Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for January, 2014

Putin: America Is Godless, Has Turned Away from Christian Values

by Robert Wilde 29 Jan 2014

Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the West, including the United States, for eschewing Christian values and opting instead for a “path to degradation.”

In his State of the Nation speech last month, Putin asserted that, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.” Russia has adopted new laws that ban homosexual propaganda and criminalizes the insulting of religious sensibilities.

The law on religious sensibilities was approved in the wake of a protest in Moscow’s largest cathedral by a female punk rock group, Pussy Riot. State-run television said the group’s “demonic” protest was funded by “some Americans.” Russia’s newfound embrace of traditional values has prompted a rise in Orthodox vigilantism. Extreme groups such as the Union of Orthodox Banner Bearers, an ultraconservative faction who adopted a slogan “Orthodoxy or Death,” are gaining prominence.

It was not that long ago that the United States was accusing Russia for being a “godless nation.” On March 8, 1983, Ronald Reagan said this about Russia to an audience of evangelicals:

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness–pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

History supports the 40th President of the United States’ remarks. According to a 1995 Russian presidential committee report, Soviet authorities executed 200,000 clergy and believers from 1917 to 1937, many of them crucified, scalped, and otherwise tortured. Thousands of churches were destroyed, and those that survived were turned into warehouses, garages, or museums of atheism.

Moreover, another 500,000 religious figures were persecuted and 40,000 churches destroyed in the period from 1922 to 1980, the report said. Half the country’s mosques and more than half the synagogues were also destroyed. “Clergymen were crucified on churches’ holy gates, shot, scalped [and] strangled,” said Alexander Yakovlev, head of the Commission for the Rehabilitation of the Victims of Political Repression. “I was especially shocked by accounts of priests turned into columns of ice in winter,” Yakovlev said. “It was total cruelty.”


Political Cartoon of the Day

Give peace-chance-590-LI

Watch as Employees Experience Obamacare Sticker Shock for the First Time

Posted by Joshua Cook

A news station visited a local Pennsylvania small business which showed the devastating impact of Obamacare. One employee said, following his Obamacare sticker shock, “they call it the affordable health plan? There is nothing affordable about it … wake up America. This is not acceptable.”

Watch below:

Sticker Shock

About Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook lives in Travelers Rest SC. He received his BA from Southeastern University and MBA from North Greenville University.  Follow Joshua Cook on Facebook and on Twitter: @RealJoshuaCook


A biblical perspective of Islamic totalitarianism

Written by Allen West on January 20, 2014


In chapter two, “God Builds a Nation,” the focus was on Abraham and his willingness to pick up his family and all possessions to follow God’s direction. Pastor Scott Eynon gave us this definition of faith, “obeying God even when you don’t know where you are going, even when you are not sure where He is leading. It is walking with God during doubts, delays, and difficulties. It is trusting God when the story He presents makes no sense.”

Think about it. God told two senior citizens, Abraham and Sarah, they would have a child and their heritage would populate the earth. Even in their full faith they still doubted God. After all, at Sarah’s age, how could God’s promise for conception come to fruition? So Sarah offered up to Abraham her Egyptian maid, Hagar. Sarah did as we often do in our lives today – think we know what God intends but try to control the means to the end. Abraham complied, slept with Hagar and she conceived a son.

And here is the residual effect from the impatient decision of Sarah and Abraham from Genesis 16:10-12:

The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.” The angel of the Lord also said to Hagar: “You are now pregnant and you will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man, his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.”

Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born, and it was from Ishmael that all Arab people descended. Some 14 years later, Sarah conceived and bore a son, Isaac, from whom the Jewish people descended.

If you view the Middle East from this biblical perspective, it is God’s direction playing out in the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac, the Arabs and the Jews, the West and Islamic totalitarianism. Nonetheless, there was relative peace in the Middle East until Mohammad appeared on the scene around 612 AD and introduced a new belief system, Islam.

For 10 years Judaism, Christianity, and this new belief did indeed “coexist.” However when Mohammad was rejected by his own tribe, he departed Mecca for Medina. With new permission from Allah to fight back, this once “peaceful religion” turned violent and spread throughout the Arab nation not by peaceful proselytization, but by the sword. Mohammad returned to Mecca in 628 AD and conquered the city, and as the Angel of the Lord foretold some 2500 years earlier, raised his hand against his brothers and massacred thousands of Jews at what was called the “Battle of the Trench.” Subsequently, Mohammad turned his bloodthirsty quest towards the Byzantine Empire, sending a letter to Emperor Heraclius demanding he convert, submit and be subjugated, or be destroyed — and we know what eventually happened to Constantinople in 1453.

And so it continues to today, not just in the Middle East, but across the world. I am so thankful to have a Pastor like Scott Eynon who makes the Bible relevant and forces us to think in not only a biblical but also a historical perspective. Interesting, isn’t it?

Two Major Headlines That Will Make You Detest the Liberal Media EVEN MORE…

Written on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 by

Poor George Orwell, spinning in his grave like a gyroscope on steroids; little did he know that what is euphemistically called news reporting would turn, instead, into bold-faced creative writing projects.  Two headlines from Monday’s slop bucket (number 1 courtesy of NewsBusters, number 2 from Breitbart), illustrate the point:

  1.  “Face the Nation’ Edits Out Senator Cruz Condemning Obama’s ‘Abuse of Power”
  2. “Ezra Klein’s New Website Vox Will Tell You What to Think About the News”

Senator Ted Cruz appeared on Face the Nation Sunday. Chief Inquisitor, Bob Schieffer, wanted an admission of responsibility from Senator Cruz for The Lyin’ King’s government shutdown and accused Senator Cruz of fomenting it.  According to NewsBusters: “…it also appears that Mr. Cruz was the victim of editing by CBS. Based on video from Senator Cruz’s YouTube page and what aired on (Sunday’s) Face the Nation broadcast, the senator’s comments surrounding President Obama’s ‘abuse of power’ were edited from the program. Instead what aired was a segment that ignored many of the senator’s complaints directed at President Obama.” For those who might be skeptical of the lengths to which an unashamedly partisan CBS went in order to advance her own viewpoint, videos of what was actually said and what was ultimately broadcast are available at NewsBusters:

The Breitbart piece is even more telling.  Ezra Klein, poster boy for progressive dogma, was given the heave-ho from Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post earlier this month on January 2. Klein insisted that the paper fund his-web based pet project, to the tune of $10,000,000. The Post refused after a legion of accountants unanimously found Klein’s project would never recoup a fraction of the expense. Klein had a hissy fit. The Washington Post countered with a pink slip, summarily handing Klein his hat and expressed concern that the door not hit his behind. Klein has subsequently roosted at Vox Media and aired his true goal. Breitbart reports: “Saying he intends to ‘fix the news’ with Vox, Klein bemoaned the failure of the Internet to make the news better at delivering the ‘crucial context’ people need. ‘Today, we are better than ever at telling people what’s happening…but not nearly good enough at giving them the crucial contextual information necessary to understand what’s happened…’ Klein and crew intend to create a site that is as good at ‘explaining the world as it is at reporting on it.’”

The news has always been subject to creative enhancement, and was officially dubbed “yellow journalism” during the Spanish-American War. Papers, desperate to grab a majority share of readership, created ever-more lurid and fanciful embellishments on the truth. But today’s motives are far more insidious. “Reporters” make up stories out of whole cloth or suppress facts. They aren’t reporting; they are inventing news in order to realize their opinions of events. And they are determined to shape our opinions by telling us what to think. Remember the television show “The Gillmore Girls?” Early in this millennium, Rory Gillmore tells her mother, with fanatical conviction that would credit Jean d’Arc, that she intends to become a reporter, “like Christiane Amanpour,” because she “want(s) to change the world.” Reporting events had self-righteously morphed into creating events.

Both stories share a common caution. Events, such as deliberate editing and blatant prevarication, are becoming more commonplace. Spinning news is “out of the closet.” The MSM does not feel compelled to offer apologies once they are found out. It has, sadly, become a given that reporters no longer state what has happened; they cut, compose and tell us what to think about events, all at the same time. The MSM insists that we aren’t qualified to think for ourselves.

Presuming the color of journalism has a correlation to bodily waste, it’s no longer yellow.  It‘s brown. Dark brown.

More Wisdom from Mr. Thomas Sowell

13014 01 13014 02 13014 03 13014 04 13014 05 13014 06 13014 07 13014 08

The MOST Important Article You Will Read This Week

Ann Coulter Letter

GOP crafts plan to wreck country, lose voters

GOP crafts plan to wreck country, lose voters

 By: Ann Coulter   1/29/2014 08:39 PM

As House Republicans prepare to sell out the country on immigration this week, Phyllis Schlafly has produced a stunning report on how immigration is changing the country. The report is still embargoed, but someone slipped me a copy, and it’s too important to wait.

Leave aside the harm cheap labor being dumped on the country does to the millions of unemployed Americans. What does it mean for the Republican Party?

Citing surveys from the Pew Research Center, the Pew Hispanic Center, Gallup, NBC News, Harris polling, the Annenberg Policy Center, Latino Decisions, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Hudson Institute, Schlafly’s report overwhelmingly demonstrates that merely continuing our current immigration policies spells doom for the Republican Party.

Immigrants — all immigrants — have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. For one thing, recent arrivals tend to be poor and in need of government assistance. Also, they’re coming from societies that are far more left-wing than our own. History shows that, rather than fleeing those policies, they bring their cultures with them. (Look at what New Yorkers did to Vermont.)

This is not a secret. For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats.

At the current accelerated rate of immigration — 1.1 million new immigrants every year — Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade.

Thanks to endless polling, we have a pretty good idea of what most immigrants believe.

According to a Harris poll, 81 percent of native-born citizens think the schools should teach students to be proud of being American. Only 50 percent of naturalized U.S. citizens do.

While 67 percent of native-born Americans believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, only 37 percent of naturalized citizens agree.

No wonder they vote 2-1 for the Democrats.

The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control.According the 2012 National Asian American Survey, as well as a Kaiser Foundation poll, only 40 percent of the general public holds a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 42 percent unfavorable. Meanwhile, 51 percent of Asians have a favorable opinion of Obamacare, 18 percent an unfavorable one. Even Koreans support Obamacare by 57 percent to 17 percent.

Overall, 69 percent of immigrants like Obamacare, according to a 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

That same survey showed that only 35 percent of native-born Americans support affirmative action, compared to 58 percent of immigrants, including — amazingly — 64 percent of Asians (suggesting they may not be as smart as everyone thinks).

Also surprising, a Pew Research Center poll of all Hispanics, immigrant and citizen alike, found that Hispanics take a dimmer view of capitalism than even people who describe themselves as “liberal Democrats.” While 47 percent of self-described “liberal Democrats” hold a negative view of capitalism, 55 percent of Hispanics do.

Pew also found that only 27 percent of Hispanics support gun rights, compared to 57 percent of non-Hispanic whites. According to Latino Decisions, large majorities of Hispanics favor a national database of gun owners, limiting the capacity of magazines and a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

Seventy-five percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants support bigger government — also according to Pew. Even after three generations in America, Hispanics still support bigger government 55 percent to 36 percent, compared to the general public, which opposes bigger government 48 percent to 41 percent.

How are Republicans going to square that circle? It’s not their position on amnesty that immigrants don’t like; it’s Republicans’ support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism.

Reading these statistics, does anyone wonder why Democrats think vastly increasing immigration should be the nation’s No. 1 priority?

It would be one thing if the people with these views already lived here. Republicans would have no right to say, “You can’t vote.” But why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to their political destruction?

Republicans have no obligation to assist the Democrats as they change the country in a way that favors them electorally, particularly when it does great harm to the people already here.

Yes, it’s great for the most powerful Americans to have lots of cheap, unskilled labor. Immigration definitely solves the rich’s “servant problem.”

(Approximately 5 million times a day, MSNBC expresses bewilderment that any Republicans oppose amnesty when it’s supported by the Chamber of Commerce. Wow! So even people who profit by flooding the country with cheap labor are in favor of flooding the country with cheap labor!)

It’s terrific for ethnic lobbyists whose political clout will skyrocket the more foreign-born Americans we have.

And it’s fantastic for the Democrats, who are well on their way to a permanent majority, so they can completely destroy the last remnants of what was once known as “the land of the free.”

The only ones opposed to our current immigration policies are the people.

But are they going to give John Boehner a job when he’s no longer House speaker, as some big business lobbyist will?

Will they help Marco Rubio run for president on the claim that, as a Cuban, he can appeal to Hispanics? (Fat chance.)

Will they bundle contributions for Eric Cantor’s re-election, as well-heeled donors will?

