Proposed budget will reportedly shrink Army to pre-WWII numbers

Published February 24, 2014

FoxNews.com

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940 and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.

The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel's proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Under Hagel's plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.

Officials told the Times that Hagel's plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft, as well as the retiring of the U-2 spy plane, a stalwart of Cold War operations.

The budget plan does keep money for the F-35 warplane, a project which has been beset by delays and criticism over design flaws.

Other characteristics of the budget will likely draw further ire from veterans groups and members of Congress. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Hagel would recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits, less generous housing allowances, and a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass.

"Personnel costs reflect some 50% of the Pentagon budget and cannot be exempted in the context of the significant cuts the department is facing," Defense Department spokesman Adm. John Kirby told the Journal. "Secretary Hagel has been clear that, while we do not want to, we ultimately must slow the growth of military pay and compensation."

"This is a real uphill battle with Congress," Mieke Eoyang, director of the National Security Program at Third Way, a centrist think tank in Washington, told the Journal

"God bless [Hagel] for trying to get a handle on these costs," she said. "But in this political environment, in an election year, it's going to be hard for members of Congress to accept anything that's viewed as taking benefits away from troops."

Allegheny College Calls Pro-Life Students "Dangerous"

Christine Rousselle | Feb 23, 2014

Allegheny College, a small liberal arts school in Pennsylvania, had an odd reaction to pro-life students who distributed flyers in academic buildings: they issued a campus alert, called the students "dangerous," and treated it like a major security breach.

From the Daily Caller:

The incident occurred on Feb. 7. Apparently, someone slipped pro-life flyers under the doors of professors’ offices in the Arter, Quigley, Steffee and Arnold buildings. Joseph DiChristina, the dean of students at Allegheny, decided to treat this like a security breach, and wrote in an email to campus that security personnel were investigating it.

“Promoting a particular point of view through this type of anonymous method is seen as an act that is antithetical to the kind of environment where open dialogue and conversation can take place,” he wrote in the email. “We ask that individuals engage in respectful behavior that promotes a free exchange of ideas. It is important that we value all people and that we not promote behaviors that cause harm and that can be seen as intimidating."

Allegheny officials had not released what was actually on the flyer, just that it contained pro-life content.

When I was in college, I had flyers advertising everything from community events to cheerleading tryouts slipped anonymously under my door. If the content of the flyer isn't "threatening," then the action cannot possibly be construed as such. Something is majorly fishy about this story and Allegheny College's reaction.

Famous Presidential Lies

Famous Presidential Lies
Written by, To The Point News

LBJ:

• We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)

Nixon:

• I am not a crook

GHW Bush:

• Read my lips - No New Taxes

Clinton:

• I did not have sex with that woman... Miss Lewinski

GW Bush:

• Iraq has weapons of mass destruction

Obama:

• I will have the most transparent administration in history.
• The stimulus will fund shovel-ready jobs.
• I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.
• The IRS is not targeting anyone.
• It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.
• If I had a son.
• I will put an end to the type of politics that "breeds division, conflict and cynicism".
• You didn't build that!
• I will restore trust in Government.
• The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.
• The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk
• It's not my red line - it is the world's red line.
• Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration. 
• We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.
• I am not spying on American citizens.
• Obama Care will be good for America.
• You can keep your family doctor.
• Premiums will be lowered by $2500.
• If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan.
• It's just like shopping at Amazon.
• I knew nothing about "Fast and Furious" gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.
• I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups.
• I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi.
• I have never known my uncle from Kenya who is in the country illegally and that was arrested and told to leave the country over 20 years ago.
• And, I have never lived with that uncle.  He finally admitted (12-05-2013) that he DID know his uncle and that he DID live with him.

And the biggest one of all:

• "I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America."

I believe we have a winner!

Using the government as an arm of a political party.

Posted by Judson Phillips on February 21, 2014 at 5:43pm in Tea Party Nation Forum

 

Democrats seen no difference between the government and their party.  That is when they control government.

They also have no reservations about using the power of government to make sure their candidates get elected and Republicans are defeated.

We have seen a text book example of this in Wisconsin.

From the Journal Sentinel:

Gov. Scott Walker has a new opponent this year — a super PAC heavily funded by liberal billionaire George Soros.

In anticipation of Walker's re-election campaign this fall and possible presidential bid in 2016, American Bridge 21st Century is already hard at work in Wisconsin.

The group unveiled on Wednesday a new website called JohnDoeWalker.com, devoted to exposing information about Walker. The site was launched the same day emails were released from a secret John Doe investigation into links between Walker's staff and his political campaign.

