Friday, May 30, 2014

Dem War on Women/Hispanics: Democrat Candidate Says of Hispanic Female Governor "send her back to wherever she really came from."

Can you imagine the hell that would break out if a Republican said this about a female Democrat?

Do Democrats really support women and minorities? Well, yes, BUT. Only if they are willing to be part of their victim parade and know their place in the back of the Democrat bus. A female elected official, also Hispanic, gets painted with the same racist brush as black conservatives like former Secretary of State Condi Rice and Justice Clarence Thomas.

If a women or a minority dares to cross the aisle and express a free opinion they're treated like a slave who got away. The latest example comes from Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alan Webber of New Mexico who says of his likely political opponent, Republican governor Susana Martinez, that "We need to send her back to wherever she really came from." Video is here.

If a Republican candidate had said anything so offensive Democrats would call on the entire GOP to denounce the candidate and GOP leaders wouldn't hesitate to call for his resignation. But you likely won't hear more than a peep about this coming from Democrats and any Republicans who express outrage will find that outrage muzzled and unreported in the mainstream media.

Meanwhile, attacks on GOP women candidates continues. Renowned Pediatric Neurosurgeon Dr. Monica Wehby won the Oregon GOP primary for the U.S. Senate. Democrats leaked smear stories that Wehby was an unstable stalker who terrorized her former male romantic partners. It didn't matter that the men involved all support Weby's candidacy and say the stories are untrue.

As November approaches, the Dem slime machine will kick into high gear. Women and minorities who dare to cross the line will be targeted!

White House Spokesman Resigns but Blizzard of Lies Set to Continue

The real problem is the lack of honesty coming from Obama!

After three years twisting the truth for Obama as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has resigned with the usual excuse that he wanted to spend more time with his family. In recent months Carney had lost much of his credibility with the White House Press Corps. On issues like ObamaCare, Benghazi or the VA scandal mainstream reporters like ABC's Jonathon Karl have been hammering (1,2) Carney for the obvious untruths in White House spin.

Carney leaves officially in June but expect to see more of Josh Earnest, currently a deputy, as he takes over.

The face at the podium may change and perhaps the White House Press Corps will cut the new guy some slack. But one thing hasn't changed and it's the Obama Administration's desire to shade the truth to avoid accountability and seek political advantage in every situation. It's no secret that what was billed as "the most transparent Administration in history" has a problem telling the truth when the facts are politically damaging. With one poll showing 61% believe that Barack Obama lies some or most of the time on “important matters" a change at the podium won't change the real problem.

With more than two and a half years of lies coming from the top we will all just have to hold our nose and wait for it to be over! 

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Even Obama's Usual Defenders Have Trouble Finding Any Good in His Latest Sham Defense of Weak Foreign Policy

When you've lost the New York Times and the Washington Post you're really in trouble!

As I predicted on Tuesday Obama's big speech to defend his foreign policy simply revealed that he didn't have one. He and his faculty lounge advisers are just making it up as they go along and don't seem to have a clue what damage they are doing to the cause of world peace.

But it's one thing for Mike's America to say it. It's another thing for Obama's defenders in what's often called the "mainstream" news media to say it.

The New York Times

The New York Times Headline: “President Obama Misses A Chance On Foreign Affairs” (Editorial, “President Obama Misses A Chance On Foreign Affairs,” The New York Times, 5/28/14)
“This Was Far From Mr. Obama’s Big Moment.” (Editorial, “President Obama Misses A Chance On Foreign Affairs,” The New York Times, 5/28/14)
Obama’s Speech “Did Not Match The Hype, Was Largely Uninspiring, Lacked Strategic Sweep And Is Unlikely To Quiet His Detractors, On The Right Or The Left.” “President Obama and his aides heralded his commencement speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Wednesday as a big moment, when he would lay out his foreign policy vision for the remainder of his term and refute his critics. The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.” (Editorial, “President Obama Misses A Chance On Foreign Affairs,” The New York Times, 5/28/14)
Obama “Provided Little New Insight Into How He Plans To Lead In The Next Two Years.” “But he provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years, and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world.” (Editorial, “President Obama Misses A Chance On Foreign Affairs,” The New York Times, 5/28/14)
  • “Mr. Obama’s Comments On China And Russia Barely Touched On How He Plans To Manage Two Major Countries That Have Turned Increasingly Aggressive.”(Editorial, “President Obama Misses A Chance On Foreign Affairs,” The New York Times, 5/28/14)

The Washington Post

The Washington Post Headline: “At West Point, President Obama Binds America’s Hands On Foreign Affairs” (Editorial, “At West Point, President Obama Binds America’s Hands On Foreign Affairs,” The Washington Post, 5/28/14)
“President Obama Has Retrenched U.S. Global Engagement In A Way That Has Shaken The Confidence Of Many U.S. Allies And Encouraged Some Adversaries.” (Editorial, “At West Point, President Obama Binds America’s Hands On Foreign Affairs,” The Washington Post, 5/28/14)
  • “This Binding Of U.S. Power Places Mr. Obama At Odds With Every U.S. President Since World War II.” (Editorial, “At West Point, President Obama Binds America’s Hands On Foreign Affairs,” The Washington Post, 5/28/14)
“As He Has So Often In His Political Career, Mr. Obama Has Elected To Respond To The Critical Consensus Not By Adjusting Policy But Rather By Delivering A Big Speech.”(Editorial, “At West Point, President Obama Binds America’s Hands On Foreign Affairs,” The Washington Post, 5/28/14)
  • Obama Simply “Marshaled A Virtual Corps Of Straw Men.” “In his address Wednesday to the graduating cadets at West Point , Mr. Obama marshaled a virtual corps of straw men, dismissing those who ‘say that every problem has a military solution,’ who ‘think military intervention is the only way for America to avoid looking weak,’ who favor putting ‘American troops into the middle of [Syria’s] increasingly sectarian civil war,’ who propose ‘invading every country that harbors terrorist networks’ and who think that ‘working through international institutions . . . or respecting international law is a sign of weakness.’” (Editorial, “At West Point, President Obama Binds America’s Hands On Foreign Affairs,”The Washington Post, 5/28/14)