Will they be enough to re-elect Kevin McCarthy to Congress so he can keep his gold-plated government health insurance?

Will they be the ones writing Darrell Issa’s flattering New York Times obituary?

Sorry, Americans. You lose.

Ann Coulter is author of the new book, Never Trust a Liberal Over Three – Especially a Republican (Regnery 2013).

Five Ironic and Hypocritical Statements From Obama’s SOTU

Katie PavlichKatie Pavlich | Jan 28, 2014

       1. President Obama touted the pre-existing condition requirement in Obamacare saying, “Because of this law, no American can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a preexisting condition.” As a result of Obamacare and since the federal exchanges were launched on October 1, 2013, millions of people have been dropped from their health insurance plans.

      2. President Obama said it was an “embarrassment” that in today’s American society women get paid less than men, ignoring the fact that his White House pays women less than men.

      Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

      3. President Obama said, “I will act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible,” and urged Congress to send him legislation to make it happen while ignoring the Keystone Pipeline, a project that would create thousands of jobs and one that has been sitting on his desk for years waiting for approval.

    4. On foreign policy President Obama said, “America must move off a permanent war footing,” while refusing to acknowledge his administration’s meddling in places like Egypt, Libya, Syria and Honduras.

      5. When discussing veterans and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama said, “As this time of war draws to a close, a new generation of heroes returns to civilian life.  We’ll keep slashing that backlog so our veterans receive the benefits they’ve earned, and our wounded warriors receive the health care – including the mental health care – that they need,” while failing to acknowledge Obamacare has destroyed those healthcare benefits in Tricare.

     The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

      The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

      The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

      Many in Congress are opposing the proposed changes, which would require the passage of new legislation before being put in place.

       “We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

        Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

VIRAL VIDEO: Budweiser’s “Puppy Love” SuperBowl Commercial

By / 29 January 2014


Watch Budweiser’s Super Bowl XLVIII commercial following the special friendship between the Clydesdales and a puppy.

Video of the Day

Joe the Plumber Banner

Two Boys

Political Cartoon of the Day

Through the Heart


5 Time Boxing Champ Warned His Biblical Views are Offensive

Posted By on Jan 10, 2014


What many people may or may not know is that Holyfield is an active Christian and gave millions of dollars to his church and various charities.  At times he has been outspoken about his faith and that just got him in hot water with the producers of Big Brother.  I need to add here that I have to question any Christian who would consider going on a program that is built upon lies, deception and sex, but nevertheless, Holyfield made it on the show.

In one episode, he is sitting in bed with a girl named Luisa when the subject of homosexuality comes up.  During the conversation, Holyfield tells her:

“The Bible lets you know that’s wrong, that’s right.”

Luisa continues to argue with Holyfield and later on in the discussion, he tells her that homosexuality is a choice and that it can be fixed.

After his comments, Holyfield is hauled before the narrator who is most likely acting on behalf of the producer who warns Holyfield about his offensive language in saying that homosexuality is wrong and it’s a choice.  The narrator’s chastisement went like this: (Listen carefully to the rebuke of the Big Brother spokesman)

“Big Brother” show warned him: “Before you entered the Big Brother house, the rules regarding unacceptable language and behavior were explained to you. Last night in a conversation with Luisa, you expressed the view that being gay was not normal and that it could be fixed.”

“Well Big Brother understands that these are the views you hold, they aren’t the views that are hold by a lot of sections of society and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people…”

“Big Brother does not tolerate the use of offensive language and therefore warn you to consider very carefully the effect of expressing such views may have and the harm and offense you may cause by repeating these views inside the house.”

It’s Duck Dynasty and Phil Robertson all over again.  Anyone can say anything they want against Christians, traditional marriage and family values, but just say one little thing against homosexuality and the world caves in around you.  These people claim over and over that they want tolerance, yet they are the most intolerant people out there.  From what I’ve seen and read over the past few years, I would say that gay activists are less tolerant about the truth of homosexuality than Al Sharpton is about the truth of racism.

Neither of them wants tolerance.  Both of them are demanding preferential treatment.  They insist on having the freedom to mock and condemn anyone they want and the protection against others doing the same to them.

No one cares anymore about offending a Christian.  And Christians aren’t doing anything to stop it.  When are Christians going to start standing up for their rights?  Why aren’t we complaining when we’re offended?  It’s our silence that has allowed this happen and it’s our voices that need to be heard to put an end to it.  Christians need to get off their butts and become warriors for Christ.  It’s time every Christian in America becomes an Ephesian 6 Christian:

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints.”

DISMANTLE THIS: Iran, ‘We Did Not Agree to Dismantle Anything’

Obama Administration Caught in More Lies.

By / 23 January 2014

 Watch CNN’s full interview with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani Sunday at 10 a.m. on “Fareed Zakaria GPS”
Nuke Lies

(CNN) — Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted Wednesday that the Obama administration mischaracterizes concessions by his side in the six-month nuclear deal with Iran, telling CNN in an exclusive interview that “we did not agree to dismantle anything.”

Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

“The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments” under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum.

As part of the accord, Iran was required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%, well above the 5% level needed for power generation but still below the level for developing a nuclear weapon.

In addition, the deal mandated that Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and “dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%,” according to a White House fact sheet issued in November after the initial agreement was reached.

Zarif accused the Obama administration of creating a false impression with such language.

“The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again,” he said, urging Sciutto to read the actual text of the agreement. “If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment.”

He repeated that “we are not dismantling any centrifuges, we’re not dismantling any equipment, we’re simply not producing, not enriching over 5%.”

“You don’t need to over-emphasize it,” Zarif said of the White House language. A separate summary sent out by the White House last week did not use the word dismantle.

In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani echoed Zarif’s statement, saying the government will not destroy existing centrifuges. However, he added: “We are ready to provide confidence that there should be no concern about Iran’s program.”

Read more:

Fact Check: State of the Union, GOP response

By CALVIN WOODWARD Associated Press

Updated: Tuesday, January 28, 2014, 9:59 pm

Published: Tuesday, January 28, 2014, 8:41 pm

President Barack Obama delivers the State of Union address before a joint session of Congress in the House chamber Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2014, in Washington, as Vice President Joe Biden, and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, listen. (AP Photo/Larry Downing, Pool)

President Barack Obama delivers the State of Union address before a joint session of Congress in the House chamber Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2014, in Washington, as Vice President Joe Biden, and House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, listen. (AP Photo/Larry Downing, Pool)

So it went Tuesday night, when he declared Medicare premiums have stayed flat thanks to the law, when they’ve gone up. As for an even bigger theme of his State of the Union address, the president’s assertion that “upward mobility has stalled” in America runs contrary to recent research, while other findings support him.

A look at some of the facts and political circumstances behind his claims, along with a glance at the Republican response to his speech:

OBAMA: “Because of this (health care) law, no American can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a preexisting condition like asthma, back pain or cancer. No woman can ever be charged more just because she’s a woman. And we did all this while adding years to Medicare’s finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat, and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors.”

THE FACTS:  He’s right that insurers can no longer turn people down because of medical problems, and they can’t charge higher premiums to women because of their sex. The law also lowered costs for seniors with high prescription drug bills. But Medicare’s monthly premium for outpatient care has gone up in recent years.

Although the basic premium remained the same this year at $104.90, it increased by $5 a month in 2013, up from $99.90 in 2012. Obama’s health care law also raised Medicare premiums for upper-income beneficiaries, and both the president and Republicans have proposed to expand that.

Finally, the degree to which the health care law improved Medicare finances is hotly debated. On paper, the program’s giant trust fund for inpatient care gained more than a decade of solvency because of cuts to service providers required under the health law. But in practice those savings cannot simultaneously be used to expand coverage for the uninsured and shore up Medicare.


OBAMA: “Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled.”

THE FACTS: The most recent evidence suggests that mobility hasn’t worsened. A team of economists led by Harvard’s Raj Chetty released a study last week that found the United States isn’t any less socially mobile than it was in the 1970s. Looking at children born between 1971 and 1993, the economists found that the odds of a child born in the poorest 20 percent of families making it into the top 20 percent hasn’t changed.

“We find that children entering the labor market today have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s,” the authors said.

Still, other research has found that the United States isn’t as mobile a society as most Americans would like to believe. In a study of 22 countries, economist Miles Corak of the University of Ottawa found that the United States ranked 15th in social mobility. Only Italy and Britain among wealthy countries ranked lower. By some measures, children in the United States are as likely to inherit their parents’ economic status as their height.


OBAMA: “We’ll need Congress to protect more than 3 million jobs by finishing transportation and waterways bills this summer.  But I will act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible.”

THE FACTS: Cutting rules and regulations doesn’t address what’s holding up most transportation projects, which is lack of money. The federal Highway Trust Fund will run out of money in August without action. To finance infrastructure projects, Obama wants Congress to raise taxes on businesses that keep profits or jobs overseas, but that idea has been a political nonstarter.

The number of projects affected by the administration’s efforts to cut red tape is relatively small, said Joshua Schank, president and CEO of the Eno Center for Transportation, a think tank. “The reason most of these projects are delayed is they don’t have enough money. So it’s great that you are expediting the review process, but the review process isn’t the problem. The problem is we don’t have enough money to invest in our infrastructure in the first place.”


OBAMA: “More than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage.”

THE FACTS:  That’s not to say 9 million more Americans have gained insurance under the law.

The administration says about 6 million people have been determined to be eligible for Medicaid since Oct. 1 and an additional 3 million roughly have signed up for private health insurance through the new markets created by the health care law. That’s where Obama’s number of 9 million comes from. But it’s unclear how many in the Medicaid group were already eligible for the program or renewing existing coverage.

Likewise, it’s not known how many of those who signed up for private coverage were previously insured. A large survey released last week suggests the numbers of uninsured gaining coverage may be smaller. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index found that the uninsured rate for U.S. adults dropped by 1.2 percentage points in January, to 16.1 percent. That would translate to roughly 2 million to 3 million newly insured people since the law’s coverage expansion started Jan. 1.


OBAMA: “In the coming weeks, I will issue an executive order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour, because if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty.”

THE FACTS: This would be a hefty boost in the federal minimum wage, now $7.25, but not many would see it.

Most employees of federal contractors already earn more than $10.10. About 10 percent of those workers, roughly 200,000, might be covered by the higher minimum wage. But there are several wrinkles. The increase would not take effect until 2015 at the earliest and it doesn’t apply to existing federal contracts, only new ones. Renewed contracts also will be exempt from Obama’s order unless other terms of the agreement change, such as the type of work or number of employees needed.

Obama also said he’ll press Congress to raise the federal minimum wage overall. He tried that last year, seeking a $9 minimum, but Congress didn’t act.


REP. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS of Washington, in her prepared Republican response: “Last month, more Americans stopped looking for a job than found one. Too many people are falling further and further behind because, right now, the president’s policies are making people’s lives harder.”

THE FACTS: She leaves out a significant factor in the high number of people who aren’t looking for jobs: Baby boomers are retiring.

It’s true that a large part of the still-high unemployment rate is due to jobless workers who have given up looking for a job. There are roughly three people seeking every job opening, a circumstance that can discourage others from trying. But one big reason people aren’t seeking employment is that there are so many boomers – the generation born in the immediate aftermath of World War II – and therefore more than the usual number of retirements.

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Christopher S. Rugaber, Joan Lowy, Sam Hananel and Tom Raum contributed to this report.

Political Cartoon of the Day

Democrat's War on Women

Democrat’s War on Women

Tea Party Responds to Obama: We Won’t Stop Protesting

State of the Union 2014 //

In his State of the Union response, Sen. Mike Lee tells Americans his group is ready to protest bad policy in 2014—again, on its own.

(Andrew Burton / Getty)

January 28, 2014
“Obamacare—all by itself—is an inequality Godzilla”

The rift between establishment Republicans and tea partiers has been growing steadily since the government shutdown last fall. In his response to the State of the Union address, Sen. Mike Lee may have stretched it a little bit wider.

“I’d like to speak especially to those Americans who may feel they have been forgotten by both political parties,” said Lee, before carving out the tea party’s congressional agenda for 2014.

The senator followed the Republican Party’s official rebuttal from Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers—which struck a more harmonious tone—illustrating the GOP’s growing divide. “The Republican establishment in Washington can be just as out-of-touch as the Democratic Establishment,” Lee said.

The bulk of Lee’s response focused on the centerpiece of Obama’s own remarks, income inequality, albeit with a very different flavor. “Where does this new inequality come from? From government,” Lee said, later calling the health care law “an inequality Godzilla that has robbed working families of their insurance, their doctors, their wages, and their jobs.”

Lee listed several pieces of forthcoming Republican-penned legislation on income inequality, including his own bill that would simplify the tax code.

