No 838 “En mi
opinión” Diciembre 31, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
This Republican Betrayed Conservatives. Now He Must
Pay The Price
The Campaign To Dump John Boehner As
Speaker Of The House Has Moved Into High Gear.
He stabbed you in the back. He essentially gave you the middle finger. Instead of keeping his promise to stop the radical Obama agenda, he marshaled all of his resources and pulled every procedural maneuver out of his bag a tricks to fund ObamaCare and Obama's lawless Executive Amnesty Decree.
And now, the time is upon us to make John Boehner pay the price for his betrayals. In about a week, the House of Representatives will choose the next Speaker of the House. It only takes 30 Republicans to deny John Boehner the post and that means that you can make John Boehner pay the price for his betrayals right now.
It is said that revenge is a dish best served cold. The time is upon us to let our self-proclaimed Republican leaders know that dinner is served.
He stabbed you in the back. He essentially gave you the middle finger. Instead of keeping his promise to stop the radical Obama agenda, he marshaled all of his resources and pulled every procedural maneuver out of his bag a tricks to fund ObamaCare and Obama's lawless Executive Amnesty Decree.
And now, the time is upon us to make John Boehner pay the price for his betrayals. In about a week, the House of Representatives will choose the next Speaker of the House. It only takes 30 Republicans to deny John Boehner the post and that means that you can make John Boehner pay the price for his betrayals right now.
It is said that revenge is a dish best served cold. The time is upon us to let our self-proclaimed Republican leaders know that dinner is served.
The Revolution To Dump John Boehner Is Already Moving At Full Steam.
Make no mistake, we intend to win this battle to snatch the reins of power from John Boehner's cold and unfeeling hands but win, lose or draw, it is imperative that our elected officials get the message that patriotic Americans want John Boehner gone.
And if you want John Boehner gone, you're not alone. Your Blast Faxes and phone calls are causing a firestorm in Washington and more and more conservatives are jumping on the Dump Boehner train with each passing day:
"Mr. Boehner has repeatedly shown he is not the man to lead the
House. He cannot build a Republican coalition. He cannot lead, and he will not
fight. The Republicans will have 247 members in the next Congress. If 30 of
these members vote against Mr. Boehner, he will not have the majority he needs
to be elected speaker. At that point, anything is possible, including Mr.
Boehner stepping aside." -Judson Phillips, Tea
Party Nation
"House conservatives must summon the courage to oppose Boehner's
nomination on the floor in January. It is a moral imperative. You cannot
consistently complain about leadership's many failures – and the treachery
involved with a speaker fresh off a successful wave election conspiring with
President Obama to fund amnesty and enjoy a celebratory phone call in the
aftermath – and then vote for him to continue in this role. To paraphrase
Albert Einstein, that is the definition of insanity, and it is enabled by a
vote for Rep. John Boehner." -Erick Erickson, RedState.com
"[Y]ou have the power, right and duty to stop [John Boehner]. But
it won't happen with John Boehner leading you. You know this to be true." -Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com
"It is time to stop thinking of John Boehner and the rest of the
Republican congressional leadership as being cowardly and recognize them for
what they are: part of The Ruling Class that believes it has the right to tell
the rest of us how to live. The current GOP leadership has got to go; this has
ceased to be an arguable point. We cannot count on these people to do what is
right. Conservatives did not give them majorities in both chambers for them to
keep playing the same game." -Layne Hansen, AmericanThinker.com
Your cries have not gone unnoticed. The revolution is already underway. IJReview.com writes: "With 2015 approaching, Conservatives are once again calling for Boehner to be replaced as Speaker."
But whether or not Boehner goes, is in your hands.
Make no mistake, we intend to win this battle to snatch the reins of power from John Boehner's cold and unfeeling hands but win, lose or draw, it is imperative that our elected officials get the message that patriotic Americans want John Boehner gone.
And if you want John Boehner gone, you're not alone. Your Blast Faxes and phone calls are causing a firestorm in Washington and more and more conservatives are jumping on the Dump Boehner train with each passing day:
"Mr. Boehner has repeatedly shown he is not the man to lead the
House. He cannot build a Republican coalition. He cannot lead, and he will not
fight. The Republicans will have 247 members in the next Congress. If 30 of
these members vote against Mr. Boehner, he will not have the majority he needs
to be elected speaker. At that point, anything is possible, including Mr.
Boehner stepping aside." -Judson Phillips, Tea
Party Nation "House conservatives must summon the courage to oppose Boehner's
nomination on the floor in January. It is a moral imperative. You cannot
consistently complain about leadership's many failures – and the treachery
involved with a speaker fresh off a successful wave election conspiring with
President Obama to fund amnesty and enjoy a celebratory phone call in the
aftermath – and then vote for him to continue in this role. To paraphrase
Albert Einstein, that is the definition of insanity, and it is enabled by a
vote for Rep. John Boehner." -Erick Erickson, RedState.com "[Y]ou have the power, right and duty to stop [John Boehner]. But
it won't happen with John Boehner leading you. You know this to be true." -Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com "It is time to stop thinking of John Boehner and the rest of the
Republican congressional leadership as being cowardly and recognize them for
what they are: part of The Ruling Class that believes it has the right to tell
the rest of us how to live. The current GOP leadership has got to go; this has
ceased to be an arguable point. We cannot count on these people to do what is
right. Conservatives did not give them majorities in both chambers for them to
keep playing the same game." -Layne Hansen, AmericanThinker.com Your cries have not gone unnoticed. The revolution is already underway. IJReview.com writes: "With 2015 approaching, Conservatives are once again calling for Boehner to be replaced as Speaker."
But whether or not Boehner goes, is in your hands.
Can We Really Oust John Boehner And, If We Do, Could Nancy Pelosi Become
The Next Speaker Of The House?
The answer to those questions respectively are "yes, we can oust Boehner" and"no, it is impossible for Nancy Pelosi (or any Democrat) to be elected as Speaker of the House."
Memories are often short. Most people have already forgotten that John Boehner pulled the same shenanigans two years ago. When he railroaded an Obama-approved budget through the House of Representatives and actually dared to insult patriotic Americans for opposing him, we ran a campaign to oust Boehner as Speaker of the House and IT NEARLY SUCCEEDED.
Many people have forgotten that Mr. Boehner held on to the Speaker's gavel two years ago by the skin of his teeth and, this time around, we're going to finish the job.
In regards to Nancy Pelosi becoming the next Speaker of the House, it's procedurally impossible. To be elected Speaker of the House, a candidate must secure the votes of a simply majority (50% plus one) of House Members. Absent a majority, the House continues to hold votes until a candidate secures an actual majority.
What that means is that Republicans, as the ballots play out, will eventually decide on a consensus candidate and that person would become the next Speaker of the House.
Put another way, for Nancy Pelosi to become the next Speaker of the House, over two dozen Republicans must vote for her... and that's simply not going to happen.
One thing is clear. There will be no stopping ObamaCare... there will be no justice on Benghazi-gate... there will be no stopping Barack Obama's unconstitutional Amnesty Decree... and there will be no stopping Barack Hussein Obama's unconstitutional usurpations and abuses of power as long as John Boehner and his gang of Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only pretenders hold the reins of power.
Floyd Brown
The answer to those questions respectively are "yes, we can oust Boehner" and"no, it is impossible for Nancy Pelosi (or any Democrat) to be elected as Speaker of the House."
Memories are often short. Most people have already forgotten that John Boehner pulled the same shenanigans two years ago. When he railroaded an Obama-approved budget through the House of Representatives and actually dared to insult patriotic Americans for opposing him, we ran a campaign to oust Boehner as Speaker of the House and IT NEARLY SUCCEEDED.
Many people have forgotten that Mr. Boehner held on to the Speaker's gavel two years ago by the skin of his teeth and, this time around, we're going to finish the job.
In regards to Nancy Pelosi becoming the next Speaker of the House, it's procedurally impossible. To be elected Speaker of the House, a candidate must secure the votes of a simply majority (50% plus one) of House Members. Absent a majority, the House continues to hold votes until a candidate secures an actual majority.
What that means is that Republicans, as the ballots play out, will eventually decide on a consensus candidate and that person would become the next Speaker of the House.
Put another way, for Nancy Pelosi to become the next Speaker of the House, over two dozen Republicans must vote for her... and that's simply not going to happen.
One thing is clear. There will be no stopping ObamaCare... there will be no justice on Benghazi-gate... there will be no stopping Barack Obama's unconstitutional Amnesty Decree... and there will be no stopping Barack Hussein Obama's unconstitutional usurpations and abuses of power as long as John Boehner and his gang of Republican-Leaders-In-Name-Only pretenders hold the reins of power.
Floyd Brown
Carta publica de los ciudadanos del
Condado de Miami-Dade
Armando
Lopez-Calleja aelcv32@hotmail.com
Subject: Carta publica de los ciudadanos del Condado de Miami-Dade
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:26:03 -0500
Subject: Carta publica de los ciudadanos del Condado de Miami-Dade
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:26:03 -0500
Estamos enviando esta carta Publica a todos nuestros
contactos, con el animo de que recojan las firmas de sus vecinos, tengan o no
automoviles, y enviarla a la Prensa, y sobre todo a los gobernantes de sus
municipios, ya que todos debemos solidarizarnos en denunciar el abuso de poder
que parece tener la comision MDX=13 mimebros="Voluntarios"-?,
Quines con el aumento de los nuevos "puntos de control" y el correspondiente aumento del peaje, en las autopistas 836 la 112, de se producirá un incremento en la ya alta recaudacion en un año de $2,232.0 millones de dolares, sumado por ejemplo a lo recaudado en el año 2013=$1,859'494,492, tendriamos un gran total de $4,091.5 millones de dolares y aplicando el mismo 26% de utilidades o ganancias de ese propio año, quedaran $1,063.7 millones de ganancia, todo esto, despues de descontar todos los supuestos gastos, los cuales nunca han sufrido una auditoria por el Poder Judicial, a pesar de la denuncia hecha en Agosto de este año, ya que todo ese dinero sale de los bolsillo de los usuarios de las autopistas. 836 y la 112.
Les recuerdo que con los "controles actuales" y los "precios del Peaje actuales", la Recuadacion entre el 2008 y el 2013 aumentaron en el 42%, los gastos aumentaron solo el 34%, sin embaro las GANANCIAS aumentaron en un 72%, ya en esos años los aumento que impusieron como se ve, eran abusivos, imaginesen ustedes, cuanto será la ganancia, cuando comparemos el 2008 con el 2015. ya que los gastos para terminar las ampliaciones van tremendamente lento y no es facil incrementar o adelantar la terminacion de las obras, con el ritmo de ejecucion de los actuales constructores.
No sabemos si las obras fueron subastadas a presupuesto fijo, con fecha fija de terminacion o fueron contratadas contra gastos o sea por administracion.
Esperemos que esta justa informacion, no caiga en tanque vacio para la basura, o se la lleve el viento. NOSOTROS SOMOS PRENSA Y ESTAMOS AL LADO DEL PUEBLO, esto que he santenciado, no solo se aprende en las Univierisades o en las Escuelas de Periodismo, sino que se lleva dentro del Alma, en el Corazon y en el Cerebro, con una gran dosis de verguenza profesional, eso hace al Ser Humano un periodista honesto.
Ing. Armando Lopez-Calleja.-Miembro del CNP de Cuba en el Exilio y de la UCP
Quines con el aumento de los nuevos "puntos de control" y el correspondiente aumento del peaje, en las autopistas 836 la 112, de se producirá un incremento en la ya alta recaudacion en un año de $2,232.0 millones de dolares, sumado por ejemplo a lo recaudado en el año 2013=$1,859'494,492, tendriamos un gran total de $4,091.5 millones de dolares y aplicando el mismo 26% de utilidades o ganancias de ese propio año, quedaran $1,063.7 millones de ganancia, todo esto, despues de descontar todos los supuestos gastos, los cuales nunca han sufrido una auditoria por el Poder Judicial, a pesar de la denuncia hecha en Agosto de este año, ya que todo ese dinero sale de los bolsillo de los usuarios de las autopistas. 836 y la 112.
Les recuerdo que con los "controles actuales" y los "precios del Peaje actuales", la Recuadacion entre el 2008 y el 2013 aumentaron en el 42%, los gastos aumentaron solo el 34%, sin embaro las GANANCIAS aumentaron en un 72%, ya en esos años los aumento que impusieron como se ve, eran abusivos, imaginesen ustedes, cuanto será la ganancia, cuando comparemos el 2008 con el 2015. ya que los gastos para terminar las ampliaciones van tremendamente lento y no es facil incrementar o adelantar la terminacion de las obras, con el ritmo de ejecucion de los actuales constructores.
No sabemos si las obras fueron subastadas a presupuesto fijo, con fecha fija de terminacion o fueron contratadas contra gastos o sea por administracion.
Esperemos que esta justa informacion, no caiga en tanque vacio para la basura, o se la lleve el viento. NOSOTROS SOMOS PRENSA Y ESTAMOS AL LADO DEL PUEBLO, esto que he santenciado, no solo se aprende en las Univierisades o en las Escuelas de Periodismo, sino que se lleva dentro del Alma, en el Corazon y en el Cerebro, con una gran dosis de verguenza profesional, eso hace al Ser Humano un periodista honesto.
Ing. Armando Lopez-Calleja.-Miembro del CNP de Cuba en el Exilio y de la UCP
¿Puede realmente ser los liberales tan estúpidos? Al parecer, ellos
si pueden
por David L. Goetsch
He crecido acostumbrado al hecho de que los liberales creen que
pueden cambiar de alguna manera la naturaleza humana y crear un mundo utópico
o, al menos, un mundo que se ajuste a la definición de la utopía. Aunque
todavía me resulta inquietante, ya no resulta sorprendente que los liberales
basan sus opiniones y acciones en el emocionalismo en vez de la lógica o la
razón. Un firme negativa a dejar que los hechos se interpongan en el camino de
sus presuposiciones parece estar en el ADN de los liberales, sin embargo, creo
que son más brillante que cualquier otra persona. Por ejemplo, recuerdo cuando
Jonathan Gruber, el académico hinchado del MIT, habló con condescendencia sobre
la estupidez del público Latina. Francamente, si se hubiera limitado su
denuncia a los liberales solo, podría haber acordado con él.
Antes de ir más lejos por este camino, una advertencia está en
orden. Si se desaniman por mi uso de la palabra "estúpido" en el
título de esta columna, entender que pasé una buena cantidad de tiempo tratando
de llegar a un descriptor más suave. Por ejemplo, he intentado la palabra
"ignorante", pero no funcionó porque la ignorancia es sólo la falta
de conocimiento que puede ser curada mediante la lectura, escuchando a los que
están más informados sobre el tema en cuestión, discutir, debatir y
mantenimiento una mente abierta. Desde liberales se opusieron firmemente a
leer, escuchar, discutir y debatir con una mente abierta, "la
ignorancia" no pasó la prueba de aplicabilidad. Así que hice "ilógico",
"irracional", "aversión en los hechos," y finalmente, me
decidí por la palabra "estúpido" porque transmite sólo el derecho que
significa "mal informado".: Una determinación de seguir haciendo las
cosas mal, incluso cuando usted saben que están equivocados, simplemente porque
usted quisiera que fueran derecha. Ahora que es estúpido.
Todo esto es para decir que soy rara vez sorprendido o incluso
sorprendido cuando un liberal prominente dice o hace algo que es simplemente
estúpido. Al menos yo no debería estar sorprendido, pero luego los liberales
tienen una manera de superar a sí mismos en el departamento de Dos tontos muy
tontos. En consecuencia, a pesar de que estoy acostumbrado a la falta de
lógica, la falta de la razón, y la aversión a los hechos que a menudo caracterizan
el pensamiento liberal, todavía hay ocasiones en las que me encuentro
preguntando, "¿Puede liberales realmente ser tan estúpido?"
El columnista conservador George Will se refiere a los desvaríos de
determinación de los desafiado y fuera de Leftfield acciones de los liberales
como "tonterías", una menor confrontación descriptores, más refinado
que mi mandato: "estúpido". Sin embargo, a pesar de que admiro
comentario de Will, él es-en este caso-liberales dejando descolgados con demasiada
facilidad por bajar el tono de su retórica. En una columna reciente, el
comentarista conservador compartió una larga lista de ejemplos de lo que él
llamó "tonterías" liberal; ejemplos que podrían tener estupidez
liberal etiquetada con mayor precisión. En esta columna, añado mis propios
comentarios sobre algunos de los ejemplos Testamentos ofrecía a sus lectores.
En California, un director de escuela secundaria negó refuerzo
permiso de la escuela del club para recaudar fondos mediante la venta de
comidas donadas por Chick-fil-A debido a que la cadena de restaurantes apoya el
matrimonio tradicional. El director fue apoyado en su decisión por el
superintendente de la escuela quien afirmó "que valoramos la inclusión y
la diversidad." ¿En serio? Entonces, ¿qué acerca de la inclusión de la
inmensa mayoría de su cuerpo y los fans que apoyan la posición de Chick-fil-A o
al menos apoyan su Primera Enmienda derecho a ocupar una posición tal
estudiante? Si estos dos políticamente correcto, tal vez debería decir
-administrators "estúpidas" realmente valoran la diversidad, no
prohibirían Chick-fil-A sobre la base de su punto de vista. Después de todo,
aceptar la diversidad no significa simplemente tolerar una variedad de puntos
de vista diferentes, pero que garantice la exposición a una variedad de puntos
de vista; especialmente los que no está de acuerdo con.
Aquí fue una excelente oportunidad para que dos llamados educadores
para convertir una situación en una lección de civismo en el verdadero
significado de la diversidad y la inclusión, pero estos dos administradores son
aparentemente tan inmerso en la corrección política que desperdiciaron la
oportunidad. En lugar de enseñar a los estudiantes que la diversidad significa
diferencias respetuosamente que abrazan, el director y superintendente en este
caso les enseñó que la diversidad y la inclusión significan la prohibición de
todo pero los puntos aprobados, políticamente correctos de vista. No mires
ahora el Sr. Director y el Sr. Superintendente, pero eso es lo que hacen en las
naciones comunistas y otros estados totalitarios. ¿Pueden los liberales
realmente ser tan estúpido? Aparentemente pueden.
