Obama Closing Vatican Embassy

Carol Platt Liebau | Nov 26, 2013

It's hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama administration is hostile to religion in general, and to Catholicism in particular.

There was his slam on Catholic education. His embrace of pro-abortion extremism. His willingness to have priests arrested if they performed mass on military bases (even voluntarily) during the sequester. And, of course, the hideous ObamaCare HHS mandate falls with particular violence on the First Amendment rights of Catholics.

So now it's dismaying -- but hardly surprising -- that the Obama administration is moving to close America's Vatican embassy. A bipartisan coalition of former ambassadors to the Holy See are expressing their opposition to the plan, which the administration is trying to justify on that post-9/11 catchall: Security.

But let's see it for what it really is: A slap in the face to America's Catholics.

Obama Sinks Israel

Ben Shapiro | Nov 27, 2013

This week, President Barack Obama doomed Israel to a choice between unpalatable options: either striking at Iran's nuclear facilities in its own defense and thereby internationally isolating itself, or watching as its most ardent enemy goes nuclear. The deal, put into place with Iran by the Obama administration, allows Iran to continue developing nuclear-enrichment processes, encompasses virtually no real monitoring standards and grants cash to a regime busily preparing for a second Holocaust.

Obama made the conscious decision to shove Israel into this corner for two reasons. First, because he is an egotist determined to divert attention from his domestic political woes. Second, because he is a hard-core, anti-Israel fanatic who believes that Israeli power represents the chief threat to peace in the Middle East.

The first rationale explains Obama's timing. After years of flirting with Iran -- a flirtation dating all the way back to his presidential campaign of 2008, during which he said he would engage in direct negotiations with the Islamic theocracy without preconditions - Obama culminated the burgeoning relationship with a rammed-through deal leaving Iran in control of its own nuclear destiny. Why the sudden rush? With his poll numbers dropping precipitously and his signature program, Obamacare, dragging down his presidency, Obama needed a big win.

The media duly delivered this to Obama by proclaiming his diplomatic blunder an enormous victory. Ignoring the fact that Obama tacitly gave Iran the right to nuclear development in contravention of all United Nations' resolutions and the best interests of the United States, The New York Times proclaimed, "No one can seriously argue that it doesn't make the world safer." The newspaper also called Israel's dismay at the deal "extremist" and "theater," and even admitted that the Iran deal acted as a "welcome change of subject" for Obama.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, rapidly erected a series of straw men designed to make the president look like a tower of strength rather than the appeaser he is. Secretary of State John Kerry immediately stated that those who opposed the deal thought war should be the "first option" -- an odd proclamation, given Israel's repeated desire to delay action. Obama himself said that the time for "tough talk and bluster" was over -- as though harsh sanctions backed by the threat of force were a bluff. (Which, apparently, they were.)

Though none of this explains why Obama wanted to make a deal in the first place. Yes, it was a convenient distraction -- but the president of the United States can always find a way to shift the political narrative.

The truth is that the president despises Israel and always has. He has spent his entire adult life surrounded by Israel-haters, from Professor Derrick Bell to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, from former Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalidi to Jimmy Carter's former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. His current ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, has suggested that the United States ought to place troops on Israeli ground to protect Palestinians from those brutal Jews.

Obama's administration has repeatedly leaked Israeli national security information in order to stop Israel from striking Iran, and Obama himself forced Netanyahu to apologize to the government of Turkey for stopping its flotilla, directed toward helping the terrorist group Hamas, in the Gaza Strip. The Obama administration sees Israel building homes in its capital city of Jerusalem as more of a threat to peace than Iran building nukes.

Obama's political philosophy dictates that Israel is a colonialist outpost offending the locals -- an unfortunate hangover from the Holocaust instead of a historic Jewish dream and possession. Obama's belief system suggests that Middle Eastern conflict springs not from religious and cultural differences but from Jewish intransigence. So Israel must be stopped. And if that means arming Iran, Obama is happy to do it. If he can while simultaneously winning himself a second Nobel Peace Prize and distracting people from his failed domestic tenure, so much the better.

Pope Francis Stands Up For Christians’ Rights in the Middle East

Leah Barkoukis | Nov 22, 2013

Western leaders may be silent about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, but Pope Francis isn’t. Speaking Thursday to a gathering of Eastern rite church leaders that have ties to the Roman Catholic Church, Francis said he would “not rest as long as there are men and women, of any religion, affected in their dignity, deprived of life’s basic necessities, robbed of a future, forced to the status of refugees and asylum-seekers.”

"I'm very worried about living conditions faced by Christians who are suffering from conflicts and tensions in many areas of the Middle East," Francis said.