He didn’t directly mention the government shutdown, which has been attributed to tea-party pushback against Obamacare, but unapologetically hinted at it: “Unfortunately, in recent years, we have had no choice but to engage in a number of protests against our current president’s Washington-centered agenda.”

“Protesting against dysfunctional government is a great American tradition,” Lee said, and the tea party’s policy fights—against Obama, Democrats and other Republicans—sound far from over. Lee likened the group to the original Tea Party, the big loud one in Boston, as being crucial for change. But sometimes compromise is key. “As Americans we must always be willing to fight the Boston-type battles—boldly calling out bad policy whenever we see it—but we must do so with an eye toward Philadelphia, maintaining a positive focus on the kind of nation we want to be and become,” he said.

Such “protests,” however, have chipped away at the tea party’s public image. Pew noted in an October poll that just 53 percent of Republicans see the tea party favorably, while 27 percent hold an unfavorable view. Among tea partiers, Sen. Ted Cruz’s favorability rating was at 74 percent at the height of the shutdown crisis in October. Among non-tea-party Republicans, that number was 25 percent.

The senator’s remarks don’t just set this year’s agenda for the tea party—they outline a plan for its members ahead of midterm elections, too. His words on compromise are likely aimed at House tea partiers, reminding them to hold onto their seats in the GOP-controlled House. And his remarks about protesting “bad policy” are aimed at outside candidates, pushing them to get aggressive in their Senate campaigns. For tea partiers, 2014 is about wrangling power back from Democrats in the Senate.

See the entire SOYU response by Sen. Mike Lee here. (Click on image to view video);

Mike Lee

A Genuine Class Act


Christian Grammy Nominee Natalie Grant Walks Out of the Grammys

Natalie GrantChristian Contemporary music star Natalie Grant was nominated for two Grammys.

Grant was up for Best Gospel/Contemporary Christian Music Performance for “Alive (Mary Magdelene),” a song she wrote with her husband Bernie Helms, and Best Christian Music Song for the chart-topping “Hurricane.”

The couple went to the Grammys proud to represent gospel music. Little did they know when they arrived at the Los Angeles Staples Center that they’d be going to church.

To warm up the congregation and open the service, Beyoncé twerked her ample bethonged derriere to the delight of millions. After that, Natalie and Bernie were subjected to Mrs. Carter sitting astride a chair in, shall we say, an extremely come-hither position.

Next the high-powered billionaire, Jay-Z ,and his bodacious bride left little to imagination about what goes on in their boudoir when nobody’s looking.

From there, Natalie got to see pop star Katy Perry, who used to sing about Jesus. However, since crossing over into showbiz stardom she’s been circling the vortex of hellish behavior for years. Katy, wearing an illuminated Knights Templar cross on her chest, pushed the envelope beyond ‘kissing a girl’ in what even the secular media described as a Satanic Ritual, or at best, witchcraft.

Right about that time Natalie and Bernie were probably starting to feel out of place among people winning awards for being “Up all night to ‘Get lucky.’”

It’s unclear which debauched performance prompted Natalie Grant and Bernie Helms to call it a night.

Hopefully, they were already gone and missed the church-like mockery that was overseen by Reverend Latifah. Wedding music was compliments of a menopausal Madonna on behalf of 34 same- and mixed-sex couples who tied the knot on what’s supposed to be a music awards show.

Refusing to pass judgment on the debacle, after she left Natalie had this to say on her Facebook page, which in a few words said so much:

We left the Grammy’s early. I’ve many thoughts about the show tonight, most of which are probably better left inside my head. But I’ll say this: I’ve never been more honored to sing about Jesus and for Jesus. And I’ve never been more sure of the path I’ve chosen.


Editors note to Natalie: Well done good and faithful servant.

Bush speechwriter accuses Obama of plagiarizing GWB’s 2007 SOTU

Obama at SOTU

January 29, 2014
As dark clouds continue to gather over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, all but the most diehard Obama worshipers grudgingly concede that his presidency has entered its lame duck phase. Some analysts have drawn comparisons between the second term of the current occupant of the White House and that of his immediate predecessor.

Bruce Drake, writing at Pew Research Center’s Fact Tank, notes:

Barack Obama and George Bush have at least one thing in common when it comes to the second terms they won — the first year of their encores have been downers when it came to their public images. Both experienced falloffs in overall job approval and in Americans’ perceptions of their leadership, ability to get things done and trustworthiness.

For one observer, even last night’s State of the Union address had an oddly familiar ring, sounding like something George W. Bush might have said. That’s because the words were something Bush had said. Mark Thiessen, the observer in question and lead Bush speechwriter, had written them for Bush’s 2007 SOTU.

Appearing on “The Kelly File,” Thiessen said (Click on link to see actual interview):

It was eerily familiar. There were lines like, “Our job is to help Americans build a future of hope and opportunity. A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy. A future of hope and opportunity requires our citizens have affordable and available health care.” “Extending opportunity and hope depends on a stable supply of energy.” All of that came from the 2007 State of the Union address by George W. Bush. So, Barack Obama has gone from blaming George W. bush to plagiarizing George W. Bush.

I went back and took a look at the Bush speech, the text of which is here. Here are the exact lines Thiessen was evidently referring to:

Our job is to make life better for our fellow Americans, and to help them build a future of hope and opportunity. And this is the business before us tonight. A future of hope and opportunity begins with a growing economy, and that is what we have. We are now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, a recovery that has created 7.2 million new jobs so far.

If you read the entire speech, you’ll notice there are differences. There is not a single instance in which Bush ridiculed his opponents across the aisle or threatened to use “his pen and his phone” to bypass Congress and the U.S. Constitution.

Related Articles


Video of the Day From Joe The Plumber



A Video That Will Put A Smile on Your Face

Woman feeding deer

Matt Drudge Issues Warning: “Have An Exit Plan”

His web site may consist of just a single page, but Matt Drudge is arguably the most influential media personality in the world. Garnering nearly one billion readers monthly, the Drudge Report is able to literally shift public sentiment, making it an essential read for D.C. insiders, Wall Street professionals, and anyone who wants to stay on top of the latest global issues. If Matt Drudge headlines a story its viral spread to millions of readers in near real-time is guaranteed. With his established connections to critical spheres of influence that include everything from politics and government to finance and entertainment, when Drudge speaks, people listen. Over the weekend, as noted by Steve Quayle and Susan Duclos, the self made media behemoth took to his Twitter account with a simple warning consisting of just four words… Have an Exit Plan Drudge Drudge included no other details with his Tweet. The warning, while cryptic, may be the result of direct insider information. Considering he once nearly brought down the Clinton administration by revealing the President’s indiscretions with a White House intern, one could make the case that if anyone has legitimate sources pouring in from across the world it’s Matt Drudge. Could his warning be for stock market investors regarding foreknowledge of an imminent collapse of financial markets in the United States, China and Europe? Or has Drudge’s access to insiders in key positions given him the ability to connect the dots for an event that may occur in the near future? Few may recall, but just three weeks ahead of the September 11th attacks, Drudge headlined warnings of possible strikes on US-based targets, so there may well be a credible insider source for his most recent warning as well. In recent years the mogul has expanded his news distribution service to  include alternative news powerhouses like Alex Jones’ Infowars, which researches and analyzes key events and happenings globally. As of late, Drudge has made it a point to link to a variety of topics at Infowars that include the militarization of America’s domestic policing apparatus, Constitutional transgression at the highest levels of our government, and other insider reports often ignored by the mainstream media. While establishment news media shuns the rapidly growing alternative media, a warning to “have an exit plan” is one that the alternative news sphere has consistently suggested, while often being laughed at in mainstream circles. Given Drudge’s massive following, reach, and credibility, perhaps we shouldn’t be laughing any more. Something has spooked Matt Drudge and he’s not alone. Last year one of America’s leading talk show hosts, Mark Levin, warned that the U.S. government has been simulating the collapse of our financial system and society with the potential for widespread violence. There are countless such examples of highly influential media personalities who are issuing similar warnings. Within the realm of the alternative media, the last several years have yielded incredible insights into the inner workings of the U.S. government, political system and economic machinations. Everything from manipulations of our monetary system to the sometimes unbelievable expansion of the American police state has been extensively studied and reported by thousands of independent journalists, broadcasters and bloggers operating outside of the mainstream establishment’s sphere of influence. There have been insider reports indicating that a crisis of unprecedented magnitude is coming to the United States. Contrarian economists, who are almost completely ignored by mainstream media, have warned of dire consequences to the continued operation of our systems of commerce, including our domestic food distribution networks. And though it has not been reported on the alphabet news channels, the U.S. military has been actively war gaming collapse scenarios and engaging in highly suspicious exercises across U.S. metropolitan areas. While Matt Drudge’s latest comments could be referring to anything, given the types of stories he’s covered in recent years we could make the case that he is referring to worst-case scenarios. His exit plan warning may encompass any number of potential scenarios such as a coming shock to financial markets, evacuating major cities in an emergency, preparing for the destruction of our currency, or having a way to get out of the United States in the event of a Soviet-style purge. Whatever the case, Matt Drudge understands that his views and comments are followed by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, thus we are confident that he would not publicly issue such a warning unless he has access to credible information that supports his claims. That being said, we urge readers to remain vigilant. And, in the off chance that some terrible event is in our near future, we strongly suggest having a preparedness plan that includes emergency food storagebarter suppliesmedicinesprecious metals, and a strategic relocation plan in case you are forced to evacuate your current residence. SHTF Plan

Watch for this Phrase in Tonights State of the Union Address: “Income Inequality”

Income Inequality claims: Wrong-Headed Liberalism

Written on Monday, January 27, 2014 by

Hurting from the implosion of Obamacare and the revelation that its namesake lied to the American people about his misnamed Affordable Care Act, liberals running for office have been forced to find another song to sing.  Not surprisingly, they have found one: income inequality.  Income inequality has become mantra for progressive politicians who are concerned about the effect Obamacare will have on their re-elections.  Ask a progressive politician about President Obama’s you-can-keep-your-doctor promise, and you will get an earful about income inequality.  Show a progressive politician your cancelled health insurance policy, and you will hear a lecture on income inequality.  Give a progressive politician a copy of the notice of increased premiums you just received from your insurance company, and you will be treated to a dissertation on income inequality.  Liberals have decided to confront their Obamacare problem by changing the subject.  The new subject they plan to focus on is income inequality.

The problem with all of this talk about income inequality—aside from the fact that it’s a smokescreen thrown up to divert attention from the failings of Obamacare—is that it’s founded on invalid assumptions.  With income inequality, we are not talking primarily about inherited wealth.  Rather, we are talking about the amount of the world’s wealth that is controlled by the top one percent of wealthy people.  The invalid assumptions that progressives base their income-inequality diatribes on are these: 1) That all work is equally valuable in the marketplace,  2) That those who earn less are somehow being discriminated against, which is why they earn less, and 3) That it is unfair for one individual to earn a lot of money while another earns comparatively little.  All of these assumptions are demonstrably false, and liberals know it.  Of course since stoking the fires of class envy is their goal, it matters not a whit that their assumptions are false, at least not to liberals.

In a free society with a market economy, the people who have the most money will always be those who are able to provide a product or service people want and are willing to pay for.  Consequently, the level of income one earns and the amount of wealth one generates is based primarily on supply and demand.  If an individual enters a profession for which demand is strong and supply is limited, he will earn more than someone who enters a field for which demand is weak and supply is plentiful.  Hence, individuals who work as high-level computer engineers—the kind of professionals employed by Microsoft for example—earn more than individuals who work the counter at a fast-food restaurant.  Is this wrong?  Hardly.  Why is it not wrong?  Because people want computers and the associated devices and software that go with them and they are willing to pay to get them.  Further, to become a computer engineer one must have the innate mental capacity to do the work, the perseverance to complete a rigorous course of college study, and the persistence to keep one skills constantly updated and on the cutting edge of computer technology. These things are not true of people who work the counter at fast-food restaurants.

To work the counter at a fast food restaurant requires little more than the mental capacity, education, and persistence associated with a sixth grader, if that.  Because of the supply-and-demand equation, it is difficult for employers such as Microsoft to find and keep qualified computer engineers.  Hence the market demands that they pay a competitive salary that is enhanced by good benefits and attractive perquisites.  On the other hand, almost any person can quickly learn everything necessary to work at a fast-food restaurant.  Consequently, there is seldom a shortage of individuals seeking employment at fast food restaurants.  In this case, the supply is typically high and demand is typically low.  Consequently, the pay is correspondingly low.  This is not unfair, as progressives try to portray it.  In fact, it is inherently fair.  The market usually is.  What is unfair is when progressive politicians with a hidden agenda try to manipulate public opinion by encouraging class envy.  And, of course, this is precisely what the left is doing with its new campaign for income equality.

