for both. 

UPDATE: A number of Republican Senators have introduced amendments which would effectively prevent Obama from scrapping any ICBM squadron, cutting America’s nuclear deterrent while treaty-noncompliant nations do not, or giving aid to any country developing ballistic missiles capable of hitting the US. See here.

What’s In a Word? And Who Cares Anyway?

Gov Screws You

This week, Obama, Sebelius, and Carney, introduced new meanings to words like “Let me make this clear! and “What he really meant was…” and “It’s the Republicans’ fault.”

This reminds me of my teenage years. Like “The dog ate my homework” and “You never said it was due today!” Only in those days, they were called lies. Plain and simple.

The president gave a speech this week in Boston on the day of a World Series game that the Boston Red Sox are playing in. With this president, it’s all about him. His propaganda had to be pushed on a city that had recently suffered a blow at the marathon and was feeling good about coming into a World Series game with an opportunity to win something they hadn’t won in over 80 years.
The speech from Boston talked about what a success the Obamacare roll-out was (insert cricket sounds here). Seriously? If by “success” he meant the roll-out of a website built to gather information and allow people to sign up for “affordable health care” where 90+% of the people attempting to sign onto it could do nothing, and I mean truly nothing! (Yes, actual use of the word with true meaning.) They filled in information for hours only to get an error message that their information would not be accepted. Many users stated that even when they entered their date of birth in the proper field it was rejected no matter how they entered it, and that there was no example format, i.e “Date of Birth: 01/01/50 or 01/01/1950”.

And yet the president still said, “many of the glitches had been worked out and many people were having no real issues.” Sure they have.

The president stated a few facts about people that signed up for health care and saved “lots of money” only to find out later that at the time he made the speech just under 50,000 people have “signed up.” Come to find out, “signed up” actually meant “registered” to use the site. Most people thought the president meant the folks were signed up for their healthcare. I have registered on many web sites for information without signing up for the product or services. There is a difference.

The president said many have already saved or found out they will be saving thousands on their plans. Sadly, that’s because they are losing their plans and will pay the $95.00 penalty collected by the IRS through their refunds. What if they don’t get a refund? I guess they’ll just have to write a check.

Many of those who were able to use the site, find a plan, and sign up were greeted with a final screen that said something like: Congratulations you qualify for XYZ plan, please call this number 800-###-#### with the registration/confirmation number on the top of this page.

There are two problems here; in almost every case, the registration/confirmation area was blank and the 800 number provided went to a cupcake shop and deli in New York. Well, finally something I could sink my teeth into!

The president said this would be the most open and transparent administration in history. Yet, it seems to literally take an act of congress to get anyone from his cabinet or staff to come and testify. When they do, in half the cases, they plead the fifth. The other half of the time, they speak with disdain and in a condescending tone.

Queue up Kathleen Sibelius who was recently asked to testify in front of congress. At first she refused. But why? What was there to hide? Is there some kind of national security issue on the Obamacare web site? Isn’t she part of the most transparent and open administration ever?

When she finally did testify, simple questions like “who was responsible for testing the web site” were responded with “I am not sure of the exact person.” Apparently this means, I have no clue if it was even tested. When asked, “Did you know of the issues CGI had with the other projects it did?” she replied, “I am sure they met the bid requirements.” Let me translate that for you, that meant “NO!”

When asked point-blank about security of personal information Sebelius replied, “testing occurs regularly” yet she told the congressman she would get back to him on whether any end-to-end security test of the entire system has ever occurred. The congressman produced a department memo from her own department that stated there have been no such comprehensive security tests and that they were aware days before, because of the sites many issues, they were not even ready to test security.
Jay Carney (in the job that just can’t pay enough) started almost every sentence this week with “what the president meant was…” Apparently when the President says “let me be perfectly clear..” he means “let me use some words that Jay Carney will re-word later to say the things we think you will want to hear so you won’t know what’s going on and be mad at me!”

I will never understand why the president and his team won’t own up to anything. They released the website, period. If he would just say, “we released the site, it’s not quite ready, but we will work it out as you use it” that would go a long way.

But I guess it might be a little harder to be completely honest about some parts. Do you think it would fly if he just said, “I don’t know what all the fuss is about. As we moved forward with the Affordable Care Act we decided that substandard healthcare plans (in our opinion) would not be tolerated. We know what’s best for you. Shut up and pay the fee. Ummm tax. You are going to get this healthcare plan no matter what you say or do. So suck it up, be a good comrade, and, oh yeah, it’s the Republicans’ fault.”