The persecution of Christians in the Middle East, particularly in Egypt and Syria, has worsened considerably since the ousting of the Mubarak regime and during Syria’s civil war. More than 40 churches in Egypt have been burned, Christian laity in Cairo were gunned down and Orthodox bishops in Syria have been kidnapped by rebel forces.

“We won’t resign ourselves to a Middle East without Christians who for two thousand years confess the name of Jesus, as full citizens in social, cultural and religious life of the nations to which they belong,” Francis said.

Persecution watchdog group Open Doors USA has launched a global petition urging the UN and other world leaders to “act to safeguard all Syrians, including vulnerable Christian communities,” CNS News reports. The group plans to deliver the petition to the UN Security Council on December 10, which is Human Rights day at the international body.

How Low can MSNBC Go?

Jeff Crouere | Nov 23, 2013

MSNBC, the network of far left lunatics has taken their extreme hatred to a new level. Last week, host Martin Bashir called former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a “world class idiot” and a “resident dunce.” For good measure, he claimed she possessed a “long deceased mind.”

What provoked Bashir? In a recent speech, Palin said that “Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children, and borrowing from China. When that note comes due and this isn't racist, so try it. Try it anyway. This isn't racist. But it's going to be like slavery when that note is due.”

While this view may be controversial and even misguided, it did not merit such a malicious response from Bashir. Sadly, the host did not stop with nasty insults; he then related to his viewers the story of a long deceased slave master who committed horrible acts of brutality, including defecating on those he kept in bondage.

At that point, Bashir incredibly wished Palin would suffer such barbaric treatment. He read aloud a curse word for excrement and said that Palin “qualified” for a “dose” of such “discipline.” In effect, he wished that Palin would be kept in bondage and that an inhuman slave master would defecate on her.

Immediately after calling for the torture and mistreatment of Sarah Palin, this broadcaster should have been fired by his network bosses. Unfortunately, nothing happened to Bashir because he works for MSNBC, the same network that gives a prominent daily platform to Reverend Al Sharpton, who perpetrated the Tawana Brawley hoax.

Clearly there is a problem with MSNBC’s programming. This is the same network that was shamed into suspending the host of a weekly program, actor Alec Baldwin, for uttering anti-gay slurs. This is the same network that had to suspend Keith Olbermann for donating to Democrat candidates and suspended Ed Schultz for calling talk show host Laura Ingraham “a right-wing slut.”

Since MSNBC allows Bashir to remain on the air, it reflects poorly on the entire network. The decision reveals the type of liberal hate that permeates their management and on-air staff. If a similar comment had been made on CNN or Fox, the anchor would have been immediately fired. Evidently, MSNBC has much lower standards than its competition and must have to scrape the bottom of the broadcast barrel to find enough liberal blowhards to fill their schedule.

This episode also exposes the double standard about treatment toward conservatives, especially Sarah Palin. No one would dare make a similar comment about Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or any prominent female leftist. In contrast, renowned members of the media savage Palin on a regular basis. If she is so extreme and such a disgrace, why does she engender so much hate? Undoubtedly, liberals are scared by her conservative message and her ability to effectively communicate. As a result, they demonize her and through their hate speech figuratively “defecate” on her. It is time for this obscene mistreatment to end.

NBC News operates MSNBC and must condone the hard left programming, but it is surprising that it allows hate speech to permeate their airwaves. Until MSNBC changes direction, let’s hope viewers and advertisers continue to abandon the network.

It is time to elevate the political discourse in our nation. We should encourage networks to allow a variety of views on their airwaves including a spirited debate on the important issues that impact our country. However, in the process, Americans should demand that all broadcasters show basic human decency toward each other and those in political leadership, even conservatives like Sarah Palin. As of today, on these important criteria, MSNBC is failing miserably.

Who Killed the Kennedys? Ronald Reagan's Answer

Paul Kengor | Nov 23, 2013

Editor’s note: This article first appeared at American Spectator.

This year marks not only the 50th anniversary of the shooting of John F. Kennedy but also the 45th anniversary of the shooting of Robert F. Kennedy, which occurred in June 1968. Was there a common source motivating the assassins of both Kennedys—that is, Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan?

That renowned political philosopher Mick Jagger speculated on a source. “I shouted out ‘Who killed the Kennedys?’” asks the lyrics in the 1968 song by The Rolling Stones. “When, after all, it was you and me.” The song was titled, “Sympathy for the Devil.” It was, The Rolling Stones suggested, the Devil who had killed the Kennedys, along with his accomplices.

I must say I can’t disagree with that one—a rare area of agreement between me and Mick Jagger.

There is, however, a more earthly answer. And it was provided, surprisingly, by a rising political star in the immediate hours after the shooting of Bobby Kennedy. That star was the new governor of California, Ronald Reagan.