While it is true that the hand of God is certainly a factor in determining who is born with the innate ability to become a computer engineer as opposed to a fast-food worker, it is also true that success in the workplace is based on much more than innate ability.  It would be hard to count the number of people with innate ability whose earning potential is limited by such factors as laziness, bad educational choices, sloppy career planning, and a poor work ethic.  Perhaps one might argue that it is inherently unfair that one individual would have the innate ability to become a computer programmer, but that is a conservation to have with God not your local Congressman.

Democrats scramble to block ‘New World Order’

Obama wants to ‘fast track’ job-killing, sovereignty-threatening plan

Published: 21 hours ago

author-image Jerome R. Corsi

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is  “Who Really Killed Kennedy?”

NEW YORK – As President Obama prepares to deliver his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, powerful groups in the Democratic Party base are organizing to oppose “fast track” authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping free-trade agreement the Obama administration is ready to push through Congress.

“President Obama can’t have it both ways,” Arthur Stamoulis, the spokesman for Citizens Trade Campaign, the group organizing the letter, told WND. “Either the president is for reducing income eligibility as we expect he will say in the State of the Union address, or he can push for fast-track legislation on the job-destroying TPP free-trade agreement. He can’t have it both ways.”

Jerome Corsi’s “Late Great USA” uncovers government deceptions that threaten U.S. sovereignty

The TPP is the first part of a two-ocean globalist plan the Obama administration is working quietly to put into place. The aim is to follow up the passage of the TPP with the finalization of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the European Union.

As WND reported, Obama announced in his 2013 State of the Union address the plan to add the trans-Pacific free-trade agreement to the trans-Atlantic agreement already in place.

“Fast-track” authority would allow the Obama administration to ram the TPP through Congress with a simple majority vote. The rules would limit debate so that no amendments could be introduced to modify the language of the agreement the Obama administration has negotiated behind closed doors.

Meanwhile, the power of the punch the Citizens Trade Campaign plans to deliver the White House can be seen by the letter’s signatories.

They include labor unions such as the AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; United Autoworkers (UAW); United Brotherhood of Carpenters; United Steelworkers (USW); and Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Among the environmental organizations are, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Rainforest Action Network and the Sierra Club.

Family farm organizations include the National Family Farm Coalition, National Farmers Union and the Western Organization of Resource Councils. Consumer groups include Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, National Consumers League and Public Citizen.

“Income inequality and long-term unemployment are serious problems that the job-killing TPP would only worsen,” Stamoulis said.

He said calling for fast-track authority in the State of the Union address Tuesday night “would undercut positive proposals to battle growing income inequality and create middle class jobs which are expected to be the central focus of the president’s speech.”

“As short-sighted as such a call would be, even more short-sighted would be for Congress members on either side of the aisle to answer it, as they’re the ones who would be dealing with the political repercussions this November,” Stamoulis said.

On Wednesday, another group opposed to TPP, the U.S. Business & Industry Council, plans to deliver the second punch in the one-two punch act by following up the State of the Union address with a national press conference revealing the results of a bipartisan national poll on TPP.

In an unusual move, two pollsters that usually do not work together, Democratic pollster Gary Molyneux of Hart Research and Republican pollster Bob Carpenter of Chesapeake Beach Consulting, have collaborated to take the poll and report the results.

While Eden Gorden, spokeswoman for the U.S. Business & Industry Council, would not say in advance precisely what the poll results will show, it’s likely that the majority of responders would oppose the TPP as a job-killing measure. Critics charge the Obama administration negotiated it in secret and is now trying to rush it through Congress before the American public finds out how the trade measure compromises U.S. sovereignty.

On Jan. 14, WND reported Republicans in the House are preparing to follow the lead of the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to rubber-stamp the TPP, the most sweeping free-trade agreement since NAFTA.

On Jan. 9, in a little-noticed statement, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont, together with ranking member Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., announced they were introducing “fast track” trade promotion authority.

The last line of congressional resistance to TPP appears to be coming from House Democrats concerned that more U.S. union jobs will be lost in the free-trade “fast track” steamroller Republicans under Boehner and Democrats aligning with Reid plan to run through Congress.

Last year, 151 House Democrats, led by Representatives Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and George Miller, D-Calif., opposed to TPP wrote a letter to President Obama stating their opposition to using “outdated ‘Fast Track’ procedures that usurp Congress’s authority over trade matters.”

With Boehner’s decision to support Obama on TPP, the Republican Party appears ready to ignore concerns raised by GOP conservatives and various tea-party groups that the 12-nation deal further undermines U.S. sovereignty. The opponents argue it places major sectors of the U.S. economy under a new dispute-regulation mechanism that takes precedence over U.S. judges and courts.

As WND has reported, “fast track authority,” a provision under the Trade Promotion Authority also has the function of reassuring foreign partners that the FTA negotiated by the executive branch will not be altered by Congress during the legislative process.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama declared that to “boost American exports, support American jobs and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia, we intend to complete negotiations on a Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

“And tonight,” he said, “I’m announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union – because trade that is fair and free across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs.”

The promise of creating new jobs drew congressional applause despite legitimate concerns that previous trade agreements, including NAFTA and U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization, have resulted in the loss of millions of high-salary U.S. jobs to nations with less expensive job markets.

The 12 nations involved in the TPP are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States.

Penn and Teller Explain Why “Spreading the Wealth” Will Always Fail

By / 28 January 2014

The brilliant libertarian Penn Jillette uses his incredible talent for comedy to explain to even the slowest of liberals why “spreading the wealth” can never work, and indeed, will always fail.

Click on image to view video:


About the author: Onan Coca

amp;lt;img alt=” src=’’ class=’avatar avatar-80 photo’ height=’80’ width=’80’ />

Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in the Atlanta area with his wife, Leah. They have three children and enjoy the hectic pace of life in a young family. Onan and Leah are members of the Journey Church in Hiram, GA.



Advice to the Dictator for His State of the Coup Address

Posted on January 28, 2014 by Conservative Byte (Quoting Rush Limbaugh)

Sadly the state of his coup is good. This year we better fight back. Check it out:

State of the Coup.  I think that is what we need to call this.  It’s not the State of the Union.  It’s the State of the Coup.  That’s between you and me, folks, shh, don’t tell the media.  That is a tweak.  Let me tell you what’s gonna happen.  I just called it the State of the Coup.  Now, the media’s not listening here, they never do.  They will hear that I said this on another website — take your pick, Daily Kos, Media Matters — they will be outraged, and then later this afternoon or sometime tomorrow, they will say how reprehensible, how horrible. Who does this guy think he is? This is not a banana republic. This is offensive. The president is right to be concerned, got this guy on the radio calling it the State of the Coup.

And when that happens, you will know that you are in on the joke.  Just between us.  Because as I say, the media is not listening now.  They never do.  They will not go to my website to find out about this.  They will hear about it Third Way and be appropriately outraged.  So we’ll stick with it all day, just for the fun of it, call it the State of the Coup.  Plus it has the added benefit of it kind of works, doesn’t it?  And do you know what the theme of the State of the Coup is?  Inequality.  The president is going to complain and whine and moan about inequality.

Do you know, ladies and gentlemen, poverty is not the result of income or wealth inequality?  You might think, “Rush, that’s not anything special.” There are a lot of people to whom that is going to be a controversial statement. “What do you mean inequality isn’t due to poverty? What do you mean poverty doesn’t cause inequality?  What do you think does?”  And therein lies the answer to the big question.  Here’s another one for you. (interruption) No, I don’t think you should be laughing about this at all.  This is his route to further punish achievement, to stigmatize it, to stigmatize the rich.  You hear about this guy, one of these big venture capitalist guys from California, San Francisco, his name is Peters.  I think it’s Peters.  This was gonna be at the top of the Stack until the rest of the show biz stuff started rolling in. 

Continue Reading on

Governor Jerry Brown’s Official Police State


California: APPS: Protect Yourself if the Government Comes for Your Guns

Posted on January 27, 2014 //

Attention residents of the City of Los Angeles and Orange County:

We recently learned that local law enforcement entities are conducting firearm confiscation raids in your area on behalf of the California Department of Justice, as part of its Armed Prohibited Persons System (“APPS”) program.  These raids are typically conducted without search warrants.  

Be prepared!  While these raids are promoted by politicians as intended to disarm dangerous criminals, they actually more often target unsuspecting citizens who present no danger and have no idea that they are prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition.

Watch this video for background on APPS’s shortcomings and injustices, and this revealing video in review of a former DOJ Special Agent who formerly conducted APPS raids.

For an overview of how these confiscations are conducted, and information about your rights when subjected to one, read this memorandum.

If you are uncertain if you are prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition, check your eligibility by submitting a Personal Firearms Eligibility Check application to the California Department of Justice.

If you are prohibited from possessing firearms, contact an attorney to discuss how best to restore your rights and comply with the law.

If law enforcement shows up at your home asking about firearms:

  • Don’t talk!  Officers are trained to get people to make statements that provide “probable cause” to search and seize.  Try not to even open the door.

  • Instead, provide the officers with this flyer, or tell the officers that you assert your right to remain silent and want to have an attorney present (actually say those words).

  • Do NOT “consent” to a search of your person, possessions, or home.  Insist on a search warrant.  If they don’t have a warrant, refuse the search entirely and close the door.

  • Consult a lawyer immediately.

  • Confirm whether you may legally possess firearms and learn your rights!  Don’t take the rap for APPS!

Stay connected with the NRA through these additional connections:

Websites: NRA-ILA, NRA-ILA California, NRA – ILA Legal Update,,,

Facebook Pages: NRA’s Facebook page, Facebook page, NRA Members’ Councils’ Facebook page, Hunt for Truth Facebook page

LinkedIn: NRA’s LinkedIn page

YouTube: NRA YouTube

Twitter: NRA Twitter, NRA-ILA Twitter, CalNRATwitter, CalGunLaws Twitter


The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the lobbying arm of the NRA. Established in 1975, ILA is committed to preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
ILA’s ability to fight successfully for the rights of America’s law-abiding gun owners directly reflects the support of NRA’s nearly 5 million members—a number that has more than tripled since 1978. When restrictive “gun control” legislation is proposed at the local, state or federal level, NRA members and supporters are alerted and respond with individual letters, faxes, e-mails and calls to their elected representatives to make their views known.

In 1986, the NRA and millions of gun owners nationwide applauded as the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. ILA worked for more than a decade to secure passage of that historic legislation to reform the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Combined with the strong grassroots efforts of NRA members and NRA-affiliated state associations and local gun clubs, the Institute has worked vigorously to pass pro-gun reform legislation at the state level.
These efforts include enacting laws that recognize the right of honest citizens to carry firearms for self-protection; preemption bills to prevent attacks on gun owner rights by local anti-gun politicians, and fighting for legislation to prevent the bankrupting of America’s firearms industry through reckless lawsuits.
The Institute is also involved in educating the public about the facts concerning the many facets of firearms ownership in America. Through the distribution of millions of printed fact sheets, brochures and articles annually and the posting information and the latest news daily on its Internet site (, the Institute provides facts about responsible firearms ownership, the Second Amendment and other topics.
In NRA Headquarters in Fairfax, Va., and in offices in Washington, D.C., and in Sacramento, Calif., the Institute employs a staff of more than 80, with a team of full-time lobbyists defending Second Amendment issues on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures and in local government bodies.
While NRA is a single-issue organization, the Institute is involved in any issue that directly or indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. These involve such topics as hunting and access to hunting lands, wilderness and wildlife conservation, civilian marksmanship training and ranges for public use, law enforcement-related issues, product liability, trapping, crime victim rights and criminal justice reform.

Download the NRA-ILA Mission Brochure.

He Came In Like A Wrecking Ball

By / 28 January 2014


(Click on image to hear Mark’s Editorial)

Mark L

Mark Levin slams ‘One-Man Wrecking Ball’ Obama and says, “This is Not the America the Framers Established”.

B-Bye! Will We Miss Free Speech When It’s Finally Gone?

By / 28 January 2014


Remember when America used to be a free country?

There was a time when we actually made our own purchasing decisions without fear of government interference—let alone outright punishment. The IRS might have been feared at tax time, but there were no dossiers on individuals documenting their most intimate personal details from cholesterol levels to hemorrhoids and vasectomies. And there certainly were no death panels dictating how old you could be and still receive a pacemaker or hip replacement. You could actually pick your own doctor and keep the health insurance coverage of your choice. Remember when?