Teach your Children well?

smartkid

From a young age and throughout the years I have heard people say, “teach your children well, you don’t want to raise little monsters, do you?”

These and other comments were about molding and shaping children at an early age. The Bible says “train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.” I guess it’s all about training our children, right? Right!

In Germany, Hitler knew this to be paramount to his success in being the “supreme ruler,” dictator, and “Grand PooBah” so much so that he dictated what would be taught in every school and changed the curriculum to reflect the superiority of the Arian race and people.

At the age of 10 they were grouped by age and taught “German Patriotism”. No big deal right? They were molded and shaped until they were 18 and then inducted into the German Army. After the age of 10 they were not allowed to engage in any outside activities aside from their “group.” They were taught good work habits and ethics, and the learning day had much to do with the great Leader known as Hitler and the Nazi party (socialist).

These kids became so loyal to Hitler and the party that they would turn in their own parents for any anti Hitler or anti-party comments. Party indoctrination was so deep that when Hitler declared the Jews were the cause of the German woes, it was not hard to get the Hitler youth to turn on them. You don’t kill that many people, the way they were killed, without brainwashing the youth. They grew into soldiers that carried out the party’s orders without question because they trusted their leader.

Now, let’s look at today. We have education being more and more dictated by liberal America. Many elementary and high school texts have rewritten history to twist the things we hold sacred into something wrong and inhumane.

Recently an elementary school district taught and tested the kids on the evil conqueror, Christopher Columbus, and the millions of Indians (yes, millions) that he and his people slaughtered. If that’s true, why do we “celebrate” Thanksgiving? (That’s just wrong on so many levels.) The curriculum went on to ask the kids what questions they would ask him at his trial.

Textbooks are being changed to down play the Judeo/Christian influence on this nation’s history. Some history books emphasize that our forefathers came her to get away from religion, rather than the actual fact that they came here to practice their own religion and worship God the way they chose.

I guess, based on these new history books, the Pilgrims must have been very confused because they had the first Thanksgiving to actually offer thanks to the Almighty (not mother earth) for all He had given them.

Jefferson must have also been very confused because he used the congressional meeting house to have Sunday service, government paid and maintained, with the Marine Band playing hymns in the government building!

Now, our elementary school kids are learning about how bad these men were because they owned slaves. They had their faults, and it’s appropriate to teach about the wrongs of slavery, but not to the exclusion of the rest of the story. How about teaching our kids about the selfless dedication they had to the freedom of the American people and that what they sacrificed was much more than a new iPod or Sunday football game?

Then there are our institutions of higher learning that seem to teach more about sexual pleasure and how to get as much from the government as possible than they teach about, science, math, and technology, as evidenced by our drop in world standing in these areas.

Numerous college campuses now have “Sex Week.” Many liberals justify this by saying it’s just “part of the college experience” and it helps the kids to blow off a little steam. I highly doubt that Albert Einstein, Marie Curie, and Jonas Salk would attribute their genius to their pursuit of sex and sexual knowledge in college! More and more colleges have what boils down to “how to have better sex” classes, complete with visual aids, presentations, and nothing left to the imagination. One college provides an introductory comic book to incoming freshmen to help them exploring their “erotic self” and even their “homosexual self.” Really? What if I have no homosexual self or can’t find it. Do I fail?

Politically, students on campuses are being encouraged to embrace communism and socialism and shun conservative values, speakers and teachers.

We are becoming the laughing stock of the world, with our failed economic policies, our mismanaged healthcare law and rollout, and our failing school systems.

Hitler’s lesson was on target. If you get the youth, you have the country. In other words, he trained the youth in the way he wanted them to go and eventually had total control.

Today the progressive left is training up the youth in the way they want to see this country grow and have they’ve been doing so for many years. Take a look around at what’s happening to in our country.
We are seeing the fruits of their efforts now. And we are in a heap of hurt as a nation and a people.

How Advice from Three Frenchmen Could Have Won the Shutdown Battle

Don't let the floppy hats fool you. The Three Musketeers could have helped during the Shutdown fight.

Don’t let the floppy hats fool you. The Three Musketeers could have helped during the Shutdown fight.