Por ahora los lectores de mis columnas saben todo acerca de la
pelea por el uso de los "pieles rojas" por el nombre del equipo de
Washington, DC NFL. Los liberales dentro y fuera del gobierno están indignados
de que el equipo sigue utilizando este nombre no sea un PC (aunque las
encuestas muestran que los indios americanos no están molestos por ello). El
gobierno de Obama incluso ha utilizado el poder del gobierno federal en un
intento de coaccionar a la franquicia en descartar el nombre de "pieles
rojas". Entender que este es el mismo gobierno federal que gasta miles de
millones de dólares contratantes misiles crucero Tomahawk y helicópteros
Apache. Además, este es el Presidente quien aprobó el nombre de Gerónimo para
la misión en la que Osama bin Laden fue finalmente llevado ante la justicia.
¿Pueden los liberales realmente ser tan estúpido? Aparentemente pueden.
Uno de los mejores o tal vez debería decir peores ejemplos de la
estupidez liberal viene del Partido de la Libertad Socialista (FSP), una
organización que aboga por un $ 20 por hora salario mínimo. Según George Will,
el FSP anunciado recientemente una oferta de trabajo para un desarrollador web.
El salario inicial era de $ 13 por hora. Esto no fue sólo un error de lectura
de pruebas. Al parecer, el FSP no ve la ironía en la defensa de que se exija a
todas las demás organizaciones que pagar $ 20 por un salario mínimo hora
mientras se paga bastante menos. ¿Pueden los liberales realmente ser tan
estúpido? Aparentemente pueden.
Como buena (o mala) un ejemplo como éste es, incluso el FSP no
puede sostener una vela a vicepresidente Joe Biden a la hora de hacer
comentarios vergonzosamente inane. Biden hace tantos patinazos los pies en la
boca que son difíciles de seguir el ritmo, pero su referencia a África como una
"nación" en lugar de un continente ocupa un lugar destacado en la
lista de sus diez mejores comentarios más estúpidas. Cerrar detrás del
comentario de "África" era reciente declaración de Biden sobre las
víctimas del devastador tornado 2011 que azotaron a Joplin, Missouri. Según
nuestra vicepresidenta hecho deficiente, 161.000 fueron asesinados. Obviamente
hay comandante de matemáticas, el vicepresidente estaba fuera por apenas 160,
839 personas. ¿Pueden los liberales realmente ser tan estúpido? Aparentemente
pueden.
Un último ejemplo viene del gobernador de California, Jerry Brown.
Al parecer, el gobernador compra la línea del partido liberal en el
calentamiento global. Preocupada porque el calentamiento global va a causar un
aumento de un metro en el Océano Pacífico, el gobernador Brown se preocupó de
que el Aeropuerto Internacional de Los Angeles un día estaría bajo el agua. En
realidad, el LAX es más de 120 pies sobre el nivel del mar. A pesar del
calentamiento global, gobernador de matemáticas-desafió de California no tiene
que preocuparse. ¿Pueden los liberales realmente ser tan estúpidos?
Aparentemente si pueden.
DISCRIMINATION? Detroit
Targets Legally Armed Black Men
What say you?
Are
black people who legally carry guns discriminated against? There is
anecdotal evidence to indicate that it happens, particularly in crime-ridden
urban centers. Students and retired police friends and acquaintances have
told me that when guns were found in the possession of black men, in most urban
centers, three or more decades ago, the guns were confiscated, legal or not.
That
was before the concealed
carry revolution, when only a few states issued concealed carry
permits, and they were often issued only at the discretion of the police
chief. Many of the gun control laws were designed specifically to disarm black men.
In
1967, the Black Panthers launched a bit of lawfare that brought about a ban on
the open carry of loaded guns in California. It is hard to believe that
the change in law was not what the Panthers intended, though they claimed to
support the right to bear arms. Remember, the Panthers openly supported
armed revolution in the United States. The day the gun control bill was
before the legislature, the Panthers showed up at the capitol, carrying their
guns in a threatening manner, unlike the open carry protests of today.
The summer of 1967 was the year of race riots in much of the nation.
The
panthers’ demonstrations resulted in the ban on the open carry of loaded guns
that was signed by Ronald Reagan. This has been twisted by the left to
claim that the Panthers initiated the gun rights movement in the United
States. Nothing could be further from the truth. California had always
been less than supportive of the second amendment. California does
not have a right to keep and bear arms clause in its constitution, because the
state government wanted to be able to disarm Mexicans and Chinese.
California concealed carry law was originally passed in 1923, with
the intention of making sure that minorities were disarmed.
We
can never know for certain if the Panthers intended to have more gun control
passed. More controls were certainly supported by the left, and the
Panthers were strongly supported by the radical left, as noted in David
Horowitz’ “Radical Son”:
While
no one would publicly say so, it was the Panther’s violent image that provided
their real attraction to the New Left. Blacks would seek liberation,
Malcolm said, though the “ballot or the bullet,” but no radical believed that
the System could be changed by peaceful means.”
Because
leftist “revolutionaries” embrace deception as part of their tactics, the fact
that some Panthers claimed to support the second amendment is
inconclusive. The gun culture is intimately familiar with politicians who
say “we support the second amendment” during elections. It is
clear that the left supported restrictive gun legislation. It was only a
year later that the United States Congress, at the urging of Lyndon Johnson,
passed the most restrictive federal gun legislation up to that time, the
federal gun control act of 1968.
More
gun laws did provoke a backlash, but not against black people. The
backlash was against the increasingly restrictive gun laws. The gun
culture organized and developed means of communication outside
of the dominant media. It fought back against the restrictions as the old
media pushed for more and more. The gun culture fought for the
right to bear arms for all citizens, regardless of color. Otis McDonald is a hero of the modern gun culture for
his advocacy of the second amendment in McDonald v Chicago.
The Black tradition of Arms is covered
extensively in a 379 page book that was published this year. It shows
that black peoples’ use of arms, and the attempts to disarm them, have an
extensive history. Read more at ammoland.com
Obama
Claims Illegal Immigrants Don’t Burden Taxpayers
President Barack
Obama claimed that illegal immigrants do not burden taxpayers
and are not a drain on public resources.
In an interview with National Public
Radio (NPR), Obama also slammed and dismissed those who are concerned about the
negative impact that illegal immigration often has on American workers
(U.S.-born and legal immigrants) as “nativists.”
“If you’re concerned that somehow
illegal immigrants are a drain on resources and forcing, you know, Americans to
pay for services for these folks, well, every study shows that’s just not the
case,” Obama claimed. “Generally, these folks don’t use a lot of services, and
my executive action specifically is crafted so that they’re not a drain on
taxpayers; instead, they’re going to be paying taxes, and we can make sure that
they are.”
A comprehensive 2012 Center for
Immigration Studies (CIS) report,
though, found that that households headed by illegal immigrants were more
likely to be on a welfare program than those headed by U.S.-born Americans or
legal immigrants, which means that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants
were more likely to be in poverty and dependent on government. In Texas, 58% of
households headed by illegal immigrants on a welfare program. In California and
Illinois, 55% were.” The report found that “nationally, illegal immigrants and
their U.S.-born children account for 9.9 percent of all persons in poverty,
compared to their 4.9 percent share of nation’s total population.”
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/12/obama-claims-illegal-immigrants-dont-burden-taxpayers/
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/12/obama-claims-illegal-immigrants-dont-burden-taxpayers/
Supremes asked: How long
will you let Obama make it up?
Obama will just find some
way to reword it and do what he wants even if they rule against him.
Check it out:
Check it out:
A team of
constitutional-law experts filed a brief Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court
asking the justices if they are willing to allow President Obama to continue
making up the law as he goes.
The brief by the American
Center for Law and Justice asks the court to reject IRS regulations that
illegally authorize tax subsidies for purchasers of health insurance on federal
exchanges.
The case is one of
several that could create a massive roadblock for Obamacare. The law is written
so that only those who obtain insurance through state-established exchanges
qualify for federal subsidies.
But the IRS, in violation
of the plain language of the law, has allowed the granting of subsidies to
people obtaining insurance through federal exchanges. A reversal could mean a
loss of subsidies for participants in 36 states, where consumers would see
immediate and massive rate hikes.
The brief charges IRS
regulations “are part of the administration’s ongoing efforts to rewrite or
suspend portions of [the law], in violation of the separation of powers.”
“This is another example
of the executive overreach of the president,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel
of the ACLJ. “The IRS regulations in place are the most egregious example of
the administration’s make-it-up-as-we-go approach to implementing Obamacare.”
The regulations, he said,
“eviscerate Obamacare’s goal of encouraging state participation and promote the
federalization of this nation’s health care in direct contravention of
Congress’ intent.”
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/supremes-asked-long-will-let-obama-make/
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/12/supremes-asked-long-will-let-obama-make/
26 Ways
the Media Botched Their Reporting on the Latest Benghazi Report
U.S.
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other members of his diplomatic
mission, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and
U.S. embassy security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed in
the attack on Benghazi. (Photos: Wikimedia Commons)
It
neither “exonerates” nor “debunks.”
It
specifically states that it is not the final word on Benghazi.
Yet national press outlets claimed all
of the above about the House Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi released on Nov. 21.
The Washington Post stated that “the panel’s findings were broadly consistent with the Obama
administration’s version of events,” though many of the
administration’s versions of events have been discredited or proven incorrect.
USA Today portrayed the report as a
sweeping effort that “cleared the Obama administration of any wrongdoing” and
the Associated Press claimed the report concluded “there was no wrongdoing by Obama administration officials,”
though it didn’t examine most aspects of the administration’s actions regarding
Benghazi. For example, the committee did not attempt to dissect White House
actions or decision-making. And it did not generally “assess State Department
or Defense Department activities” (page 4).
What
the House Intelligence Committee did do was focus on a narrow slice of
Benghazi: the intelligence community. As such, the report largely defends the
CIA.
>>> Benghazi Bombshell: Clinton State Department Official
Reveals Details of Alleged Document Review
It
is nothing more or less than another in a series of compartmentalized
investigations into the Benghazi debacle.
The
House Armed Services Committee focused on actions of the Pentagon, largely
serving to defend military interests. The Accountability Review Board focused
on actions of the State Department, though it chose not to interview some key
players, such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
An armed man waves his rifle as buildings and cars are
engulfed in flames after being set on fire inside the US consulate compound in
Benghazi late on Sept. 11, 2012. (Photo: Getty Images/Newscom)
Each
investigation occurred over a different time period amid two years of evolving
accounts by Obama administration officials as new information filled in blanks
or contradicted previous, official accounts. In some instances, investigations
produced findings that contradicted one another or documentary evidence.
And
no single investigation on Benghazi to date has heard from all relevant
witnesses or had full access to complete information.
So why did some in the news media
adopt the spin of Democrats such as Intelligence Committee Rep. Adam Schiff,
who claimed the report “completely vindicated” the White House?
Some
media even used the charged language of the Obama administration, disparaging
those investigating the many contradictions and unanswered questions as
“conspiracy theorists.”
The Accountability Review Board focused on actions of the
State Department, though it chose not to interview some key players, such as
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.(Photo: Olivier Douliery/Newscom)
The Huffington Post claimed the
Intelligence Committee report “torched conspiracy theories.” AP and USA Today
claimed it “debunked a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark
conspiracies.” Slate likewise stated that the committee had “debunked Benghazi conspiracies.”
The
articles advance limited and sometimes inaccurate representations of the
committee report. They fail to acknowledge the countless documented instances
in which the Obama administration provided false or conflicting information
about Benghazi, and hid information entirely from public view.
Contradictions
At
times, the committee report—as it defends the intelligence community’s
performance during Benghazi—flies in the face of evidence. It relies heavily on
witnesses who have previously given inaccurate information or testimony:
then-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell and Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper.
1) The committee concluded, “the CIA
ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi.” Yet security was
insufficient to prevent terrorists from overrunning the CIA Annex, killing two
of the four Americans who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2012.
2) The committee found “no evidence” of a
“stand down order.” But that is at direct odds with testimony from some
eyewitnesses. Three security operators stated they were given a “stand down”
order in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.
3) The committee appeared to focus on
technical utterance of the words “stand down” and “order” rather than the
spirit of the allegation: that willing responders were delayed or prevented
from providing urgent help. For example, the committee acknowledged that CIA
Annex team members “wanted urgently to depart the Annex” to “save their State
Department colleagues” but that the chief of base in Benghazi “ordered the team
to wait” to assess the situation (page 21). Also, the committee didn’t address
the case of the Foreign Emergency Support Team in the United States, which
began “packing its bags” to respond to Benghazi, only to have the State
Department block its deployment.
National Intelligence Director James Clapper (Photo: Pete
Marovich/Newscom)
4) The committee found “no evidence” of
“denial of available air support” and stated that, “the CIA received all
military support that was available” (page 24). But testimony provided earlier
to the House Armed Services Committee acknowledged that the military could have
launched an F-16 fighter jet and decided against it.
“The
mentality of everybody was, [launching an F-16] doesn’t make sense. … Now, in
hindsight, 20/20, we know that there was another attack at 5:15 in the
morning,” U.S. Africa Command General Carter Ham previously testified.
In
addition, the president’s principle military adviser, Maj. Gen. Darryl
Roberson, previously acknowledged in testimony to another congressional
committee that military aircraft could have buzzed the hostile Benghazi crowd
to try to scatter it.
“So
there is a potential you could have flown a show of force and made everyone
aware that there was a fighter airborne,” Roberson conceded to the House Armed
Services Committee.
Further, there were U.S. military
assets in Djibouti that remained untapped. A former U.S. ambassador to East
Africa stated, “The [Benghazi] compound was under siege for
almost nine hours. The distance of 1,900 miles is within the range of the
‘combat ready’ F-15s, AC-130s and special forces.”
5) The committee found “no evidence of an
intelligence failure.” Yet there was obviously an intelligence failure, since
terrorists bearing heavy arms and rocket-propelled grenades preplanned and
successfully executed multiple attacks on the Benghazi compound and Annex.
Another
intelligence failure documented by the committee is the flawed analysis by a
Washington, D.C.-based CIA officer who reportedly convinced Morell to advance
the YouTube video narrative even though the CIA station chief on the ground in
Libya had said that was not the case.
6) The committee accepted Morell’s claim
that the talking points were not on the agenda of a Sept. 15, 2012, White House
Deputies Committee meeting prior to U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s advancing the
incorrect spontaneous protest narrative on Sunday TV talk shows (page 29).
However, internal emails show that Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben
Rhodes specifically convened the meeting to discuss various agencies’ disputes
about the talking points.
Michael Morell, acting director of the CIA, arrives at a
closed briefing Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2012, in Washington, D.C, concerning the
attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/Newscom)
7) The committee accepted Morell’s
testimony that changes to the talking points were “in no way due to White House
political influence” and were just “a reflection of how little we knew at the
time” (page 30). However, documents show the State Department had voluminous
information about terrorist links and had already notified Libya, in no
uncertain terms, that Ansar al-Sharia was responsible for the attacks.
Inconsistencies
Though
the Washington Post claimed the committee’s findings were “broadly consistent
with the Obama administration’s version of events,” they differed in many
substantive respects.
1) The Obama administration initially
claimed no security requests were denied. But the committee confirmed the State
Department repeatedly denied security requests (page 16).
2) The Obama administration initially claimed there
was “a robust American security presence inside the compound, including a
strong component of regional security officers.” But the committee found there
was a handful of State Department diplomatic security agents who were
apparently unarmed when attacked.
3) The Obama administration repeatedly
blamed the attacks on a mob motivated by a YouTube video and initially claimed
there was no meaningful evidence of terrorist involvement. But the committee
stated that all of the Obama administration officials interviewed “knew from
the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist attacks
against U.S. interests. No witness has reported believing at any point that the
attacks were anything but terrorist acts” (page 25).
4) The Obama administration initially claimed, in March 2013, that government press
officials made no changes to the Benghazi talking points. But the committee
found that CIA public affairs officials made three critical changes to the
talking points (page 30).
President Barack Obama talks with Ben Rhodes. (Photo:
Amanda Lucidon/The White House
5) Morell initially claimed he had no
idea who changed the Benghazi talking points. But the committee confirmed that
Morell was directly involved in making and overseeing key talking points
changes to remove mention of terrorism and al Qaeda.
6) The Obama administration initially
claimed the attacks were an outgrowth of protests. But the committee found
“there was no protest” (page 2).
“Exoneration”?
Although
USA Today claimed the committee “cleared the Obama administration of any
wrongdoing,” the actual report makes numerous references to administration
officials doing things wrong.
1) The committee confirmed that the Obama
administration’s public narrative blaming the attacks on a YouTube video was
“not fully accurate.”
2) The committee stated that the process
to develop the inaccurate talking points was “flawed” and “mistakes were made.”
3) The committee found that Morell
wrongfully relied on his incorrect analyst in Washington, D.C., instead of his
correct chief of station in Libya, who explicitly stated the attacks were “not
spurred by local protests” (page 27).
Furthermore, the “Additional Views” appendix to
the committee report, submitted by Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and three
other Republicans, found the following:
4) Morell “operated beyond his role as
CIA deputy director and inserted himself into a policy-making and
public-affairs role” when he removed references to terrorism from the talking
points (Appendix 1, page 7).
5) Morell provided testimony that was “at
times inconsistent and incomplete” (Appendix 1, page 7).
6) The Obama administration failed to
exert “sufficient effort to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice” (Appendix
1, page 8).
7) The Obama administration’s response to
the attacks was marred by “inadequate interagency coordination” and “devoted
inadequate resources to this effort and lacked a sense of urgency” (Appendix 1,
page 8).
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. (Photo: T.J.