Ah, the good old days when we could make fun of our President without fear of reprisal. We could speak out against his policies or join an opposition political movement without fear of being audited by the IRS. Remember February 2013 when Dr. Ben Carson spoke eloquently at the National Prayer Breakfast (notice how President Obama is the only one not clapping for Dr. Carson) and found himself being audited by the IRS, not once but twice, simply because President Obama took offense?

I can even remember our presidents poking fun at themselves. Ronald Reagan, for example, saying, “I knew Thomas Jefferson.” Books and movies about ways to kill George W. Bush were considered free speech, if not high art.

My, how things have changed in a few short years. Disagreeing with the President’s policies can get you labeled a racist and excluded from polite society. Disagreeing repeatedly can trigger the dreaded IRS audit, as Dr. Ben Carson discovered. So can calling people who enter our country illegally “illegal aliens.” Such phraseology is now considered racist, offensive, unfair, derogatory and possibly “bullying”. Don’t EVEN get me started on this “bullying” left-wing, progressive, brain-numbing insanity.

Never dare call terrorism “terrorism.” That’s an emotionally charged term that’s an indirect slur against Muslims and Islamic “freedom fighters.” If you want to be invited to the right parties—and not attract unwanted attention from the government—you’ll do well to refer to these incidents as “man-caused disasters” and “workplace violence.” That way you’re not casting aspersions at protected classes of citizens and particular minority groups.

Actress Melissa Joan Hart reported death wishes and hateful insults because she tweeted her support of Mitt Romney in 2012. “I got called every name in the book. And told, they hope I die, and that they hope my children are gay which was, somehow, supposed to be some kind of punishment,” Hart said. She also said there is a blacklist in Hollywood against conservatives. As if we didn’t know.

Above all, never ever use the “G” word in public. That’s the word that’s recently been expunged from the U.S. Air Force cadet honor oath, which formerly concluded with “so help me G__.” Thanks, Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation for raising our consciousness level on that one.

“That is unpatriotic, it’s un-American, it’s inhuman, it’s a crime, and in the military if it happens, it violates the oath that everyone in the military takes — not to the New Testament, or the Torah, or to the Koran, but to the United States Constitution,” said Weinstein in an interview. “It should be punished vigorously, aggressively, and very visibly.

GOT THAT?!? It reminds me of a song by Joanie Mitchell, “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

Free speech in America? If you ask me, it’s pretty near gone. I hope you are willing to fight for it. Speak UP! Speak OUT! Speak CLEARLY! Speak PASSIONATELY!

Image: Courtesy of:  

About the author: Jeff Mullen

Jeff Mullen is a pastor and patriot. He began ministry in 1989 and in 1995 founded Mega Church, Point of Grace Church in Waukee, Iowa and is also politically engaged in the community. He is a musician with extensive recording and performing experience and is a dynamic, humorous communicator. Jeff is also an avid shooter and enjoys a good hunt. He’s been married since 1989 and has two amazing daughters. You can connect with Jeff at or



Political Cartoon of the Day



The person that wrote this letter, not only has a grasp of ‘the situation’ but an incredible command of the English language!


This letter was sent to Mr. Rand who is the Executive Director of AARP. It only takes a few days on the Internet and this will have reached 75% of the public in the USA.


Confirmed by




Dear Mr. Rand,


Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. This isn’t what you were looking for, but it’s is the most honest response I can give you. Our coverage gap is a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith in AARP. While we have proudly maintained our membership for years and long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse its abdication of our values. Your letter stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours.


Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.


Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP once gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama Regime and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!


We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities and values.


This Obama Regime scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don’t have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist Mindset in power.


Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities.


Your web site generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? The illegal perpetrators have broken into our ‘house’, invaded our home without invitation or consent. The President insists we keep these illegal perpetrators in comfort and learn the perpetrator’s language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.


I DON’T choose to welcome them, to support them, to educate them, to medicate them, or to pay for their food or clothing. American home invaders get arrested. Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get? Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break and enter to be welcomed?


We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current Regime. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America .

Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than ones that are driven by a need to yield AMNESTY (aka-make voters out of the foreign lawbreakers so they can vote to continue the governments free handouts). This addition of 10 to 20 million voters who then will vote to continue Socialism will OVERWHELM our votes to control the government’s free handouts. It is a “slippery slope” we must not embark on!


As Margaret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain ) once said “Socialism is GREAT- UNTIL you run out of other people’s money”.


We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.


I am disappointed as all get out! I am more scared than I have ever been in my entire life! I am ANGRY! I am MAD as heck, and I’m NOT gonna take it anymore!


Walt & Cyndy Miller,


Miller Farms Equine Transport



Another State Takes Action to Nullify Obamacare

Oklahoma Bill Introduced to Nullify Obamacare

Posted By on Jan 27, 2014


HB2421 states that “an agency, officer, or employee of the state shall not…engage in an activity that aids any person in the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

The legislation also bars Oklahoma from setting up a state-run health insurance exchange and prohibits prohibits the purchase of insurance from an exchange set up by a non-profit.  Notably in the bill, there are measures to block the state from conducting involuntary home inspections under the ACA.  Yes Politifact, they are there in the ACA.

Judge Andrew Napolitano has praised this type of legislation, claiming “If enough states do this, it will gut Obamacare.”

Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey said that this could create a formidable bloc, pulling the rug out from under the already flailing federal act. “If five states pass something like this, they’re going to be paying attention,” he said. “And if ten or fifteen do it? It’s game over for Obamacare.”

“There is no dispute, the states do not have to help the feds carry out their laws or regulatory programs,” Maharrey added.

“The federal government has no constitutional authority to create or run a national health care system,” he said. “On top of that, why would you want them to? Why would you want a monopoly on healthcare, any more than you would want a monopoly on grocery sales? Especially a monopoly run by an entity as incompetent as the federal government.  We know the feds counted on the states to do the heavy lifting. We know the number of states refusing to create exchanges created problems. If enough states simply say, ‘No,’ this monstrosity will collapse under its own weight.”

There are several things you can do to help in this matter.

  1. Call your State Representative.  You can find your legislator’s contact information by clicking HERE.
  2. Call your State Senator.  You can find your legislator’s contact information by clicking HERE
  3. Call Back – any NO or UNDECIDED – in 3-4 days.
  4. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.

Several states are taking up nullification of Obamacare as a valid Constitutional option to keep the federal government in check. My own State of South Carolina has done it and so have many others, including Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, and Georgia.

Our own Publius Huldah has laid out the foundations of nullifying the Affordable Care Act here.  The Tenth Amendment Center has also provided a model legislation that you can present to the elected representatives in your state and encourage them to introduce it in their state legislature.  Things can change from the bottom up.  That’s where we come in and we’re seeing states take back their power one nullification bill at a time.  Well done Oklahoma!

&lt;span class=”mceItemHidden”&gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;&lt;span class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=””&gt;img&lt;/span&gt; alt=” &lt;span class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=””&gt;src&lt;/span&gt;=’;amp;amp;amp;;amp;amp;amp;r=G&#8217; class=’avatar avatar-60 photo’ height=’60’ width=’60’ /&amp;amp;gt;&lt;/span&gt;

Author: Tim Brown

Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty.  Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Follow Tim on Twitter.


Obama’s Police State America – Get Ready For Martial Law

Click on the colored lettering to view links to support the following. – Jerry Broussard


By / 27 January 2014

police state

Watch what people do, not what they say, especially when it comes to politicians with enormous egos.  This president says he loves liberty.  He says he upholds the Constitution and the rule of law, according to his oath.  He says he understands the Constitution establishes and protects liberty.

But look at what the man does.  He violates the Constitution routinely, destroying liberty with each violation.

In a recent press conference he made excuses for NSA surveillance excesses, proposing meaningless reforms.  Obviously, he could care less about protecting our constitutional right to be free from illegal government search and surveillance.

He uses the IRS to target conservatives to stifle their right to free speech and assembly.  For years Tea Party conservatives have complained they have been denied tax exempt status to operate.  The IRS admitted they targeted the Tea Party and other conservatives. IRS officials have testified the White House was involved.  Yet recently, the FBI tells us there is nothing to investigate.  Just yesterday, it was reported the IRS is now targeting conservatives in Hollywood.     Journalists have been targeted, spied upon, their privacy invaded, and their jobs threatened.  White House officials have harassed reporters and editors and producers.  Even CNN was threatened for covering Benghazi, as was Fox News.  AP reporters’ records were taken and examined by DOJ.

The Obama police state emerges.  It gets worse.  Much worse.

Pushing passage of the National Defense Authorization Act recently in the dark of night, Obama has now set the stage for arresting American citizens without charge and detaining them indefinitely, according to many respected legal experts.  Some have sued the government stating in court documents:

The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.

Every item listed is a gross violation of due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.  Make no mistake, this so-called president is a control freak, a far left statist and egomaniac, hell bent on establishing centralized authority to control all aspects of life.

Police state.  Martial law.

Meanwhile, it’s open season on conservatives, Christians, the Catholic Church, and Christian law firms. Liberty Counsel reports it has been targeted by the IRS.  Franklin Graham’s ministry was targeted, as are hundreds of other groups refusing to goose step according to the dictates of Obama’s drum beat.   Dr. Ben Carson, following remarks critical of Obama, was audited by the IRS for the first time in his life.  Gov. Mike Huckabee is now being misrepresented and assaulted by national media for rightly criticizing the administration on a number of fronts.

No doubt furious over ongoing criticism of ObamaCare and desperate for some power play advantage, Obama has now removed the gloves, no longer restrained by common sense, re-election or regard for his own party.

Notice coordinated attacks on the governors of New Jersey and Virginia.  Notice the conservative-condemning remarks by the governor of New York.  Notice the arrest and indictment of conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza.  Notice harassment of reporters and threats leveled against James O’Keefe.   Notice the bold-faced demand by Sen. Chuck Schumer of NY for more IRS harassment and targeting of the Tea Party.  He readily acknowledges Congress will not act against his political enemies, so the IRS must be brought in to do his dirty work.

Experienced observers realize that when dealing with the Left, nothing is accidental, all is coordinated and orchestrated.

Recall the White House summoning various media representatives last month coinciding with the appointment of John Podesta to Obama’s inner circle.

Podesta knows how to get things done, one way or the other.  He unabashedly recommends the Executive Branch bypass Congress on climate change.  A Clintonista from Chicago, Podesta is “admired” for his ability to tamp down scandals and save political fortunes.  Certainly, this series of attacks on conservatives is specially designed to distract from Obama’s serial scandals and to turn his poll numbers.

What we are seeing now is a revealed battle plan authored by Podesta and others, and endorsed by this president  in league with mass media, all working to centralize power, destroy the Constitution, and establish an oligarchy in America, an oligarchy to be established and preserved by the use of raw military power in a police state environment.   The battle plan has actually been revealed for some time given the other devious tactics employed in the overall strategy.

Obama uses the threat of terrorism to concentrate power in the federal government.  He uses so-called man-made global warming to concentrate power. He uses the administrative rule-making authority of a vast bureaucracy to enact tens of thousands of job killing regulations.  He uses the race card, gun control, same sex marriage, abortion, education reform, immigration, finance reform, healthcare “reform” and discussions about income disparity to concentrate power. He stacks the courts, corrupts the legislative process, and issues executive orders to concentrate power.

And now the full on assault on our basic citizen rights.

If provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are allowed to stand by the Supreme Court, the American experiment in liberty and the American dream are dead. Obama is the enemy within.  Either he is defeated, or America is lost.  HRC, Obama’s fraternal twin, must likewise be defeated for all the same reasons.   Keep in mind HRC’s “think tank” is the Center for American Progress, a far left group funded by Soros and headed by none other than John Podesta.

The American people have been lied to and fooled by the Poser in Chief, over and over, for years.  2014 and 2016 are their last chance at redemption.


PS — After passage by the House, the Senate passed the NDAA 84-15.  Here are the names of the patriot Senators who voted NAY on giving the president sweeping powers to deny due process of law and destroy the Constitution:  Sessions, Shelby, Paul, Flake, Crapo, Risch, Coburn, Merkley, Wyden, Cruz, Lee, Sanders, Barrasso, Enzi, Corker.  All Republicans except for Wyden and Merkley of Oregon, and Sanders of Vermont.

Image: Courtesy of:

It’s Not Gun Control; It’s Population Control

By / 26 January 2014

guns const

Some public policy issues may be pretty close calls, like sending arms to Egypt. Good conservatives have made equally compelling arguments both for and against. Some say don’t give high-tech weapons to people who hate us. Others say it’s the best antidote to the poison of the Muslim Brotherhood. Reasonable people clearly can and do differ in such areas of gray.

Gun control is not one of those issues. When it comes to the right to bear arms, common sense and centuries of human experience lead inexorably to one black-and-white conclusion: The Founders got it dead right when they drafted the 2nd Amendment, guaranteeing the rights of an armed citizenry.