Speaker John Boehner is the Adm. Karl Dönitz of Republican politics. Hemmed in on one side by the pounding batteries of the Mainstream Media and on the other by a mob of howling leftists eager to send him to a self–criticism session on MSNBC — Boehner desperately tries to negotiate a surrender to Supreme Commander Obama that will leave him with a shred of dignity and continued access to the Congressional tanning bed.

What really sticks in Boehner’s craw is the realization he’s going to be stuck with the blame for the shutdown defeat! He warned the caucus what would happen if they followed a strategy designed by crazy people. But no, they were intoxicated by the crowds at the rallies and stem–winders on the Senate floor. Victory was at hand!

Yet now the loonies are out of the picture and here Boehner sits in the ruins of the Shutdown Bunker wondering if Harry Reid will allow him to smoke at the signing ceremony.

That’s what Boehner gets for trying to fight a two–front war. The struggle over Obamacare should have been either the continuing resolution shutdown or the debt ceiling. Not a bizarre push–me­—pull–you that blurred the two issues and made the public think the country hitched a ride with Thelma & Louise.

Giving credit where credit is due, Boehner started out well. The House GOP passed the initial continuing resolution with everything funded but Obamacare and sent the bill to the Senate where is disappeared like it was term limits legislation. So the government was at impasse.

It’s possible that if Boehner had donned a turban and started enriching uranium, Obama would have agreed to negotiate with him, but there wasn’t enough time to install the necessary number of centrifuges in the Rayburn office building.

During past shutdowns our leaders attempted to limit the inconvenience. This was a policy the Obama Administration could not afford to follow, as I pointed out last week, because after losing the sequester a painless shutdown would help make the case for even smaller government.

That’s why the Spite House made sure this shutdown hurt as many civilian bystanders as possible. Collateral damage was the order of the day. In total disregard of negative publicity Obama used his human drones in the Park Police to close the WWII monument, national parks, private businesses, roads, athletic fields and anything else they could get away with.

It drove Obama’s approval rating down to Jimmy Carter Land at 37 percent, which is an all time low for the light bringer. Yet he held firm, ironically enough employing the Nixon “madman” strategy. As Nixon once said, “I call it the Madman Theory… I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, “for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry—and he has his hand on the nuclear button.”

The only difference is Obama — totally lacking a foreign policy — uses the Madman theory to intimidate his Republican domestic opposition. It’s remarkable that a fellow who wears mom jeans and would probably have trouble bench-pressing a juice box, is so eager to roll the dice when other’s futures are at stake.

So as the nation’s busy borrowers at the Treasury threatened to crash into an unyielding debt ceiling, Boehner was genuinely worried that Madman Barack might actually cause the country to default, if it meant he would win the confrontation.

So Boehner blinked and surrendered.

Here is where the Frenchmen could have provided the margin of victory.

If only Boehner had employed the Three Musketeer Strategy the county and the GOP would have won in the long run. The Three Musketeer’s motto was: One for All & All for One.

Instead of allowing craven porkmeister Sen. Mitch McConnell (R–I’m not for sale, but I rent cheap) to seize the agenda and pass a combination government funding and debt ceiling agreement, Boehner should have had the House pass a bill that did that AND required everyone, every company and every member of Congress and their staff to submit to Obamacare this year without any waivers.

One for All & All for One; with the “All” in this instance being Obamacare. That way the fight is still about Obama’s signature bill, the one he shut down the government to save, but in a brilliant bit of political ju–jitsu his bill is turned against him.

Making the entire country suffer under the full Obamacare this year would have resulted in a disaster at the polls for Democrats in 2014. What’s more, the administration knows it, which is why it exempted employers from the mandate until AFTER the election.

Even better the Three Musketeer bill has the virtue of simplicity: all the money and all the Obamacare. With only two elements the MSM could not bury coverage of the Obamacare waiver removal, as it buried Obama’s plunging poll ratings. (Most poll stories trumpeted declining GOP ratings in the headlines and only mentioned the new low for Obama as a passing aside.)

A Three Musketeers bill would have been a poison pill for the administration. Signing it means a disaster at the polls next year. Not signing it and defaulting because Republicans were too bi–partisan and Obama didn’t want his signature bill to take effect for everyone would be a PR disaster even the MSM could not ignore. And Democrats would still face a wipeout in 2014. All victory would have required was for Boehner to hold fast regardless of Obama’s choice.

If the signature bill of the president is so good for the country, as the MSM claims, then Republicans should have done their best to make sure the nation gets it, as H. L. Mencken used to say, “good and hard.” After all, what’s wrong with using “settled law” to unsettle the populace?