American Bridge received $1 million from the Soros Fund Management firm during the 2012 election cycle and funding from individual donors and labor unions. Organizers say they have committed about two dozen of their Washington, D.C.-based staff to poring over the 27,000 pages of emails.

Soros is a backer of Hillary Clinton, widely viewed as the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential race.

Founded in November 2010 by author and liberal activist David Brock, the group grew out of a left-wing media watchdog group, Media Matters for America.

American Bridge does opposition research on Republican office holders and candidates for president, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and for governor.

The story here was very simple.  A Democrat prosecutor used the power of his office to investigate Scott Walker and compel the production of emails and documents.  Then they released them to find anything embarrassing that could hurt Scott Walker not only in his reelection but if he decides he wants to run for President in 2016.

This is Democrat politics.  It is win at any cost so that the Democrats can keep power.

This is why the left is evil and a threat to freedom and liberty.

Obama(S)care: Con Artists and Criminals in Charge

Michelle Malkin | Feb 19, 2014

 

Question: If Obamacare officials cannot prevent accused embezzlers from infiltrating their offices, how can they protect enrollees from grifters, con artists and thieves in the federal health insurance exchange system?

Here in my home state, a director of Connect for Health Colorado -- the state-sponsored Obamacare health insurance exchange -- was just put on administrative leave. No, Christa Ann McClure did not go on leave over the chronic problems plaguing the cursed Connect for Health website. She's on leave because she has been indicted for filching funds from her last employer in Montana.

No, the guardians of Obamacare didn't smoke her out on their own. McClure 'fessed up only after the local Billings (Mont.) Gazette newspaper reported on the charges against her. She was indicted by a grand jury on Jan. 16. But her current state government employers did not find out until last week, when McClure finally informed them because the press had published the indictment.

The Keystone Kops of the Colorado health exchange tell us they conducted "thorough" background checks of McClure. They say they "fully vetted" and investigated her references when they hired her last March for her six-figure job helming the state Obamacare office of "partner engagement." Colorado officials say she was "well-qualified" for the Obamacare job, which involves being a "liaison" with other government agencies.

But mum's the word on who recommended her, which references they talked to and who in Colorado Democratic circles might have known about her history in Montana.

The 12-page federal indictment is a blood-boiling document outlining government waste, fraud and abuse in the federal affordable housing racket. The feds say McClure siphoned untold amounts of money from the nonprofit group Housing Montana, which received a half-million-dollar federal grant to build homes for poor people.

McClure allegedly was paying herself "significant sums" for bogus "consulting services" while also taking a full-time salary as executive director of the nonprofit. She is accused of raiding the organization's funds for family expenses, personal travel and a laptop and lying to the IRS to obtain false reimbursements. She further defrauded the government by inflating her unused sick and annual leave hours. The feds say she also bilked Montana homeowners who participated in the federal affordable housing program by charging them for a fake $750 warranty and a $1,000 fee for "leasing tools."

Here's another disturbing fact: In a classic dance of the lemons, McClure had bounced around successfully from government-funded job to job until now. The Montana state auditor's office disclosed last week that McClure had managed three grants worth more than $2 million to implement Obamacare in that state. McClure worked on the project for three years at an annual salary of $98,000. She was "responsible for managing a broad range of contracts and making sure they got delivered on time," according to The Billings Gazette.

To whom did she deliver them, you ask? State auditors will be trying to find out now. McClure faces trial in June and up to 20 years on each of the eight charges of fraud and embezzlement.

I'd like to be able to tell you that she'll never work in another Obamacare job again. But take a look at California. Just a few weeks ago, Jillian Kay Melchior reported in National Review that "at least 43 convicted criminals are working as Obamacare navigators in California, including three individuals with records of significant financial crimes." The crimes include forgery, petty theft, shoplifting, welfare fraud, child abuse and evading an officer.

Only the best to handle your private medical data and sensitive financial information!

And take a look at Oregon's disastrous Obamacare exchange, Cover Oregon. While overseeing an over-budget and inoperable website subsidized to the tune of nearly $60 million in federal funds, project managers allegedly "initiated the design of dummy web pages to convince the federal government the project was further along than it actually was," according to KATU-TV in Portland. A former Republican state legislator who served on the information technology oversight committee reported the whistleblowing allegations to the FBI. There is still no estimated completion date for the dysfunctional project, and the woman in charge of implementing the system is now in California, refusing to answer questions about her role.

"We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it," Nancy Pelosi infamously brayed in 2010. Ever since, Obamacare has revealed its true and horrifying colors: It's not salvation. It's a criminal enterprise rooted in ideological fraud.

Hollywood's Hypocritical Exit From California

Katie Pavlich | Feb 18, 2014

For years big, liberal Hollywood executives have inked new movie deals that are filmed not in tax burdened California, but in the tax friendly south. Townhall's John Hanlon wrote about this phenomenon in the February 2013 edition of Townhall Magazine:

In the 2011 blockbuster “Battle: Los Angeles,” the City of Angels faced an attack from an outside force that threatened everyone in the town and their way of life.
In reality, though the alien enemy from that film doesn’t exist, an outside force has significantly undercut the vibrancy of a town known for its vast array of film and television productions. The external force? Tax credits, which are quickly moving film and television productions far away from the Hollywood Hills.
The production of “Battle: Los Angeles” brings this situation into stark focus.
Ironically enough, the movie about aliens attacking Los Angeles was predominantly shot far away from the city it portrayed. Much of “Battle: Los Angeles” was actually filmed in Louisiana, a state that is taking full advantage of California’s high taxes and helping to create a burgeoning industry in the state. As the Los Angeles Times reported, “Except for the movie’s opening sequences at Camp Pendleton and the alien beach attack in Santa Monica, 90% of the film was shot in Louisiana’s capital, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport in the northwest part of the state.”
This wasn’t the first time that Hollywood surrendered a major production to a state that was actively competing with California for business. What is interesting, though, is that despite seeing the effect a higher tax burden is having in their industry as productions head to the South, many celebrities continue to extol the virtues of higher taxes.

Now, the Daily Caller reports Hollywood is demanding the state give the industry a tax break to operate in California despite re-electing big tax promoter Jerry Brown as Governor and "the rich should pay their fair share" President Barack Obama. Until then, the industry won't suck it up, pay the taxes (because it's only fair the rich pay more) and stay in California. Instead, Hollywood will continue to do business in states with fewer taxes.

Film Works, an entertainment-industry advocate organization, recently launched an online petition asking California’s film and TV enthusiasts to lobby lawmakers to create greater incentives for production to stay within state borders.
While operating costs in California have grown more expensive over the past decade, other states and countries have established film tax credits in an effort to bring production to their territory.
If California does not pass similar legislation, Film Works warns, the state will lose hold of one of its most iconic industries.
“We are now greatly concerned that the state’s status as the epicenter for motion picture production is at risk,” the petition reads.
“If policymakers fail to make our state more competitive, the film industry in California will face the same fate as other industries, including aerospace, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of jobs permanently leaving California for other states.”

Heavy taxes kill entire industries? Who knew! Once again Hollywood liberals, deficient of basic economic knowledge, have proven to be useful idiots sealing their fate outside of The Golden State. Here are some headline flashbacks just in case some people aren't quite seeing the hypocrisy:

Top Hollywood Executives Turn Out For Jerry Brown Fundraiser

Alan Horn & Other Studio Bosses Set Big Jerry Brown Fundraiser Next Month

Californians approve massive tax hike on the wealthy

Jerry Brown's Tax Cliff

Pay up Hollywood, it's only fair.

The Free Beacon Offends the Clintons

Brent Bozell | Feb 19, 2014

Media liberals are howling at the apparent injustice of the "anti-Clinton" Washington Free Beacon website, which has dared to paw through old Hillary Clinton history. The hypocrisy is stunning. Let us recall the avalanche of mean-spirited and sleazy "fair game" the networks assembled for us just a few years ago in the last election cycle.

Sarah Palin? She didn't even run, but NBC and Savannah Guthrie needed no documentary evidence to repeat every scurrilous accusation of leftist author Joe McGinniss: She was a horrible mother who used her children as props. Her marriage was a mess of incessant fighting on the verge of divorce. Both Palins used cocaine. And Sarah Palin once slept with pro basketball player Glen Rice.

Michele Bachmann? ABC's Brian Ross used a leftist gay activist from the group Truth Wins Out to create a "pray away the gay" scandal around Michele Bachmann's therapist husband, Marcus.

Rick Perry? CBS anchor Jeff Glor warned of a "race-related firestorm" broken by the Washington Post, a nothing burger that a hunting camp leased by the Perry family had a rock marker with the N-word on it -- which the Perrys painted over -- decades ago.

Herman Cain? The networks aired 100 stories relaying anonymous charges of sexual harassment against Cain before there was an accuser with a name and a face. Shameless George Stephanopoulos dismissed Cain for low character: "There are just too many questions about his honesty, his judgment, his experience, his organization." NBC's Chuck Todd clucked he was a dead man walking.

Newt Gingrich? ABC's Brian Ross eagerly prompted Newt Gingrich's second wife Marianne Gingrich to tell all about her claim that Newt asked for an open marriage: "You know his secrets. You know his skeletons," he said hungrily.

Rick Santorum? NBC's Michael Isikoff jumped right in with this utterly unnecessary attack on his wife Karen: "Newsweek reported that before she married Santorum, she had a six-year live-in relationship with a Pittsburgh abortion doctor 40 years her senior."

Stories from Mitt Romney's private life were routinely "fair game," from the Washington Post's story that Romney may have cut another boy's hair as a prank in high school in 1965 to the alleged horror that the family dog rode inside a cartop carrier on a vacation trip to Canada in 1983.

Keep all that in mind as NBC's Andrea Mitchell raged on the "Nightly News" about "inflammatory excerpts" from papers from the late Diane Blair, one of Hillary Clinton's closest friends in Arkansas. "Blair did not survive to provide context for her diary. Now Republicans say her notes are fair game." She concluded: "Hillary Clinton had no comment on a campaign already brutal two years before it's begun."

Those dastardly Republicans. They are so ... brutal! Dear, Mitchell: before any lectures about campaign brutality, explain where you were while mud was splattering on Palin, Santorum, Cain, etc. Mitchell's appointed left-wing expert at the University of Arkansas, Angie Maxwell, complained that the Free Beacon account was "very cherry-picked, it's very selected." So was every network story on Republicans listed above.

Mitchell continued to complain on her own MSNBC show, claiming that the whole focus on Blair's papers was out of context: "What we have so far ... are things out of context without corroboration, and it's not clear when she's -- Diane Blair's quoting herself paraphrasing Hillary Clinton versus what Hillary Clinton said."

What Mitchell quite clearly implied is that to explore Hillary Clinton's history is to take Hillary out of context -- unless you support her. Whatever Hillary wants to talk about her life's work is current and fresh. Whatever Hillary's critics want to discuss about her record is out-of-context and unfair.

Mitchell cherry-picked this quote from Blair's notes for her NBC story, since it's apparently Hillary in context: "I'm a proud woman. I'm not stupid. I know I should do more to suck up to the press. I know it confuses people when I change my hairdos. I know I should pretend not to have any opinions, but I'm just not going to. I'm used to winning, and I intend to win on my own terms."

That same old win-on-my-terms ruthlessness is exactly what the Clintons are practicing against the Free Beacon: "Nothing to see here, folks. Everything negative about us is old news."

University Textbook Says Reagan was Extreme, Sexist, and Pessimistic

Michael Schaus | Feb 18, 2014

What is a leftist supposed to do when history doesn’t perfectly fit their ideological narrative? Well… If you’re in charge of creating textbooks for college students, you just write your own version of historical events. And while you’re at it, throw in a few editorial comments cleverly disguised as “facts”. Apparently, the end result should look something like the textbook that a University of South Carolina student was required to read. In a nutshell, it explained that Ronald Reagan was a sexist, that Conservatives hate people, and that the “rich” like to exploit the lower classes because they don’t want to rake their own yards… Or something.

CampusReform.org reported the story of Orwellian indoctrination on the University’s campus (I know, I know… Nobody’s surprised). According to Campus Reform:

The mandated reading includes sections such as “Conservative Extremes in the 1980’s and Early 1990’s,” which claims Reagan “ascribed to women primarily domestic functions’ and failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency.”

“Conservative Extremes”? Is that what we call it when a President gets elected with 489 electoral votes? Oh, and for the record, Reagan appointed over 1,400 women to positions of power; including Sandra Day O’Connor (first female Supreme Court Justice), and Jeane Kirkpatrick (First female US Rep. appointed to the United Nations)… But I guess neither one of those are “significant positions of power”. (I mean, really, who cares about the first female Supreme Court Justice? Right?)

But, it gets worse. The “textbook” then makes an attempt to define “conservatism”. I guess we should be thankful they didn’t put a picture of Ted Nugent wearing a tin-foil hat holding an AR-15. (Nothing against the Nuge… I’m a huge fan.) The definition was, however, pretty cartoonish:

Conservatives usually oppose change and thrive on tradition. Conservatives tend to take a basically pessimistic view of human nature. People are conceived of as being corrupt, self-centered, lazy and incapable of true charity.

Pessimistic? Well… I’m beginning to get that way, if this text is typical of university “enlightenment”. It’s true: socialism is a morale buster for free-market advocates. So… Yeah. Euro socialist entitlement programs bum me out a little.