Have you ever traveled to a Third World country and observed the garden varieties of home protection? High walls. Locked gates. Razor wire. Broken glass. Stay there long enough and when you return to the United States, picture windows begin to strike you as incredibly vulnerable and unprotected. Except for one thing: Guns. It’s a documented fact that burglaries and home invasions are much lower in the United States because perpetrators can’t know which houses on the block might bring them face to face with a Mossberg 930 SPX Tactical Shotgun. Not something thieves have to worry about in Guatemala and other places with a disarmed citizenry.

On the other hand, there’s Jeanne Assam. She’s the volunteer security guard who singlehandedly averted mass slaughter six years ago at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado by taking out a heavily armed killer. This disturbed individual shot and killed four people inside the church and wounded five more before Assam brought him down with multiple shots. Considering the ammo he was packing, it could have been worse—unspeakably worse.

What if there had been a Jeanne Assam at Sandy Hook Elementary School? At the Aurora, Colorado movie theater where so many innocents were gunned down? Or at Fort Hood? What lunacy has made our soldiers on base and our TSA agents at airports defenseless sitting ducks to perpetrators who sneer at gun controls? Answer: Political correctness and perhaps something more sinister—a desire on the part of the ruling class to establish unquestioned control over the governed.

That’s actually the primary reason the Founders penned the 2nd Amendment. They may not have envisioned a Fort Hood or a Sandy Hook situation. But what they did foresee

  • was the possibility of a government that might forget its proper place
  • and begin subjugating its citizens all over again,
  • ramming draconic demands down their throats,
  • punishing them with confiscatory taxation
  • and disarming them so as to prevent armed insurrection.

Are you “bitter”? Do you cling to your Bible and your guns? If so, you may be deemed an enemy of the people. But ironically, the truth is quite the opposite: Such a government is the enemy of the people.

Image: Courtesy of:


No separation of church and state

Exclusive: Ben Kinchlow examines roots of rallying cry ‘radically changing America’

Published: 1 day ago

Ben Kinchlow is a minister, broadcaster, author and businessman. His latest book is “Black Yellowdogs.” He was the long-time co-host of CBN’s “The 700 Club” television program and host of the international edition of the show, seen in more than 80 countries. He is the founder of Americans for Israel and the African American Political Awareness Coalition, and the author of several books.
  • An organization that had been feeding the poor and helping the homeless for more than 30 years was told by a state agriculture department official that they would not be allowed to receive USDA food unless they removed portraits of Christ, the Ten Commandments, a banner that read “Jesus is Lord” and stopped giving Bibles to the needy.
  • In 2011, two men were arrested and charged with misdemeanor offenses for reading the Bible outside a DMV location.
  • The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and have closed their business after they simply declined to make a cake for a gay wedding because it conflicted with their Christian beliefs. They learned that’s now illegal.
  • A student was told by his professor to write the name “Jesus Christ” on a piece of paper and stomp on it. The student refused, and in retaliation a formal disciplinary action was started against him.
  • A public schoolteacher was forbidden to leave a Bible sitting on his desk “where students might see it.”
  • A 10-year-old girl who brought her Bible to school to read on the bus was told by the school principal to “leave your Bible at home.”
  • A fourth grader was told she could not draw crosses in her art project.
  • A 17-year-old was caught passing a note to a friend between classes. An assistant principal saw and demanded the note (an invitation for the friend to attend an off-campus meeting of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes). The “guilty” student was threatened by said principal with suspension from school for “possession of Christian materials.”

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Lest we forget, let us look back at the origin of what has become the rallying cry of a relatively small minority that is radically changing America.

In 1962, a parent, Steven Engel, alleged that a neutral, nonsectarian 22-word prayer violated his child’s First Amendment rights. His attorneys argued this (completely voluntary) prayer constituted “an establishment of religion.” Long story short, the Supreme Court ruled for him in the 1962 Engel vs. Vitale case and God was officially removed from schools, and now He is being banished from every inch of the public square.

Of course, since we all know exactly what the Constitution says, let me ask a question: Where are the following two statements found?

1) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

2) “In order to ensure citizens freedom of conscience, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship is recognized for all citizens.”

When asked this question, many people who saw the phrase in statement 2 which reads, “the church is separated from the state,” concluded this is the famous “separation of church and state” principle they have heard about ad nauseum. Facts of the matter are,

  • statement 1 is, indeed, found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
  • Statement 2, “the church is separated from the state” is also from the constitution – the constitution of the now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, a political system specifically founded on atheistic principles.

After an objective look at what is happening in many of our courts and schools today, one might be forced to conclude the U.S. Supreme Court and other institutions are basing their decisions on the constitutional principles of the old USSR.

Let me reiterate – nowhere in the U.S. Constitution can you find the phrase “separation of church and state.” It simply is not there. Instead, a careful and unbiased reading clearly reveals the founders’ intent –

  • not two separate clauses but one simple statement: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
  • OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added).

The moment you tell me I cannot have free, voluntary acknowledgement of God, under the “establishment clause” (so called), you immediately violate my right to do so under the “free exercise” clause.

In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law passed by a state legislature that allowed privately funded posters of the Ten Commandments to be hung in classrooms to “acquaint students with the moral pillars of the legal code of their culture” (not promote religion).

The Supreme Court struck down the law, and the real irony is, guess what is inscribed on the east side of the building where they read their decision: Moses holding both tablets of the Ten Commandments, one in each arm.

Have you ever wondered what African-Americans want, and why they vote Democratic? Do you know how slavery actually began in America? Ben Kinchlow’s best-selling book “Black Yellowdogs” breaks race and politics down in black and white. Get your copy today!

Media wishing to interview Ben Kinchlow, please contact


Political Cartoon For The Day


MEET THE KRONIES: A Team of Politically Inspired Big Government Action Figures

You will enjoy this very well done mock television ad. It would be a lot more entertaining if it weren’t so close to the truth.

I hope you will enjoy. MrB


By / 25 January 2014

The “Kronies” are in action…Mandating, Terrify-ing, Inflating, and Boondoggling their way to profits powered by their special connection to the G-Force.…

Kaptain Korn, Parts & Labor, Ariel Stryker, Bankor the Prophet and their leader Big G.

One of the biggest lies in politics is the idea that big government is force to constrain big corporate power. It’s the big lie at the heart of well-intentioned liberal calls for more government intervention into the economy. It takes a certain amount of ignorance, willful or not, to maintain this big lie in the face of actual reality. Crony deals have always been the norm for government intervention from Obamacare, to “green” energy subsidies, to no-bid military boondoggles, union-machine politicking and Wall Street back room bailouts.

Now, there’s an insane new web series that shines a hilarious spotlight on the left’s big lie while putting up a mirror to crony hypocrisy on the right as well. Meet The Kronies! A team of politically inspired action figures: Kaptain Korn, Parts & Labor, Ariel Stryker, Bankor the Prophet and their leader Big G.We don’t know who’s behind this thing, but there also appears to be a crony “company”, Chimera Global Holdings, which alleges to be the manufacturers of the toys. Check it out and share it with everyone you know who whines about the need for big government to keep corporations at bay.



Language Bandits — Subtle Enemies of Freedom

By / 24 January 2014


When you think about Orwell’s 1984, it’s easy to go right to the heavy-handed intrusive measures.  Things like Big Brother, the secret police, and midnight arrests make it easy to draw comparisons to today’s IRS and NSA abuses that would have made Nixon blush.  Or the arrest of that guy responsible for the video that “caused” Benghazi.  Or maybe the swelling pseudo-police powers of various non-policing entities now carrying firearms.

But these were not the only threats Orwell saw to citizen freedoms, were they?

A far more subtle, and in a sense, dangerous threat to those freedoms, Orwell called Newspeak.   In his own words:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.

In his book, acceptable boundaries of thought were enforced by shaping — co-opting — language.  We see this today.  Just ask Paula Deen why the word that cost her dearly in her career is ubiquitous in some music genres.  What gives anyone the right to sanitize our speech by force?

  • How else does a Christian Restauranteur’s private opinion about marriage become a national headline?
  • What about Duck Dynasty?  Runaway hit show threatened because one guy said something controversial in an interview?
  • I don’t remember that reaction in ‘08 when Obama said he was “not in favor of gay marriage”.

Instead of using words constructively, to engage conversation, or hammer out differences of ideas, activists and political hacks are short-circuiting political process.  If someone dares say something controversial, two things are considered.  First, “Who said it?”, and second, “What it is said about?”

For example, the word that brought Paula Deen to court was also used by Madonna. Difference?  Madonna is committed to the same values as the P-C police.  Likely, it will cost her nothing.

They play the same game with sexuality.  Gay is a relatively new term.  It replaced other more vulgar, or more accurate words.  Notice they chose an innocuous word synonymous with happy?  People later manufactured the word “homophobe” to bludgeon the noncompliant into submitting to the new orthodoxy. This, too, is selectively enforced.  

Where are the complaints about their treatment in places like Iran, where homosexuals are publicly executed under Islam?  Yet somehow Christians are scapegoats to be reviled for their commitment to traditional marriage.  Do they think only Christians held this view, rather than practically every cultural group in the world (other than our aggressive strain of secularism)?

Maybe I missed it, but around the time Phil Robertson called homosexuality “a sin,” Louis Farrakhan spoke of the Islamic teaching that homosexuals be beheaded or stoned. Where, exactly, was that outrage?  Has a reference to violent death from the religion so often in the news for violence less newsworthy than Phil’s private opinion?

Well, that would overlook one little fact: they aren’t interested in debate, or justice, but naked power.  Like good little thought police, they’re trying to bully people into obedience.  For now, the Islamophobe card seems enough to protect them from charges of “homophobia.”

What can we learn from this?  We can be conscious of their tactics, and use deliberate word choice to frame our own position.  For example,

  • they use ”pro-choice” rather than ”pro-abortion”, it’s more “friendly” even if the latter is more accurate.
  • “Progressive” is used to imply progress, and “forward” (another word often used).

If you use their language, you are already fighting the battle on their turf.  Worse, you may be using terminology they use to stereotype you.

  • Frame your ideas in the context of what you are for, not against.  It lets you define yourself on your own terms.

  • Don’t be afraid to take the gloves off.  If they’re going to invent accusations against you, try to “Judo” that energy back at your attacker.

  • If they call you racist, be ready to show why they are, and you are not.  If they call you a hater, make them prove it. Show them up as cowards, flinging accusations because they have no actual arguments.

Remember how Orwell’s novel had a “Ministry of Truth” that was actually a State-run Propaganda House?

Part of the fight, is to call things what they really are.  Barbara Walters — alleged journalist of no small reputation — said the following: “We thought he was going to be … the next messiah”.

That’s not objective reporting, that’s the language of religious devotion and Personality Cult.  I fail to see how that is meaningfully different from the adulation given a little Austrian with a funny mustache so many years ago.

Above all, when you are dealing with someone that no longer feels the sting of conscience (as any group that rejects the Ten Commandments must be), use ridicule!  Tweak the ego!

Since images and sound bites have become more important than ideas and substance, this can be devastating to those me-monkeys.

Image: Courtesy of: English

Truths that need to be told about Hillary Clinton from Dick Morris

Posted By on Jan 24, 2014

A very good and dear friend of mine, owner of Executives Service Agency in Phoenix, Arizona, contacted me with some information regarding Hillary Clinton. He suggested that I do some research to verify it for myself, and so I did. What I found was almost unbelievable. Hillary didn’t really have a great past before she entered politics.  One could say it was quite radical. In fact, we could say it was extremely radical.

Now, I pride myself on writing my own material and only use other sources for verification of facts, but I am going to share some information from Dick, written by Mr. Morris about Hillary back in May of 2007.

Mr. Morris writes:

Bill Clinton’s syrupy five minute ad for Hillary… he introduces the commercial by saying that (he) wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background. His version of her biography is about as reliable as if it appeared in Pravda!

So, I wanted to make a few corrections.

Bill says: Hillary never wanted to run for public office, but she did want to work at public service.

Bill says: In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.

The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.

The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.

The facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill became Attorney General and made partner only after he was elected governor.

Bill says: President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says: She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.

The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Walmart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says: Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.

The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: Hillary was the face of America all over the world

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them

Bill says: Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 9-11 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation.

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton:  She has done everything possible to weaken our country (that’s you and me!) when it comes to dealing with the enemies of the United States.

  1. She wanted to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.
  2. She wanted to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.
  3. She wanted to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.
  4. She wanted to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells and supporters in the USA.
  5. She wanted to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.