RFK was shot in Governor Reagan’s state. Reagan was no stranger to Bobby Kennedy. He had debated him a year earlier on national television, which didn’t go well for RFK, with Reagan clearly outshining him. Kennedy told his handlers to never again put him on the same stage with “that son-of-a-b----.”

That debate occurred five years after Bobby Kennedy had intervened to get Reagan fired from his long stint as host of the top-rated GE Theatre on CBS—a fact unknown until it was revealed by Michael Reagan in his excellent book, The New Reagan Revolution. Typical of Reagan, he harbored no bitterness toward RFK. That was quite unlike Bobby Kennedy, a man who personally knew how to hold a grudge.

On June 5, 1968, Reagan was full of nothing but sympathy for RFK. He appeared on the popular television show of Joey Bishop, one of the extended members of Frank Sinatra’s Rat Pack. Bishop and Reagan were old Hollywood friends, and Bishop extended the governor a platform to address the shooting. A transcript of Reagan’s appearance on that show was grabbed by his young chief of staff, Bill Clark, who died just a few months ago. Clark shoved it in a box that ended up in the tack barn at his ranch in central California. It lay there until I, as Clark’s biographer, dug it out three decades later.

That rare surviving transcript reveals a Reagan who spoke movingly about RFK and the entire Kennedy family. Condemning the “savage act,” Reagan pleaded: “I am sure that all of us are praying not only for him but for his family and for those others who were so senselessly struck down also in the fusillade of bullets…. I believe we should go on praying, to the best of our ability.”

But particularly interesting was how Reagan unflinchingly pointed a finger of blame in the direction of Moscow. Reagan noted that Kennedy’s killer, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Arab and also a communist, had shot Kennedy because of his support of Israel during the Six Day War that had occurred exactly one year earlier. On that, we now know beyond dispute what Reagan knew then: That war had been shamelessly provoked by the Kremlin.

Looking to exploit divisions in the Middle East and further exacerbate America’s foreign-policy problems at the time (we were mired in Vietnam), Soviet officials cooked up false intelligence reports claiming that Israeli troops had been moved into the Golan Heights and were readying to invade Syria. They peddled the malicious, phony information to Egypt and other Arab states for the explicit purpose of creating a military confrontation with Israel. The Israeli leader, Levi Eshkol, immediately denounced the accusation, telling the Soviet ambassador to his face that there were no Israeli troops there whatsoever, and offering to personally drive him to the Golan at once. Acting on orders, the ambassador flatly refused, shouting “Nyet!” at Eshkol and storming out of the prime minister’s residence. The Egyptians, too, checked their intelligence sources and found no evidence of Israeli troops in the Golan. Nonetheless, the pieces were in motion, and one thing dangerously led to another until everything spiraled out of control. Within mere weeks, the Six Day War was on—precipitated by the Kremlin. The egregious depths of Soviet disinformation spawned a major Middle East war.

RFK supported Israel in that war. Sirhan Sirhan never forgave him for that. He killed him for that.

Again, Ronald Reagan knew about the Soviet role in instigating the conflict, which he apparently pieced together via various reports at the time. As a result, he linked Bobby Kennedy’s assassination to the USSR’s mischief in the Middle East. “The enemy sits in Moscow,” Reagan told Joey Bishop. “I call him an enemy because I believe he has proven this, by deed, in the Middle East. The actions of the enemy led to and precipitated the tragedy of last night.”

Moscow had precipitated the Six Day War in June 1967, which, in turn, had prompted RFK’s assassin in June 1968.

But Reagan wasn’t finished positioning blame where it deserved to be placed. Eight days later, on July 13, 1968, Reagan delivered a forgotten speech in Indianapolis. Both the Indianapolis News and Indianapolis Star reported on Reagan’s remarks, but the only full transcript I’ve seen was likewise located in Bill Clark’s private papers. In that speech, Reagan leveled this charge at international communism, with an earlier Kennedy assassination in mind: “Five years ago, a president was murdered by one who renounced his American citizenship to embrace the godless philosophy of communism, and it was communist violence he brought to our land. The shattering sound of his shots were still ringing in our ears when a policy decision was made to play down his communist attachment lest we provoke the Soviet Union.”

Reagan was spot on. As many conservative writers are currently noting, liberals in the immediate moments after the JFK assassination sought to blame everything but Oswald’s love of communism, love of the Soviet Union, and love of Castro’s Cuba as motivations for what he did. Some blamed the climate of alleged “hate” and “bigotry” and “violence” in Dallas for the shooting. They ached to blame the right, fulfilling James Burnham’s timeless maxim: “For the left, the preferred enemy is always to the right.” Amazingly, they attempted to label Oswald a “right-winger,” which was utterly upside down. He was a left-winger, as far left as one could get. Oswald was a completely committed communist. He was head over heels for Castro’s Cuba in particular. He adored Fidel. After defecting to and then leaving the Soviet Union after a long stay there, he went back to Texas (with a Soviet wife) and then tried everything to get to Havana and serve the revolution there. JFK and Fidel despised one another; each wanted the other dead. Guess who Oswald sided with on that one?

The Warren Commission later agonized over the possible motivations of Oswald. In the end, it determined that it “could not make any definitive determination of Oswald’s motives.” To its credit, the commission “endeavored to isolate the factors which contributed to his character and which might have influenced his decision to assassinate President Kennedy.” It listed five factors, which appear on page 23 of the huge commission report. Among the five, the fifth underscored Oswald’s “avowed commitment to Marxism and communism,” and noted specifically his ardor for Moscow and Havana. The commission concluded that this did indeed contribute to Oswald’s “capacity to risk all in cruel and irresponsible actions.”

Nonetheless, Oswald’s passion for international communism, from Russia to the Western Hemisphere, has been downplayed by the American left and many Americans generally from the literal moment we learned that John F. Kennedy had been shot.

One American who was never blind to that motivation was Ronald Reagan. More than that, Reagan wasn’t naïve to the role of international communism in the shooting of RFK either.

For the record, this is not to say that Lee Harvey Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan acted as conscious, deliberate agents trained and ordered by the Soviets or the Cubans, though some—such as Ion Mihai Pacepa—have examined that possibility in depth. Their actions, however, cannot or should not be separated from the malevolent force of international communism, which unquestionably played a role in their ultimate deadly actions.

Who killed the Kennedys? Ronald Reagan told us the answer 45 years ago.

MSM / MSNBC

Breaking: Not breaking. As Twitchy reported Thursday morning, Huffington Post editorial director and MSNBC analyst Howard Fineman was among the slobbering lapdogs summoned to the White House for an off-the-record audience with Obama.

On Friday, Fineman took to Twitter to boast about his Special Snowflake status … and to tell you plebs he’s not willing to share any details on his Obamacare marching orders.

The Top 20 Signs That You Get All Your News From MSNBC

John Hawkins | Nov 19, 2013

1) The total extent of your knowledge about the world before 1970 is that Hitler was a lot like George W. Bush.

2) You once lectured the plumber clearing a clog in your toilet because you thought he didn't appreciate all the benefits he had received from "white privilege."

3) Not only do you have Sandra Fluke's autograph, you paid for it and it's hanging in your house.

4) You once took a sign to a protest that said, "Who Needs Oil? I Ride The Bus."

5) You are "pro-choice" on abortion, but believe religious groups should be forced to pay for your birth control.

6) You think a Republican founded the KKK.

7) You cried yourself to sleep one night last week because you're so upset at how mean people are to poor Alec Baldwin.

8) You've used the words, "That's Bush's fault," in the last month.

9) You've laughed at a rape joke about Sarah Palin within an hour of claiming Republicans are waging a "war on women."

10) You once actually said, "If Chris Matthews says it, you can take it to the bank!"

11) You don't believe Barack Obama has ever lied to anyone, but if he did, you're sure he did it for our own good!

12) You don't understand why Obama still hasn't prosecuted Bush for being behind 9/11 yet.

13) You'd be in favor of emptying the terrorists out of Guantanamo Bay so you could send Christians and Tea Partiers there instead.

14) You believe Ed Schultz is a moderate voice of reasoned debate.

15) You once called a conservative black man a racist for saying everyone should be treated equally.

16) You refuse to call Washington's pro-football team "the Redskins," but refer to Tea Partiers as "Teabaggers."

17) You supported Obamacare all the way, but were shocked to find out that your insurance wasn't free when it went into effect.

18) You blame Republicans for all the problems with Obamacare even though it was passed entirely with Democrat votes.

19) You hate the slanted news you get from places like Fox, which is why you prefer to get your news from unbiased commentators like Rachel Maddow and Piers Morgan.

20) You get so angry about those darn hunters! How can they kill animals for food when they could just buy it at the grocery store like everyone else?

Obama’s Ed Secretary: Common Core Opponents Are White Suburban Moms with Dumb Kids

Michael Schaus | Nov 19, 2013

Obama’s Education Secretary recently said that opponents to the Administration’s “Common Core” Standards are merely “white suburban moms” who are, all of a sudden, learning that their kids aren’t real bright. Arne Duncan (wow. . . Perfect name for a 1970’s sitcom) made the degrading remarks to a group of state school superintendents on Friday. According to the Washington Post:

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan told a group of state schools superintendents Friday that he found it “fascinating” that some of the opposition to the Common Core State Standards has come from “white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were, and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought it was.”

First of all, Arne, what does race have to do with anything? For that matter what does the socio-economic status of parents have to do with anything? (How would such a comment have been received if it was regarding single black mothers with less-than-brilliant kids?) Arne’s complete dismissal of opponents to the Federal Government’s takeover of education is typical of the Washington Statists who have been running things for the last several years. It’s as if he meant to say, “Opponents can’t be taken seriously. . . After all, they don’t agree with me.”

The insinuation that parents are raising concerns over the federal education standards because they would rather their kids have their ego’s artificially inflated, is both insulting and indicative of his overwhelming sense of self-righteousness. Perhaps we should just be happy Arne didn’t employee the typical MSNBC argument that his opponents are merely redneck-racists who despise the color of our President’s skin.

Forgetting for a minute about the horror stories regarding Common-Core-approved teaching material (promoting communism and downplaying wrong answers as two examples) there are still plenty of reasons to harbor sincere reservations about the federal intrusion on local education efforts.

At heart of Common Core is the liberal’s statist notion that only they are capable of running our lives. Arne, and his central-planning buddies in the nation’s Capital, think parents, school boards, and classroom teachers are incapable of providing children with adequate education standards. Does this remind you of any other Obama Administration initiative? (Ahem*Obamacare*Ahem) At least Common Core doesn’t mandate free access to contraception. (Yet.)

According to people like Arne Duncan, only the folks who brought us healthcare.gov can bring some degree of competency into our American education system. (Stop laughing. That really is what he’s suggesting.) In the real world, however, the Federal government’s incompetence has managed to raise red flags among a bipartisan swath of the American public – including the Administration’s staunchest allies. That official “white suburban mom” activist group, known as the American Federation of Teachers, even raised an eyebrow at the failure of Common Core implementation. Randi Weingarten, the head of this radical tea-party group (sarcasm) even said that if you thought Obamacare’s implementation was bad, then just wait. . . “The implementation of the Common Core is far worse.”

The primary objection to more federal government involvement in education has been a usurpation of local school board decisions, and a politically driven curriculum for education. Which only makes sense given the political nature of everything that comes out of DC. Isn’t it amazing how we are all told that DC is run by lobbyists and special interests? . . . But then we are expected to hand over something as valuable and precious as our child’s education to those very narrow minded con-artists?

The standards themselves were the first casualty of DC politicization. They were not, despite what Duncan would like you to believe, written by teachers, school boards, or even elected representatives. They were not approved or written by the states that adopted them, or by the education professionals who will be implementing them. . . They were written (I know this will be shocking) by bureaucrats.

But let’s not let these little concerns get in the way of calling Common Core opponents “white moms” with dumb kids. Such insults are nothing new to Duncan. According to the Washington Post, he told a convention of newspaper editors in June that Common Core critics were “misinformed at best and laboring under paranoid delusions at worst.”

Well. . . It’s easy to start wearing tin-foil hats when Florida schools begin scanning student’s retinas and kids are being taught that private enterprise is unfair and discriminatory.

Then again, maybe Arne is speaking from personal experience. . . His mother, after all, might be a white suburban mom who believes her son is much brighter than he actually is.

Obama–the Unemployment Lies

If this shocks you, you have not been paying attention

• Posted by Judson Phillips on November 19, 2013 at 6:49am in Tea Party Nation Forum

What is one word that we could use to accurately describe the Obama Regime?

Liar would be a pretty good start.

As it turns out, the Obama Regime lied about something fairly important and it lied for obvious reasons.

From the New York Post:

In the home stretch of the 2012 presidential campaign, from August to September, the unemployment rate fell sharply — raising eyebrows from Wall Street to Washington.

The decline — from 8.1 percent in August to 7.8 percent in September — might not have been all it seemed. The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.

And the Census Bureau, which does the unemployment survey, knew it.

Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau had caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.

And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.

“He’s not the only one,” said the source, who asked to remain anonymous for now but is willing to talk with the Labor Department and Congress if asked.

The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon told me in an interview this past weekend that he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.

Ironically, it was Labor’s demanding standards that left the door open to manipulation.

Labor requires Census to achieve a 90 percent success rate on its interviews — meaning it needed to reach 9 out of 10 households targeted and report back on their jobs status.

Census currently has six regions from which surveys are conducted. The New York and Philadelphia regions, I’m told, had been coming up short of the 90 percent.

Philadelphia filled the gap with fake interviews.

“It was a phone conversation — I forget the exact words — but it was, ‘Go ahead and fabricate it’ to make it what it was,” Buckmon told me.

Census, under contract from the Labor Department, conducts the household survey used to tabulate the unemployment rate.

Interviews with some 60,000 household go into each month’s jobless number, which currently stands at 7.3 percent. Since this is considered a scientific poll, each one of the households interviewed represents 5,000 homes in the US.

Buckmon, it turns out, was a very ambitious employee. He conducted three times as many household interviews as his peers, my source said.