Kirkpatrick/Newscom)
8) Senior State Department officials,
including then-Secretary Clinton, placed U.S. personnel “at unnecessary risk”
by dismissing “repeated threat warnings” and denying requests for additional
security (page 2).
9) Senior U.S. officials perpetuated the
“YouTube” narrative that “matched the administration’s misguided view that the
United States was nearing a victory” over al-Qaeda.
10) The administration’s “failed policies
continue to undermine the national security interests” of the United States.
11) There was a “failure of senior U.S.
officials to provide for the defense of U.S. interests against a known and
growing terrorist threat.”
12) The State Department “failed to
provide sufficient security for its facility in Benghazi” (page 3).
13) The Obama administration perpetuated a
“false view of the terrorist threat” that “did not comport with the facts”
(page 4).
Missing the Mark
Even
as some news reports stated that Republicans had in essence “exonerated” the Obama
administration on all counts, Chairman Rogers attempted to correct the
mischaracterizations.
In
an op-ed published Dec. 10, Rogers stated, “Some have said the report
exonerates the State Department and White House. It does not.”
House Intelligence Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich. (Photo:
Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
He
went on to state that his committee looked only at narrow questions as they
pertain to the intelligence community. For that reason, he said, the committee
did not interview key eyewitnesses from the Department of Defense and the State
Department.
It
remains unclear how so much news reporting could miss the mark as far as it
did.
One
news article claimed the Intelligence Committee report concluded Rice
innocently relied on bad intelligence on Sept. 16 when she advanced the
spontaneous protest. Yet the actual report clearly states that the committee
has no idea what the White House communicated to Rice before she presented the
talking points.
A
news article unequivocally stated that “it was intelligence analysts, not
political appointees, who made the wrong call” on the nature of the attacks.
Yet the report is clear that it did not examine the role of political
appointees or figures in the White House, State Department or Defense
Department.
Eight Investigations
In reporting on the House Intelligence
Committee’s Benghazi report, numerous news outlets headlined that
there have been seven investigations on Benghazi and that an eighth is
underway—the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. (second from right), chairs the
first public hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. (Photo: Bill
Clark/CQ Roll Call)
The
implication is that Benghazi has been more than thoroughly examined and those
who support continued inquiry are beating a dead horse.
Indeed,
eight investigations might be overkill if each had been comprehensive and
duplicative, and had turned up no new information. But each has uncovered new
facts or different versions of facts as Obama administration accounts have
continue to evolve.
The
necessity of further investigation isn’t a function of how many probes have
been held, but of their depth and quality as well as the contradictions unearthed
and the quantity of outstanding questions. In those respects, one could easily
argue there haven’t yet been enough investigations into Benghazi.
Obama Will Shut
Border Agency To Aid Illegals
President
Barack Obama will block 2015 funding for the Department of Homeland Security if
Republicans includes spending curbs on the president’s executive amnesty, says
a top aide.
Check it out:
Check it out:
That amnesty action includes
the award of work permits, drivers’ licenses, Social Security cards and tax
rebates to at least four million illegal immigrants, despite the wage-cutting
surplus of American workers in Obama’s economy.
The adviser, Dan Pfeiffer, told a Huffington Post interviewer Dec. 29 that the
president would “absolutely not” sign a 2015 spending bill that would include
limits on amnesty spending.
Can Liberals Really Be this
Stupid? Apparently they Can by David L. Goetsch
I have
grown accustomed to the fact that liberals believe they can somehow change
human nature and create a utopian world or, at least, a world that fits their
definition of utopia. Although I still find it disturbing, I no longer find it
surprising that liberals base their opinions and actions on emotionalism rather
than logic or reason. A steadfast refusal to let facts get in the way of their
presuppositions seems to be in the DNA of liberals, yet they think they are
brighter than anyone else. For example, recall when Jonathan Gruber, the puffed
up academic from MIT, talked condescendingly about the stupidity of the America
public. Frankly, if he had limited his denunciation to just liberals, I might
have agreed with him.
Before going any farther down this road, a caveat
is in order. If you are put off by my use of the word “stupid” in the title of
this column, understand that I spent a good deal of time trying to come up with
a softer descriptor. For example, I tried the
word “ignorant,” but it did not work because ignorance is just a lack of
knowledge that can be cured through reading, listening to those who are more
informed on the subject in question, discussing, debating, and keeping an open
mind. Since liberals are steadfastly opposed to reading, listening, discussing,
and debating with an open mind, “ignorance” failed the test of applicability.
So did “illogical,” “unreasonable,” “fact-averse,” and “uninformed.” Finally, I
settled on the word “stupid” because it conveys just the right meaning: a determination
to continue doing the wrong things even when you know they are wrong simply
because you want them to be right. Now that is stupid.
All of this
is to say I am rarely shocked or even surprised when a prominent liberal says
or does something that is just plain stupid. At least I shouldn’t be surprised,
but then liberals have a way of outdoing themselves in the dumb and dumber
department. Consequently, even though I am inured to the illogic, lack of
reason, and aversion to facts that so often characterize liberal thinking,
there are still occasions when I find myself asking, “Can liberals really be
this stupid?”
Conservative columnist George Will refers to the
fact-challenged ravings and out-of-leftfield actions of liberals as
“poppycock,” a less confrontational, more refined descriptor than my term:
“stupid.” However, even though I admire Will’s commentary, he is—in this
case—letting liberals off the hook too easily by toning down his rhetoric. In a
recent column, the conservative commentator shared a long list of examples of
what he called liberal “poppycock”; examples he might have more accurately
labeled liberal stupidity. In this
column, I add my own comments on a few of the examples Wills offered his
readers.
In
California, a high school principal denied the school’s booster club permission
to raise money by selling meals donated by Chick-fil-A because the restaurant
chain supports traditional marriage. The principal was supported in his
decision by the school superintendent who claimed “we value inclusivity and
diversity.” Oh really? Then what about including the overwhelming majority of
your student body and fans who support Chick-fil-A’s position or at least
support its First Amendment right to hold such a position? If these two
politically correct—Perhaps I should say “stupid”—administrators really valued
diversity, they would not ban Chick-fil-A on the basis of its point of view.
After all, embracing diversity means not just tolerating a variety of different
views, but ensuring exposure to a variety of views; especially those you
disagree with.
Here was an excellent opportunity for two so-called
educators to turn a situation into a civics lesson on the real meaning of
diversity and inclusiveness, but these two administrators are apparently so
steeped in political correctness that they squandered the opportunity. Rather
than teaching students that diversity means respectfully embracing differences,
the principal and superintendent in this case taught them that diversity and
inclusiveness mean banning all but the approved, politically correct points of
view. Don’t
look now Mr. Principal and Mr. Superintendent, but that’s what they do in
communist nations and other totalitarian states. Can liberals really be this
stupid? Apparently they can.
By now readers of my columns know all about the
fracas over the use of “Redskins” for the name of the Washington, D.C. NFL
team. Liberals in and out of government are incensed that the team continues to
use this non-PC name (although surveys show that American Indians are not
bothered by it). The Obama administration has even used the power of the
federal government in an attempt to coerce the franchise into discarding the
name “Redskins.” Understand that this is the same federal government that
spends billions of dollars procuring Tomahawk cruise missiles and Apache helicopters.
Further, this is the President who approved the name Geronimo for the
mission in which Osama bin Laden was finally brought to justice. Can liberals
really be this stupid? Apparently they can.
One of the
best or perhaps I should say worst examples of liberal stupidity comes from the
Freedom Socialist Party (FSP), an organization that advocates for a $20 per
hour minimum wage. According to George Will, the FSP recently advertised a job
opening for a Web developer. The starting wage was $13 per hour. This was not
just a proof-reading error. Apparently the FSP sees no irony in advocating that
every other organization be required to pay a $20 per hour minimum wage while
it pays substantially less. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they
can.
As good (or
bad) an example as this one is, even the FSP cannot hold a candle to
Vice-President Joe Biden when it comes to making embarrassingly inane comments.
Biden makes so many foot-in-mouth gaffes that they are hard to keep up with,
but his referring to Africa as a “nation” rather than a continent ranks high on
the list of his top-ten most stupid comments. Close behind the “Africa” comment
was Biden’s recent statement about the victims of the devastating 2011 tornado
that struck Joplin, Missouri. According to our fact-challenged vice-president,
161,000 were killed. Obviously no math major, the vice-president was off by a
mere 160, 839 people. Can liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.
One final
example comes from California Governor Jerry Brown. Apparently the governor
buys the liberal party line on global warming. Concerned that global warming is
going to cause a four-foot rise in the Pacific Ocean, Governor Brown fretted
that the Los Angeles International Airport would one day be under water.
Actually, LAX is more than 120 feet above sea level. Global warming
notwithstanding, California’s math-challenged governor need not worry. Can
liberals really be this stupid? Apparently they can.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/can-liberals-really-stupid-apparently-can/
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/can-liberals-really-stupid-apparently-can/
SCALLYWAGS: Here’s A List of
Companies Who Fund Sharpton’s Race War
Posted
on December 30, 2014
If you hate Sharpton’s non-sense then
you might wanna hit these companies in the wallet… where it hurts.
Here is a list of some of the
companies that support the Rev:
·
Colgate-Palmolive
·
Anheuser-Busch
·
Macy’s
·
Pfizer
·
PepsiCo
·
General Motors
·
Daimler
Chrysler
·
Wal-Mart
·
FedEx
·
Johnson &
Johnson
·
American Honda
·
Chase
·
Hawkins Food
Group
·
MGM
ANTI-GUN RAHM EMANUEL’S YARD SIGN WARNS BURGLARS THAT HE HAS ARMED
SECRET SERVICE. Patriot Outdoor news.
Do as I say not as I do syndrome.
Chicago Mayor and gun-control advocate Rahm Emanuel is protected
in his home at all hours of the day and night by armed policemen, and a sign
outside his house warns would-be burglars that armed Secret Service agents are
standing guard.
After Emanuel’s son was
robbed outside the mayor’s home last weekend, a Fox 32 news report stated that
Emanuel, a member of Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control group Mayors Against
Illegal Guns, has 24/7 protection from the Chicago Police Department.
A sign outside the Emanuel home also informs trespassers that
the mayor has Secret Service protection. It appears that Emanuel, a former
Obama White House chief of staff, still has this sign up outside of his house,
according to a screenshot (Note: mayors don’t get Secret Service):
Read more at http://patriotoutdoornews.com/12559/anti-gun-rahm-emanuels-yard-sign-warns-burglars-armed-secret-service
Read more at http://patriotoutdoornews.com/12559/anti-gun-rahm-emanuels-yard-sign-warns-burglars-armed-secret-service
Krauthammer Hits Scalise ‘Double Standard’: Obama ‘Didn’t Just Wander
Into’ Rev. Wright’s Church Once [VIDEO]
Chiming
in on the recent issues ailing Rep. Steve Scalise Tuesday night, columnist
Charles Krauthammer lashed out at the media’s “double standard,” saying
Scalise’s association to David Duke and President Obama’s history with Rev.
Jeremiah Wright “aren’t even comparable.”(RELATED: Steve
Scalise Regrets Speech To David Duke Group: ‘It Was A Mistake I Regret’)
Krauthammer
told “Special Report” guest host Ed Henry that “Obama became didn’t just wander
into Jeremiah Wright’s church one time,” but rather that “he sat in it for 22
years as the man, who is a racist, raved about America and about 9/11 being
chickens coming home.”
The
conservative commentator added that while it’s “implausible” that Scalise
didn’t know who Duke or his group were, there is no “shred of evidence” that
anything resembling “racism, hostility, or “ill will” has happened in the 12
intervening years.
KRAUTHAMMER: ”It’s the worst timing,
and if Scalise wanted to make it easy for the party, he would step down in
leadership. Nobody is demanding that he leave Congress or that his career is
over. It would probably be seen as a temporary step. It wouldn’t be a life
sentence. I think he would be eligible to return to leadership, but he didn’t
and the House Speaker now is behind him and he’s stuck with him. Look, this
happened 12 years ago. It is possible, but implausible that he really didn’t
know who these guys were. After all, the name of the organization is the
Euro-American Unity and Rights Organization. Pretty clear.”
“The
reason is that the time in between, Robert Byrd has acted indecently, he
reached out, he obviously has changed his views. The key question here is not
just that this happened 12 years ago, but as far as I can tell, there is not a
shred of evidence that there is anything in the intervening 12 years which
would indicate any evidence of racism, hostility or ill will or anything of
this nature. Which means it is just a single event 12 years aho. Given the
absence of anything else in the 12 years, I think it’s a pretty drastic thing
to demand that he step down.”
“I think
that Steve [Hayes] is right, that there is a double standard. Obama became
didn’t just wander into Jeremiah Wright’s church one time 12 years ago. He sat
in it for 22 years as the man who is a racist raved about America and about
9/11 being chickens coming home … These aren’t even comparable.”
“I
do think as a political issue, Scalise might have just stepped aside. But given
that he hasn’t, the Republicans are stuck with this, which is unfortunate.
They’re going to get hit over this a few times, but I can’t see how they change
their minds now.”
ALLEN WEST: Quite Possibly The Most Racist
Article You Will Ever Read
Check it out. Is it or
is it not the most racist article you ever read?
Every now and then you
come across an article that folks just need to read. This one written by
Michael Smith entitled, “Confessions of a Public Defender” and
originally posted at American Renaissance on May 9, 2014 is one of those
articles.
It is a profound and
deeply disturbing piece, which, as we end 2014, we all need to comprehend as we
move towards the 50th anniversary of the Great Society initiatives of President
Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Smith articulates that
which ails the black community — the real discussion we should be having on
race, not that of victimhood and the further expansion of the welfare
nanny-state.
He begins by saying, “I
am a public defender in a large southern metropolitan area. Fewer than ten
percent of the people in the area I serve are black but over 90 per cent of my
clients are black. The remaining ten percent are mainly Hispanics but there are
a few whites.”
“I have no explanation
for why this is, but crime has racial patterns. Hispanics usually commit two
kinds of crime: sexual assault on children and driving under the influence.
Blacks commit many violent crimes but very few sex crimes. The handful of
whites I see commit all kinds of crimes. In my many years as a public defender
I have represented only three Asians, and one was half black.”
He presents his
observations based on his personal experience with black defendants, and his
words will no doubt inflame many:
My experience has also taught me that blacks are different by
almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot
communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a
threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.
It will take you only 5
minutes to read this article — and I would bet you’ll read it again. Then ask
yourself, is this something you hear Al Sharpton addressing? Or President
Obama, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson or Jesse Jackson?
I’m quite sure the
progressive socialist left will criticize me for sharing this article – that’s
just who they are – they hate the truth. But if there is a war to be fought, it
is for the soul of the inner city and the black community. The facts and
observations in this are not shocking to me. They are quite well known, but the
manner in which the writer so eloquently presents them is quite commendable.
Read more at allenbwest.com
Playing “Twilight Zone” with a missing airliner and spreading lies to gin up riots in the predominantly black, working class
city of Ferguson did absolutely nothing to stop CNN’s freefall in the ratings.
Under Jeff Zucker, 2014 was nothing short of a catastrophe for the left-wing
cable network.
2014 was the year of
false narratives at CNN, and because no one likes to be lied to, viewers went
elsewhere.
According to Deadline, during the
all-important primetime hours, CNN’s total viewers hit an all-time low. With
the even more-important news demo (viewers aged 25-54) in primetime, CNN hit
its second-lowest level ever. In total day viewers, CNN again collapsed to an
all-time low in the news demo.
Zucker’s unspoken but obvious decision
to turn CNN into a hard-left network obsessedwith race-baiting, identity politics, and heartless, mean-girl Palin-bashing mixed with Christian-bashing has backfired spectacularly.
CNN just cut 8% of its total staff,
allowing Zucker to claim that CNN is “in our best
shape .. financially.” He can also boast that CNN is in second place to MSNBC,
but MSNBC is imploding in its own very special way with a loss of 17% of news
demo viewers, compared to CNN’s loss of 1%. Fox News increased its already
considerable news demo viewership a full 3%.
Zucker claimed that CNN
ended the year “solidly in second place,” which sounds pretty great until you
look at the actual numbers. CNN’s barely ahead of MSNBC in 3 of 4 areas, and
lost to MSNBC in total primetime viewers.
Meanwhile, without
breaking a sweat and for the 13th year in a row, Fox News is dominating both of
its left-wing competitors.
2014 total day viewers —
total and news demo viewers, respectively:
Fox News: 1,052,000 –
214,000
CNN: 399,000 – 126,000
MSNBC: 347,000 – 108,000
2014 primetime viewers —
total and news demo viewers, respectively:
Fox News: 1,756,000 –
301,000
CNN: 516,000 – 181,000
MSNBC: 590,000 – 169,000
Por
la importancia del articulo Reprodicucimos el anterior reporte al Espanol:
Reproducción
de "Twilight Zone" con un avión de pasajeros desaparecidos y difundir
mentiras a ginebra hasta disturbios en el predominantemente negro, trabajando
ciudad de clase de Ferguson no hizo absolutamente nada para detener la caída
libre de la CNN en las votaciones. Bajo Jeff Zucker, 2014 era nada menos que
una catástrofe para la red de cable de izquierdas.
2014
fue el año de los falsos relatos en CNN, y porque a nadie le gusta que le
mientan, los espectadores fueron a otra parte.
De
acuerdo con Deadline, durante las horas de horario estelar de suma importancia,
el total de televidentes de CNN alcanzaron un mínimo histórico. Con la
demostración de noticias aún más importante (los espectadores 25-54 años de
edad), en horario estelar, CNN llegó a su segundo nivel más bajo jamás. En el
total de televidentes día, CNN se derrumbó de nuevo a su punto más bajo en la
demo noticias.
Tácita
pero obvia la decisión de Zucker para convertir a CNN en una obsessedwith red
raza-hostigamiento de extrema izquierda, las políticas de identidad, y sin
corazón, media-girl Palin-bashing mezclado con Cristiano-bashing ha fracasado
espectacularmente.