One cannot think of a single bill Hillary Clinton has introduced, or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in order to deal with our enemies.  However, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens the United States and makes it a more dangerous place for all of us.

One fact was Hillary used taxpayer money to apologize for the “offensive video,” that was used as an excuse by the Obama administration to cover for her and the president’s ridiculous lie about the attack in Benghazi in 2012.

Point of fact, I really can’t think of any good Hillary Clinton has done before or after she married Bill Clinton and especially not as Secretary of State under Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

Hey Hillary I told you, “Do you really think we are going to let you forget that or for that matter- get away with it

Author: Richard Anthony

Richard Anthony is a US Army veteran who served from 1975 to 1980.  He was stationed in Frankfurt West Germany from 1976 to 1978 with the 3rd Armored Divisions 143rd Signal Battalion as a Tactical Telecommunications Center Specialist and was also with the 1st Cavalry Division 1st/12th Cav as a Combat Medic until discharge in 1980.  He has been married for 20 years and has 3 sons.  He’s also a very involved Tea Party activist.


19 Numbers Which Prove Americans Are Frustrated and Angrier than Ever

The following statistics come from various surveys and opinion polls that have been conducted recently.  Without a doubt, these numbers show that Americans are angrier and more frustrated than ever…

#1 65 percent of Americans are dissatisfied “with the U.S. system of government and its effectiveness”.  That is the highest level of dissatisfaction that Gallup has ever recorded.

#2 66 percent of Americans are dissatisfied “with the size and power of federal government”.

#3 70 percent of Americans do not have confidence that the government will “make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014.”

#4 Only 8 percent of Americans believe that Congress is doing a “good” or “excellent” job.

#5 Only 4 percent of Americans believe that it would “change Congress for the worse” if every member was voted out during the next election.

#6 60 percent of Americans report feeling “angry or irritable”.  Two years ago that number was at 50 percent.

#7 53 percent of Americans believe that the Obama administration is “not competent in running the government”.

#8 An all-time low 31 percent of Americans identify themselves as Democrats.

#9 An all-time low 25 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans.

#10 An all-time high 42 percent of Americans identify themselves as Independents.

#11 Barack Obama’s daily job approval numbers have dipped down into the high thirties several times lately.

#12 Only 38 percent of Americans approve of the way that Obama is handling the economy.

#13 60 percent of Americans believe that the “economic system in this country unfairly favors the wealthy”.

#14 70 percent of Americans do not “feel engaged or inspired at their jobs”.

#15 Two-thirds of U.S. teens “admit to having anger attacks involving the destruction of property, threats of violence, or engaging in violence”.

#16 36 percent of Americans admit that they have yelled at customer service agents during the past year.

#17 73 percent of Americans believe that Obama’s efforts to “reform” the NSA “won’t make much difference in protecting people’s privacy”.

#18 77 percent of Americans believe that the state of the economy is either “not so good” or “poor”.

#19 65 percent of Americans are either “somewhat dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with the direction of the country.

Are you starting to get the picture?

We have never seen anything like this in the United States during the post-World War II era.  People are fundamentally unhappy, and that has tremendous implications for the future of our society.

So what is causing all of this anger and frustration?

Well, of course the economic struggles that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing on a daily basis play a huge role.  The following is an excerpt from a recent local Fox News report

Some are describing this as “America’s anger epidemic.” And there are a few reasons: uncertainty in the job market and the economy, working long hours — on average about one month more now than they did in the 1970s and with less vacation.

So if it seems like Americans are angrier these days it’s because we are.

And it is easy to understand why people are becoming increasingly frustrated with the incompetence and rampant corruption in Washington D.C.

Grim findings have been coming thick and fast. Most Americans no longer see President Barack Obama as honest. Half think that he “knowingly lied” to pass his Obamacare health law. Fewer than one in five trust the government in Washington to do what is right all or most of the time. Confidence in Congress has fallen to record lows: in America, as in Italy and Greece, just one in ten voters expresses trust or confidence in the national parliament. Frankly straining credulity, a mammoth, 107-country poll by Transparency International, a corruption monitor, this summer found Americans more likely than Italians to say that they feel that the police, business and the media are all “corrupt or extremely corrupt”.

Americans are also turning on one another. Since 1972 the Chicago-based General Social Survey (GSS) has been asking whether most people can be trusted, or whether “you can’t be too careful” in daily life. Four decades ago Americans were evenly split. Now almost two-thirds say others cannot be trusted, a record high.

In addition, there are certainly other reasons why people are so angry these days as well…

The “Knockout Game” grows more popular. Athletes throw tantrums that would embarrass most 3-year-olds. Race relations simmer at a constant near-boil, while our leaders engage in enough posturing and name-calling to look more like a modern version of “West Side Story” than the servant-citizens who should inspire peace and mutual respect.

So what do you believe?

Why do you think that Americans are so angry and so frustrated these days?

Is there anything we can do about it?

And how bad will the anger and frustration in this country get when the economy completely collapses?

The Daily Sheeple


Video of the Day January 25, 2014

Made it

Political Ignorance and Big Government

Written on Friday, January 24, 2014 by

image001There are many good and sound reasons for limiting the size of government—efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, cost, too many layers between officials elected to serve and those who are supposed to be served, and the burgeoning-bureaucracy syndrome. The burgeoning-bureaucracy syndrome is the tendency of a bureaucracy, once in place, to focus more on growing and staying in business than on doing the business it was established to do.  Big government bureaucrats may be slow, inefficient, and uncaring in doing their jobs but they are experts at keeping their jobs.  These are all good reasons for limiting the size of government, but there is another reason that gets little attention: the concept of political ignorance.

This is one of the themes of a new book by Ilya Somin: Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter.  Somin makes the point that the American public suffers from a bad case of political ignorance.  There are several reasons for the lack of political knowledge exhibited over and over again by the voting public.  There is the sad fact that public education at all levels in America either fails to teach American government in a competent manner or purposely distorts what it teaches as part of its leftwing indoctrination effort. There is the additional fact that schools and colleges in America fail to develop critical-thinking skills in students because the liberals who control public education do not want graduates to think—they want them to blindly follow where the left leads.  But one reason that had not surfaced until Ilya Somin raised it in his new book is big government.

Big government, because it is so inaccessible, has created a situation in which everyday Americans purposefully ObamaFedoraavoid political engagement.  Said another way, they choose to be politically ignorant.  According to Somin, purposeful political ignorance is a rationale response for an individual who thinks his involvement will do no good and that his voice will not be heard no matter what he does. A substantial number of Americans believe—and with good reason—that the president, Congress, and the courts will do what they want irrespective of what individual Americans want.  An example of why so many Americans feel this way about their government is Obamacare.  Obamacare was muscled through Congress without the support of the majority of Americans and over the strong opposition of Republicans in Congress.  Those Democrats who voted for it had no idea what was in the bill.  They simply believed what the president told them and voted for it.

To illustrate how Obamacare and other legislative initiatives that ignore the desires of the voting public contribute to political ignorance, consider the findings of a recent Kaiser survey.  A startling 44 percent of respondents did not even realize that Obamacare had passed and is the law.  Even more discouraging is that 80 percent of respondents knew little or nothing about the insurance exchanges that are a fundamental part of the law. Citizens can certainly be forgiven for being unable to understand Obamacare.  The few people who do Tyranny-careunderstand the ACA are making a fortune as consultants explaining it to insurance companies and employers.  But political ignorance is not limited to specific acts of legislation.  According to Somin, a 2006 survey revealed that only 42 percent of respondents could name the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.

Throwing up their hands and saying “I give up” is a common response for people who are overwhelmed, and a substantial number of Americans are overwhelmed by the size of their government.  Hence they have stopped trying to understand political issues.  Add to this the substandard teaching most of the them got in public school and their lack of critical thinking skills and the level of political ignorance in America becomes understandable, although still unacceptable.  If political ignorance is a rational response to a government that has become too big, too inefficient, and too unresponsive, it follows that limiting the size of government and decentralizing it so that government is closer to the people is a good idea.  This alone will not solve the problem of political ignorance, but it is a necessary first step.

Only Democrats

Was Obama’s Real Job to Destroy America’s Moral & Ethical Foundations?

Posted By on Jan 24, 2014

obama destroying America

So what was the purpose behind Obama’s push to power?  What was his real job that his puppet masters gave him?

After five years in office, I believe that the real job the power tycoons gave Obama was to destroy the moral and ethical values and foundations of America.  Think about what Obama has done or is trying to do since taking office:

Can you list anything positive that Obama has done since taking office in January 2009?  I can’t.  So ask yourself what was the real task given him by his secret handlers?

Obama FiddlingThe reason behind it is simple.  Once the moral and ethical values of Americans had been destroyed, the hidden power tycoons could take complete control of the nation.  And they’re getting very close to accomplishing their goal.

Noonan: The Sleepiness of a Hollow Legend

The State of the Union is a grand tradition—but only if people are listening.

Peggy Noonan
Jan. 23, 2014 6:16 p.m. ET

So the president’s State of the Union address is Tuesday night, and it’s always such a promising moment, a chance to wake everyone up and say “This I believe” and “Here we stand.” The networks are focused and alert, waiting to be filled with a president’s excellence and depth. It’s a chance for the American president to say whatever the storm, however high the seas, the union stands “rock-bottomed and copper-sheathed, one and indivisible.” That’s how Stephen Vincent Benet had Daniel Webster put it, in a play.

In a State of the Union a president tries to put his stamp on things. Here we are, here’s where we’re going, all roads lead forward. We can face whatever test, meet whatever challenge, united in the desire that we be the greatest nation in the history of man . . .

What great moments this tradition has given us. JFK’s father thought his son’s first State of the Union was better than his Inaugural Address. It had a warmth. “Mr. Speaker . . . it is a pleasure to return from whence I came. You are among my oldest friends in Washington—and this House is my oldest home.” Friends, home—another era. LBJ taking the reins in 1964: “Let this session of Congress be known as the session which did more for civil rights than the last hundred sessions combined.” And you know, that’s what it became. Nixon enjoyed dilating on history, and was interesting when he did.

Reagan dazzled, though he told his diary he never got used to it: “I’ve made a mil. speeches in every kind of place to every kind of audience. Somehow there’s a thing about entering that chamber—goose bumps & a quiver.” There was his speech after he’d recovered from being shot—brio and gallantry. And of course Lenny Skutnik. Just before Reagan’s 1982 speech Mr. Skutnik, a government worker, saw Air Florida Flight 90 go into the Potomac. As others watched from the banks of the frozen river, Mr. Skutnik threw off his coat, dived in and swam like a golden retriever to save passengers. The night of the speech he was up there in the gallery next to the first lady, and when Reagan pointed him out the chamber exploded. This nice, quiet man who’d gone uncelebrated all his professional life, and then one day circumstances came together and he showed that beneath the bureaucrat’s clothing was the beating heart of a hero.


Well. History still beckons, waiting to be made. The great unstated question of today: Can America come back, reclaim her old spirit, confidence and joy, can we make things again, build them, grow, create, push out into the new?

And here I think: Oh dear.

Because when I imagine Barack Obama’s State of the Union, I see a handsome, dignified man standing at the podium and behind him Joe Biden, sleeping. And next to him John Boehner, snoring. And arrayed before the president the members, napping.

No one’s really listening to the president now. He has been for five years a nonstop wind-up talk machine. Most of it has been facile, bland, the same rounded words and rounded sentiments, the same soft accusations and excuses. I see him enjoying the sound of his voice as the network newsman leans forward eagerly, intently, nodding at the pearls, enacting interest, for this is the president and he is the anchorman and surely something important is being said with two such important men engaged.

But nothing interesting was being said! Looking back on this presidency, it has from the beginning been a 17,000 word New Yorker piece in which, calmly, sonorously, with his lovely intelligent voice, the president says nothing, or little that is helpful, insightful or believable. “I’m not a particularly ideological person.” “It’s hard to anticipate events over the next three years.” “I don’t really even need George Kennan right now.” “I am comfortable with complexity.” “Our capacity to do some good . . . is unsurpassed, even if nobody is paying attention.”

Nobody is!

He gave a speech on the National Security Agency, that bitterly contested issue, the other day. Pew Research found half of those polled didn’t notice. National Journal’s Dustin Volz wrote that Americans greeted the speech with “collective indifference and broad skepticism.” Of the 1 in 10 who’d followed it, more than 70% doubted his proposals would help protect privacy.

The bigger problem is that the president stands up there Tuesday night with ObamaCare not a hazy promise but a fact. People now know it was badly thought, badly written and disastrously executed. It was supposed to make life better by expanding coverage. It has made it worse, by throwing people off coverage. And—as we all know now but did not last year—the program was passed only with the aid of a giant lie. Now everyone knows if you liked your plan, your doctor, your deductible, you can’t keep them.