By making up survey results — and, essentially, creating people out of thin air and giving them jobs — Buckmon’s actions could have lowered the jobless rate.

Buckmon said he filled out surveys for people he couldn’t reach by phone or who didn’t answer their doors.

But, Buckmon says, he was never told how to answer the questions about whether these nonexistent people were employed or not, looking for work, or have given up.

But people who know how the survey works say that simply by creating people and filling out surveys in their name would boost the number of folks reported as employed.

In short, the Obama Regime lied about the number of unemployed.  Obama knew, as well as everyone else, that no President in the modern era has been reelected with unemployment over 8%.

The unemployment rate, as an economic statistic has become a joke.  Before the 1996 election, Bill Clinton had the formula changed so that the discouraged worker, those who had given up on looking for work, were no longer included.  In short, it lowered the unemployment rate so Clinton looked better.

If you look at the unvarnished figures, including the U-6 unemployment rate and the labor force participation rate, you realize the truth.

America remains mired in the Great Obama Depression and unless America changes direction, that will not change.

Pew poll shows Obama's approval hits new low on economy

November 11, 2013

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans now disapprove of the way President Obama is handling his job, while Americans' assessment of the way he is handling the economy has hit a nadir for his nearly 5-year-old presidency, according to a new Pew Research Center poll published Friday.

Forty-one percent of those polled approve of how he's handling his job, while 53% disapprove. That's a 14-point drop since December, according to Pew.

Obama's job ratings on the economy have been underwater for more than four years, but the current measure is the worst of his presidency — 31% approve of the way Obama is handling the economy, and 65% disapprove.

The Pew survey, which was conducted Oct. 30-Nov. 6, found that majorities disapprove of the way the president is handling five of six issues tested. Terrorism was the lone exception, with 51% approving of his performance, and 44% disapproving. But even on terrorism, his ratings are lower than they were earlier this year, according to the poll.

School bus driver & Christian preacher fired for leading students in prayer

A pastor from Minnesota moonlighting as a school bus driver is crying foul after he says he was fired from his day job for leading kids in Christian prayers on his bus.

George Nathaniel III, 49, of Richfield, who is a cleric at two Minneapolis churches, was in his second year as a school bus driver for Durham School Services, which is under contract to the Burnsville-Eagan-Savage district.

Liberal Lie of the Day

There was nothing about what President Obama or that I or any other Democrat supporting the Affordable Care Act said that was not true.

- National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wassermann Schultz

China is spying on you through your KETTLE: Bugs that scan wi-fi devices found in imported kitchen gadgets

From Laura Ingraham’s website:

Russian investigators claim to have found household appliances imported from China which contain hidden microchips that pump spam data and malware into wi-fi networks.

Authorities in St Petersburg allegedly discovered 20 to 30 kettles and irons with 'spy microchips that send some data to the foreign server', according to Russian media.

The revelation comes just as the EU launches an investigation into claims that Russia itself bugged gifts to delegates at last month's G20 summit in an attempt to retrieve data from computers and telephones.

God Bless the Conservative Warriors

David Limbaugh | Nov 01, 2013

I just don't understand it. Everywhere we turn, we conservatives are told we need to moderate, be less extreme, be more bipartisan. The public just wants us all to get along and solve our major problems together.

Democratic politicians and the liberal media harp on the alleged extremism of mainstream conservatism, the tea party, Sen. Ted Cruz, conservative talk radio and anyone else who dares to call out President Obama and his Democratic congressional cohorts in plain language for what they're doing to the country.

Nonsense. No one with a modicum of political power is more extreme than Obama's Democrats are, yet they pretend they're moderates who only want to work with Republicans for constructive bipartisan solutions.

President Obama, in his umpty-jillionth health care speech, told us Wednesday he is eager to work with Republicans: "Both parties working together to get the job done -- that's what we need in Washington right now."

Sure, we'll just ignore his admission that he wants to fundamentally change America and his five-year record of leftist extremism in doing just that. We'll overlook his brazen refusal even to come to the table to negotiate.

Yet Republican establishment politicians and center-right Beltway pundits pile on, constantly lecturing those of us to their right -- those more eager to fight than surrender -- to calm down, be more pragmatic and focus on the next election, when we can really show them. We must get ahold of ourselves and temper our passions. For if we stand up to this bully in the White House and give him some of his own medicine, if we fight for our principles to the point that the government shuts down, independents will turn away from us in droves, and we'll never win any more elections.

Does it ever occur to them that President Obama and his band of enabling Democrats set the standard for modern extremism in American politics and that they never tone down their positions? Do they ever wonder why the sainted independents don't leave Democrats in droves for standing up for their own principles -- as manifestly destructive as they are? Why do moderation and bipartisanship only apply to Republicans and Democrats get a free pass?