As for the rest of the text’s “definition”… Well, let’s address this piecemeal:

Corrupt? Is there really an argument that corruption exists? To argue that corruption is a minimal risk in any institution is bordering on ignorance of incomprehensible proportions. Conservatives don’t believe everyone is corrupt… But then again, it doesn’t take everyone in the IRS to target the political opponents of the President. The simple fact is, there will always be a degree of corruption. Conservative philosophy hinges on minimizing government’s influence over daily life so corruption (to any degree) is incapable of infringing on the rights of average citizens. (After all, it’s a lot harder to misuse government resources when there are less resources to misuse.)

Self-Centered? So… Did the authors of this text book read the footnotes of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and scrape together a cartoonish definition of objectivism for their well-documented indoctrination educational material? I guess I wasn’t ever made aware that all my neighbors were looking out for my family. I kinda thought people went to work and saved so they could provide their own families with comfort and opportunity…

Lazy? Well… Only when sloth is subsidized. It’s kinda tough to argue that anyone would turn down “more money for less work”… Especially when you’re being promised more of other people’s money. But lazy still seems like a strong word. Especially when a robust economy (in the minds of Conservatives) depend upon masses of motivated hard working middle-class folks trying to climb their way to success.

By far, the most insulting few words in this passage had to be the supposedly conservative beliefe that people are “incapable of true charity.” The truth is, Conservatives believe intensely in the charitable nature of average Americans. In fact, it is the fundamental decency of human nature that propels the faith in Laissez Faire economics. Private charity, raised through the goodwill of individuals, has traditionally proven to be far more effective than cumbersome bureaucratic wealth redistribution. In fact, government “charity” is non-existent; it is a confiscation scheme orchestrated to reallocate private property to key political constituencies. True private charity is a gesture of benevolence, among members of a community, without the coercive and invasive nature of government force.

Oh… And by the way, this is why wealth creation is a good thing. You know all those rich people that are demonized by the left? Yeah… They’re the ones who have the monetary capital to contribute to “good causes”.

Which brings us to the final stage of the textbook’s Orwellian trifecta… Heck, they’ve already re-written Reagan’s Presidency, redefined “Conservatism”, what’s one more factual edit? (Karl Marx may deserve co-author credit for the following passage.)

The wealthy find that having a social class of poor people is useful. First, poor people can do the ‘dirty work’ for rich people that the latter don’t want to do… Second, having a poor social class emphasizes that the wealthy are higher in the social-structure . . . and allows them to look down on classes below them.

Yeah… Poor people are useful. Of course, so are rich people (AKA: employers). The insinuation that the rich enjoy being rich so they can “look down” on the other classes may be plagiarized from Marx’s Capital… The Euro-socialist trash pushed through these handful of sentences should be sickening for Americans who have grown up in a nation with unparalleled income mobility. While the leftists and progressives concentrate on class structure, conservatives focus on the ability to move upward on the socioeconomic ladder.

Who likes class structure? Leftists. Only by demonizing the rich, can the Bill de Blasio’s of the world create a political class. And what exactly is the alternative to a world with classes? (Oh, how did the Soviet model turn out? From what I remember, it wasn’t such a big hit.) The rich like the poor because they can employ them… And the poor generally have the rich to thank for employment. You want to start a business? You better hope a rich guy decides to invest, directly or indirectly, in your start-up. You’re going to have a tough time raising capital from the impoverished.

The Ministry of Truth is hard at work on the University of South Carolina campus. Remember when half the country called themselves “Conservative”? Remember when Reagan was elected in a landslide? Remember when textbooks were used as a tool to educate instead of indoctrinate? Remember when Orwell’s 1984 was considered far-fetched science fiction? Maybe the textbook was right… Maybe I really don’t like change.

Democrats–Why Do They Keep Lying?

Posted by Judson Phillips on February 17, 2014 at 7:57am in Tea Party Nation Forum

If liberal policies are so good, why must they keep lying about them?

That is the one devastating question liberals cannot deal with.  The cold hard truth is simple.  Liberals lie about their policies because they don’t work.  They lie about their goals because people don’t want their goals.

Barack Obama is lying again.  This one is a whopper.  And it has a huge impact on America.

What is it?

This past Friday, Barack Obama went to California to talk about the great drought that is hitting parts of California, specifically the Central Valley area.

Obama went to lie about global warming.  For the left, global warming is their holy litany.  Global warming is a lie.  But it is the lie they use to advance their real goal, which is more government control over people.

The Central Valley is home to a $45 billion a year agriculture industry that employees many people and gives America food choices year around.

The Central Valley of California was not always an agricultural paradise.  Instead, last century, water was piped into the Central Valley, allowing for irrigation and the creation of farms and agriculture in California’s temperate climate.

All was well until 2007, when a Federal Judge ruled that because there was an obscure fish called the Delta Smelt that was “endangered,” water would have to be rerouted to protect this fish.

What that means is this.

Water that went to millions of people and hundreds if not thousands of farms was instead directed into the San Francisco bay.  Billions of gallons of freshwater were simply wasted.

The result was predictable.  Without enough water to irrigate, the land could not be worked and it has slowly turned into a dustbowl.

Obama went to California on Friday and he went to do what he does best.

He lied.

He blamed California’s problems on the great myth of “global warming.”  Instead of offering real solutions, he offered welfare.

The people of California don’t want welfare.  They want their farms back.

The Republican led House of Representatives has passed a bill to reverse the Federal Judge’s ruling and allow water to flow back into the Central Valley.  Democrats, who never let a crisis go to waste, have fought the Republicans at every step as they try to restore water to the Central Valley.

Democrats have a policy they put into effect against every conservative proposal.  Either the policy is perfect and they are the arbiters of what is perfect or if it is not, then the Democrat policy must be used, no matter how bad that policy is.

It is time we turn the tables.

We don’t even have to insist on perfection.

Good Morning America - Our Country Has Been Confiscated

Posted by Marcia Wood on February 6, 2014 at 12:00pm

Good morning America – what’s the definition for those who ignore our Constitution, distribute our wealth, control our healthcare, spy on Americans, put our youth in harm’s way and use violent act to achieve a political goal.  Words that come to mind are dictator, terrorist, traitor and Socialist or Communist.

The political climate in the White House is hot, tepid and pollutants are in the dangerous zone.  There’s no signs of this political drought leaving in the near future, in fact the hot air coming from our White House indicates that our Government is reeking with corruption, false ideologies, propaganda, double dealing  and  criminal misconduct.

Wake up America – we no longer live in the land of the free.  Our Country has been confiscated by a perverted group of people who have plans already formulated to bring our beautiful America to its knees.  We are not in control – we’re being controlled.

We have A Commander in Chief who without a doubt is the most corrupt evil leader in our history.  In five years he has taken over businesses large and small controlling them and inhibiting their growth.  This person has stolen billions of taxpayer’s money via lies, propaganda, misrepresentation and abuse of our Federal laws.

There aren’t just a few red flags, there’s land mines intentionally and deliberately placed to destroy our rights, our freedoms and our Country.  His strategy to destroy our Nation is based on one principle – take power from the “Haves” and give it to the “Havenots.”

In order to implement his strategy Obama utilizes what most of us know as “redistribution” always disguised under the pretense of a moral necessity to care for the “havenots.”

Good morning America – are we there yet?  "President Obama's anti-poverty efforts are basically to give more people more free stuff," Robert Rector, a specialist on welfare and poverty at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told The Washington Times.  As he hands out the free stuff our National debt increases, our Nation becomes poorer, full time jobs disappear, dependency on the Government increases and we’re basically in “limbo.”
Barack Obama’s ultimate goals are listed below.

• Healthcare

Control healthcare and you control the people

• Poverty

Increase the poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

• Debt

Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes and this will produce more poverty.

Here’s but a few examples of the power, deception and manipulation that this person some refer to as “Mr. President” has implemented in the past five years.  13 million more Americans have fallen into the Entitlement society since Obama took office.  Over 15% of Americans are now in the poverty level and Obama is trying to strong arm States into increasing their Medicaid for the poor, which is paving the way for the millions of illegal aliens who are on our turf.

Americans are one “notch” away from a single payer healthcare system – Obama has already taken over our healthcare via Affordable Care Act.  It’s not a matter of when – it’s happened.  His Obamacare has had a devastating effect on businesses, private citizens, children, senior citizens and our medical field.

Debt is close to being unsustainable and it’s obvious that Obama still has our credit card in his hip pocket.  The House of Representatives either don’t care or are incapable of controlling our purse.

The CBO, just yesterday shared some crucial information with us – Obama in a blink of an eye has just added 2.3 million more to the “Havenot” society.  The “Havenots” will be Obama’s army because they are owned totally by the Government. 

Good Morning America – your children, your Country and your future are in danger.  It’s time to remove Obama and gang from our White House – this is a matter of life or death for the greatest Nation in the World.

Obama and the Democrats: Cop killers and their supporters over victims

Posted by Judson Phillips on February 6, 2014 at 5:00am in Tea Party Nation Forum

If you have never heard of Daniel Faulkner, you should have.

Thirty two years ago, Officer Daniel Faulkner gave his life for the City of Philadelphia.  His killer, a radical named Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Abu-Jamal has been a favorite cause of the left for decades. Radical lawyers joined his cause, trying first to get the death sentence against him over turned.  Once that happened, they continue to work today to get him freed from a life sentence for killing a police officer.

Now Barack Obama has nominated one of Abu-Jamal’s lawyers to a top Justice Department position and the Democrats controlling the Senate will not allow Officer Faulkner’s widow to testify at his hearing.

The Virtue of being Right

Posted by Judson Phillips on February 5, 2014 at 9:16am in Tea Party Nation Forum

There is something to be said for being right.  Most conservatives are conservatives because conservatives are not slaves to ideology as liberals are.  Conservatives are willing to change their mind and their opinions if they are proven wrong.

What a pity that is not a virtue among liberals.

Once again conservatives have been proven right.

Why are conservatives right about again and what does this mean for America?

The Congressional Budget Office released a report this week showing Obamacare is going to cost two million jobs in America.

When Obamacare was proposed, conservatives warned it would destroy jobs.  Guess what?

We were right!

We are five years into the Great Obama Depression.  Democrats are doubling down on stupid.

In his State of the Great Obama Depression, er the State of the Union speech, Obama simply wanted to reinforce policies that have already damaged the economy.

Perhaps the Democrats should be made aware of something called the scientific method.  In simple terms, you develop a hypothesis, take the facts you have and test that hypothesis.  Then you either accept or reject your hypothesis.

Deficit spending, high taxes and massive increases in government spending have never ended an economic recession or depression.  In fact, evidence shows those things increase the length of an economic downturn.

What has worked to bring an economy back?

Tax cuts for one. When Ronald Reagan came into office, the economy was in the Carter recession.  President Reagan made tax cuts the centerpiece of his first term agenda.  They were passed and by 1983 the economy was coming back and by 1985 the economy was roaring.

In 2001, as George W. Bush was coming into office, the economy was slipping into recession. The 9/11 attacks caused over a trillion dollars worth of damage to the economy.  George W. Bush pushed through not one but two rounds of tax cuts and the economy boomed until 2007, which coincidentally was the year the Democrats took control of Congress.

In the Baltic states, near Russia, they felt the effects of the world wide economic downturn.  While the states of the Eurozone tottered towards collapse, the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia instead of putting the people on an austerity budget, put the government on an austerity budget.

The result is the economy in the Baltic States is humming along while Greece now needs a third economic bailout and there are discussions whether the Greek economy and government can even survive.

If the Democrats, or for that matter, the Republicans, were serious about ending the Great Obama Depression, there is a simple formula.  Repeal Obamacare and its disincentive for employment.  Cut taxes and make a radical cut in government spending.

Based on history, if this were done today, by 2016, the economy would be booming.

Unfortunately prosperity, at least for America and real Americans, is not on Obama’s agenda.

Culture: The problem with the Coke ad: You don’t get to invent your own definition of America

Published by: Sarah Barnes on Tuesday February 4th, 2014

Everything means whatever, so nothing means anything.

I did not watch the “big game” because I just don’t care which body part the name-of-the-week celebrity decides to shake in between half-second clips of football. But I did notice the long stream of articles related to the Coke commercial on Facebook today. I wasn’t going to watch it, which is what I always tell myself. I promised myself I was absolutely, no-way-no-how, going to watch that stupid commercial.

But six hours into an unexpected day of being snowed-in, I caved. Having seen it, I noticed that a lot of people clearly had a problem with the ad, but many struggled to put their fingers on exactly what the problem was.

That’s ironic, because failure to communicate is exactly the problem with this ad. We no longer communicate if communicating means defining anything. Nothing has a definition because everyone now invents their own definition for everything. And that’s what Coke did in this ad: It invented a new definition for America.

That’s a problem, because America actually has a real definition connected to its founding and history. And we need the America of that definition. The real one.

This is not about the different languages used in the ad. It’s about something more.

I had a dear friend e-mail me seeking my opinion after she viewed the commercial. She has dedicated a large portion of her life to raising awareness and funds for orphans in countries all over the globe, but she felt the need to precede her comments with clarifying that she is not racist. She travels to orphanages and holds children of every ethnicity by the hand. She works to become engrained in their lives as well as engraining them in hers.

Why did she feel the need to say she isn’t racist? I know that she is far from racist. Everyone who knows her knows that to be true. She felt the need because racism is no longer known by its original definition, or almost any definition at all. It’s a catch-all for: “I’m not going to take the energy to listen to you or think about what you are saying to me.”

