Showing posts with label 2014. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014. Show all posts

Friday, December 26, 2014

Top Ten left wing goals for the next two years

Top ten left wing goals for the next two years (just kidding) by Colonel Allen B. West

From the Files of Allen B. West
There was a quite telling moment the Wednesday after the 2014 midterm elections when President Obama stood at a podium in the White House and said he’d heard the voices of the two-thirds of the Americans who did not vote.

In other words, Obama frankly stated to the Americans who did actually go to the polls that he didn’t get the memo, the email, tweet, or Facebook post of the previous day’s results.

He was going into the final two years of his presidential administration having lost the Senate majority, witnessed the election of the largest House GOP majority in nearly 70 years, and watched as the GOP expanded its control of state capitols and legislatures. He did not win after stating his policies were on the ballot – in fact, they were soundly rejected. Elections have consequences — but not for Barack Obama.

If anything, the message since that Wednesday address is that Obama and his agenda will march on — unilaterally. In effect his challenge to the GOP has been “I will do as I wish by executive actions or memoranda, unless you pass a bill like.” I searched the Constitution and failed to find that delineation of the executive branch and legislative branch duties and responsibilities.

Since November 4, 2014 we’ve seen an angry president intent on doing as he deems appropriate — regardless of the unconstitutional implications and the lies needed along the way. So what is the end goal?

As reported by Breitbart, “Now that President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have launched their new friendship initiative with Cuba, progressives are thinking more optimistically about what else might be possible in the remainder of the president’s term. After all, since the November 2014 elections, Obama has moved sharply left on immigration, climate change, and net neutrality. So why shouldn’t the Left hope for more?”

Bretibart offers the top ten policy agenda items President Obama and the progressive socialist left wing will want to push through (and folks this is satire – at least I hope):
10. Marijuana to be completely decriminalized under the ever-expanding doctrine of “prosecutorial discretion.” In the meantime, the administration will push for a complete ban on all tobacco products and e-cigarettes.
9. The Federal Communications Commission to re-impose the “Fairness Doctrine” on radio; the FCC to further study whether the same Doctrine can be applied to cable TV news.
8. Jane Fonda to be named Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Ted Turner to be named Ambassador to the United Nations.
7. Wind-energy turbines to be made mandatory across the country, except for Cape Cod, The Hamptons, Malibu, and other coastal enclaves, where such turbines are forever forbidden.
6. The FDA and EPA to team up and decide that coal is a carcinogen. Meanwhile, solar panels are to be included in school lunches.
5. The Presidential Medal of Freedom to be awarded to Alec Baldwin, Michael Bloomberg, David Brock, Wendy Davis, Sandra Fluke, Arianna Huffington, Bill Maher. Michael Moore, and Rosie O’Donnell.
4. Posthumous presidential pardons for Joe Hill, Sacco and Vanzetti, the Rosenbergs, and also a pardon for a living prison inmate, Willie Horton.
3. Al Sharpton to be named White House Police Brutality Czar.
2. President Obama to commit to the complete eradication of both homophobia and Islamophobia.
1. The Obama administration to propose a new Constitutional Amendment allowing individuals born in Africa or Asia to serve as President of the United States; also, the administration to propose the repeal of the 22nd Amendment.
I must admit that points 9 and 10 are within the realm of the possible. Hey, even everything going on, it is after all Christmas time and could use a little cheer — so to Media Matters and other chucklehead far left groups who troll these pages — don’t go writing “Allen West conspiracy theory that Obama will change the 22nd Amendment.”

I am absolutely concerned the Obama administration will march on towards a far left agenda in its final two years. There is clearly no regard for the rule of law as written in our Constitution, and there seems to be no consequences for the incessant deceptions and lies emanating from Obama and his administration.

It is far from being the most transparent administration in our history — unless you count releasing a partisan political Senate Democrat report on the CIA enhanced interrogation techniques.

And since Obama hasn’t been personally affected by any electoral decisions based on his actions – he’s been elected and reelected — his interpretation is that voters may not like the Democrats, but they sure like him.

As we drive towards the 2016 presidential election cycle, you’d think Obama would become a toxic liability for the Democrat Party – they’d wanted him to stay somewhat hidden this past midterm cycle. And consider that even the black Lieutenant Governor in Maryland who was running for Governor and was endorsed personally at a rally with the president lost to a Republican. That’s Maryland folks!