Republican Party insiders, strategists, operatives and head honchos seem particularly afflicted with the appeasement bug and are embarrassed by grass-roots conservatives, the tea party and intractable politicians such as Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, who refuse to blissfully join them in celebrating the glories of inaction and conciliation.

National Journal's Ron Fournier writes: "A GOP operative who also requested anonymity said that Wednesday's hearing on Obamacare highlighted what's wrong with his party. 'We looked like we were beating (up) the HHS secretary,' he said of Kathleen Sebelius. 'Why do we have to always overdo it?'"

Overdo it? Shame on you, Mr. Anonymity!

The reason we have to go after administration officials such as Sebelius is that they are destroying the world's best health care system, ramping up the national debt, assaulting our liberties and brazenly lying to our faces about what they're doing. Don't you think, Mr. Measured, that it's time we pointed out to the public exactly what these people are doing? Or should we just pretend that it's politics as usual and that the administration has nothing but the best intentions in mind for Americans and just favors slightly different policies to get us there?

I'm sorry, but we don't share goals with these people, which Obama, in a rare moment of candor, admitted in his speech. They don't have the best intentions in mind for America or Americans -- at least not as I define best intentions. If the Republican Party apparatus won't allow us to fight them aggressively now, some might say it's time to find a new vehicle that will accommodate our commitment to conservatism. I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to relinquish control of the GOP to those whose excessive time on the inside has clouded their perception as to what's acceptable.

Instead of using their energy to haughtily reprimand and undermine conservatives, why don't moderates turn their sights on Obama and his Democratic Party, whose goals they assure us they reject?

If people didn't recognize Obama's extremism before, they no longer have any excuse as we witness his deceit and intransigence on Obamacare, lying about every aspect of it and telling us to ridicule our lying eyes, which are observing the unprecedented chaos and destruction his socialized medicine scheme has wrought.

It's past time to put away the silly talk about working with a man who has no intention of working with anyone who retains any respect for the American system as we know it. To candy-coat Obama's mendacity and destruction is to enable him -- and disable America. Indeed, this mindless talk of bipartisanship and moderation serves as perfect cover for the true extremists -- the people who are permanently transforming the United States of America.

Isn't five years enough to convince all of us we must quit playing patsy with these statists and join together to oppose them with as much fervor as we can muster?

Godspeed to those with the clarity of vision to see what is happening and the courage to oppose it.

The President Who Wasn’t There

Derek Hunter | Oct 31, 2013

President Obama loves to golf. President Obama loves to campaign. President Obama loves to hobnob with celebrities. In fact, President Obama loves all the trappings of the presidency except, it would seem, actually doing the job of being President.
As President, Barack Obama is every bit the bomb-thrower you’d expect from a progressive activist community organizer – all sizzle, no steak. He can campaign like a champion, present old, failed ideas as though they’d never been uttered before, and tell a lie with a straight face as well as anyone if Hollywood. But what he’s no good at is managing or paying attention, both kind of important traits for a president.
Presidents don’t need to micro-manage, nor should they. But they must care about the happenings on their watch, appoint the best, most trustworthy people they can, and set the tone and direction for their administration. Nothing about how President Obama has conducted himself while in office demonstrates he cares about any of these things.
The media has spun the Obama Presidency as the harmonic convergence between genius and innovation, yet not one aspect of it has been either. As a leader, the President of the United States has been an absentee landlord.