When the central domestic fact of your presidency was a fraud, people won’t listen to you anymore.

The poor speechwriters. They are always just a little more in touch with public sentiment than a president can be—they get to move around in the world, they know what people are saying. They have to imitate the optimism of the speeches of yore, they have to rouse. They are the ones who know what a heavy freaking lift it is, what an impossible chore. And they have to do it with idiots in the staffing process scrawling on the margins of the draft: “More applause lines!” The speechwriters know the answer is fewer applause lines, more thought, more humility and candor. Americans aren’t impressed anymore by congressmen taking to their feet and cheering. They look as if they have electric buzzers on their butts that shoot them into the air when the applause line comes. “Now I have to get up and enact enthusiasm” is what they look like they’re thinking. While the other party thinks “Now we have to get up too, because what he said was anodyne and patriotic and we can’t not stand up for that.” And they applaud, diffidently, because they don’t want the folks back home—the few who are watching—to say they looked a little too enthusiastic about the guy who just cost them their insurance.

They are all enacting. They are all replicating. They’re all imitating the past.

You know when we will know America is starting to come back? When some day the sergeant at arms bellows: “Mr. Speaker, the president of the United States” and the camera shows a bubble of suits and one person emerges from the pack and walks into the chamber and you’re watching at home and you find yourself—against everything you know, against all the accumulated knowledge of the past—interested. It’ll take you aback when you realize you’re interested in what he’ll say! And the members won’t just be enacting, they’ll be leaning forward to hear.

And the president will speak, and what he says will be pertinent to the problems of the United States of America. And thoughtful. And he’ll offer ideas, and you’ll think: “Hey, that sounds right.”

That is when you’ll know America just might come back.

Until then, as John Dickerson just put it: Barack Obama, Inaction Figure.


Obama Administration Caught in More Lies

DISMANTLE THIS: Iran, ‘We Did Not Agree to Dismantle Anything’

By / 23 January 2014

 Watch CNN’s full interview with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani Sunday at 10 a.m. on “Fareed Zakaria GPS”
Nuke Lies

(CNN) — Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif insisted Wednesday that the Obama administration mischaracterizes concessions by his side in the six-month nuclear deal with Iran, telling CNN in an exclusive interview that “we did not agree to dismantle anything.”

Zarif told CNN Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto that terminology used by the White House to describe the agreement differed from the text agreed to by Iran and the other countries in the talks — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.

“The White House version both underplays the concessions and overplays Iranian commitments” under the agreement that took effect Monday, Zarif said in Davos, Switzerland, where he was attending the World Economic Forum.

As part of the accord, Iran was required to dilute its stockpile of uranium that had been enriched to 20%, well above the 5% level needed for power generation but still below the level for developing a nuclear weapon.

In addition, the deal mandated that Iran halt all enrichment above 5% and “dismantle the technical connections required to enrich above 5%,” according to a White House fact sheet issued in November after the initial agreement was reached.

Zarif accused the Obama administration of creating a false impression with such language.

“The White House tries to portray it as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again,” he said, urging Sciutto to read the actual text of the agreement. “If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment.”

He repeated that “we are not dismantling any centrifuges, we’re not dismantling any equipment, we’re simply not producing, not enriching over 5%.”

“You don’t need to over-emphasize it,” Zarif said of the White House language. A separate summary sent out by the White House last week did not use the word dismantle.

In an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani echoed Zarif’s statement, saying the government will not destroy existing centrifuges. However, he added: “We are ready to provide confidence that there should be no concern about Iran’s program.”

Read more:

Video of the Day

Pay attention to the sky and what starts to happen about 30 seconds into the video.

Click on image to view video.


Hillary’s State Department Hired al Qaeda Linked Security Group Who Helped Attack Benghazi Compound

Posted By on Jan 23, 2014


That’s the question that needs to be brought up when Hillary officially announces her campaign for president!  You may also want to ask Hillary why this fact was obviously omitted from the State Department sanctioned Accountability Review Board (ARB) that investigated the attack on the Benghazi compound.

According to the 88 page Senate report, that’s exactly what happened.  The Senate report revealed that the State Department contracted with the Libyan 17th of February Brigade militia to provide security outside the Benghazi compound.  The 17th of Feb militia is part of the Ansar al Sharia banner group who is known to have ties to al Qaeda.  Additionally, Ansar al Sharia has been implicated as the group who carried out the attack that killed US Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans.

The report states that at the time of the attack, there were three armed members of the 17th of Feb militia serving as part of the external security at the Benghazi compound.  Then the report described what happened:

“Outside the compound, the security team asked 17th of February Brigade members to ‘provide cover’ for them to advance to the gate of the Temporary Mission Facility with gun trucks.  The February Brigade members refused, saying they preferred to negotiate with the attackers instead.”

“Eventually, the security team initiated their plan of assault on the Mission compound. Some members of the 17th of February Brigade ‘jump[ed] into the vehicle’ and ‘a few 17 Feb members follow[ed] behind on foot to support the team’ according to the informal CIA notes provided to the Committee.”

Yet, the ABR report, sanctioned by the State Department, reported that the members of the 17th of Feb Brigade actually helped American personnel to avoid a roadblock after leaving the compound.  The ABR paints a completely different picture of what happened and the role of the 17th of Feb Brigade and it says nothing about their ties to Ansar al Sharia and al Qaeda.

So who are you going to believe?  Are we supposed to accept the ABR which basically was the State Department investigating the State Department or the US Senate investigation whose report clearly lays blame on the Hillary Clinton’s State Department and provides further evidence of it being covered up?

Hillary Clinton is just as evil and vile as Barack Obama and if she is elected president in 2016, you can be assured that conditions in America and abroad will get worse, not better.

Happy Birthday Greetings? Really???????

Democratic Party Chair Wishes Roe v. Wade a “Happy Birthday”

by Katharine Rosario | Washington, DC | | 1/22/14 8:03 PM

A very sad phenomenon exists today, which is that the left conflates ‘women’s rights’ with killing unborn children in the womb.  The two are in fact mutually exclusive, because there are no other rights without the right to life. That is true for unborn baby girls and unborn baby boys.

wassermanschulzHas she stopped to think of the 55 million American babies who were aborted since Roe v. Wade, who will never be able to celebrate their birthday?

Abortion does nothing to advance the rights of women; it hurts them.  The 7.046 billion people on Earth were all born of women.  Debbie was one of them.

If Debbie really cared about women, she would stop advocating murdering them in the womb in their earliest stages of development. There are better, healthier, more American ways to advance the rights of women — and men (sorry, liberals, men are people too, with rights!) — and children, and families.


Debbie 1


And one of those options is adoption, a word liberals seem to fear.  Grazie Pozo Christie is a Cuban-American medical doctor who is also an adoptive mother.  In an op-ed explaining her transition to joys and truth of being pro-life she states:

I looked around our country and realized that our culture had erected a temple to self-realization and sexual liberation, and therefore abortion has to be available, because unwanted children will continue to be conceived, no matter how many “free” contraceptives are provided.

Nothing restricts personal liberty like a pregnancy and parenthood. As a doctor I can tell you that no scientist questions the fact that a zygote, embryo, fetus and infant are all human beings in different stages of development. (emphasis added) Those who believe in unrestricted abortion license do not acknowledge the conflicting right of the little human being, who might be unwanted, but is just as valuable and beautiful as a wanted child.

The left does not respect the right to life, our most fundamental right.  Instead, they manufacture artificial rights like the “right” of a woman to kill her unborn child.  That’s why, as pro-life conservatives, we must take a bold stand and speak for the unborn, whose voices cannot yet be heard.

LifeNews Note: Reprinted with permission from the Heritage Foundation.

White House Petitioned to Have Muslim Holidays Recognized in School Year

Posted By on Jan 22, 2014


According to the petition:

With the growing population of Muslims in the United States of America (including first, second, third, and fourth generation) we believe it is high time that Muslim holidays are recognized by schools throughout this nation. Unfortunately many Muslim families are forced to choose between their children’s education and their religious obligations. Muslim school children and staff deserve the same benefits afforded to the followers of other faiths. We call on President Obama to support this petition and advance the inclusiveness of our great nation.

I have given warning about what Islamists do as they grow in number before.   I have also reported that, unlike many so-called Christians in America, these people will force their ideology on the culture, not integrate into it.  Their goal is one of world dominance.

We saw this last year how the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front group, pushed for, and got, a change in public school policy to get special treatment for Muslim students.  As a result Dearborn government schools implemented a policy which fully accommodates student-led prayer in all the schools, as well as unexcused absences for students who leave early on Fridays for Jumu’ah prayers.

That wasn’t all.  So that Islam wouldn’t have any competition from the Christian community, it openly opposed the advertising of a local private Bible Study class (something that use to actually be a part of American education).

Additionally, the Muslim community in New York City (remember that city attacked on 9/11 by the faithful of Islam?) are pushing for schools to be closed on Islamic holidays and the new mayor Bill de Blasio will, no doubt, be only too happy to advance their agenda.

Contrary to what Barack Obama and his Homeland Security Advisor Mohamed Elibiary say, America was founded as a Christian nation.

Nothing about Islam has any place here in America.  Nothing.  It is the death-cult ideology of a totalitarian, demon-possessed, murdering, thieving pedophile.  I’m amazed that people would even want to have anything to do with Islam knowing who its founder was and what it teaches.  If you don’t have a clue about Islam, I would suggest just starting with this one article so that you get a clear position on just how Islam views those outside of its ideology.

While the petition must garner 100,000 signatures in order to be addressed by the White House, which, by the way is infested with Islamists and supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, including the man in the Oval Office, you may be surprised to discover that this petition, though started only a day before, has twice the signatures than does a petition to rescue Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan and has been left to rot there by the current administration.

America, is this what you are going to sit back and take from Islam?  Having it rammed down your throats and those of your children?  I hope not.  With all of the legislation moving against the Federal government by the states, I’m wondering how long it will be until the states start exercising their power and eliminating the practice of Islam as Publius Huldah has outlined we do.  With the push to advance the recognition of Islamic holidays in the government run schools, it’s high time God fearing parents removed their children from these indoctrination centers and demand that their tax dollars not support in any way the teachings of Islam.

Author: Tim Brown

Husband to my wife. Father of 10. Jack of All Trades. Christian and lover of liberty.  Residing in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Follow Tim on Twitter.


Obama Calls on Nation to Recommit to Abortion

Sarah Jean Seman   Sarah Jean Seman | Jan 23, 2014

         President Obama reflected on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by encouraging Americans to recommit to the “guiding principles” of the 1973 Supreme Court decision.

           According to Obama:

         Every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.  We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom.  And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.  Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

Pro-life support has actually increased over the last several years, according to Gallup:

While Obama touts abortion as a way to protect women’s freedoms, not all women appreciate trivializing the life they harbor inside of them. Nicole Peck stated at the March for Life rally that her abortion stripped her of not only her money and her baby, but also her self-respect.

With the Obamacare abortion pill mandate still sparking lawsuits and religious freedom controversies, the administration will undoubtedly persist in their attempt to sell abortion as a basic right


The Move to Have a Convention of States is Growing

Georgia on the Brink

COS Project Team

Attention COS patriots: Georgia needs your help!  Tomorrow, January 24, at 9:30am the state senate Rules Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the COS application.  This is a huge step towards passing the application in Georgia, and we need to show the committee we mean business.

So here’s what you can do:

If you live in Georgia, go to the meeting!  It will be held at the Georgia State Capitol in hearing room #450.  We need to pack the room so the senators know how many Georgians support a Convention of States.

If you can’t make it to Atlanta, you can still help.  Send an email voicing your support to  You can type your own or simply use the sample letter below:


My name is [Your Name], and I support the Georgia State Senate resolution (SR 736) to apply for a Convention of States.

A Convention of States is the last, best chance to curb the abuses of the federal government and force Congress to be fiscally responsible.  The Founder’s included the Convention of States option in Article V for precisely the situation in which we find ourselves today.  It’s our responsibility to use the tool the Founders gave us to limit the federal government’s power and jurisdiction.

Georgia was the fourth state to ratify the Constitution—I want Georgia to be the first state to save it.


[Your Name]

We’ll give your letters to our team in Georgia, and they’ll print them out and bring them to the hearing.  We want a huge stack of letters, so get yours in ASAP.

Don’t live in Georgia but want to help? No problem.  You can still send us your letters voicing your support for the Georgia resolution.  With letters from folks across the country, we can show the Georgia state senators this movement has nationwide support!

Sending an email takes five minutes, but those five minutes will bring us one step closer to preserving liberty in our country. Thanks for standing with us!

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: