Friday, October 31, 2014

Whitehouse misguided on sea level rise

Whitehouse is misguided on sea level rise from the environmental files of Tom Harris and Bob Carter

Rhode Island flooding is not West Virginia’s fault - Seacoasts won’t be flooded due to coal burning

What the EPA Thinks
It must have taken the patience of Job for West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin to participate in Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s climate change tour of the Ocean State on October 10th.

Whitehouse promised Manchin that he would go to West Virginia to learn about the coal industry if Manchin would come to Rhode Island to view the supposed effects of global warming on sea-level.

It is important to put the concerns of the two senators in perspective.

On the one hand, Manchin is fighting for the survival of West Virginia’s coal sector, his state’s most important industry, the source of 95% of its electricity, and the foundation for thousands of jobs in dozens of communities.

The state’s use of abundant, domestically mined coal gives West Virginia the 7th lowest electricity costs in America – at about one-half the price in California, New York, Rhode Island and several other states.

But West Virginia’s coal sector is under siege from increasingly damaging Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules. Those rules have meant total coal production in West Virginia declined 9% between 2012 and 2013, a period during which 17% of the Mountain State’s coal mines closed, and coal employment decreased 6.4% for a loss of 3,457 jobs already.

Even before the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan regulations, which Whitehouse promotes, come into force, the EPA and Obama Administration’s “war on coal” has already cost West Virginia billions of dollars.

Senator Manchin, in other words, is concerned about the immediate, real-world impacts of climate change regulations on real people, families and businesses in his state.

Senator Whitehouse has a different perspective and is apparently not concerned about the cost of EPA emission regulations. Rhode Island gets none of its electricity from coal, having chosen less-carbon-intensive natural gas as its preferred source of power.

As a result, the state has the 7th highest electricity prices in the continental United States. The impact of these high prices on hospitals, schools, churches, businesses and families is significant.

The White House, of course, shares Senator Whitehouse’s perspective. Neither seems worried that, under the EPA rules, electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket,” as Obama put it when describing his energy plans as Democratic candidate for president in 2008.

Mr. Whitehouse is, however, worried about the hypothetical future impact of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from coal-fired power stations on “global temperatures.” He believes this will cause “dangerous” sea-level rise along Rhode Island’s coast. Mr. Whitehouse does not hide the fact that, because of these beliefs, he sees his mission as “more or less” to put the coal industry out of business.

If it were known with a high degree of probability that dangerous human-caused sea-level rise was right around the corner, then Mr. Manchin might have reason to sacrifice his constituents’ livelihoods to help save Rhode Islanders from being submerged. But this is not the case.

The September 2013 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change states: “Sea-level rise is not accelerating. The global average sea-level continues to increase at its long-term rate of 1–2 mm/year [0.04-0.08 inches/year] globally” – or four to eight inches over the next century.

As it happens, sea-level rise on the coast of Rhode Island is slightly faster than the global rate – about a tenth of an inch per year in Newport, for example – or ten inches over the next 100 years.

Nonetheless, such a slow rate of rise is relatively easy to adapt to, and certainly not worth ruining West Virginia’s economy on the off-chance that it would make any difference to coastal conditions in Rhode Island.

Bear in mind that sea levels have already risen nearly 400 feet since the end of the last Pleistocene Era ice age some 12,000 years ago.

The conflict between the two senators arises because of Mr. Whitehouse’s outmoded belief that rapid CO2-driven global warming is occurring. This, he believes, will cause accelerated glacial melting, the ocean volume to expand, and global sea-level to rise quickly.

That in turn would subject low-lying coastal areas of Rhode Island to increasingly intense peak-tide or storm-surge flooding.

Drastically reducing our CO2 emissions is necessary to avoid this looming crisis, he asserts.

However, every step in Whitehouse’s chain of reasoning is either wrong or misleading and based on computer models that falsely assume rising atmospheric CO2 levels will cause rapid global warming. In reality, no global (atmospheric) warming has occurred for the last 18 years, even though CO2 levels have risen 9% during this time.

Neither has there been significant ocean warming since at least 2003. As a consequence, the ocean is not expanding and cannot be causing extra sea-level rise. In fact, the global rate of sea-level rise has actually decreased over the last decade.

The only way the sort of sea-level rise feared by Mr. Whitehouse is possible is if massive quantities of the Antarctic and Greenland ice-caps melted. Not only did that not happen even during the two-degree warmer Holocene Optimum, five to nine thousands years ago, but both the Greenland and Antarctic ice fields have been expanding in recent years.

Moreover, rates of modern sea-level change are controlled by the volume of water in the ocean (which is dependant on worldwide volumes of land ice at any given time), by dynamic oceanographic features such as movements in major ocean currents, and by the uplift or subsidence of the solid earth beneath any measuring station. Humans control none of these factors.

Senator Whitehouse should recognize that Rhode Island’s coastal management problems are his own state’s responsibility, not those of West Virginians. As sea-level continues its natural slow rise along Rhode Island’s coast, flooding due to peak tides and storm surges will continue much as it has for the past century.

The way to cope with any small increase in the magnitude of these events is to apply and strengthen current strategies that increase coastal resilience.

In his June 4, 2008 speech on winning the Democratic primaries, President Obama said, “If we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment ...when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Senator Whitehouse may still believe this pious dream. However, Senator Manchin must resist the nonsensical demand that West Virginians sacrifice their livelihoods and living standards in a vain and King Canute-like attempt to stop the seas from rising.
____________________________________________________________

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Obama Halloween costume: Much to be desired

An Obama Halloween costume: Much to be desired from the political cartoon studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco and featured at Legal Insurrection.com

For a Daily Dose of Humor Check Out the A.F. (Tony) Branco Toons Online

Check out some of the sights listed below that publish the A.F. (Tony) Branco Political Cartoon features.

Control Freaks: Islam - Dracula - Leftists

CONTROL FREAKS: Dracula, Leftists and Islam! from the files of Audrey Russo at Clash Daily.com

Read the Russo File at Clash Daily.com
It’s that time of year again. Every horror movie under the sun, surfaces for Halloween. Thanks to all the retro cable stations popping up, we can still watch some of those old black and white horror flicks with that blood-sucking, hypnotist Dracula - always busy controlling his followers one bite at a time.

It reminds me of Leftists - but they don’t do it one-by-one through hypnosis. They work deceptively under, over and around the democratic process until they have a stranglehold on a society. Law-abiding citizens (which they were never) end up having to do their bidding. Leftists are wannabe tyrants in denial.

But, worse and scarier than these two, are those devout, Quran-worshiping followers of Islam. These are the Muslims who know that the verse of Abrogation substitutes the later, violent verses for the earlier peaceful verses of the Quran. They do as Muhammed did in conquering, raping, pillaging and murdering for Allah.