Yes it’s a funny list, but the question is whether or not the Democrat Party really wants to be run by progressive socialists, and will they win in the post-Obama era with that policy agenda?

The test will play out over these next two years. Barack Obama won because America wanted to shed “white guilt” and what did we get? Even more racist condemnation — so what is enough?

Therefore, if the leftist agenda is “to be continued” it will need a new “guilt” in order to mask its nefarious and destructive aims towards our Constitutional Republic — the “new guilt” will be “gender guilt.” I see bumper stickers saying, “I I’m ready for Hillary” — why? It should just simply read, “I’m ready for a woman to advance the progressive socialist agenda.”

Well, it won’t be Hillary upon whom that mantle will fall, but rather Elizabeth Warren — whom I believe will become the modern day George McGovern. The intent of these final two years of the Obama administration is to set the conditions for the continued “fundamental transformation” of America.

Any attempt to stymie that objective must be highly principled and speak truth to power in order to bring this clear and present danger to the future of our country to the attention of the American people.

This is not a game — and sadly, unlike this humorous list – it’s not funny, but very serious.
______________________________________________

Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

 

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Running from the 'R' word

Running from the 'R' word by Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe

The five gubernatorial candidates — Charlie Baker, Martha
Coakley, Scott Lively, Evan Falchuk, and Jeff McCormick
posed for a photo before the start of the WBZ-TV debate.
If Attorney General Martha Coakley uttered the word "Republican" even once in last Yuesday night's televised gubernatorial debate, I missed it. For a Democrat hoping to win the highest office in one of the nation's bluest states, it was a mystifying omission.

After all, most Massachusetts voters, most of the time, would rather crawl through broken glass than vote for the candidate with the "R" after his name. The GOP's brand in this state could hardly be more toxic.

That is why Charlie Baker's second campaign for governor has so clearly been built on a strategy of being the sort of Republican Massachusetts voters can feel comfortable with — the sort of Republican who supports a socially liberal, activist government, but who promises to run it more efficiently and economically than it's been run under Deval Patrick.

Baker found opportunities last night to show the kinder, gentler persona he hopes will win over skeptical Bay State Democrats. He told Coakley graciously at one point: "No one is challenging your record as a child advocate across a long and distinguished career in public service."

That was deft and diplomatic, considering that an independent political action committee strongly backing Baker has been running a TV ad that brutally challenges Coakley's record on exactly that ground: She "tried to silence children's advocates," the spot intones; "Martha Coakley failed our most vulnerable citizens."

Nothing so harsh came out of Baker's mouth last night. Instead there was plenty of forgettable boilerplate about how Beacon Hill in recent years "took its eye off the ball" and how the next governor should be a "weed-whacker" focused on data, preventing mismanagement by keeping "a firm hand on the tiller."

When he did say something strong and quotable, it was an eight-word pledge: "Taxes under a Baker administration will go down."

Will voters believe that? Should voters believe anything these candidates say? Running for governor in 2006, Patrick insisted that property taxes would go down on his watch. Eight years later, property taxes area whole lot higher.

Baker's political mentor, former Governor William Weld, vowed in 1990 to vigorously resist then-Senate President Bill Bulger and the culture of corrupt cronyism he embodied. Then he won the Corner Office and reinvented himself as Bulger's best pal.

So take it all with large dose of salt, voters. Debates like Tuesday night's can be entertaining. But as a road map to the next administration, they are woefully inadequate.
_____________________________________________________________

Click Here - Become a Truth Serum Partner Now

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

NIH makes monkey's uncles of taxpayers

The NIH Makes Monkey's Uncles Out of Taxpayers from the files of Michael Shannon

Click Here to Read the Shannon Files
The National Institutes of Health has billions of tax dollars to give away each year in the form of research grants.

I'm sure that senior bureaucrats have the really famous diseases and maladies already booked up.

That means the newbies have to identify their own causes and studies to make sure that every last penny is given away each year.

Which is why NIH is one of the world's leading producers of party monkeys and alcoholic mice.

Complete details and the remaining story is at Newsmax.com.
____________________________________________


Tuesday, September 9, 2014

An LBJ law for Kentucky?

An 'LBJ Law' for Kentucky? from the files of Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe

Rand Paul, elected to the US Senate in 2010, held himself out as an unconventional,
unorthodox truth-teller who could be relied on to uphold "Kentucky values."