On Obamacare, routinely referred to his “signature legislation,” the President has been hopelessly disconnected, appearing disinterested, and negligent as a leader.
The launch of Obamacare was a disaster by any unit of measure. But the news that the President only found out about problems after the launch is the most troubling part. Think what you will about the law itself, that the man steering trillions of our tax dollars and wresting control of 1/6^th of the economy wouldn’t bother to ask how things were going in the run up to launch shows a lack of seriousness and interest in his job.
But this lack of seriousness and disconnect from the job of being President is hardly being displayed for the first time this October. It’s the latest in a pattern of either disinterest in the duties of his office, a bit if willful ignorance for plausible deniability or simply a lie.
The President told CNN he’d found out about Fast and Furious, the gun running debacle his Justice Department created, from reports in the media. He claimed to have found out about the Internal Revenue Service targeting his political opponents through the media as well.
What else doesn’t the President know, and why doesn’t his staff want him to know it?
The President’s Chief of Staff knew about the IRS scandal before it was made public, as did the White House Council (essentially the President’s lawyer). We’re expected to believe neither thought to tell him? That’s what we’ve been told, so if it’s true they should’ve been fired immediately. If it’s not, we’ve been lied to for political cover. Neither option is acceptable.
That no one in the Justice Department, especially the Attorney General, would inform the President that they’d forced gun sales to Mexican drug cartels, never tracked them and they’ve been turning up at murder scenes across the southwest and Mexico, including at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, is an outrage. For the President to casually mention that he’d found out about it from the media is disgusting. And for no one to be fired for keeping such important and embarrassing information from him is inexcusable. Unless the official story isn’t true.
You fire incompetence. You can’t fire people doing what they’re told.
Actually, this administration doesn’t fire incompetence either.
National Journal’s Matthew Cooper wrote a piece entitled, “Why Obama Won’t Fire (Kathleen) Sebelius” about the failed Secretary of Health and Human Services who is overseeing the slow-motion train wreck of the Obamacare roll-out. He writes that Sebelius’s safety in her position can be attributed to things unrelated to her job performance. “Chalk part of it up to the hands-off approach Obama takes when it comes to his Cabinet and a self-preserving one favored by Sebelius's. Throw in a mutual affection that's just strong enough to keep them bound together, mix in their shared love of basketball, and it's a formula for survival.”
In other words, the President doesn’t care if someone is good at their job, he cares that he likes to be around them. The White House has become a clubhouse.
It’s not as though Sebelius was new to the job or thrust into an untenable situation, she oversaw the writing of the bill and has a free hand in writing the regulations for the law. This is as much her baby as it is the President’s. But he likes having her around, so millions of people losing their insurance and hundreds of millions wasted on a failed website later, they can talk hoops and it’s all good.
The President of the United States is not a symbolic position like the Queen of England, it’s not a tourist attraction. At least it didn’t used to be that way. Barack Obama travels the country giving pep-rally style speeches, attends fundraisers and golfs. He wholeheartedly embraces the trappings available to the Office of the President. What he doesn’t do is his job. Or this is him doing it and doing it the best he can, which is even worse.

Obama is the One Selling Scam Insurance Policies

Conn Carroll | Oct 31, 2013

 

Repeatedly, both before and after passage, President Obama promised the American people, "If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period."

But, now that millions of Americans are receiving letters from their insurance companies informing them that their current health care plans are being cancelled thanks to Obamacare, every honest journalist who has looked at the matter has admitted that Obama lied.

But, instead of admitting he lied, and apologizing, Obama doubled-down on his deceit yesterday, accusing his critics of being "grossly misleading" about Obamacare:

So anyone peddling the notion that insurers are cancelling people’s plan without mentioning that almost all the insurers are encouraging people to join better plans with the same carrier, and stronger benefits and stronger protections, while others will be able to get better plans with new carriers through the marketplace, and that many will get new help to pay for these better plans and make them actually cheaper -- if you leave that stuff out, you’re being grossly misleading, to say the least.

But is that true? Are the new plans on the exchange really that much better than the plans currently sold by insurance companies?

Not if you want to receive care at the nation's top hospitals they aren't. U.S. Newsreports:

Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare.
...
Regulations driven by the Obama White House have indeed made insurance more affordable – if, like Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, you're looking only at price. But responding to Obamacare caps on premiums, many insurers will, in turn, simply offer top-tier doctors and hospitals far less cash for services rendered.
Watchdog.org looked at the top 18 hospitals nationwide as ranked by U.S. News and World Report for 2013-2014. We contacted each hospital to determine their contracts and talked to several insurance companies, as well.
The result of our investigation: Many top hospitals are simply opting out of Obamacare.
Chances are the individual plan you purchased outside Obamacare would allow you to go to these facilities. For example, fourth-ranked Cleveland Clinic accepts dozens of insurance plans if you buy one on your own. But go through Obamacare and you have just one choice: Medical Mutual of Ohio.

You can read the full U.S. News report here, as well as previous reporting on how Obamacare limits patient choices here.

Goodbye New York, Hello South Carolina: Third Gun Company Leaves Over Cuomo’s SAFE Act

When New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed the SAFE Act in January—what he referred to as “common sense” gun-control legislation—the law not only turned many law-abiding citizens into criminals, it also drove businesses and jobs out of the state.

With a move to South Carolina, American Tactical Imports has become the third firearm company to relocate its operations from New York to more gun-friendly states. According to Guns.com:

ATI is largely an importer and distributor of domestic firearms, although they do some manufacturing. They plan to move from Rochester to Summerville, a city on the outskirts of Charleston, starting next month.

They are bringing 117 jobs to Dorchester County between their headquarters, assembly, customer service and sales teams. The company said it will be investing $2.7 million in jobs and facilities.

While the company’s primary decision to relocate is to operate in a state with strong support of the Second Amendment, the move offers some logistical benefits to ATI as well. As an importer this brings the company closer to the shipping lanes it relies on for product deliveries. The Charleston area is home to some of the largest and busiest ports on the Atlantic seaboard.

“[The] announcement is another testament that South Carolina is a destination for job-creating investments,” Gov. Nikki Haley said.