They control not merely those that follow Islam by force, but all those that are allowed to live in Islamic lands.

Proof of this tyrannical, OCD-like behavior can be found in the home of Islam’s most holy sites of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Muhammed, the Quran and Sharia Islamic Law. Wahhabi Islam, the strictest form of Islam, is practiced by the Saudi Kingdom.

This form of Islam was named after Abdul Wahhab, a stern 18th century Muslim revivalist who considered that Islam (and Arabia in particular) needed cleansing and purifying back to Islam’s fundamentals. Saudi Arabia is considered the paradigm for an Islamic society, run by the Sharia.

And infidels, non-Muslims are forced to comply with Sharia Law.

They have:
  • No individual freedom
  • No free speech rights 
  • No religious freedom (Bibles, Crosses and Stars of David are all confiscated and destroyed on entry to the Saudi Kingdom)
  • No independence for women
  • Barbaric punishment for ‘crimes’
The ideology of Islam and its adherents rather than Dracula and current-day Leftists, are by far the scariest control freaks on earth today.

If you doubt it, try moving to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

A Halloween 'Booooo' from Mary Jane Popp

"BOO" from Mary Jane Popp at KAHI Radio Sacramento, California

Listen to Mary Jane at "POPPOFF LIVE" in KAHI Radio

Halloween is just around the corner! Got scary superstitions? I asked some of my colleagues if they suffer from the same fate.

Had a chance to talk with Rob Stewart of KVIE’s “Rob on the Road” fame when he and I did the KVIE Auction a couple of weeks back. He is mortified of snakes. But, he said, “ I’m way too scared to tell you what I’m really scared of…but I’ll do it anyway.

I’m horrified of ghosts. Sometimes you can tell when there is positive energy or a negative energy (some say that’s a ghost) in a place you walk into. The negative energies scare me to pieces. So scary ghosts and scary snakes send me---SCARED!” Remind me to ‘not go’ on the road with you Rob. Maybe you are a ghost magnet.

Then I checked in with our morning guy at KAHI AM-950 from 6-9 AM, Casey Freelove. I didn’t think anything would scare him. He’s too macho sports guy and all that! You know what creeps him out about Halloween? Adults who don’t have children and they insist on dressing up for Halloween.

He added, “Last time I dressed up (I was forced to) I felt odd until I got to the party I attended, and then felt very weird when I exited the party. Here’s why. This party was at the Venetian Casino in Las Vegas in 2008, and I ended up spending the night at the hotel. Then I had to walk through the entire casino in my football player costume the next morning. Embarrassing? Yes! “ Hey Casey, next time, pack a bag!

Oh, He’s superstitious too. “Black cats crossing my path and walking under ladders. I also have a ‘lucky’ bottle opener. Why is it lucky? “It was my mom’s bottle opener when she attended college at Chico State back when they still had the Pioneer Days celebration, and I think that’s pretty darn cool, and lucky!” That’s great, but how do you make it to the station every day with all those superstitions? Never mind. You have the lucky bottle opener, right?

I have known Michael Marks, “Your Produce Man” from the KOVR News and “Good Day Sacramento,” for a long time. He visits with me every week on the KAHI Noon News. So what creeps him out farmers with pitch forks?

Nope! This is what he told me. “What creeps me out are over-cooked Brussel Sprouts and Asparagus. Slimy. Stinky. Sickening. No wonder so many kids have learned to hate Brussel Sprouts and Asparagus. Please don’t creep me out. Don’t overcook your veggies! I know, Michael, raw is relevant!

Finally, I checked in with our newest addition to the AM-950 KAHI family Bob Stephenson. He is our Afternnon News Guy from 4-6 PM. This one got serious! He is claustrophobic. “When I was a child, I got caught underwater in the ocean for several seconds and became very disoriented and VERY scared.

Since then, tight spaces or anything than makes it impossible for me to move or stretch out makes me feel very uncomfortable.” Bob, I guess that turtle neck sweater I was going to get you for Christmas is out of the question. Just kidding, of course.

Now for my bugga-boos. Ooops. Ran out of space. Here’s a hint though. My ancestors come from Transylvania!

HAPPY BLOOD CURDLING HALLOWEEN!
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Predicting the next financial crisis

Making It Easy to Predict the Next Financial Crisis from Warning Signs by Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Know Caruba's Warning Signs
It is a cliché, but true, that history repeats itself. This is largely due to the failure of each new generation to learn anything from the past as well as the human tendency toward the bad habits of greed and power-seeking. Only the names and faces change.

That is why the next financial crisis is entirely predictable.

On October 23, The Wall Street Journal had an article, “Relaxed Mortgage-Lending Rules Clear Final Hurdle.” The financial crisis in 2008 was the direct result of relaxed mortgage-lending rules.

Indeed, it was the result of government pressure on banks to make “sub-prime” loans to people who any bank might sensibly conclude could not replay them. Those loans, in turn, were sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises, who then bundled and sold them as mortgage-backed assets.

As Wikipedia notes, the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgages by issuing mortgage-backed securities, allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending.

In 1970 the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, whose nickname is Freddie Mac, was created for the same reason. Both are overseen by the Federal Housing Finance Authority. Neither issues mortgages. As noted, they buy them from banks, bundle them as securities, and resell them.

Getting the government involved in the housing market has been a supremely bad idea, much as getting the government involved in education and, as we are learning, involved in the nation’s healthcare insurance sector.

There are only a few things the Constitution authorizes the government to do and none of these are mentioned. That has never stopped politicians.

The Wall Street Journal article reported that “Three U.S. agencies signed off on relaxed mortgage-lending rules, helping complete a long-stalled provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-overhaul law.”

Two commissioners of the Securities and Exchange Commission “warned the rules would do little to prevent a return to the kind of lax mortgage underwriting that fueled the financial crisis.”

The Economist also took note, saying “When politicians bashed Wall Street for its reckless mortgage lending in the wake of the subprime crisis, bankers retorted that it was the politicians’ enthusiasm for expanding home ownership, even if it meant small deposits and low credit standards, that had really fomented the disaster.”

Suffice to say there is plenty of blame to spread around, but the banks had to play by the rules the government had put in place.

In the wake of the financial crisis “many banks have stopped lending to riskier borrowers” but the new rules simply recreate the conditions that led to it, although “the rules only affect the tiny market for securities issued without federal backing, less than 2% of the $1.58 trillion in mortgage securities issue in 2013…”

The rule changes are being hailed as an example of the how great the “reform” implemented after the financial crisis was in the form of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and Orderly Liquidation Authority, otherwise known as the Dodd-Frank Act.

Suffice to say it is a regulatory nightmare of several thousand pages of rules, often quite vague, that are still being interpreted. That said, its purpose, to prevent predatory mortgage lending, improve the clarity of mortgage paperwork for consumers, and reduce incentives for mortgage brokers to push home buyers into more expensive loans was needed.