How Obamacare Screws the Working Class…Hard

Now that it is becoming clear that the establishment House Republicans are about to capitulate to the Senate Democrats and Obama Progressives, it is clear that, short of Republicans taking the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016, Obamacare is set to sink into the flesh of the American entitlement system not unlike a bear’s claws sink into the flesh of its prey. Regardless of whether or not the federal healthcare exchange website functions adequately or not (get used to it, it’s government inferiority at work), the bureaucracy has just expanded and your wallets are about to do the opposite.

One of the things that people are going to have to come to understand is how the Internal Revenue Service – yes, the same Internal Revenue Service currently under investigation for targeting Conservative political groups – will be assessing the penalties (read: enforcing Obamacare) on those who choose not to “participate.” The fact of the matter is that it is both less ominous, yet more disturbing, than people think.

The penalties levied under the Affordable Care Act, under the usually heavy hand of the IRS, is not so much under the ACA. In fact, the pathway for extracting the Obamacare penalty from non-participants is exclusive to the garnishment of any federal tax refunds due. If one chooses not to acquire qualifying health insurance, the IRS will withhold the amount of the penalty that must be paid from any federal tax return refund that is owed an individual in violation of the statute.

According to BusinessInsider.com:

The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2 times the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won’t be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.

So, unlike when an individual fails to pay their federal income taxes, there won’t be a cadre of black uniformed federal agents armed with fully-automatic weapons kicking in your door in the middle of the night. You won’t be “frog-marched” out of your house in irons, past your disenchanted neighbors, to face the swift righteousness of redistributive social justice (I am being sarcastic, but less so than I would have been just a few years back).

But one question that eludes the thoughts of most people where this matter is concerned is this. What happens if you don’t “participate” in Obamacare but you aren’t due any federal tax refund? What if you are one of the 47 percent who does not pay federal income tax? What if you are über-wealthy and can afford a wizard tax attorney who can figure out how you can “zero out” on your federal taxes each year?

Well, the short answer is this. If you don’t pay federal income tax, technically, you don’t have to pay the fines under the Affordable Care Act. If you are one of the hard-working Americans who has federal taxes withheld from your paycheck – oh, you know, like Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law – you will have to pay the penalty out of your tax refunds. If you are one of the 47 percent of the American public who doesn’t pay federal income taxes, you get to “skate” the Obamacare penalty. Ditto for the “One Percenters.”

One has to wonder whether H&R Block is going to be flooded with new clients trying to figure out how to pay their federal income taxes to the penny throughout the year so that they “zero out.”

And let’s be honesty, the IRS is not going to come after every person who “skates” the $95 dollar (or 1 percent of earnings) penalty being assessed in 2014, even if they did seek to hire upwards of 16,000 new IRS agents since the passage of this freedom-crushing law.

So, when one comes to understand this very stark reality, the obvious question is this. If the indestructible demographic (the 21 to 32 year-old demo) doesn’t sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges in droves – and droves upwards of 80% of their demographic, and 47 percent of the country doesn’t pay federal income taxes, who actually pays for the expanded coverage mandated under the Affordable Care Act? Who is on the hook for Obamacare?

The answer – again – is the Middle-Class, blue-collar and union workers not covered by the Executive Branch union carve-outs of the law…and new taxes on everyone. Again, BusinessInsider.com reports:

Here are some of the new taxes you’re going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

A 3.8% surtax on “investment income”( dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc.) when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000, $250,000 for joint-filers. What is “investment income?” (WSJ)

A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more, $250,000 joint. (WSJ)

Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. (ATR.org)

The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. (ATR.org)

The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. (ATR.org)

A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)

A 40% tax on “Cadillac Health Care Plans” starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. (ATR.org)

A”Medicine Cabinet Tax” that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. (ATR.org)

A “penalty” tax for those who don’t buy health insurance.

A 2.3% excise tax on medical devices costing more than $100. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you’ll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare…

Note that these taxes are both “progressive” (aimed at rich people) and “regressive” (aimed at the middle class and poor people).

The cost of this program will not be affordable for the individuals – almost every story but for those who get taxpayer-funded subsidies is one of tripled premiums and deductibles, and it won’t be affordable for the country, especially when the bureaucrats and elitist political class put the price tag of the whole Obamacare ball of infected earwax at approximately $2 trillion dollars.

Now, President Obama is quoted as having said, in an interview with the Spanish-Speaking television network Univision, that:

Once [the budget impasse is rectified], you know, the day after – I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform…And if I have to join with other advocates and continue to speak out on that, and keep pushing, I’m going to do so because I think it’s really important for the country. And now is the time to do it.

And as the “indestructible” demographic (21-32 years of age) fails to sign-up for the Obamacare exchanges, pro-amnesty Progressives will begin insisting that illegal immigrants (I’m sorry, I mean undocumented uninvited guests) be added to those eligible for Obamacare. Understanding that the 47 percent of those who do not pay federal income tax cannot be fined, and that the One Percenters can affords to have their taxes “zero out,” how long will it be until Progressives scream “crisis” and demand massive, Middle-Class killing. economy destroying, Cloward-Piven-styled tax increases?

Who is John Galt?

Government Has Met the Enemy & It Is Us

Taxpayers sent to back of the bus as feds barricade MLK monument.
Taxpayers sent to back of the bus as feds barricade MLK monument.

Taxpayers sent to back of the bus as feds barricade MLK monument.

Americans are learning to their great surprise that Smokey the Bear has big, sharp teeth.

Formerly warm and cuddly branches of government — the Park Service, Forest Service and other granola–based management teams — have suddenly turned on innocent taxpayers who only wanted to scratch behind their ears.

You’re no doubt familiar with the WWII veterans who removed barriers the US Park Police erected to block the formerly law enforcement–free WWII Monument on the Mall. (Best sign of the Shutdown: “Normandy was closed when we got there, too.”) But that’s only one of many incidents.

The Washington Post interviewed a visitor from San Antonio who “expressed indignation at the petty ways that officials prevented people from enjoying national landmarks.” Her family had no problem looking at the cemetery itself since putting barriers in front of each tombstone was too much for even Smokey Bear. But they were unable to peek inside Arlington House because “they put black plastic in the windows so we couldn’t look in.”

If the reporter could have found a spokesperson not literally manning the barricades, I’m sure the response would have been the plastic was simply part of the annual preparations for the ‘Old Virginny Haunted House of Slavery’ that takes place in the mansion every October.

(SEEMarse’ Robert with blood on his hands! GASP as Stonewall Jackson sleeps during Christian services, dreaming of denying women the right to fight on the front line! SCREAM as Virginia terrorist Col. John Mosby provides inspiration for modern TEA party insurgents while he works for a TOTAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN!)

Any intimation that plastic–covered windows are a Glad bag thumb in the eye to conservatives is simply more delusional ranting from a party on Cruz control.

As the shutdown continues it’s obvious there is an air of desperation surrounding this whole petty, vindictive exercise on the part of the Obama Administration. The illegality, over reaction and simply hateful response of “public servants” to the actual public is so obvious even the media can no longer ignore it.

The question is why the federal tantrum? The answer is the Spite House (thank you Michelle Malkin) can’t afford to lose this fight like they did the sequester. Instead of being “the end of life as we knew it,” the sequester has become an accepted fact of life. Sequester was designed to be so destructive to defense that responsible Republicans would rescue the Pentagon, even if it meant more deficit spending on social programs.

The calculation failed. Setting a spending cut precedent was so important Republicans decided the 2,666 miles separating China from the USA would have to defend the country for now. In the event of a Chinese invasion, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D–LaRaza) would remove any hostile intent by putting them on the fast track to citizenship.

Budget talks now start with the sequester cuts as the baseline, and not an extraordinary one–time nick to the budget. Obamacrats can’t risk the public leaning they can function without 100 percent of the federal government.

Which is why duplicitous, politically motivated “public servants” are working hand–in–hand with the White House to provide the maximum inconvenience with the least blame for the administration. A painless 5 percent sequester, followed by a 17 percent government shutdown that isn’t a disaster for someone might create a climate where rolling back the size of government becomes a reality.

Hence the no–knock shutdowns. The Washington Times found Bruce O’Connell, the owner of the Pisgah Inn located on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina, fighting the arbitrary shutdown of his business. According to the story, “O’Connell said his workers are not federal employees, and his fire, police and rescue services all come from the county, so he isn’t drawing any federal funds.”

Uncle Sam’s only role before the shutdown was taking money from him in the form of fees. In the light of the nation’s budget situation, staying open would make money and possibly prevent that sequester–enabled Chinese invasion. Instead Obama spends money to prevent income after O’Connell refused to close. That act of defiance won him a visit from park rangers who were suddenly stationed in his driveway turning away paying customers.

Under the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of bureaucratic whim, if the Park Service thought it had the authority to close the inn it would have requested an injunction from a federal judge. O’Connell’s failure to close is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. There is no threat to public safety, only a threat to Big Government collectivists. Since time and the law were not on its side, the Obama administration used implied force to perform an arbitrary seizure.

Here in the Washington area, our rulers dispatched Park Police to close Mount Vernon, the home of George Washington. Once again the facts don’t support federal action. Mount Vernon is owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association, the only investment the Park Service has is shared ownership of a parking lot.

The service could have posted a sign on their half of the lot warning drivers to park at their own risk and beware of paint chips stirred up by passing motorists. Instead the Park Service closed the entire facility, which is simply illegal, until the doughty Ladies Association fought back and reopened.

The feds tried the same shuffle with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, instructing him to close several parks. Gov. Walker not only refused to close any parks, he also ordered state officials to remove barricades the feds had installed to prevent taxpayers from using their own facilities.

(This act of courage could backfire, as federal memories are long. If Wisconsin some time in the future suffers a hurricane or the glaciers return I predict federal response will be very slow.)

Walker has the advantage of controlling his own law enforcement resources and in a pinch, the Wisconsin National Guard. So he can prevent illegal attempts at seizures by having his people intimidate their people.

Unfortunately, the rest of us don’t have that option when “public servants” stop serving the will of the people and start imposing their will on the people.

A Disgrace Worthy of a Resignation

10092013

It is unconscionable. It is rude, insensitivity, callus and unacceptable. With the news that family members of fallen soldiers killed in Afghanistan are not only being denied death benefits, but are being denied transportation to Dover AFB for the arrival of the caskets containing the remains of their loved ones, the Obama Administration has crossed a “red line” with the American people. Progressives in Washington and across the nation, you are now on notice: We – regular, rank-and-file, hard-working American every-men and -women – are not going to take the “pain” of your ideological agenda anymore.

Few things are sacrosanct among all Americans, the proper treatment and respect of the men and women of the Armed Forces – and their families – one such thing. But Mr. Obama, his administration, and the sycophants who voted for and support them have disrespected and caused unnecessary pain for these patriots, both fallen and family. Just as in the 1960s, these very same people and people of the same mindset, are once again spitting in the faces of the American soldier, this time extending that vile discontent to the survivors and their children.

FOX News reports:

It’s another ugly symptom of Mr. Obama’s partial government shutdown — and this time it impacts the families of soldiers who are dying for their country.

The Pentagon confirmed Tuesday that, as long as the budget impasse lasts, it will not be able to pay death benefits to the families of troops who’ve been killed in combat.

“Unfortunately, as a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time,” said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman.

House lawmakers, though, are planning to vote Wednesday on a bill to restore funding for the payments. And Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), on Tuesday accused the Obama administration of needlessly withholding the money…

The Pentagon says it has specific instructions from its budget office not to make payments for deaths that occurred after 11:59pm on Sept. 30, 2013.

And that’s about enough…We should all demand – demand – the name of the imbecile who made this decision (I am certain that it came from Mr. Obama’s inner-circle) and demand – demand – that person’s resignation, terminating that person’s governmental career complete with withheld benefits.

President Obama is the Commander in Chief and that position mandates a responsibility to care for the whole of the military family. This responsibility is absolute and non-discretionary. That this situation even exists must – must and without question – rest on Mr. Obama’s shoulders personally.

In fact, if one of the duties of the Presidency is being Commander in Chief, this abdication of responsibility to our soldiers and their families (they are considered military families and many live on military bases, shop at military base PXs, etc.) for political purposes should be deemed an impeachable offense; disavowing any aspect of the position of Commander in Chief must be considered a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

We, as a nation, have been subjected to the arrogance and bully-tactics of Mr. Obama’s Chicago Progressive political mindset long enough. We have been subjected to the sycophancy of a Progressive mainstream media continuously lobbing softball questions to this president; ignoring not only the execution of poor government, but scandals that – in more than one case – have cost Americans their lives. I contend that this is too high a price for a country to pay just because Progressive ideologues insists on executing the politically correct, “social justice,” Marxist transformation of our nation, purely for power, fame and fortune.

It is time to define Progressivism for what it is: a destructive force that is antithetical to our Founders’ vision of a limited government and a free people. It is also time to confront Progressivism at every level, in every governmental chamber, on every street corner and in every individual.

Progressivism is not unlike Islamofascism in that the ideology is not – not –compatible with the Natural Law right to individual liberty and the overall concepts of self-reliance and freedom. It also stands as just as lethal a threat to our nation.

That Mr. Obama has not already addressed the subject of getting the fallen soldiers’ families their promised death benefits and respectful transportation to Dover AFB for the arrival of the caskets is beyond disgraceful. If Mr. Obama had a shred of decency; an once of honor, he would have already ordered a solution to this problem from the available Pentagon funding (and yes, there is money there to satisfy this situation). That he hasn’t should result in his resignation from office…immediately.

Yes, it is that much of an issue.

A Review of The Butler Starring Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey

by Jeremy Griffith
Cross-posted from AmericanMillenniumOnline.com

Director Lee Daniels of The Butler with leading actors Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker. source: Alberto E. Gonzalez/Getty Images

Director Lee Daniels of The Butler with leading actors Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker. source: Alberto E. Gonzalez/Getty Images

The Butler movie in theaters right now, starring Forest Whitaker and Opera Winfrey offers wonderful insight into the evils committed to the black communities in the history of our country. Whitaker and Winfrey offer emotional and rich performances in the telling of this story, but the writing of the script depicting Republican presidents as weak, ineffectual or downright racist is jaw-droppingly inaccurate, unfair and detrimental to the historicity of the film.

 

I had high expectations for this film as it was warmly reviewed prior to it’s release. And in reviewing the film myself for the first time I can honestly say I would recommend it to anyone, despite it’s obvious flaws. The story follows the life of a black man, Cecil Gaines, who escapes from life as a sharecropper in the south to become a butler at the White House. After the rape of his mother and the murder of his father, the grandmother of the rapist takes young Cecil into their house and trains him to be a “house nigger”. Through that employment and good luck, Cecil gets a rudimentary education and training in the skills as a butler that eventually helps him launch a career in the service industry.

 

Cecil leaves his old life behind and gets work as a butler, getting some mentor ship from and older black butler. Eventually he gets hired by the White House and the story continues to follow his life in that role, through the presidential administrations of Eisenhower to Reagan. The story largely takes place in the ’60s during the height of the Civil Rights movement. There is conflict between two schools of thought, that of Malcolm X and the more peaceful resistance of Martin Luther King. It is unfortunate that Malcolm is not actually ever mentioned in the film, but the violent resistance of the Black Panthers is. Cecil’s son gets involved in this movement and it causes friction in the family.

 

Predictably, Hollywood has painted Democrats such as Kennedy and Obama as heroes of Civil Rights while painting Republicans like Eisenhower and Reagan as merely tepid, unwilling participants. Nixon gets the worst treatment, depicted as insincere, two-faced and pathetic.

 

The historical background of this film is so bad that even Wikipedia cites its obvious factual inaccuracies. According to Wiki, the story of The Butler is loosely based on the life of a real life African-American Butler Eugene Allen, who was employed at the White House. From there the similarities end. In the movie, the Cecil character resided as as sharecropper in Macon Georgia where he witnesses the horrible crimes committed to his family by white farmers. In truth, Allen lived in Virginia, and there is no evidence that any such crimes ever took place. In the movie Cecil has two sons, one a right leaning young man who dies in his country’s service in Vietnam and another a radical leftist who joins the Civil Rights movement and ultimately the ultra-violent Black Panther Party. In fact, Allen had only one son, who was indeed an activist, but not nearly as far left as portrayed in the movie.

 

In the Movie, Ronald Reagan gets some positive treatment as he and his wife Nancy invite the Cecil character and his wife to a White House dinner as a gesture for Cecil’s efforts to increase the pay and benefits of black White House employees to the same level as the white employees. Right after this scene however the memory of Reagan gets a slap in the face. Reagan’s gesture to Cecil and his family is marginalized as merely for show as the President is depicted as a shill who vindictively vetoes congressional efforts to pass measures to punish Apartheid in South Africa.

 

In fact, the historical records show that Reagan hated Apartheid and did everything he could to nudge the South African government to adopt a more moderate tone. He did indeed veto the congressional boycott, but the movie never explains why. In fact, Reagan was working with moderates to push the South African government and shied away from more radical elements so as to avoid unnecessary violence. In deed, Reagan feared that if the government fell it would be replaced by a more radical leftist totalitarian regime like many other African governments already had. At the time the US had a small contingent of free-market investments in South Africa and black Africans were being employed at US based firms in that country, earning a better wage and benefits than they could expect otherwise. In overcoming the President’s veto, congress forced sanctions on South Africa limiting the ability of private firms from investing in that country and hurting blacks that were finding a better life through employment in American firms as a result, just as Reagan feared it would.

 

Reagan was not the only politician libeled by this film. Eisenhower takes a hit too. Conversations overheard by Cecil indicate that President Eisenhower was weak on Civil Rights and unwilling to send troops to protect black children attending school in Little Rock Arkansas. Indeed the Supreme Court ruled segregation of public schools unconstitutional in its decision Brown vs. Board of Education that year, and Eisenhower did send troops to uphold that decision. Previous to the time line of the movie, Eisenhower desegregated the military when he was the Supreme Commander of allied forces in Europe during WWII in opposition of the wishes of his chief of staff. Government documents showed that Eisenhower was moving to desegregate schools on military reservations prior to the Supreme Court decision. Eisenhower further drafted sweeping Civil Rights legislation that would grant even more rights to blacks in this country, but the efforts were opposed and watered down by a democratically controlled senate. Eisenhower implemented a Civil Rights commission to focus attention on the issue of voting rights for black Americans and he was the first to hire an African-American to an executive position in the White House.

 

Ultimately, Eisenhower gets no credit from this movie script for his efforts to help black citizens struggling for their rights during his administration. President John Kennedy gets the credit though, as a hero for passing legislation in his administration granting those rights to blacks, a legislation by the way that mirrored the original intent of the Eisenhower bills.

 

It’s unfortunate that leftist Hollywood has to do this injustice to history. Indeed blacks in this country have suffered under the unfair and crushing yoke of oppression and slavery since the founding. But the selective interpretation of history by Hollywood is an unfair and an inaccurate representation of what actually happened. A millennial viewer of this movie will likely not dig into the facts of history to find out the truth, rather they will get their impression of history solely from movies like this, which is what the left intends. Disarmed by the propaganda, they will be continually led to believe that only Democrats and black leaders are responsible for their progress towards Civil Rights and not any white man, and certainly not one with an R behind their name.

 

This historical dramatic license prevents blacks in this country from getting the full picture and ultimately damages them by keeping the facts from them. That in my view prevents this movie and this script with its many great performances from elevating itself from a merely good movie to a great one.

 

I was a little uncomfortable with end of this movie as it seemed like a free endorsement of the Barack Obama administration. I think it accurately portrays the feelings of many blacks that at last someone would arrive in the White House who will finally make advancements for oppressed colored people in this country, and as such we get a sense of what they were feeling when Obama was elected.

 

But when it comes to historical facts, again, the Obama administration will be judged as severely lacking. Under the George W. Bush administration, African-American students have been suffering in inadequate schools in the Washington DC school district. Bush implemented a plan to offer vouchers for such students so they could get out of failing schools and attend private schools. This policy offered hope to many African-American students to finally get the better education that they deserved, but predictably, Bush doesn’t get any credit for this. In fact, the Obama administration’s first action does not uphold this program. Rather, the nation’s first black president reverses this progress and closes the program down, committing future students in those same schools to be forever trapped in schools that under-serve them.

 

Today you can’t visit the Martin Luther King Jr. monument in Washington D.C. The park police have barricaded this open air memorial because of the government shut-down, under the orders of the nation’s first black president.

 

Overall I give this movie three and a half out of five stars. It is enjoyable and educational in the treatment of the feelings surrounding the black experience here in America during the Civil Rights era. It’s lack of historical realism leaves something to be desired. Cuba Gooding Jr’s performance shows his capacity as an actor even in a supporting role and we could have seen much more of him in this film.

 

For more on this topic, try some of these historical and entertainment links.

 

Barton, D. (2003, March). Black history issue 2003. Retrieved from http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=134

 

Wikipedia. (n.d.). The butler. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butler

 

Poland, D. (2013, August 09). Review: The butler. Retrieved from http://moviecitynews.com/2013/08/review-the-butler/

 

Freidman, R. (2013, August 17). Reagan diaries: Detested apartheid but refused to support sanctions, never mentions mandela. Retrieved from http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/08/17/reagan-diaries-detested-apartheid-but-refused-to-support-sanctions-never-mentions-mandela

 

Civil rights: Brown vs. board of education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/civil_rights_brown_v_boe.html

« Older Entries Recent Entries »