The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal: There Were Several Things Obama Left Out Of His Foreign Policy Speech. “But as we listened to the President chart his course between the false-choice alternatives of ‘American isolationism’ and ‘invading every country that harbors terrorist networks,’ we got to thinking of everything that wasn’t in his speech.” (Editorial, “Obama At West Point,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/28/14)
  • There Was “No Mention” Of The Russia Reset. “No mention of the Reset. ‘The reset button has worked,’ Mr. Obama avowed in a 2009 meeting with Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s figurehead president. That was the same year Mr. Obama announced in Moscow that, ‘The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chessboard are over.’” (Editorial, “Obama At West Point,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/28/14)
  • There Was “No Mention” Of The Pivot To Asia. “No mention of the Pivot or ‘rebalance’ to Asia. This was billed by Hillary Clinton in 2011 as ‘among the most important diplomatic efforts of our time’ and meant as proof that America’s withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan wasn’t simply a retreat from the world.” (Editorial, “Obama At West Point,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/28/14)
  • There Was “No Mention” Of Obama’s Red Line In Syria. “No mention of Mr. Obama’s Red Line in Syria against the use of chemical weapons. No mention, either, of the ostensible success of using diplomacy to disarm Bashar Assad. The President was fond of boasting of this achievement until recently, when it emerged that Assad continues to use chlorine bombs to kill his enemies. Somehow that also didn’t make it into the speech.” (Editorial, “Obama At West Point,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/28/14)
  • There Was “No Mention” Of The Failed Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks. “No mention of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, which occupied the bulk of John Kerry’s first year as Secretary of State and which has now collapsed as Mahmoud Abbas patches up his differences with the terrorists of Hamas.” (Editorial, “Obama At West Point,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/28/14)
Listening To Obama’s Speech Was Like Watching “Cast Away”—“Whatever’s Left From The Wreckage Will Have To Do.” “But listening to Mr. Obama trying to assemble a coherent foreign policy agenda from the record of the past five years was like watching Tom Hanks trying to survive in ‘Cast Away’: Whatever’s left from the wreckage will have to do.” (Editorial, “Obama At West Point,” The Wall Street Journal, 5/28/14)


Bloomberg Headline: “Obama’s Mushy Foreign Policy” (Editorial, “Obama’s Mushy Foreign Policy,” Bloomberg, 5/28/14)
Obama’s Speech Was Filled With Contradictions, “Awkward Facts” He Neglected To Mention, And A “Mushiness Of The Initiatives.” “Set aside the contradiction between Obama’s boilerplate about how ‘America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world’ and his warnings, barely two breaths later, about China’s burgeoning military, Russia’s belligerence and the competing aspirations of a new global middle class. And never mind the awkward facts he didn’t mention, whether Russia’s absorption of Crimea or the growing nuclear threat posed by North Korea. Most troubling is the mushiness of the initiatives he proposes as a way to extend U.S. leadership without putting boots on the ground.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Mushy Foreign Policy,”Bloomberg, 5/28/14)

Foreign Policy’s David Rothkopf

Foreign Policy Headline: “Clean Up On Aisle One” (David Rothkopf, “Clean Up On Aisle One,”Foreign Policy, 5/28/14)
Foreign Policy’s David Rothkopf: Borrowing Obama’s Own Metaphor, “This Speech Was A Dribbler Into The Glove Of The First Baseman.” “To borrow from the baseball metaphor the president offered up on his Asia trip when he spoke of a foreign policy made up of singles and doubles rather than home runs, this speech was a dribbler into the glove of the first baseman.” (David Rothkopf, “Clean Up On Aisle One,” Foreign Policy, 5/28/14)
  • “It Provided Neither Reassurance To Allies Nor Anything Remotely Like A Foreign-Policy Vision.” (David Rothkopf, “Clean Up On Aisle One,” Foreign Policy, 5/28/14)
  • “It Listed Some Problems, Outlined Some Principles, But Did Not Lay Out Any Real Goals Or Even A Hint Of What America’s Objectives In The World Should Be Going Forward.” (David Rothkopf, “Clean Up On Aisle One,” Foreign Policy, 5/28/14)
“If You Wanted To Sum Up The West Point Speech You Might Say That The President Wants To Find A New Low-Cost, Low-Risk Path To American Leadership –A Walmart Foreign Policy.” (David Rothkopf, “Clean Up On Aisle One,” Foreign Policy, 5/28/14)
There are MORE excerpts but I think you get the point.  Even Obama's friends are no longer falling for his habit of giving a speech and declaring a problem solved. Actions speak louder than words and in that area Obama is nearly silent!

Video: Condemned by their Ignorance and Unable to Fully Participate in American Political Life

It's no wonder so many people don't really understand the nuances, let alone the generalities of political issues today. If they don't even know the basics of American history like who fought  the Civil War or who George Washington is how can they make decisions about whether our foreign and domestic policy are correct?

It's a short clip:

Obviously the product of public schools held captive by teacher's unions more interested in brainwashing students with global warming nonsense, these young adults are poorly prepared for any kind of serious discussion of public issues.

These are the people who don't care about the Benghazi scandal or the IRS scandal or Fast and Furious or any of the rest. If you were to ask them about the Benghazi scandal they'd say "who's that." They just don't know anything about what's really going on and yet they probably know everything there is to know about the Kardashians and likely voted for Obama!

At Always on Watch they conclude that people with this little insight must have the brains of squirrels. That may be insulting to squirrels!

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Great New Ad: Obama's Parrots

Don't we all know from personal experience how the left parrots Obama without thinking?

How many times have I seen examples of this on social media where some Obama lover will come along, parrot what Obama said and then just be dumbfounded when facts are presented that contradict the propaganda?

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Responding to Complaints of a Weak Foreign Policy Obama Set to Give More Speeches

Five years into his presidency and Obama doesn't understand that actions speak louder than words?

Among Democrats there is the feeling that if only Obama had explained ObamaCare better, it might not be that big an albatross around their necks as the 2014 midterm election approaches. Obama gave one speech after another trying to explain ObamaCare. He got so desperate that late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel remarked "did you know that the number of speeches Obama has made about affordable health care is greater than the number of people who have actually signed up for affordable healthcare?" Despite Obama's rhetorical gifts, speech after speech wasn't enough to convince people to disbelieve their lying eyes when it came to Obamacare.

Will it be any different when it comes to foreign policy? From the Wall Street Journal:
President Barack Obama, in a commencement address at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Wednesday, will launch a new attempt to define a foreign-policy doctrine that he believes is misunderstood and that his critics say lacks definition.
Mr. Obama's speech kicks off a monthslong effort by the White House to publicly explain his approach on the world stage and to actively seek to reclaim the narrative on his foreign-policy legacy, with just two and a half years left in office.
Wednesday's speech is expected to counter criticism that American power is on the decline under Mr. Obama, with the White House official describing America as "the only nation capable of galvanizing action." Because of that, the official said, Mr. Obama will make the case for a foreign-policy approach that is "sustainable and enduring" and addresses traditional challenges, such as trade, but also rising ones such as climate change.
Another speech? Yeah, that will do it. So far, speeches haven't deterred Syria from using chemical weapons. They continue to do so. Iran is still intent on building nuclear weapons and Russia is still carving off pieces of Ukraine. America's allies don't trust us and our enemies no longer fear us. So naturally, Obama thinks another speech is the answer.

Obama and fellow travelers might be the only people who think another speech will solve foreign policy problems. Apparently, it's too difficult for Obama to understand that empty words mean little when confronted with the painful reality presented by the world's bad guys. Obama's actions, or the lack of them, are the problem!

Margaret Thatcher's Revenge: Astonishing Electoral Success of Right Wing UKIP

Read this as a lesson for establishment Republicans in the United States!

Margaret Thatcher was elected as leader of the Conservative Party in Britain on a protest vote against the "go along to get along" policies of her predecessor Ted Heath. For years, conservatives had been afraid to stand up for any major change in the way Great Britain was governed, content to just sort of nibble at the edges of problems that become progressively worse as time went on. The view of the conservative establishment which Heath represented was that they needed a "consensus" to govern. As long as that view held, Britain would continue to decline despite which party held power.

Margaret Thatcher defined consensus politics this way:

“Consensus: “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?”
When Thatcher was elected she took the country in a new direction. It was a U turn away from compromise with socialism that marked the previous consensus and it was wildly successful. And while ordinary Britains who enjoyed the fruits of prosperity and freedom Margaret Thatcher enabled loved her for it the old establishment elites in both the Conservative and Labour party never forgave her.

Conservative elites bided their time waiting for a moment to take Thatcher down. Their chance came in a dispute over how much Britain should acquiesce to the growing power of the European Union. Thatcher wanted to protect British sovereignty and was appalled at the idea that a faceless army of bureaucrats in Brussels, home of the European Commission, would gain increasing power over the daily lives of British citizens. Establishment conservatives used the conflict over European integration as the excuse they needed to get rid of Thatcher despite the fact that she never lost an election. She was the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th Century. [a great video documentary on the fall of Margaret Thatcher can be found here.]

Despite Thatcher's fall and a return to a form of consensus politics the worry about encroachment on Britain's freedom by the European Union has not gone away. If anything it has intensified as the EU seeks to control more aspects of British life.

While the Conservative Party under Prime Minister David Cameron has taken a slightly tougher line with European integration than previous Labour Prime Ministers a growing segment of the British electorate remains alarmed over the erosion of sovereignty. Likewise, weakness on immigration and social issues has left an opening for a challenge from the right. That's exactly what happened this weekend with a major surge by the solidly conservative UK Independence Party (UKIP).

In elections for the European Parliament UKIP took the lion's share of the vote. Quite an astounding feat for a new party.

See results at the UK Daily Telegraph.
Writing at National Review, John Sullivan describes the result:
It is no small earthquake when a small insurgent party with not a single Westminster member of Parliament wins more votes nationwide — across all three nations in Great Britain and all the regions of England — than the established behemoths of Labour and the Tories. This almost unprecedented success (the last time that a party other than Labour or the Tories came top in a national election was 1910!)
In local council elections which were held at the same time the result is similar:

Both the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats take a huge hit. Worst is for the Liberal Democrats who seem to be vanishing from the electoral scene. Still, the UKIP doesn't hold a single seat in the British Parliament at Westminster and doesn't control a single local governing council.

And while the graphs above might indicate a surge for left's Labour, there is no cheering in that party (1,2). Labour was seen as the only viable alternative to Conservative rule. But Labour's compromise on social issues, European integration and immigration make it just as unattractive as the Conservative go along to get along policy. Former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair is cited as rejecting any tilt towards the UKIP's stand on these issues. If Blair's attitude prevails it will make Labour's attempt to retake power in Parliament in next year's election that much more difficult. Labour is in a difficult spot. If they walk away from past support for key issues they risk losing the left. If they don't, they risk losing the sizable anti-Conservative vote to UKIP.