It also changed the way credit card companies and other consumer lenders had to disclose their terms to consumers.

As The Economist noted, the agreement regarding mortgage-lending rules “would permit banks to securitize and sell mortgages without retaining a 5% stake—leaving them little incentive to maintain high lending standards.”

That needs repeating: little incentive to maintain high lending standards, the very reason we had a financial crisis in 2008.

All this is largely due to the progressive notion that everyone, no matter how little they earn, should be able to purchase a home. In reality, those at the low end of the economic ladder should not be encouraged or seduced into taking on such debt.

When they do and the economy goes south, leaving them unemployed, they just walk away from the debt.

Why should the rest of us—taxpayers—bail out the mortgage sector as we did in 2008 with huge loans to the banks and insurance companies that had purchased mortgage-based securities?

The government had to step in with the complete government takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We got stuck with the bill.

It also drove up our national debt, leading to the first reduction in the nation’s credit rating in its history.

There is already talk on Capitol Hill that, should Republicans take control of the Senate and retain it in the House, they are likely, as Reuters reported, “to target the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and capital requirements on insurance companies.”

To put it another way, the Republicans are the adults in Congress while the Democrats, liberal to the core, will never admit we are being set up for another financial crisis.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Thursday, October 30, 2014

Texas voters reject (abort) Wendy Davis

Wendy Davis: Rejected by Texas and needs a send-off from the political cartoon studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco and featured at Comically Incorrect.com

Get Your Daily Dose of Humor from A.F. (Tony) Branco

Check out some of the sights listed below that publish the A.F. (Tony) Branco Political Cartoon features.

Lives Lost: Blood on Barack Obama's Hands

LIVES LOST: The Blood on Barack Obama’s Hands from the files of Jeannie DeAngelis at Clash Daily.com

Read the Jannie DeAngelis Column
Barack Obama’s hands are covered with quite a bit of blood. Actually, as harsh as it may seem to say, Americans are swimming in oceans of blood thanks to this president, and although he hasn’t been, he should be held fully accountable.

Time and again Obama has proven that when it comes to gun control, child safety arguments are powerful tools to assist him in his mission to dismantle the Second Amendment.

However, bloodbaths are not nearly as disturbing to the president if guts and gore assist him in the advancement of the left-wing agenda.

That theory is confirmed by Obama’s lack of outrage, or even interest for that matter, in the deaths resulting from initiatives such as “Fast and Furious,” where his administration purposely put weapons in the hands of drug cartels.

Obama’s failed gun-walking scandal resulted in the blood of Border Agent Brian Terry and ICE Agent Jaime Zapata being spilled, as well as hundreds of innocent Mexican citizens whose deaths can be tied directly to the U.S. government, which means the blood flows directly to the Oval Office and is the reason Barack Obama’s hands are stained ruby red.

Speaking of bloodletting, it’s common knowledge that Obama is a committed supporter of abortion, is enthusiastic about destroying partially-born infants, and is an unabashed fan of leaving babies born alive in botched abortions to die in hospital laundry rooms.

Those types of radical pro-choice beliefs are the reasons why the president also has the stagnant blood of unborn babies on his hands.

Barack Obama’s rationalization for such barbarism centers on his claim that he doesn’t want to undermine the original intent of an abortion, the primary goal of which is to have the procedure result in a dead baby. Therefore, if a baby is born alive, denying warmth, oxygen and hydration ensures the original intent is fulfilled.

As for the unfettered slaughter of 3,000-4,000 babies a day, the president, who is known to view the U.S. Constitution as a “flawed document”, would likely argue that despite the carnage, at least in this case, Roe v. Wade is settled law.

Then there’s Benghazi; Hillary Clinton’s outburst of “what difference does it make” exposes the indifference those liable for the murders of four Americans have toward the blood that spilt in Libya on September 11th, 2012.

Why? Because if the details surrounding the loss of life were exposed in their entirety, the truth that would be revealed would undercut Obama’s real Middle East agenda and possibly put a damper on Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations.

That sort of indifference is deadly coming from an administration that refers to terrorist attacks that result in the death of thirteen troops as “workplace violence.”

Then there’s illegal immigration, which is causing Americans to die from imported viruses and resulting in Americans being killed or maimed by violent illegals who freely roam our nation’s streets with Barack Obama’s implicit approval.

Look around. The tide is rising higher each day. To avoid getting his pant cuffs stained with the blood he’s responsible for spilling, Barack Obama may have to shorten his pant legs by pulling his Mom jeans up tightly under his armpits.

Mom jeans and bloody hemorrhagic viruses aside, thus far, there is no argument that Enterovirus 68 is directly responsible for 796 Americans in 46 states being sickened. Some of Obama’s victims have suffered to the point of needing breathing tubes; some are paralyzed; and seven are now dead and buried.

Absent from within the U.S. for 50 years, Enterovirus D68 originated in Latin America, and was delivered via minors who crossed the border accompanied only by a contagious virus that the U.S. government was well aware existed in Latin America since 2010.

So suffice it to say that despite the knowledge that unaccompanied minors could cause American children to fall ill, Barack Obama still encouraged the influx of illegal children and has plans to usher in thousands more who could be harboring a whole new breed of Third World diseases.

And, even more disturbingly, some of the blood on the president’s hands belongs to tiny infant Lancen Kendall, 4-year-old Eli Waller, 21-month-old Madeline Reid, and 10-year-old Emily Otrando, all of whom died from an Enterovirus they never should have been exposed to in the first place.

And all that bloodshed doesn’t even begin to broach what the release of hardened illegal criminals who are rapists, pedophiles, and murderers portends for America’s future.

In the coming months, Obama granting amnesty to 34 million illegals will not only make America unrecognizable, it will also contribute greatly to the deluge of blood to which we will all be subjected.

ISIS members will be granted amnesty, MS-13 gang members will be granted amnesty, and thousands of criminals who were let out of prison will be granted amnesty.

All this despite the blood spillage that has resulted from illegal immigrants killing Americans, killings that include more recently two sheriff’s deputies in California being shot in the face by an illegal alien who was deported twice, had a long list of aliases and a drug conviction and who, if not arrested, after the midterm elections, would have been among the millions slated to be granted amnesty.

Scarier than diseases, murders, illegal criminals, open border permeation and much, much more are the “lone wolf” terrorists who, thanks to Obama, have crossed our border and could be wandering the highways and byways of America right now, looking for police and military to hatchet to death and unsuspecting grandmothers to behead in the name of Allah.

After all is said and done, there are many more examples of how, as a result of Obama’s diabolical quest to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America, innocent blood is being spilled.

That’s why, whether he recognizes his culpability or not, the river of blood currently drenching America flows directly toward the White House into both of Barack Obama’s hands.

Visit Jeannie-ology, a personal blog from Jeannie DeAngelis.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

The Obama Amnesty Travesty

Obama's Amnesty Travesty from Warning Signs by Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Know Caruba's Warning Signs
People really need to read the U.S. Constitution. It says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”

The Constitution makes no reference whatever to executive orders (EO). George Washington started the practice mostly because he had to. Traditionally executive orders have been treated by Congress as having the legal status of legislation, but only insofar as they apply to the management of how the government operates.

The Constitution makes it quite clear that the President has no power to enact laws, but as long as an EO does not unilaterally alter or negate existing legislation or run counter to the Constitution Congress usually accords it legitimacy. Those that do not honor the separation of powers have been struck down by the courts or by legislation that opposed them.

As is widely rumored and reported, if President Obama does attempt to issue amnesty to illegal aliens he would be over-riding or altering existing immigration law. He does not have the power to do that.

Such an executive order would be immediately challenged in the courts and if power in the Senate passes to the Republicans in the midterm elections, Congress would oppose it. With an eye on the 2016 elections, incumbent Democrats might not be willing to go along with an Obama amnesty EO.

Recent polls all demonstrate opposition to amnesty. In a September Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll 73% of the public said that Obama should work with Congress on immigration reform.

After the invasion of an estimated 150,000 young people and others from Guatemala and San Salvador earlier this year, comprehensive immigration reform went from 54% approval last year to 48%.

When word leaked that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency had requested bids on a minimum of four million blank work permits and green cards a year for the next five years, there was an outcry in political and immigration policy circles.

“There aren’t enough federal employees from here to Pluto to do adequate background checks on 34 million,” said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

In September, the Census Bureau released new data on the U.S. population finding that the nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 41.3 million in July 2013, an increase of 1.4 million since July 2010. Since 2000, the immigrant population is up 10.2 million and double the number in 1990, nearly triple the number in 1980, and guadruple that in 1970, which it stood at 9.6 million.

It’s no secret President Obama has wanted to get as many immigrants as possible, especially those from south of the border, into America. He has winked at the laws that determine immigration and citizenship. In 2011 many believed he had “enacted” the Dream Act by EO, but he had not.

His administration instead adopted a policy regarding the deportation of illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, granting them the option of applying for two-year work permits. Even conservatives could find some merit in this, allowing them to gain legal status and apply for citizenship.

The amnesty issue would play havoc prior to the November 4 midterm elections, so Obama will wait until after them to announce his intentions. I doubt he thinks an executive order will go unchallenged, but at that point it will not matter to him since he will not be running for reelection in 2016. His indifference to constitutional restraints on his power as President is well known.

On October 22 Iowa Rep. Steve King, a Republican, predicted Obama will “violate the Constitution, break the law and grant executive amnesty.”

“If the President takes this action,” said Rep. King, “ (that) he’s threatened to take we will have abandoned every pretext of the Constitution of the United States and if the American people take that setting down or lying down, then our constitutional republic has been destroyed.”

Rep. King is right, but the Obama EO will be challenged in the courts and in Congress. If that effort is opposed by Democrats in Congress, their midterm losses will barely rival what the 2016 election will hold for them.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

A Clinton vs. Bush Race - Again?

A Clinton vs. Bush Race? Again? from the files of Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe

A Clinton or Bush was on a national ticket in every presidential election from 1980 and 2004.
Now Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are being talked up as candidates for 2016.

Jeb Bush's son, George P. Bush, told ABC News the other day that his father will "more than likely" run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

The former Florida governor's other son, Jeb Bush Jr., told The New York Times that the extended Bush clan and its key allies "are getting fired up" about the prospect of a run for the White House by yet another member of the celebrated political family.

A Clinton or Bush was on a national ticket in every presidential election from 1980 and 2004. Now Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush are being talked up as candidates for 2016. In the Democratic camp, meanwhile, the "Ready for Hillary" super PAC is spending $23,000 a day, or more than $2 million per quarter, to build the infrastructure for what is expected to be a second presidential campaign by the former secretary of state.

Though Clinton hasn't declared herself a candidate, she is seen as the Democrats' default nominee for 2016.

There are nearly 80 million families in the United States, according to the Census Bureau. Are American voters so lacking in resourcefulness that they have to keep going back to the same two families to find a president?

The White House has been occupied by a Bush or Clinton for 20 of the past 26 years. A two-term Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush administration could extend that run to 28 of the 36 years between 1989 and 2025. In every presidential election from 1980 to 2004, a Bush or Clinton was on a national ticket. Barack Obama interrupted that streak in 2008 — but only, it seems, temporarily.

"When the Clintons lost to Obama, they simply turned Obama's presidency into their runway," columnist Maureen Dowd wrote in March. Clinton's tenure at the State Department may not have been distinguished for its diplomatic achievements, but as a vehicle for generating animated Hillary-in-2016 speculation, it was ideal.

As for the Bushes, apparently not even the family matriarch has been able to keep the machine from revving up for another campaign. Last year former first lady Barbara Bush dashed cold water on a potential Jeb run. "There are other people out there that are very qualified," she said, adding bluntly: "We've had enough Bushes."

Americans claim they disapprove of family dynasties dominating national politics. In an April poll, 69 percent of respondents agreed that presidential contenders shouldn't be drawn from just two or three families. But it's easy enough to offer lip service to the anyone-can-grow-up-to-be-president egalitarian ideal that America has always liked about itself.

The proof of the electoral pudding is in the voting, and the results over the past generation speak for themselves: Bush 41, Clinton 42, Bush 43. Now, as both tribes strategize about capturing No. 45, thousands of activists, fund-raisers, donors, and organizers are poised to jump on the bandwagon.

"As long as there are elections, people will vote for candidates whose names they recognize," writes Richard Brookhiser in America's First Dynasty, his history of four generations of the Adams family. "It is the tribute democracy pays to aristocracy."

A political family brand plainly counts for something, or parties wouldn't be so eager to nominate the children or spouses or siblings of well-known politicians. A slew of candidates running for office this year are trading on their family name.

Among them: Georgia gubernatorial hopeful Jason Carter, grandson of President Jimmy Carter; the aforementioned George P. Bush, running for Texas land commissioner; and Michigan's Debbie Dingell, who hopes to take over the US House seat her husband has held since 1955.

No American clan has been more politically prolific than the Adamses, whose family tree includes two presidents, three governors, a US senator, and nine members of the US House. But a candidate's surname should be no credential for public office — not even if that surname is Adams.

No American clan has been more politically prolific than the
Adamses, whose family tree includes two presidents, three
governors, a US senator, and nine members of the US
House.  But a candidate's surname should be no credential
for public office — not even if that surname is Adams.
There's no mystery about the advantages that can be conferred by such a family legacy — innumerable contacts, a pre-existing network of loyalists, high name recognitition, entrée into political circles, a headstart up the campaign learning curve. What does mystify — mystifies me, anyway — is why that should attract voters.

I wouldn't dream of voting for a candidate for no better reason than genealogy. The taint of nepotism and royalism would repel me.

The suggestion that a candidate's surname is a credential for high office is antidemocratic and oligarchic, and it ought to make no difference whether that surname is Bush or Clinton or Kennedy — or Adams.

"It may be that certain families just have a sense of commitment or even a predisposition to want to be in politics,"

Hillary Clinton told the German magazine Spiegel in July. Maybe so, but I'm pretty sure the craving for political power isn't confined to elite families that can be trusted to use that power wisely. If Americans wanted to be ruled by hereditary nobles, they could have avoided a lot of trouble in 1776.

Barbara Bush was right. We've had enough Bushes running for president. Enough Clintons, too. Dynasty was fine as a TV series. It doesn't belong in the White House.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Hillary: When you're hungry you're not yourself

Hillary, when you're hungry you're not yourself from the political cartoon studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco and featured at the Net Right Daily.com


Get Your Daily Dose of Humor from A.F. (Tony) Branco

Check out some of the sights listed below that publish the A.F. (Tony) Branco Political Cartoon features.

Ebola Hugs and Other Peculiar Happenings

Ebola Hugs and Other Peculiar Happenings from Jeannie DeAngelis and featured at the American Thinker

Read the DeAngelis Column at the American Thinker
As the Ebola crisis continues to swirl and the ineptitude of America’s president continues to be laid bare, certain oddities surrounding the situation are impossible to ignore.

For instance, why, after being administered the experimental drug Z-Mapp, did it take Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol almost 30 days to recover from Ebola? Since Dr. Brantly’s recovery, other American healthcare workers, as well as freelance photojournalist Ashoka Mukpo, have contracted and then recuperated from the virus with lightning speed.

Meanwhile, the hale and hearty relatives of “patient zero,” Thomas Eric Duncan, who brought Ebola to Dallas via Liberia and subsequently succumbed to the sickness, despite having been fully exposed to Duncan’s virus-infected body fluids, emerged miraculously unscathed from a 21-day quarantine.

For some mysterious reason protective gear did not shield nurses who cared for the dying man in isolation, but Duncan’s family, who lived with him in a small, hot apartment where he vomited and lost control of his bowels, have all been issued a clean bill of health.

Adding color to the drama, now, one week prior to a midterm election that stands to handily trounce Barack Obama’s party, the president recreated his old Chris Christie-Hurricane Sandy bear-hug stunt. This time Obama has resorted to embracing an American Ebola victim who, after leaving the hospital, headed straight for the Oval Office to meet with the fellow responsible for her contracting the hemorrhagic fever in the first place.

The woman who did this is 26-year-old nurse Nina Pham. Nina is the Dallas Ebola survivor who, immediately following her release from isolation at the National Institutes of Health, hugged the miracle worker who astonished everyone when he got Gabby Giffords to open her eyes for the first time after her almost-fatal head wound in the Tucson, Arizona shooting.

The most recent visit was similar to the one where a feeble Kent Brantly rose from his sick bed and swiftly made his way to the Oval Office to meet with America’s Obamacare creator. Once there, Dr. Brantly beseeched boots on the ground in West Africa -- boots that Obama refuses to send to Syria to fight a marauding band of ISIS fighters happily going about the business of beheading Americans.

After Nina Pham’s recovery, Barack Obama -- who treats Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu as if he’s the one with end-stage Ebola -- free of concern about contracting the virus, with minimal screening and full faith in America’s healthcare system, emulated Bill Clinton and leaned in for a face-to-face bear hug from a young nurse whose White House ensemble did not include a beret.

The message the president was undoubtedly hoping the visit would send to America was this: although medical personnel in full protective gear contracted Ebola and irresponsible doctors like Craig Spencer rode NYC subways and went E-bowling with a fever, the disease is not a danger to everyday Americans walking New York City’s High Line park, even if the guy strolling in front of them is coughing out Ebola-infested droplets from his diseased lungs.

Speaking of messages, by getting together with the man whose reckless plan to leave the borders open and insistence on continuing to grant travel visas to West Africans caused her to get Ebola, Nina Pham behaved sort of like the victim of a hit-and-run accident seeking out the driver at fault to go for a Sunday drive.

Actually, by meeting with the president, Pham probably did more harm than good. The nurse squandered a perfect opportunity to condemn Obama’s refusal to do his job and protect American citizens. Quite frankly, as a type of public servant it was Nina’s duty to insist Obama close the border so that travelers like the late Thomas Eric Duncan would be barred from exposing health care workers to unnecessary risks.

Instead of speaking on behalf of an anxious nation, Pham pulled a Chris Christie and rushed to the White House to provide the president a pre-election day photo op by all but slow dancing with the man who hacked off her feet.

Asked whether there was any concern about putting the president so close to someone only recently recovered from Ebola, White House press secretary Josh ‘Not So’ Earnest shrugged that the president “[w]as not at all concerned about any risk that would be associated with him showing his gratitude… by hugging her.”

Isn’t it odd for Obama to want to “show gratitude” to a woman for surviving a deadly disease she contracted because he simply refuses to do his job?

Nonetheless, a sufferer of the president’s policies smiling and hugging the perpetrator of her pain is a perfect example of how well-meaning people repeatedly assist the world’s most renowned opportunistic user in his ongoing effort to ‘let no crisis go to waste.’

This is especially true since the guy Nina Pham clasped to her breast has made it quite clear that politics take precedence over the wellbeing of the people who came dangerously close to being sacrificial lambs on the altar where Obama currently ‘shares the health.’

Adding insult to injury, as part of the ruse, omitting only a canary yellow HAZMAT suit and a full-face protective mask the president recently upped the deception quotient by visiting a specialized Ebola treatment center at Emory University in Georgia.

Reminiscing about his momentous visit our intrepid president had this to say: I want to use myself as an example just so that people have a sense of the science here. I shook hands with, hugged, and kissed, not the doctors, but a couple of the nurses at Emory because of the valiant work that they did in treating one of the patients. They followed the protocols. They knew what they were doing. And I felt perfectly safe doing so.

And so, despite the many recovery-related peculiarities and notwithstanding the soiled sheets and missed opportunities for Nina Pham to speak on behalf of those without a voice, even the Ebola epidemic has become about a man who uses hugs to convey reassuring messages to a nation victimized by his stupidity.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Is America in Decline?

Is America in Decline? from the Warning Signs by Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

Know Caruba's Warning Signs
In case you have had the feeling that America is in decline and will make way for a new superpower, you may be right.

At least you’re right if you agree with James MacDonald, the author of “When Globalization Fails: The Rise and Fall of Pax Americana” (due in January 2015, Farrar, Straus and Giroux).