CNN
acaba de cortar el 8% de su plantilla total, permitiendo Zucker para afirmar
que CNN está "en nuestra mejor forma .. financieramente". También
puede presumir de que CNN está en segundo lugar con MSNBC, pero MSNBC está
haciendo implosión a su manera muy especial con una pérdida de 17% de los
espectadores de noticias de demostración, en comparación con la pérdida de la
CNN de 1%. Fox News aumentó su ya considerable demostración noticias
teleaudiencia una completa 3%.
Zucker
dijo que CNN ha cerrado el año "sólidamente en segundo lugar", que
suena bastante bien hasta que nos fijamos en los números reales. CNN es apenas
supera a MSNBC en 3 de 4 zonas, y perdió a MSNBC en el total de espectadores en
horario estelar.
Mientras
tanto, sin romper a sudar y por el año 13 en una fila, Fox News está dominando
tanto de sus competidores de izquierda.
2.014
espectadores totales días - el total de televidentes y noticias de
demostración, respectivamente:
Fox
News: 1052000 - 214 000
CNN:
399,000 - 126,000
MSNBC:
347000 - 108000
2.014
espectadores en horario estelar - el total de televidentes y noticias de
demostración, respectivamente:
Fox News: 1756000 - 301 000
CNN: 516000 - 181000
MSNBC: 590000 – 169000
BOEHNER ALLY STEVE SCALICE ROCKED BY
WHITE SUPREMACI SCANDAL.
A
member of John Boehner’s inner circle is under fire even as the House
Speaker is at his most vulnerable: Exactly one week before the House GOP’s top
official will seek re-election to his post.
“Every
member who votes for John Boehner is vulnerable because not only is he
unpopular with the base after his lame duck deception, but now he’s exposing
members to the results of his poor judgement,” a senior GOP aide told Breitbart
News after news broke Monday from the Washington Post and local Louisiana sources
that House Majority Whip Steve Scalise spoke at a conference of white
supremacists back in 2002.
“Rep. Steve
Scalise (R-La.), the House majority whip, acknowledged Monday that he spoke at
a gathering hosted by white nationalist leaders while serving as a state
representative in 2002, thrusting a racial controversy into House Republican
ranks days before the party assumes control of both congressional chambers,”
the Washington Post’s Robert Costawrote late Monday. “The 48-year-old Scalise, who
ascended to the House GOP’s third-ranking post earlier this year, confirmed
through an adviser that he once appeared at a convention of the
European-American Unity and Rights Organization. That organization, founded by
former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, has been called a hate group by the
Southern Poverty Law Center.”
Scalise
is Boehner’s second lieutenant, serving right beneath House Majority Leader
Kevin McCarthy. His scandal could put pressure on every Republican member who
voted for him for whip. It also, that senior GOP aide said, shows Boehner and
McCarthy are weak leaders because they either failed to properly vet Scalise or
they withheld information about his past.
“Boehner’s
cronies not only backed Scalise for whip but they also backed him for RSC
chair,” the aide said, indicating that Boehner and McCarthy should have done
their due diligence before supporting someone like Scalise for the whip job.
The irony is
that several establishment Republicans, including National Republican Senatorial
Committee (NRSC) spokesman Brad Dayspring, pushed the idea this past electoral
cycle that establishment Republicans are better vetted than Conservative types.
He pointed to Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle from 2012 as examples.
Conservative
Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz tells Breitbart News the Scalise
story—coupled with the resignation from the House of Rep. Michael Grimm
(R-NY) in New York following his guilty plea to a tax evasion charge—is proof
that the GOP establishment narrative is baseless.
“It’s
ironic that this latest scandal is brought to us by the same people who claim
conservatives cannot win elections because they have not been properly vetted,”
Horowitz said in an email. “Coupled with Michael Grimm, the establishment
has created gratuitous vulnerabilities in the party at a time when the
Democrats should be the ones on the ropes.”
O’Donnell,
who won the 2010 GOP nomination in Delaware for U.S. Senate over then Rep. Mike
Castle (R-DE), infamously had to defend herself from allegations she practiced
witchcraft—something her old television appearances fueled.
This year
in Mississippi, though, it was establishment incumbent Sen. Thad Cochran
who had a questionable background. During his primary against state Sen. Chris
McDaniel, Cochran faced concerns over taxpayer-funded world travels with his
longtime aide, problems with his short-term memory and questionable comments he made about farm animals. In the
end, Cochran won the primary and swept to victory in deep-red Mississippi.
Nonetheless,
all that talk from GOP establishment figures about vetting GOP candidates could
come back to bite them in a big way as the repercussions for Scalise’s actions
sort themselves out. This scandal gives conservatives a major weapon against
the Chamber of Commerce wing of the party should that talking point come out
again. “I am not a witch is nothing to compared to I am not a KKK member,” that
first senior GOP aide joked to Breitbart News.
A
second GOP congressional aide, when asked about Scalise’s performance in the
leadership role, told Breitbart News: “Well he seemed like another Boehner
stooge so far.”
“Scalise
is clearly in the camp of the corporatist wing of the party that needs to be
taken down,” that second GOP aide added.
At this point,
there hasn’t been much of a serious effort to take down Boehner—at least not as there was at the beginning of
the last Congress.
But the Scalise news could change everything, a handful of connected House GOP
aides told Breitbart News late Monday. That’s not to say there is definitely
going to be another coup attempt, but small pockets of resistance to Boehner
that formed over the past two years thanks to his immigration stances and
especially thanks to his pushing through the cromnibus spending bill are now
emboldened in the wake of this crippling news to this still-young GOP
leadership team.
Scalise didn’t
take over as GOP whip until the middle of 2014. He moved over from the
chairmanship of the Republican Study Committee after then-House Majority Leader
Eric Cantor was upset in a primary in June by now-Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA). Cantor
was replaced in the number two slot by McCarthy, and Scalise beat out Reps. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) and Peter
Roskam (R-IL) for the whip position.
Scalise
came under fire during the battle over the so-called “cromnibus,” a 1,774-page
$1.1 trillion spending bill that Boehner forced through Congress with Obama’s
help right after the midterm elections during the lame duck session of
Congress. After Breitbart News reported that Scalise was in political trouble
back home for his role in getting the cromnibus—which funds, in its entirety,
President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty—passed through Congress by whipping
votes for it, former Alaska Governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee
Sarah Palin highlighted his political woes on her Facebook page. She has more
than four million followers.
“GOP leaders
already going wobbly, hoping us peons won’t notice,” Palin wrote, providing a link to the Breitbart News story raising
the possibility of a primary challenge against Scalise from retired Air Force
Col. Rob Maness.
Maness
was a U.S. Senate candidate in Louisiana’s jungle primary, campaigning against
both now Senator-elect Bill Cassidy and outgoing Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.
Maness shocked the political world in Louisiana and nationally, garnering some
200,000 votes statewide with hardly any national help outside the endorsement
of Palin. Maness could be even more emboldened to make a move at Scalise now,
given the vulnerabilities he’s showing both in Washington and back home in
Louisiana. The knives are out for Scalise behind the scenes, and Boehner and
McCarthy are both not defending him publicly.
Maness, who would
presumably be ready to fill Scalise’s congressional seat should this scandal
force his regignation, lives in Scalise’s district. He just launched the hybrid Political Action Committee
(PAC) Gator PAC after campaigning for Cassidy against Landrieu. In addition to
newly-formed alliances with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David
Vitter—the likely next governor of the state—Maness and Cassidy have since made
amends.
During the
campaign, Maness showed he’s willing to
criticize fellow Republicans when he perceives
them to be wrong on race. When Cassidy said that Harry Reid’s
Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate was “like a plantation,” Maness ripped the
term as “incredibly offensive to many Americans” and called on Cassidy to
“immediately apologize.” Maness also made minority outreach in black
communities across Louisiana a major plank of his campaign by publicly
supporting the Redeem Act from Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Cory Booker (D-NJ),
something that would help those caught up in the criminal justice system
reintegrate into society.
To
mark his enthusiastic support for the Paul-Booker bill, Maness toured
Louisiana’s Angola State Penitentiary to learn more about rehabilitation of
inmates post-incarceration.
“Angola has
some of the most progressive rehabilitation programs in the nation for
non-violent offenders,” the Times-Picayune’s Cole Avery wrote about Maness’ Angola prison
tour. “Maness visited a class where a group of about 20 inmates learned about
air conditioners so they can get jobs when their sentences are up. It’s a
program near to Maness’ believes that anyone can succeed with hard work and personal
responsibility.”
There’s
also talk in Louisiana that Maness may fill Vitter’s Senate seat when he steps
down after presumably winning the governor’s election later in 2015. But since
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), another hardcore conservative, is also definitely in
the running for the Senate seat as well—and with Scalise’s woes—Maness may
change course and go for Scalise’s House seat, something that would avoid an
intra-conservative battle between Maness and Fleming.
Making
matters murkier is the fact that calls for Scalise’s resignation are beginning,
even though several major Republicans are, so far, publicly backing him up.
“Rep. Scalise
should resign his leadership post,” Peter Wehner, an Ethics and Public Policy
Center senior fellow and former official in the administrations of Ronald
Reagan and both Bushes, Tweeted. “The party of Lincoln shouldn’t have
as its #3 a keynoter at a white supremacist convention.”
“If Scalise
doesn’t resign, then @GOP members should be asked why they would continue to
serve as members of his caucus. Seriously,” conservative strategist Jimmy
LaSalviaadded.
“I don’t think
Scalise should resign over this. He should resign over the lame duck betrayal
over obama’s amnesty. And we should #FireBoehner,” the Conservative Review’s
Horowitzadded via Twitter.
Two different
spokespersons for Scalise have not responded to a request for comment from
Breitbart News in response to the calls for Scalise’s resignation from
leadership and from Congress. “A career-on-the-line test for Scalise in the
coming days: does his base crack or can he hold on?” the Post’s Costa Tweeted, summarizing the calamity in
leadership right now.
Even Scalise
himself, however, seemed unsure if he would walk away from this scandal
unscathed and job intact. “At the end of the day, you are judged by your
character,” he saidwhen asked by the Times-Picayune on
Monday night if he’s concerned this will affect his position in leadership.
“And look, I’m proud of my record of working to help people throughout my years
of public service. Whether they have the same political philosophy as me or
not, I work hard to help all people.”
Some
top Republicans, ranging from Rep. Steve King (R-IA) to Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, defended Scalise.
“This is an
absurdity,” Gingrich said in statement defending Scalise and
attacking reporters for pursuing the story. “Twelve years ago Scalise made a
mistake in judgment while giving speeches on the state budget.”
Peter King said that Scalise has “no bias or bigotry,”
and stood by him in an interview with the Post’s Costa. Steve King stood by Scalise, too, saying: “Jesus dined with tax collectors
and sinners… I know [Steve’s] heart.”
From the left,
Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) attacked Scalise, saying this episode “raises serious
questions about the judgment of an elected official.”
But Castro’s
fellow Democrat and Scalise’s fellow Louisianan, Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA)—a
member of the Congressional Black Caucus—defended Scalise. “I don’t think he has a racist bone
in his body,” Richmond said.
Richmond’s
support for Scalise came without the backing of the Congressional Black Caucus,
however, as CBC vice chairwoman Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY) called on Boehner to investigate Scalise.
“It
is my hope that Speaker Boehner will do a thorough investigation into the
circumstances involved in Congressman Scalise’s participation with the
organization and reassure all members that his leadership has not been
compromised by an affiliation with such an organization,” Clark said.
Conservative
commentator Erick Erickson laid into Scalise, too, saying via Twitter:
“How Do You Show Up at a David Duke Event and Not Know What It Is?” Erickson is
guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio program on Tuesday,
and hinted via Twitter that this storyline will be a major
focus of the show. Nonetheless, the chaos in the political world over this—with
unusual alliances forming on both sides of Scalise—does Boehner no favors
heading into the all-important speakership vote next week.
Top
aides to Boehner and McCarthy haven’t responded to a detailed set of questions
from Breitbart News about whether they vetted Scalise before letting him into
their inner circle in leadership, or what they knew and when they knew it about
this incident. But according to Costa, all of GOP leadership—Scalise’s office,
and Boehner’s and McCarthy’s teams—are terrified right now.
“Boehner,
McCarthy mum. But people close to them both are nervous. This came out of left
field. Privately, mounting concern,” Costa Tweeted.
“The scene
inside House GOP right now, based on dozens of calls and e-mails tonight: wait
and see,” Costa added in another Tweet.
“Boehner,
McCarthy said to be monitoring press coverage of Scalise, but so far no
comment, per GOP aides,” Costa said in yet another Tweet.
To
make matters worse for GOP leadership, in addition to the several
inconsistencies in Scalise’s story, the incident has propelled a conversation
about race in GOP politics—rather than the direction of the country under
President Obama—to the front of the political world heading into the first days
of the new Congress. Perhaps even more shocking than that to Boehner and company
is now thanks to these revelations, David Duke—a former Grand Wizard of the Ku
Klux Klan—is now elevated into the political narrative, a disastrous situation
for a Republican Party looking to govern as it gains official control over all
of Congress for the first time since before Obama took the oval office.
Duke actually
did an interview with the Washington Post, in which he said about Scalise: “I’ve certainly met him.
He’s a nice guy.”
“[Scalise]
says he didn’t realize what the conference was. I don’t know if he did or did
not,” Duke added in his interview with Costa.
Duke followed up
with the Washington Post later in the evening as well, saying in a second
interview with Costa that his campaign manager Kenny Knight and Scalise were
personally close. “Scalise did communicate a lot with my campaign manager,
Kenny Knight,” Duketold the Post, adding that was “why he was invited”
to the white supremacist conference in 2002.
When Duke was
asked what Scalise and his confidante Knight discussed regularly, he told the Post they talked about “Hollywood system,
about war” and that Scalise “was just a state rep then.” Federal Election
Commission (FEC) records indicate that Duke’s campaign manager donated
at least $1,000 to Scalise’s campaign as recently as 2008, something Costa
flagged late Monday night noting that Duke confirmed the address listed on the FEC records for a
“Kenneth Knight” $1,000 donation to Scalise in 2008 was indeed that of his
campaign manager’s.
Scalise
spokeswoman Moira Bagley didn’t deny that her boss spoke to the white
supremacist group run by David Duke in 2002, but simply said her boss was, in
the words of Costa, “unaware at the time of the group’s ideology and its
association with racists and neo-Nazi activists.”
“Throughout
his career in public service, Mr. Scalise has spoken to hundreds of different
groups with a broad range of viewpoints,” Bagley said to the Washington Post.
“In every case, he was building support for his policies, not the other way
around. In 2002, he made himself available to anyone who wanted to hear his
proposal to eliminate slush funds that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars as
well as his opposition to a proposed tax increase on middle-class families.”
“He
has never been affiliated with the abhorrent group in question,” Bagley added.
“The hate-fueled ignorance and intolerance that group projects is in stark
contradiction to what Mr. Scalise believes and practices as a father, a
husband, and a devoted Catholic.”
Costa
cited other anonymous Scalise aides who he wrote “argued that Scalise was
poorly staffed during the period, when he was busy touring the state promoting
his efforts to curb state spending.”
“Scalise’s
aides said due to the unavailability of Scalise’s schedule from that year, they
did not have details to share about his appearance or remarks, but said he was
a frequent speaker at a variety of events at that hotel—a hotspot for New
Orleans-area conventions,” Costa wrote.
But,
as Costa reported, local press clippings from the timeframe indicate that
Scalise was either complete oblivious to what was going on in his community—or
he’s being misleading about not knowing now.
“The
Gambit Weekly, an alternative publication in New Orleans, wrote days before the
conference that the hotel distanced itself from Duke’s group and expressed its
discomfort,” Costa wrote, adding that: “The Iowa Cubs, a minor-league baseball
team, also told the Gambit Weekly that they were concerned about housing their
players, which included several African-Americans, at that hotel while traveling
to Louisiana.”
In addition,
Roll Call’s Niels Lesnewski discovered an old interview from 1999 in his
publication—three years before the 2002 David Duke conference that Scalise is
now facing fire for—in which Scalise admitted he knew who David Duke was, and
seemed to support some of his policies. Duke was considering a run for the
first congressional district U.S. House seat that Scalise now holds, and
Scalise—and now Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)—were other potential candidates.
Vitter, then an attorney in Metairie, Louisiana, is quoted first in the story
disavowing Duke’s beliefs.
“I
honestly think his 15 minutes of fame have come and gone,” Vitter is quoted in
the 1999 Roll Call piece, which noted he was “seriously considering” a run for
the House seat he eventually won before becoming a U.S. Senator years later, as
saying of Duke. “When he’s competed in a field with real conservatives, real
Republicans, Duke has not done well at all.”
Then
Scalise is quoted as saying, according to Roll Call reporter John Mercurio, as
someone who “embraces many of the same ‘conservative’ views as Duke” but
painted himself as “far more viable.”
“The
novelty of David Duke has worn off,” Scalise said at the time. “The voters in
this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone
who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected.
Duke has proven that he can’t get elected, and that’s the first and most
important thing.”
Another
defense Scalise used in an on-the-record interview he conducted with his hometown
Times-Picayune on Monday evening was that he didn’t have “Google” back in 2002,
when this event occurred, so he couldn’t vet the organization.
“There
is a lot more vetting that goes into setting my appointments,” Scalise told the
paper. “I have a scheduler. I didn’t have a scheduler back then. I was without
the advantages of a tool like Google. It’s nice to have those. Those tools
weren’t available back then.”
That’s
not entirely true. The internet was in full swing by that point, and Google had
technically been inn use for years by the time of this event in 2002. There
were plenty of other search engines that Scalise could have used to vet the
organizations he was speaking at. In addition, as the Roll Call article he had
previously been quoted in showed, he knew full well who David Duke was in 1999,
and in 2002.
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
“En mi opinión”
No 838 Diciembre 31, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