But with all the troubles of Labour's balancing act and the disappearance of the Liberal Democrat Party the biggest disappointment must be for the Conservative Party. Establishment elites in the Conservative Party rejected Margaret Thatcher's populist views on European integration and other issues. They thought they knew better. In dumping Thatcher the establishment showed contempt for the grass roots voters who kept them in power. They are now discovering what a mistake that was.

It's a lesson for the conservative establishment in the United States too!

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Democracy Russian Style

Thugs attack polling places as Ukraine holds presidential election!

Perhaps they were upset that a photo ID was required to vote!

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Democrats Plan Political Sideshow Defense in #Benghazi Hearings as Unanswered Questions Persist

Democrats will do their best to see that the American people do NOT get to the truth!

House Democrats had held out the idea that they might boycott the House Special Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. They insisted that in order to participate they should have equal representation on the Committee, something that Democrats have never offered Republicans when they controlled the House. On Wednesday, they folded and announced five members to join the Committee. Nearly all have played an active part in attempting to dismiss the scandal and block information damaging to the Obama Administration from being revealed. Over and over again, as they did on Wednesday, the Democrats selected for the Committee insisted that all the questions about Benghazi have been answered. Have they?

A week earlier, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who is to chair the Committee met with the press and asked whether THEY knew the answers to the following questions:

I’m not telling you how to do your job, but I’m going to ask you some questions, and if you can’t answer these questions, then I’ll leave you to draw whatever conclusions you want to draw about whether the media has provided sufficient oversight:
  • Can you tell me why [Ambassador] Chris Stevens was in Benghazi that he was killed? Do you know? Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi? 
  • Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi, after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed? 
  • Do you know why requests for additional security were denied? Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?
  • Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation, which defies logic, frankly, that we could not have gotten there in time. But you know they didn’t know when it was going to end, so how can you possibly cite that as an excuse?
  • Do you know whether the president called any of our allies and said, can you help, we have men under attack? Can you answer that? 
  • Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked [to go on five Sunday talk shows after the attacks]? The Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like, if that’s true. Why was Susan Rice on the five Sunday talk shows? 
  • Do you know the origin of this mythology, that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started?
  • Do you know where we got from no evidence on that, to that being the official position of the administration?
In conclusion, Congress is supposed to provide oversight, the voters are supposed to provide oversight, and you were supposed to provide oversight. That’s why you have special liberties and that’s why you have special protections. 

I’m not surprised that the President of the United States called this a phony scandal. I’m not surprised that Secretary Clinton would ask what difference does it make. I’m not even surprised that Jay Carney said it happened a long time ago. I’m just surprised at how many people bought it. 
Democrats on the Special Committee will do their best to see that answers to questions above are not forthcoming or that they are buried in a hearing that takes on a circus atmosphere where Democrats skilled in noise making do their best to shield Obama  and Hillary Clinton from any blame!

UPDATE: White House contacts You Tube during the attack. Odd that the White House repeatedly claimed that the phony You Tube story came from CIA intelligence. Also, Democrats persist in saying all relevant documents had been released and that there were no unanswered questions. That's contradicted by this news!

Monday, May 19, 2014

Obama Knew About #VA Problems Years Ago. Plus: ObamaCare Cheerleader Claims VA is a Model for All Health Care

Obama"mad as hell" over VA scandal. Why? Did he have to miss a round of golf?

Candidate Obama speech to the VFW, August 21, 2007:
No veteran should have to fill out a 23-page claim to get care, or wait months - even years - to get an appointment at the VA.
When we fail to keep faith with our veterans, the bond between our nation and our nation's heroes becomes frayed. When a veteran is denied care, we are all dishonored. It's not enough to lay a wreath on Memorial Day, or to pay tribute to our veterans in speeches. A proud and grateful nation owes more than ceremonial gestures and kind words.

Caring for those who serve - and for their families - is a fundamental responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief. It is not a separate cost. It is a cost of war. It is something I've fought for as a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And it is something I will fight for as President of the United States.

It's time for comprehensive reform. When I am President, building a 21st century VA to serve our veterans will be an equal priority to building a 21st century military to fight our wars. My Secretary of Veteran's Affairs will be just as important as my Secretary of Defense. No more shortfalls - it's time to fully fund the VA medical center. No more delays - it's time to pass on-time VA budgets each and every year. No more means testing - it's time to allow all veterans back into the VA. I will immediately reverse a policy that led the VA to turn away nearly 1 million middle and low-income veterans since 2003.

The VA will also be at the cutting edge of my plan for universal health care,
Oh well. That was then. This is now.

By now we know the drill. A scandal erupts and Obama is shocked, SHOCKED that such a thing could be going on. He didn't know. And once he found out he's mad as hell and going to get to the bottom of it. Here's a short list of that favorite tactic:

USA Today:  NSA Denies Obama Knew Of Spying On German Leader

CNN: HHS Chief: President Didn’t Know Of Obamacare Website WoesBeforehand

Politico: Senior W.H. Staff Knew Of IRS Investigation, Did Not Tell Obama

Weekly Standard: Obama Claims He Didn’t Know About the Petraeus Investigation

Business Insider: The White House Says It Had No Idea The DOJ Seized The AP’s Phone Records

Real Clear Politics: Carney: Obama Didn’t Know About Fast & Furious Until He Saw It In Media

If you want to see a video montage of these examples and more, click here.