Given his review of the rise and fall of previous powerful nations, history, and a current analysis, they come together to say our days of global influence are over.

In a way, the election of Barack Obama is the perfect example of failed leadership, both as President and as a nation that others used to rely upon to maintain world peace, protect the sea lanes necessary for trade, and intervene when rogue players threaten their neighbors and the world.

For the first time in most people’s memory, our former allies and those nations looking toward America to see what action it will take or not no longer have any confidence in our willingness to take any action. More specifically, what action President Obama will or will not take. The rise of the Islamic State is a response to Obama’s abandonment of the Middle East.

Obama arrived in office with the belief that America was the problem and has proceeded to diminish Pax Americana (Latin for ensuring peace) in every way possible. He began by apologizing for America for having been too aggressive in the past and not having much good to say about it except in the most perfunctory and obligatory way.

MacDonald’s book is a historical review of previous world powers like Pax Britannia and the rivalries of colonial powers like Spain, Portugal, France and Germany. Bit by bit nations began to regard world trade as a brake on potential wars—they were wrong as in the case of the last century—and as a way to lift all nations toward greater prosperity.

International organizations like the League of Nations and the United Nations have demonstrated no ability to ward off combat or the threats posed by rogue nations like North Korea or Iran.

“If the world’s great and rising powers are going to avoid conflict, it will require a determined effort to avoid the pitfalls of history,” says MacDonald.

MacDonald offers eight elements that produced the era of peace that began in post-war 1945 when the U.S. emerged with a thriving, growing economy while those in Europe and Asia were devastated. My generation looks back on those years knowing they were likely the best America will enjoy and hoping our economy will not be devastated by a national debt of $18 trillion and unfunded liabilities of $127 trillion!

It takes a historian to remind us that “One of the main lessons of history is that history lessons are eventually forgotten.” One need only look around the world for proof of that. The U.S. is not the only nation spending itself into a black hole.

MacDonald reminds us, too, that it was the Cold War between the U.S. and then-Soviet Union that helped maintain “an unquiet peace” because neither nation would ever use its nuclear weapons. MacDonald fears “an equally intense Sino-American hostility” as China flexes its muscles. Don’t be surprised to see Japan acquire a nuclear shield or other Asian nations in China’s sphere of influence.

MacDonald has little faith in the United Nations which “can be effective only on the basis of consensus among the major powers, and it is not clear that any such consensus would prevail in a multi-polar world.”

As for Pax Americana, the rise of China is a major challenge. “Now that capitalism (euphemistically described as ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’), has been adopted by a rising power that rejects the idea of Pax Americana entirely, its future is uncertain.”

China, “the new hegemon has so far shown itself to be far from benign, displaying a tendency to bully its potential clients over such things as offshore oil resources, water supplies, and access to rare earths.”

“If states are not to return to self-destructive competition for resources, free trade remains a sine qua non of peace,” says MacDonald. “Compared to the nineteenth century, free trade has the advantage of being embedded in international organizations and agreements, in particular the World Trade Organization.”

The future, as always, is clouded and there remains the threat of financial meltdowns. The U.S. had one in 2008 that required massive amounts of federal bailouts to avoid a worse outcome. We have been in the Great Recession ever since.

MacDonald notes that decolonization played a major role in the period following World War I and II. “The breakup of the European empires, even though it has often created its own sources of conflict, has contributed to the postwar peace among the Great Powers by breaking up economic blocs and reducing the causes of friction and envy that helped spur wars.”

The lessons of U.S. intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that what was easier in the past is no longer.

At the moment when the Obama administration is desperately trying to arrive at an agreement with Iran that will not permit it to make its own nuclear weapons, MacDonald believes that the threat of nuclear weapons may be the chief means to enforce any peace worldwide. The flaw in this is whether a fanatical Islamic power would resist their use.

MacDonald concludes that “The United States will, in all likelihood, remain center stage in world affairs” for some time to come.

Ridding the nation of its current, unpopular President and unlocking the hold that the Democratic Party has imposed on Congress, will be a major step in the right direction for the nation.

Finding a leader who will encourage economic growth and resist our enemies will play a major role in restoring the power and influence we have had.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Immigration: The law and assimilation at issue

IMMIGRATION: The Law and Assimilation at Issue from the files of J.B. Williams at the North American Law Center.org

Click Here to Read the J.B. Williams Files
There is no more guess work needed to accurately assess the current immigration policy of the United States Federal Government, all three branches. The current policy is designed to forever alter the social fabric and population demographics of the United States.

Because Americans would never willingly accept “global governance” or Marxist notions like “social justice,” it was necessary to flood America with anti-American illegal aliens and legal immigrants. To “change” America, they have to “change Americans.”

An immigrant is someone who enters our country “legally” and abides by our laws, assimilating into American society, speaking our language and revering the principles of freedom and liberty that brought them to our shores.

Those who come here by any other manner are not “immigrants,” they are “illegal aliens.” They are mere illegal migrants, “inhabitants” of the territory, and certainly not “citizens.”

The Rule of Constitutional Law

In the United States, amendments and statutes which are of themselves not constitutional -- have no force of law behind them. For any statute to enjoy the force of law, it must be in pursuance of the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, to include the Bill of Rights.

Over the past 227 years, legislatures have drafted and passed many federal, state and local statutes which are directly in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, the courts have assumed unconstitutional legislative authority via Common Law Rules of Precedent and Procedure, issuing numerous case rulings (aka common law) which directly undermine and subvert the Rule of Constitutional Law. The courts have unconstitutionally altered the Supreme Law of the Land by way of broad ungrounded interpretations and irregular applications of law.

Further, academia’s role in the subversion of Constitutional Law has been to redraft new definitions for old words. In the case of immigration, the primary definition change relates to the term “birthright citizenship.”

In 1828, the official American definition of “birthright” was – “any right which results from descent.” In modern terms, a birthright is any right which one inherits from natural descendants (parentage) at birth. The Law of Nations goes into great detail in Sections 212-219, separating the many different types and rights of “inhabitants vs. citizens vs. True (aka Natural Born) Citizens.”

But by today, academics have already altered the definition of “birthright” as follows – “a right that you have because you were born into a particular position, family, place, etc., or because it is a right of all people.”

As a result, we have “anchor babies” and “illegal aliens” today, presumed to be entitled to citizenship rights equal to that of True American Citizens. Of course, the process by which we arrived here is entirely unconstitutional, as it is a direct offense to the Rule of Constitutional Law and an affront to every True American Citizen.

The use of Common Law (judicial fiat) amounts to the intentional subversion and usurpation of Constitutional Law, resulting in “equal rights” for non-U.S. citizens. Today, illegal aliens often have more rights than legal U.S. Citizens. It’s not constitutional… it is only “social justice.”

After the Civil War, the Supreme Court declared regulation of immigration a federal responsibility in 1875. Seizure of federal supremacy has relegated State’s Rights to the ash heap of history and provided unconstitutional protections for illegal aliens against a disapproving American society.

Now, Americans can be arrested for “racism” and/or “hate speech” for calling illegal invaders by their rightful legal name, “illegal aliens.”
“At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486
Today, it is easier for illegal aliens to access federal taxpayer assisted benefits than for legal American Citizens to do so, thanks in great part to a heavily flawed 14th Amendment recklessly passed by Congress in 1868.

In 1882, Congress passed the first comprehensive Immigration Act. The act prohibited the entry of “any convict, lunatic, idiot, or any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge.” The “public charge” doctrine served to bar arriving foreigners who could not show the financial ability to support themselves. Foreigners denied entry were returned to their starting points at the expense of the ship owners.

By 1986, after a hundred years of inadequate law enforcement concerning immigration, Congress had to pass a “one-time exemption” to these laws, which included a “one-time amnesty” for an estimated one million illegal aliens in our country at that time, signed into law by then President Ronald Reagan as The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

The condition of that bill was strict federal enforcement of all existing Immigration and Naturalization Laws forever thereafter. Obviously, the Federal Government has failed to keep that bargain with Reagan and the American people.

The Rule of Constitutional Law must be reinstated and enforced or America is no longer America.

To be American

To be “American” means much more than to claim residency in the United States. It means to invest in the American culture, to buy into American principles and values of freedom and liberty, to respect and abide by our laws, use our language and to swear an allegiance to our country, defend our way of life, with your life if necessary.

One cannot possibly enter our country in direct violation of our immigration and naturalization laws and then claim to be an American. We simply cannot afford to reward illegal invaders with “rights” equal to those of law-abiding legal U.S. Citizens, or we will be working to destroy our own country.

The Art of Assimilation

If you legally seek freedom, liberty, equal opportunity, peace and tranquility, and are prepared to invest yourself in the American way of life in order to access the American dream, then “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …”

But if you seek to exploit America’s kindness for purposes which present a threat to American principles and values, then you have entered our country with the intent to destroy it.

  • If you come with the intent to harm America, hiding within society rather than assimilating into society, then you have come with ill intent and you should be met with extreme prejudice.
  • If you respect America, Americans will respect you.
  • If you respect our laws, our Constitution will protect you.
  • If you speak our language and adopt our traditions, you will be welcome in our country.
  • If you bring peace, you will find peace.
  • If you are willing to earn, you will own.
  • If you assimilate, you will be American.

America was once known all over the world as “the great melting pot…” where people from all corners of the earth sought freedom and liberty, the right of self-determination.

America has always been the most diverse society on earth and that was not a point of celebration until recently.

However, at some point in our history, people stopped melting into society, they stopped assimilating. They stopped seeking to become “American” and started trying to “change America.” The principles and values of freedom and liberty are worthy of celebration, that which all True Americans hold in common. The things that now divide Americans are deplorable.

This is the “change” that Obama democrats have promised all Americans. When their “change” is completed, we will no longer be America. We will no longer be a sovereign nation, or a Constitutional Representative Republic.

The Fix

The fix is in on America and amnesty by any means is a critical part of the global fix on our country.

If you expect Congress, the President, academia or the Courts to fix this, you are overlooking their direct involvement in the total destruction of our great nation.

The people are the only fix we have, and most of the people are still waiting, as if there is anyone else to solve the problem.

There is only one way to deal with evil and that is to confront it head-on and defeat it. Until the people summon the strength and courage to do so, the future of this nation is indeed bleak. The fix is the people, but so is the problem…

Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” –~ Thomas Jefferson
____________________________________________________________

JB Williams, Co-Founder

www.PatriotsUnion.org
www.VeteranDefenders.org
www.NorthAmericanLawCenter.org

"Tolerating evil in any form at any level only brings about more evil. As a result, the true cost of tolerating the intolerable is a totally intolerable society, from which you can never draft good government." - JB
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Iran executes woman who killed her rapist

Iran executes woman who killed her rapist from the files of Colonel Allen B. West

Click Here to Read the West Files
The Obama administration is seeking to ease nuclear sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Democrat party is also using a tired theme of “war on women” in this midterm election cycle.

Perhaps they should pay attention to the nexus of these two points as reported by The Jerusalem Post.

Last weekend, ” A twenty-six year-old Iranian woman convicted of murdering a man she accused of trying to rape her as a teenager was hanged on Saturday, the official news agency IRNA said, despite international pleas for her life to be spared.”

“Reyhaneh Jabbari walked to the gallows at dawn on Saturday in Tehran’s Evin prison after failing to secure a reprieve from the murder victim’s relatives within the 10-day deadline set by sharia law in force since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. In 2007, Jabbari was arrested for killing Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, a former employee of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence.

Jabbari claimed that she was defending herself against Sarbandi’s sexual advances. She was given the death penalty by a Tehran court in 2009. The Iranian supreme court denied her appeals against the sentence.”

Remember, under Islamic sharia law, a woman needs three male witnesses on her behalf in order to corroborate any accusations she may bring against a male — as part of the traditions of Muhammad. So, as in the case of the Sudanese Christian woman Meriam Ibrahim, where were all these feminist voices to speak out against this action?

I guess Pelosi, Wasserman-Schultz, and Fluke — as well as Sen. Mark Udall — are just too “politically” busy to address a real war on women. No, feminist groups would rather video little girls in princess outfits dropping f-bombs to help their cause.

Of course this only represents the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the abhorrent conditions for women in the Islamic world.

Where is the Freedom from Religion Foundation or all the other “separation of church and state” organizations who want to use the IRS against Christian pastors? What does the lesbian Mayor of Houston have to say about how Iran — and Islam — treats homosexuals? I guess she sees Christian ministers and their sermons a bigger threat because I’ve never heard her use her “activist” voice in this matter.

The case of Ms. Jabbari was decided under sharia law — not the rule of law and jurisprudence of individual rights and equal protection under the law. So where is that venerable international organization promoting global rights and freedoms — the United Nations? Well, I doubt they UN Human Rights organization with its stellar list of nations cared much.

Especially since that same body has adopted UNHR Resolution 16/18, an initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states. Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”

In other words, it effectively condemns anyone deemed “offensive” or “critical” of Islam — to the possible point of criminal indictment.

Perhaps that’s why former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as former UN Ambassador Susan Rice both speak very little about the plight of women in the Islamic world — after all, they both supported the March 2011 resolution.

The bottom line is, why does the Obama administration wish to circumvent the U.S. Congress and relieve sanctions against Iran, allowing it to march towards a nuclear capacity — and not for peaceful means? Iran still holds U.S. citizen and Pastor Saeed Abedini — but I guess his life just isn’t worth anything to the progressive socialists and Islamist enablers of the Obama administration — namely Barack Hussein Obama himself.

In the end, the war on women is just a political gimmick for Democrats to use against their political opposition. It certainly isn’t the fundamental basis for a policy to put pressure on such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia and others in the Muslim world.

It further demonstrates that in America, politics and gimmicks trump principled policy — sadly Ms. Jabbari was executed with nary a peep from the hypocrites on the Left. Thankfully Meriam Ibrahim, wife of an American citizen and mother of two American children, was rescued by the efforts of the Italians — certainly not a finger was lifted by Obama, nor was there a hashtag campaign by First Lady Obama, heck, not even a mention — nor an invite to the White House.

The real war on women is against those women not deemed politically expedient to the progressive socialist political cause.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Kerry search for a public enemy finds himself

Kerry Searches for Public Enemy Number One and Finds Himself from the political cartoon studios of A.F. (Tony) Branco and featured at American Energy Alliance.org

Get Your Daily Dose of Political Humor from A.F. (Tony) Branco

Secretary of State John Kerry needs to get his priorities straight. Recently he was quoted saying “threats posed by climate change should be addressed with as much ‘immediacy’ as confronting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and the Ebola outbreak.”

Iraq is in shambles, the battle for Kobani rages on in Syria, and as Vox reports the Ebola epidemic could be even worse than we thought:
The World Health Organization projects that 20,000 people will be infected in November. HeathMap, put the number at about 14,000 if there’s no improvement in the situation.

But in worst-case scenario, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention project that up to 1.4 million people could be infected by January.
Putting climate change in the same breath as nations ridden with civil wars and crippling diseases shows just how disconnected from reality Mr. Kerry is.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Passionate About Conservatism

Passionate About Conservatism from Warning Signs by Alan Caruba at Facts-not-Fantasy

The Chicks Book is Also Available on Amazon

We conservatives tend to be rather low key when it comes to expressing our commitment to conservative values. We are all about the Constitution, small government, a strong military, and fiscal prudence, but these are not things that are easy to talk about in a passionate way, no matter how strongly we feel about them.

As a longtime—try fifty-plus years—book reviewer, I get lots of them and recently “Right for a Reason: Life, Liberty, and a Crapload of Common Sense” by “the Chicks on the Right”, Miriam Waver and Amy Jo Clark arrived ($26.95, Penguin Group).

The “Chicks” started a website in 2009 that quickly gained a large audience of people who love their approach to conservatism and their interpretation of the events of the day, issues, and personalities. Need it be said it also attracted all manner of rude, nasty responses from liberals?

“If you’re reading this right now”, they say in the introduction, “chances are you’re a frustrated conservative. And you’ve got good reason to be frustrated. If you’re like us, you’re practically dizzy from how often you’ve shaken your head at the stupidity of low-information voters who couldn’t pick Nancy Pelosi out of a photo lineup, but can rattle off the names of every single member of the Kardashion clan.”

“Maybe you’re frustrated that conservatives haven’t been able to effectively communicate their ideas in a way that resonates with the public. Maybe you’re frustrated that the mainstream media has been complicit in glamorizing the liberal narrative.” Well, yes, I have felt this way, but I am also aware that the Internet has provided those with the nation’s political life with scads of information on many excellent websites.

Then, too, Rush Limbaugh has been a major voice on radio with a huge audience as is Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and others. By far the most popular shows devoted to the issues are conservative while liberals attract so few listeners and viewers you wonder why there are still so many liberals.

One need only compare the Fox News Channel with MSNBC to know the appeal of conservatism and, yes, a conservative interpretation of the news--accurate facts!

In the lead up to the November 4 midterm elections, something remarkable is happening. There are stories noting that Obama has lost the support of a significant number of women and among black Americans. Even the mainstream press has taken note of this and it suggests that, despite our frustrations, maybe our message is having an impact.

Or, maybe, these two groups, after six years of Mr. Hope and Change, have decided independently that his policies have not helped them in any way other than turn them into people dependent on the government instead of being able to support themselves and their families.

As the “Chicks” point out, “Despite what the mainstream media wants you to believe, there are thousands and thousands of people out there who are just like us.” Yes! That is the answer. I recall when Ronald Reagan so encouraged and inspired them that a large segment became known as Reagan Democrats. But that was then and this is now.

“Right for a Reason” will, I believe, appeal a tad more to women readers, though men will enjoy their straight-forward analysis and the humor with which they infuse a book that is passionate about conservatism.

I think, too, that this book will appeal to younger readers, the Millennials, because it addresses the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. “While liberals cling like tree sloths to promise of everything being provided to them by the government, conservatives cling to the notion of self-sufficiency.” And conservatives don’t think you’re greedy if you want to make a good living and more money than someone who is not willing to work as hard as you.

That’s why conservatives were so annoyed when President Obama said, regarding anyone who is successful, “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” 

There isn’t a single man or woman who has put hours into their business that did not instantly take offense, but Obama was also revealing his deeply socialistic point of view that it is the “collective” that gets things done, not individuals. Wrong! In the earliest days of the nation, roads, bridges, and canals were built to facilitate business.

A huge railroad system was built both to make money and to make it easier for people to travel to the west coast to create businesses or sell to those who were already there, and vice versa.

America is all about capitalism and that explains why it became the world’s superpower in the wake of World War II. In the process it saved Europe from communism and entered into 46 years of a Cold War with the then-Soviet Union. Even so, Europe has long since embraced socialism.

To a great degree, so has America with is vast plethora of “entitlement” programs that were introduced as “a safety net”, but are now so integrated into the life of the nation that millions use them to avoid work because one can often receive more from the government than a job would provide!

As the “Chicks” put it, “There is a time and a place for welfare. We believe in safety nets. We believe in helping people. We believe that the weakest among us and the people down on their luck should get assistance."

It’s refreshing to read a book that is passionate about conservatism. We all need to be.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Stealing America

Stealing America by Judson Phillips, Founder of the Tea Party Nation

Click Here to Visit the Tea Party Nation

One of the things every American child is taught in school is that American citizens are the people who vote in our elections and American citizens are the one’s who decide this nation’s leaders.

The Party of Treason has worked hard to make it possible and easy for non-Americans to vote in our elections. Now it is to the point where it matters.

From the Washington Post:
Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.


Estimated Voter Turnout by Non-Citizens

                                  2008                     2010 
Self reported and
or verified   . . . . . .   38 (11.3%)            13 (3.5%)
Self reported
and verified   . . . . .   5 (1.5%)                N.A.
Adjusted estimate . . 21 (6.4%)               8 (2.2%)

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.
Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin.
It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
We know why the Party of Treason fights voter ID so hard. Voter ID stops the ability of non-citizens to vote. It is a great safeguard for democracy.

But the left is not interested in democracy. They want to steal elections and gain power by any means possible.

We have been warned.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now