MY POLICY on cake," the ebullient Tory mayor of London, Boris Johnson, once remarked, "is pro having it and pro eating it." Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator and potential GOP presidential aspirant, has hopes of embracing a similar policy on running for office. Kentuckians, to their credit, aren't buying it.

Rand Paul, elected to the US Senate in 2010, held himself out as an unconventional, unorthodox truth-teller who could be relied on to uphold "Kentucky values." Paul was elected to the US Senate in 2010, and he has said clearly that he intends to run for reelection in 2016.

But almost from the moment he took office, he has also shown every sign of wanting to run for president in 2016. And that poses a problem: Kentucky law explicitly bars individuals from running in a regular election for two offices simultaneously: "No candidate's name shall appear on any voting machine or absentee ballot more than once."

As it happens, Paul isn't the only Republican senator contemplating a White House run whose seat is up for reelection in two years. Ohio's Rob Portman and Florida's Marco Rubio are in the same boat, and both have acknowledged plainly that they have to make a choice.

During a visit to Manchester, N.H., last month, Portman ruled out any option of campaigning for president and the Senate at the same time. Under Ohio law, it might be legal to do both, he told RealClearPolitics, "But I wouldn't. I think you need to focus."

As for Rubio, he applauds the election rules in Florida, like those in Kentucky, that bar candidates from appearing on the same ballot for two different offices. "That's the right law," Rubio said in a radio interview in April. "I think, by and large, when you choose to do something as big as that, you've really got to be focused on that and not have an exit strategy."

But the Tea Party star from Kentucky, who blazed onto the national scene denouncing "career politicians" and vowing to uphold "Kentucky values," would rather not have to choose.

Unlike Rubio, Paul isn't praising the wisdom of Kentucky's one-campaign-at-a-time statute. Instead he and his allies have tried assiduously to overturn it. The Washington Times reported in March that Paul was lobbying Kentucky legislators to pass a law clearing the way for him to eat that cake and still have it. The GOP-controlled state Senate complied.

After all, said the majority leader, "Senator Paul is very popular here, and I personally don't want to deny Kentuckians the chance to vote for or against one of their own for the Senate if he's also nominated for the presidency."

But the bill has gone nowhere in the Kentucky House of Representatives, where Democrats rule the roost.

"Our position is that a man who can't decide which office to run for isn't fit for either office," the House speaker has said. "I don't think that bill will ever see the light of day as long as I hold the gavel." Which would explain why Paul has been vigorously raising funds for Republicans running for the Kentucky state legislature. And why some of his political advisers are even making noises about challenging the current law as unconstitutional.

Manipulating state election law to boost a party favorite — especially ahead of a presidential campaign — isn't an innovation. In 1959, Lyndon Johnson got the Texas Legislature to pass just the kind of law Paul has pushing for in Kentucky.

It freed him to run the following year both on the presidential ticket and — just in case — for reelection to the Senate at the same time. Other politicians — among them Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman in 2000, Delaware's Joe Biden in 2008, and Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin in 2012 — have exploited similar "LBJ laws" and done the same thing.

Under Florida's rules, Sen. Marco Rubio must also choose whether to appear on the ballot as a candidate for president or for re-election to the Senate. Unlike Rand Paul, Rubio supports his state's law. But at least Kentucky voters have more self-respect than to let one of their US Senate seats be treated as if it were a high school senior's safety school, to be ditched if a more ambitious option comes through.

Under Florida's rules, Sen. Marco Rubio must also choose
whether to appear on the ballot as a candidate for
president or for re-election to the Senate.
Unlike Rand Paul, Rubio supports his state's law.
According to a recent Bluegrass Poll commissioned by a consortium of Kentucky news media, only 15 percent of state voters would like to see Paul on the ballot for both president and senator in 2016.

Fully two-thirds of respondents say the existing law should not be changed. That sentiment crosses party lines: 54 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of independents, and 78 percent of Democrats oppose an "LBJ law" in Kentucky.

It didn't take long, it seems, for Rand Paul to lose touch with those grassroots "Kentucky values" he was supposedly so attached to.

The candidate who held himself out as unpredictable and unorthodox, the courageous truth-teller who was heralded as different from conventional politicians, is barely halfway through his first term in the Senate, yet already is so hungry for more that he schemes to change ballot rules standing in his way.

Mr. Paul went to Washington, but he's no Jimmy Stewart.