Now, Obama's added a new "I didn't know" and "mad as hell" to the list. That old game will be tougher to play this time around. In 2007 Obama campaigned with a pledge to improve the wait times that are at the heart of the current scandal. Also, he was warned of the problem during the transition period to his presidency in 2008 and we have Obama's own speech in 2009 where he promised to "cut those backlogs, slash those wait times, deliver your benefits sooner." 

So now Obama is "mad as hell" about this new scandal and he only learned about it from reading the newspaper. Why didn't he know about such an important issue that he has personally raised in public on several occasions? Will the White House next try to call this a "phony scandal" as they have with Benghazi and the IRS? The Congress will hold hearings on the subject. Will the Obama Administration refuse to answer requests for documents and when they do respond send only blacked out redacted sheets of paper?

VA Care Coming to All With ObamaCare?

For years, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has been saying that Veterans Administration health care is a model for care for all citizens (1,2). Krugman is a cheerleader for Obama's policies. If he's ever had a critical word to say about Obama I haven't heard it. Here's a small sample of what he said about VA healthcare:
Exhibit A for the advantages of government provision [of healthcare] is the veterans administration, which runs its own hospitals and clinics, and provides some of the best-quality healthcare in America at far lower cost than the private sector.
Expect to read any day now a new Krugman column claiming he was misunderstood or that Republicans are really to blame!

The bottom line here is that big government does not work. Even the most competent and incorruptible government would have trouble making such a system work and the Obama Administration is both incompetent and corrupt. The problem is that there is no profit motive that would keep large bureaucracies like the VA accountable to those they serve. Who cares what the wait time is if those served have few, if any, other options. ObamaCare won't work for the exact same reason and we better face up to that now while there is still time to avoid the worst that is surely to come if we do not act!

P.S. Veterans Affairs Secretary Shinseki is also "mad as hell" about the scandal. Sound like someone is programming the talking points again? Talk about insincere!

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Obama Sets Free Thousands of Illegal Aliens Convicted of Murder, Rape, Arson, Drunk Driving

Can you say "war on women?"

What do you suppose the political left would do if President George W. Bush had released hundreds of rapists and murderers from jail simply because they were illegal aliens? You can hear the Dems chanting about a GOP "war on women." Obama does it and not a peep! Full report in the Washington Times:

And that's just the stats for 2013. We don't know how many more were released in prior years after Obama took office.

And for anyone who swallows the Obama line that deportations are up under Obama it's only because they suddenly started counting turnarounds at the border as the same as deportations from those apprehended in the interior of the country. Shazzam. Statistics used to hide the truth once again!

You can't trust Obama to handle the immigration issue. As the Washington Times editorial says:
Expecting Mr. Obama to “demonstrate some level of trustworthiness” this late in the game is akin to Charlie Brown expecting Lucy not to yank the football away just before his toe hits it for the kickoff. Lucy, like the president, has rendered her word worthless. It would be a mistake for House Republicans to bring up amnesty, whether in August after the party-primary challenges are over or in a lame-duck session of Congress after the November elections.

Compare Obama's Words from 2009 to Vet's Health Scandal #VAaccountability

Just another example of his empty promises but with tragic results!

By now you've likely heard of the scandal with veterans health in which government bureaucrats delayed vital care for vets and hid the results to make it appear they were responsive to the needs of their patients when the exact opposite was true. It's a warning for anyone who may come to rely on the government for health care which may be all of us soon.

The scandal broke at a Veterans Affairs hospital in Phoenix where patients died while waiting for care that never arrived. Five years ago Obama went to Phoenix and delivered a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention. Looking back five years it reads like a sad litany of broken promises and failed leadership on the entire range of military and national security issues but particularly this section:
OBAMA: We're going to challenge each of our 57 regional VA offices to come up with the best ways of doing business, of harnessing the best information technologies, of cutting red tape and breaking through the bureaucracy. And then we're going to fund the best ideas and put them into action, all with a simple mission: cut those backlogs, slash those wait times, deliver your benefits sooner. (Applause.) I know you've heard this for years, but the leadership and resources we're providing this time means that we're going to be able to do it. That is our mission, and we are going to make it happen. (Applause.)

Now, taken together, these investments represent a historic increase in our commitment to America's veterans -- a 15 percent increase over last year's funding levels and the largest increase in the VA budget in more than 30 years. And over the next five years we'll invest another $25 billion to make sure that our veterans are getting what they need.

These are major investments, and these are difficult times. Fiscal discipline demands that we make hard decisions -- sacrificing certain things we can't afford. But let me be clear. America's commitment to its veterans are not just lines on a budget. They are bonds that are sacred -- a sacred trust we're honor bound to uphold.

These are commitments that we make to the patriots who serve -- from the day they enlist to the day that they are laid to rest.
Empty words from Obama and another scandal in incompetence and indifference to needs of vulnerable people who must depend on the government for care. Sadly, we've seen it happen many times over the last five years and Obama's still got three more to go!

Video: #HeroCat saves 4 Year Old from Vicious Dog

And the kitty didn't even need a government program!

Five years ago Tara the cat followed Roger and Erica Triantafilo home from the park. She became the family cat. A year later Jeremy was born and Tara used to curl up with him in his crib. Fast forward to this week. It's a heartwarming story you must see:

A longer interview with Tara and Jeremy is here.

I'm glad that all the major news networks choose to cover this story either in primetime or on their morning programs (or both). I only wish they spent half as much time covering Benghazi and the IRS scandals!

Sunday, May 11, 2014

A Thought for Mother's Day: Obama's War on Women. His Failed Policies Have Hit Women Hardest!

Yet Obama wants women to believe the GOP is acting against the interests of women.

By now you've heard the Democrat line that the GOP is waging a war on women. Clearly, it's yet another example of transference where Democrats accuse Republicans of doing something they themselves are guilty of.