The goal of communists and socialists is to destroy our ideals from the inside out. Redefining words is child’s play. They have moved beyond that. To take a word and assign it another definition would still make that word usable. It would leave us with the ability to communicate effectively, allow us to hold on to our culture, heritage, ideals and goals.

What the left has very slowly done is not to redefine words, but to un-define them. Important words we use to structure the very basis for our society have become useless. What is a structure without sound building blocks? We live in a society where father is replaced by words like child-support payment, sperm donor, male role model. Disagree is replaced by hate, loathing, anger. The word different becomes devalue, belittle, diminish. Americans are never sure which word has which meaning and when, so Americans have stopped saying anything. The fear of rejection has caused us to keep our mouths shut. Go with the flow. Keep our heads down. The word family could have an endless combination of players: mother, stepmother, egg donor, birth mother, birth father, male role model, two fathers, three fathers.

No wonder kids don’t respect their parents anymore. What is a parent anyway? Nobody is really sure! We can’t even agree on what a baby is or when it is alive. To take it a step further, we don’t even know when a living baby is considered a human being, or when it is not OK to kill one!

The problem? The unease? What is it? American culture is something children grow up to love. They feel faithful to a country that has sacrificed to provide freedom and liberty. Lives were lost to establish safety for our bodies and our minds. We are grateful! We are willing to die to protect the gift! We send our best, the very best we have to offer, to the front lines of life or death because we believe so strongly in our ideals. We believe so strongly in the culture we have painstakingly built, using building blocks of the lives lost by our best!

It is a part of every single true American. Why then is Coke not glorifying the culture that began this great nation, the spirit that is struggling to stay alive today? Why does Coke need to tell us that those building blocks aren’t good enough anymore? In just over a minute they told us that multiculturalism, political correctness, and forced equality should replace our time-honored culture and heritage.

Some would say that it was a tribute to America. Some will buy into the lie that 61 seconds of a traditional anthem of patriotism being sung in words we do not know is a tribute.

I disagree. I am not a liberal. I am a member of a nation that does not want me anymore. I am a member of a family that is replacing me with a second dad, or female role model, or egg donor. I am a conservative woman. I am descended from the first families to enter this nation from England. They fought to survive the winters and diseases, the pain and death. They were the founders of this great nation. They wanted liberty from government interference. They wanted others to be safe from oppression.

I know some will say that isn’t true – and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. History is being re-written, over and over, until nobody has a past. You can’t know where you are going, until you know where you came from. We built this nation on a culture of liberty, hard work, ingenuity, strong selfless men and women. Why not honor America and Americans without trying to change our culture? I still remember who we are. I still have that knowledge in my heart. We are not some Frankenstein national cadaver of half dead cultures, stitched together by some godless bureaucrats in Washington (or wherever they happen to be vacationing this week.)

If we un-define America, if we make it an ever-changing mesh of ideas, if everyone is an American and everything is American then nothing is American. When America can no longer be defined, then America ceases to exist. That is the goal. America is being stolen in definition, so it can be stolen in possession. If the definition of America and Americans is not known, then how can our rights be known either? Don’t those too then become changeable to whatever half-dead cultural body part we sew on this year?

We shouldn’t melt. We should welcome those who see the greatness. America shouldn’t change, because this nation is needed. We have made it possible for others to exist and greatness to be achieved!

It isn’t the language that is the problem, but a small symptom of a larger disease. Identity is the most important thing we can own. My identity defines me as a daughter of the Most High, Ever Lasting, Prince of Peace, King and Creator of the Universe, the great I AM. Without that identity I am nothing. Without that identity, this nation is nothing. While a language or the color of skin is not something to fear, loss of identity, of our definition, is something to be mourned. It means the loss of greatness and the possibility of greatness for generations of people.

What was Coke trying to say? I’m not 100 percent sure, but I know what it felt like. I know it’s a bigger problem that needs to be noticed. I notice. What are you afraid of, and will it keep you from greatness? Will it keep you from remembering your identity? Will it keep you from remembering your national identity?

Obama and Vacations

From the Townhall.com

 

Don wrote: Just how many vacation days did President George W. Bush take during his reign? - Obama on Vacation: The $28,429,533.47 Man

Dear Comrade Don,

George W. Bush took vacations either at his own home in Texas or at his parents’ place in Kennebunkport. That’s not the same thing as flying off to South Africa on safari or touring Brazil or hanging at Martha’s Vineyard.

It’d be nice to see the Obamas go back to Illinois, back to Hyde Park for a vacation, and hey, it would lower their carbon footprint too.

But when exactly have liberals been a "do-as-I-do" kind of people?