It's not just that Obama's White House pays women less for work as the New York Times points out. It's not just that women working in Obama's White House have complained of the "boys club" atmosphere and where women felt, according to this report in the Washington Post, that the White House was a "genuinely hostile workplace to women." Or, where one top aide declared that she "felt like a piece of meat."

No, Obama's War on Women goes much deeper than the obvious hypocrisy in the White House. It's Obama's failed policies which have had a negative impact nationwide that hits women particularly hard. It isn't just the rising cost of food, gas, utilities and clothing that hits women harder than men. Here are more examples:


Obama’s Recovery Has Been The Slowest Since The Labor Department Began Tracking Data In 1939. “Given it took four years to get this point, this jobs recovery has been the slowest on record since the Labor Department started tracking the data in 1939.” (Annalyn Kurtz, “Private Sector Jobs Finally Back To 2008 Peak, But…,” CNN’s Money, 4/4/14)

Under Obama’s Recovery, Women Have Seen Slower Job Growth Than In The Previous Three Recessions

“Women Have Experienced Weaker Job Growth” During Obama’s Recovery “Than They Had Experienced In The Previous Three Recessions.” “Nevertheless, women have experienced weaker job growth after the end of the 2007-2009 downturn than they had experienced in the previous three recessions.” (“The Rise In Women’s Share Of Nonfarm Employment During The 2007-2009 Recession: A Historical Perspective,” Bureau Of Labor Statistics’ Monthly Labor Review, 4/14)
Unemployment Rate For Women Has Remained Above The Rate It Was At The Month Before Obama Became President. (Current Population Survey, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/4/14)
  • Black Female Unemployment Rate Has Increased From 10.1 Percent In January 2009 To 11.7 Percent In March 2014. (Current Population Survey, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/4/14)
Men Have Gained 4.0 Million Jobs Since The End of The Recession To The End Of 2013, While Women Have Only Gained 2.5 Million. “In the economic recovery, which began in June 2009 and is reported through December 2013 in this analysis, the job gains among men (4.0 million) largely exceeded those among women (2.5 million).” (“The Rise In Women’s Share Of Nonfarm Employment During The 2007-2009 Recession: A Historical Perspective,” Bureau Of Labor Statistics’ Monthly Labor Review, 4/14)
  • In The First Three Months Of 2014, Only 35 Percent Of The 533,000 New Jobs Went To Women. (Current Employment Statistics, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/7/14)
The Labor Force Participation Rate For Women Has Fallen From 59.4 Percent In January 2009, When Obama Was Inaugurated, To 57.2 Percent In March 2014. (Current Population Survey, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 4/4/14)
The Wall Street Journal Headline: “Women Lagging On Job Creation, Shifting To Lower-Wage Industries.” (Josh Mitchell, “Women Lagging On Job Creation, Shifting To Lower-Wage Industries,” The Wall Street Journal’s Real Time Economics , 2/7/14)

Women In Obama’s Economy Have Seen Their Incomes Decline

Women Have Seen Their Median Income Fall By $733 Since Obama Became President.(Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Department, Accessed 4/4/14)
  • Under Obama, Women With A Bachelor’s Degree Have Seen Incomes Decline By $1,419. (Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Department, Accessed 3/20/14)
The Number Of Women Working At Or Below The Federal Minimum Wage Has Grown By 561,000 Since 2008, Which Represents 62 Percent Of All Workers At Or Below The Federal Minimum Wage. (Current Population Survey, Bureau Of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/25/14)

As Jobs Pass Them By And Incomes Decline, An Increasing Number Of Women Are Entering Poverty

Since Obama Became President The Poverty Rate For Women Has Increased To 16.3 Percent From 14.4 Percent. (Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Department, Accessed 3/20/14)
  • 3.7 Million More Women Are In Poverty Since Obama Became President. (Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Department, Accessed 3/20/14)
Since Obama Became President, The Poverty Rate For Women Under 18 Increased To 22.3 Percent From 19.2 Percent. (Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Department, Accessed 3/20/14)
1.1 Million More Women Under 18 Were In Poverty Since Obama Became President.(Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Department, Accessed 3/20/14)
Ah, but that's all OK because Obama got women free contraception as if that's the only thing they care about. Meanwhile, their health insurance premiums and deductibles have gone up hundreds of dollars a year. Some bargain that free contraception right?

Obama is playing gender politics and he hopes women won't notice hot much worse they are under his failed policies. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to offer solutions which are better for ALL Americans!

Saturday, May 10, 2014

SC Congressman Believes Black Senator Tim Scott Doesn't Know His Place

Imagine if a member of the Tea Party said something like this!

I'm very proud that Senator Tim Scott is my junior senator from South Carolina. While there are times when I have to apologize to fellow conservatives for the sometimes confusing actions of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) I haven't had to do that with Scott who was also the Congressman for my district before he was appointed to fill the term of Jim DeMint when he left to take over the Heritage Foundation.

The Washington Post recently ran a story describing Scott's undercover volunteer work in South Carolina where he shows up and pitches in but doesn't let on who he is so he can actually get to know the real concerns of his constituents.

You would think that kind of humility and outreach to the community would win him praises from Democrats. Sadly, no. They are more interested in power and Scott does not support their failed racially based politics. Assistant Democratic Leader Rep. James Clyburn also from South Carolina complained that Scott being black isn't good enough because he doesn't support the liberal agenda which has kept blacks poor and on the plantation:
“If you call progress electing a person with the pigmentation that he has, who votes against the interest and aspirations of 95 percent of the black people in South Carolina, then I guess that’s progress,” he told the Post.
Apparently, according to Rep. Clyburn Tim Scott should know his place and not try and rise above his station and certainly not have an independent point of view. It's a variation on a theme we've heard over and over coming from the left when black Republicans are being discussed. If you're black you better know your place or you're in for trouble. Sounds racist to me!

Friday, May 09, 2014

Despite Sequester Scaremongering, Only ONE JOB LOST!

After so many lies about so much is it any wonder fewer and fewer people take Obama and the Dems seriously?

First it was "if you like your plan you can keep it. Period!" That earned Obama Politifact's dubious honor as "Lie of the Year." And of course there's the old bit about the Benghazi attack being caused by an Internet video. And who can forget: OBAMA: “During the course of my presidency, I have bent over backwards to work with the Republican party and have purposely kept my rhetoric down." There are SO MANY more it's hard to keep count.

Another of the biggies, and this one too involved a deliberate and repeated nationwide campaign of scaremongering by Obama and top Democrats, concerns the budget sequester. Originally, it was Obama's idea, but later he tried to blame it on Republicans. And when they refused to restore all the spending Obama demanded he went on the warpath accusing the GOP of wanting to throw teachers, firefighters and children's day care workers out of their jobs.

Depending on what day it was and which Democrat you asked millions of jobs would be lost by a minuscule reduction in the rate of government growth. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said that "over 170 million jobs could be lost." Considering that's just about everyone who currently has a job after five years of Obamanomics that was a bit of a stretch. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) insisted that 1.6 million jobs had already been lost by the sequester. That earned him another lie on the Truth-O-Meter. But outright falsehoods are nothing new for Reid who recently claimed that the Koch brothers were "one of the main causes" of global warming.

The White House was a bit more careful when it came to the number of job losses. White House spokesman Jay Carney predicted 750,000 jobs lost but when pressed whether this number was real hedged his bet by saying "If this happens, you should go out to Ohio and ask the families that are affected if they think it’s real."

Still, being cautious about the actual number of job losses didn't stop Obama from trying to scare people:

OBAMA: Emergency responders like the ones who are here today -- their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border Patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.
A few weeks later Obama went on to say that the Janitors who cleaned the U.S. Capitol Building would see their pay cut because of the sequester. That earned him another four Pinocchios from the Washington Post Fact Checker. Earning four Pinocchios is nothing new for Obama. On Friday he earned four more for claiming the GOP had "filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation."

Of course NON of this happened. A report from the Government Accountability Office finds that ONLY ONE job was lost in the federal government as a result of the sequester. Most reductions in spending were met, not by cuts in jobs, but by adjusting spending in other areas. And as anyone who has ever worked for the Federal Government, myself included, will tell you there's plenty of room to reduce spending without resorting to dire measures.

I'd say we need to keep Obama's scaremongering in mind when it comes to other Obama statements on issues like global warming but at least one poll shows that over 60% of Americans already understand Obama lies on important issues. His credibility is shot. But that won't stop him. His followers have drunk the Kool Aid and he needs to keep on serving it up to get them motivated for the fall election. 

Oh well, Obama has made his bed and now he can LIE in it!

Why Didn't Hillary Clinton Declare Nigerian Kidnappers of 300 Girls as Terrorists When It Might Have Mattered?

Had she done so, it may have been possible to prevent the kidnapping!

There wasn't outrage when the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram torched a school killing 59 male pupils. Now, with the abduction of 300 girls at another school people finally seem to be paying attention.

But long before this latest outrage there were many seeking to label these monsters as a terrorist group. Hillary Clinton was the one person who could have done something about it and she refused. The Daily Caller has the story.

Hillary hasn't been shy in declaring the kidnapping as a terrorist act. But will she say "what difference does it make" as she did regarding the Benghazi attack to explain away the earlier indifference of the State Department she led for four years? Or will she claim that it was an Internet video which led to these atrocities?

Hamas TV Show for Children Shows Why There Will Be No Peace Between Palestinians and Jews

How can there be peace when one side teaches children not only to hate, but to kill?

This kind of thing shouldn't surprise anyone. It's been going on a long time and it's not just children's shows in Palestine but mosques in many parts of the Middle East.

There's an old saying "If Palestinians were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no war. If the Jews were to lay down theirs, there would be no Israel." The video above shows why this is so. It's clear that a large segment of Palestinian society would not accept peace on any terms. The bloodshed they inspire is on their hands!

Detroit Grandmother: "I Would Be Dead Without My Gun"

Tell that to the gun grabbers who would take away not just your gun but your life!

Here's an interesting story.Paris Ainsworth, a grandmother living in Detroit, Michigan got home late Saturday night after working a double shift. She saw two men approach her and she reached for her gun. They fired first, but she fired back. She was struck but her injuries were not severe. Both men were later arrested when they went to the same hospital as Paris seeking treatment for their wounds.

Ten years ago Ms. Ainsworth was mugged and struck by a gun. Two years ago she got a concealed carry permit.

"If I wouldn't have had my gun I would be dead today."

Ms. Ainsworth is black and it's a safe bet she voted for Obama. The GOP should invite her to testify at the next congressional hearing where Democrats are trying to take the guns away from law abiding people!

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Here's What a REAL War on Women Looks Like: Islamic Extremists Commanded by Allah to Sell Hundreds of Kidnapped Girls in Nigeria!

What a shame those who use the "war on women" theme for politics in this country don't have a true perspective on the problem!

Show me the Republican or Tea Party leader who comes anywhere close to this monster whose group of Islamic crazies (I thought Al Queda was on the run?) abducted hundreds of young Nigerian girls from a school who are now being raped and may be offered up for sale.

"Western education should end.... Girl you should go and get married. I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market by Allah!"
We see rich Georgetown Lawyer Sandra Fluke bemoaning the fact she has to pay for her contraceptives while Democrats declare that the GOP is waging a war on women. Perhaps we should send Sandra Fluke over to Nigeria so she can see what a real war looks like. Did any Tea Party leader object to her western education and insist she get married? Nope!

A real war on women exists in the Islamic world and you will barely hear one word said about it by the same American left who say the GOP is waging a war on women. I guess the left isn't worried that a Tea Partier will rape and behead them!

Once Again, Obama Ignores Issues Americans Care About Most with Another Pivot to Climate Change. Plus: Focus Puts Lives at Risk in Developing World

There are real people suffering that could be helped but instead Obama wastes another week on his pet project to shake down Americans for more taxes (none of which will do the slightest to improve climate change)!

Democrat's critical of the GOP plan for a special committee to investigate the Benghazi attack do so by suggesting that it's taking time away from the more important work of helping Americans get back to work. Of course those same Democrats taking that line ignore the 40 jobs bills passed by the House but sitting idle in the U.S. Senate with no action.

Considering how Democrats insist we must focus our energy on helping Americans get back to work, isn't it odd that Obama is taking the week to talk mainly about global warming? That issue doesn't even make the bottom of the Gallup Poll of issues the American people care most about.

Yet here we are with Obama getting ready for another blitz on the issue to coincide with the release of the National Climate Assessment, a piece of deliberate propaganda bought and paid for by taxpayer dollars. Expect a full week of scaremongering and straw man arguments.

Does Obama Not Care About Starving Children in Africa?

For years I have warned that this hysteric and flawed focus on global warming takes attention and resources away from REAL human problems like hunger, disease and literacy worldwide. There's only so much outrage to go around and with all the Hollywood types spouting nonsense about hurricanes (which aren't increasing in number and severity the same as other extreme weather events) or hand wringing about the demise of the polar bears (they're doing just fine) have we lost sight of starving kids in Africa?

I'm glad to hear someone else saying it as well. A leftist writing in the Wall Street Journal proclaims we are "sacrificing Africa for climate change" by blocking international development of stable electric supply for Africa. It's not called the "Dark Continent" because of the skin color of it's inhabitants but because there is little reliable power. That's power needed to provide a stable economy, clean water and refrigeration for life saving medicine and vaccines. Not to mention better ways to produce and store food.

The thought of the Hollywood left flying around in private jets and living in multiple air conditioned homes yet objecting to energy for Africans simply trying to survive is beyond hypocrisy. It's criminal. Yet, left wing fascists want to put those who disagree on climate change in jail. That should be criminal too!

The good news is that Obama's latest push for climate change won't go anywhere. Few in the U.S. are being fooled anymore by the hype. The bad news is that not only does Obama continue to waste time and money on a non problem, he still can make the lives of Africans and others in developing nations miserable!

Friday, May 02, 2014

White House Spin Machine in Overdrive as Benghazi Lies Unravel

So many lies they're having trouble keeping their story straight!

The White House email which revealed the extent to which the White House was prepared to go to keep the truth about what happened in Benghazi a secret from the American people continues to cause problems for the Administration.

The repeated claim that the White House had nothing to do with formulating the talking points has been decisively exposed as false. It's clear from the email of mid level staffer Ben Rhodes that the White House was involved in shaping the story line much more than the minor changes to the original talking points which White House Press Spokesman Jay Carney frequently insisted was the case. It's obvious that the White House played a key role in prepping then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and directing her on what to say when she went on all five Sunday news shows to discuss the Benghazi attacks.

Also, for months now Carney and Obama's Democrat defenders have insisted that the White House had cooperated fully and turned over all relevant documents to Congress, such as the email, which might have helped to answer how it was that the You Tube video came to be blamed in so public and repeated fashion for the attacks. Carney insists now that the reason this document was not turned over is because it was not about Benghazi though it clearly deals with that issue and was in fact turned over by the State Department on that basis.

For 19 months since the attack, the Obama Administration has purposely hidden this email and is clearly hiding more that would tell us exactly WHO came up with the video excuse as well as answer why no help was sent the night of the attack and why urgent pleas for more security prior to the attack were ignored. And we still do not know what Obama was doing the night of the attack.

However, we did learn on Thursday that Obama was not in the Situation Room at the White House monitoring the response to the attack. In a very unusual interview on Special Report with Bret Baier former National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor admits that Obama was not there. The interview [full video] is also very useful in exposing just how immature and inexperienced these White House aides are. At one point, Vietor responds to Baier's question by saying "dude." And Vietor is supposed to be the hot new talent in Washington?

BRET BAIER: According to the e-mails and the time line, the CIA circulates new talking points after they've removed the mention of al Qaeda and then at 6:21 the White House, you, add a line about the administration warning on September 10th of social media reports calling for demonstrations. True?

TOMMY VIETOR: I believe so.

BAIER: Did you also change attacks to demonstrations in the talking points?

VIETOR: Maybe. I don't really remember.

BAIER: You don't remember?

VIETOR: Dude, this was two years ago. We're still talking about the most mundane thing.

BAIER: Dude, it's what everybody is talking about.
What's Vietor's qualifications for the job of National Security Spokesman? He drove the press van for Obama's 2008 campaign!

The self proclaimed "most transparent Administration in history" has a habit of hiding inconvenient truths. Whether it's Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious or any other embarrassing story their first line of defense is to deny, then stonewall, then slow walk and hope the story dies. They are aided in part by the news media. While representatives from CBS, ABC, CNN and the New York Times all had strong questions on the Benghazi email at the White House briefing very little of those questions actually made it on air. Obama knows that the rules of accountability that would apply to Republican Administrations in similar circumstances do not apply to him. Thus, he's free to keep doubling down on deception!
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator