Friday, November 30, 2012

Now that you have won reelection Mr. Obama


Ok, now that the election is over, Mr. Obama, what about job creation? 

What about getting serious about lowering our national debt with realistic spending cuts? 

How about fixing our soaring energy costs and utilizing our natural resources instead of shoving imaginary, pie-in-the-sky alternative energy sources down our collective throats?

How about you get off the coal industry’s back over carbon emissions while the Chinese continue to belch more carbon in the air than we could ever even come close to producing?

Show us your “comprehensive” immigration plan that will realistically protect our borders and not put 11 million mostly unskilled Mexicans in front of the line that other LEGAL immigrants have been waiting in for years! 

While you’re at it, why don’t you explain to the American people what Operation Fast & Furious was really all about! 

Why don’t you tell us what really happened in Benghazi, Libya, to cause you to sacrifice the lives of four Americans? (Hint: try short answers and no BS.)

Would you mind telling those of us on Social Security, Social Security Disability, and Medicare & Medicare Advantage how we  are supposed to benefit after you and your Progressives have removed $716 BILLION from Medicare to use as seed money for Obamacare? No, Mr. Obama, we don’t want to dance with you or your talking heads verbally; just a real simple straight answer will suffice.

Now that you have pulled out all the stops to gain the Office of the President of the United States again, Mr. Obama, are you going to start acting like the grownup in the room; or will your temper tantrums continue to mask your lack of leadership? The world is on fire, Mr. Obama; and you need to quit sucking up to the Muslim Brotherhood and figure out who our friends are and stop trying to appease our enemies. Try finding someone outside your Progressive circle of thugs who really knows something about foreign affairs, will you?

Are you and Vladimir Putin going to get together again now that you have more “flexibility to deal”? 

What are you willing to give the Russians in exchange for them liking you? Our missile defense secrets? Maybe the locations of all our ballistic missile subs so that the Russians won’t have to find them on their own? How about we pull out of all the places around the world that our Russian “buddies” don’t want us to be? I know! We let Putin reconquer all the Eastern European countries that they lost when the old Soviet Union collapsed! Hey, what a Christmas gift that would be!

When are you going to explain to the American people that you are going to be putting millions more out of work when your EPA fully implements their new draconian regulations for 2013? 

How many more community and local banks are you going to kill off because of the ridiculous “Dodd-Frank” bill, Mr Obama? I thought that you didn’t like “fat cat” bankers and financiers. Must be that the shakedown for political campaign donations was pretty successful, huh?

Is it really true that you’re forming a proletarian guard out of the New Black Panthers, Mr. Obama? After all, they did such a bang-up job of voter intimidation in Philadelphia that they should be rewarded by your Thugocracy for their loyalty!  If you get the Republicans to cave in on tax increases for the rich, are you going to increase Michelle’s travel expenses, especially for the holiday season? Have her send us poor peons postcards so that we can dream of exotic places right along with her.

When are you going to officially present your Attorney General’s idea of creating two separate sets of laws, one for blacks and one for whites in this country? 

All in all, Mr. Obama, I would say that you need to get busy if you’re really going to keep all the promises that you made to all the people to get their vote. You have four years to create a legacy for yourself, Mr. Obama; how do you realistically want history to remember you? 

When you do something that benefits ALL Americans, I will be the first to congratulate you. So far, however, you have not shown any leadership skills worth noting, and you now have NO ONE to blame for the last four years. What are you going to do now? Elections do have consequences, Mr. Obama. 

Are you up for the job this time? 

We’ll see. 

Merry Christmas.

First Grade Girl Prohibited from mentioning GOD


When the word "God" becomes inappropriate in public schools, America really has ceased to exist.

Consider the story of a first-grade girl in West Marion, North Carolina, who had the word "God" stripped from a poem she wrote and was going to read at her school's Veterans Day assembly earlier this month.

The poem honored her two grandfathers who served during the Vietnam War.

“He prayed to God for peace," she wrote of one of them. "He prayed to God for strength.”

Unfortunately, a parent found out about this, and complained to the school district. At a McDowell County Board of Education meeting last week, employee Chris Greene said, "We had one parent concerned with the use of the word God in this program. This parent did not want the word God mentioned anywhere in the program. 

When the demand from this person was heard, the rights of another stopped. It did so by hushing the voice of a six-year-old girl.”

"I believe that this little girl’s rights were violated," Greene continued, "and that those who worked so hard to prepare this program should receive an apology.”

“We need to keep in mind what was our country founded on,” said McDowell County resident Esther Dollarhyde. “It was founded on God and Jesus Christ, and our veterans went out and fought for us so we would have a free country, but if we aren’t allowed to honor them the way that the children want to then America is getting lost.”

School Board member Lynn Greene told McDowell News, "My understanding on the law is a teacher cannot promote any certain religion, but when it comes to students voicing their opinion or expressing themselves in a poem we pretty much have to give some leeway. To me this whole thing is a violation of that child’s rights. Nobody forced her to write the poem, that was her part of the program. She was asked to write a poem about veterans and she did. My personal opinion is that her rights were violated.”

After fully examining the issue during the BOE meeting, President and Chief Executive Officer Ken Paulson stated the school did in fact have the right to remove the word "God" from the child’s poem.
Courts have consistently held up the rights for students to express themselves unless their speech is disruptive to the school,” stated Paulson according to McDowell News. “When the little girl wrote the poem and included a reference to God she had every right to do that. The First Amendment protects all Americans. She had every right to mention God, (but) that dynamic changed when they asked her to read it at an assembly.”
Paulson said that because the students were a captive audience - they were at a mandatory assembly with no place else to go if they didn't want to attend - administrators had the right to remove the word "God."

“Courts have found that religious references at school-sponsored events generally run afoul of the First Amendment,” said Paulson. "When a public school knows there’s going to be a reference to religion then there is a problem and they have to address it. The reason for these restrictions is to prevent the government from endorsing a specific faith or religion. So public schools have to steer clear of religious references.”
Fox News contacted the parents of the student in question for comment, but they declined.

Todd Starnes reported Thursday that across the community people are alarmed by what happened and are asking questions.

“I am outraged that a school would deny a six year old child her First Amendment rights — especially during an assembly to honor our nation’s veterans,” Trudy Pascoe told Starnes. “It is unacceptable for schools to continue to deny students rights because of their Christian viewpoint.”

Scott Hagaman, senior pastor of Marion’s First Baptist Church, told Starnes, "I don’t think there’s anywhere in the country where you can hide from these issues — with the culture changing so quickly,”

Sad but true.

Make the Democrats Own the Economy


One bright spot of Barack Obama’s re-election was knowing that unemployment rates were about to soar for the precise groups that voted for him — young people, unskilled workers and single women with degrees in gender studies. But now the Democrats are sullying my silver lining by forcing Republicans to block an utterly pointless tax-raising scheme in order to blame the coming economic Armageddon on them.

Democrats are proposing to reinstate the Bush tax cuts for everyone … except “the rich.” (Why do only tax cuts come with an expiration date? Why not tax increases? Why not Obamacare? How about New York City’s “temporary” rent control measures intended for veterans returning from World War II?)

Raising taxes only on the top 2 percent of income earners will do nothing to reduce the deficit. There’s not enough money there — even assuming, contrary to all known history, that the top 2 percent won’t find ways to reduce their taxable income or that the imaginary increased government revenue would be applied to deficit reduction, anyway.

Apart from Obamacare, it’s difficult to think of a more effective method of destroying jobs than raising taxes on “the rich.” This isn’t a wealth tax on useless gigolos like John Kerry — it’s an income tax on people who are currently engaged in some profitable enterprise. Their business profits, which could have been used to hire more employees, will instead be used to pay the government.

But Republicans are over a barrel. Unless Republicans and Democrats reach an agreement, the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. By pushing to extend the tax cuts for everyone except “the rich,” Democrats get to look like champions of middle class tax cuts and Republicans can be portrayed as caring only about the rich.

And when the economy tanks, the Non-Fox Media will blame Republicans.

The economy will tank because, as you will recall, Obama is still president. Government rules, regulations, restrictions, forms and inspections are about to drown the productive sector. Obamacare is descending on job creators like a fly swatter on a gnat. Obama has already managed to produce the only “recovery” that is worse than the preceding recession since the Great Depression. And he says, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

The coming economic collapse is written in the stars, but if Republicans “obstruct” the Democrats by blocking tax hikes on top income earners, they’re going to take 100 percent of the blame for the Obama economy.

You think not? The Non-Fox Media managed to persuade a majority of voters that the last four years of jobless misery was George W. Bush’s fault, having nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

The media have also managed to brand Republicans as the party of the rich, even as eight of the 10 richest counties voted for Obama. And that doesn’t include pockets of vast wealth in cities — Nob Hill in San Francisco, the North Shore of Chicago, the Upper East Side of Manhattan and the Back Bay of Boston — whose residents invariably vote like welfare recipients. Seven of the 10 richest senators are Democrats. The very richest is the useless gigolo.

Tax the Rich


One bright spot of Barack Obama’s re-election was knowing that unemployment rates were about to soar for the precise groups that voted for him — young people, unskilled workershttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/lb_icon1.png and single women with degrees in gender studies. But now the Democrats are sullying my silver lining by forcing Republicans to block an utterly pointless tax-raising scheme in order to blame the coming economic Armageddon on them.

Democrats are proposing to reinstate the Bush tax cuts for everyone … except “the rich.” (Why do only tax cuts come with an expiration date? Why not tax increases? Why not Obamacare? How about New York City’s “temporary” rent control measures intended for veterans returning from World War II?)

Raising taxes only on the top 2 percent of incomehttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png earners will do nothing to reduce the deficit. There’s not enough money there — even assuming, contrary to all known history, that the top 2 percent won’t find ways to reduce their taxable income or that the imaginary increased government revenue would be applied to deficit reduction, anyway.

Apart from Obamacare, it’s difficult to think of a more effective method of destroying jobs than raising taxes on “the rich.” This is not a wealth tax on useless gigolos like John Kerry — it’s an income tax on people who are currently engaged in some profitable enterprise. Their business profits, which could have been used to hire more employees, will instead be used to pay the government.

But Republicans are over a barrel. Unless Republicans and Democrats reach an agreement, the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year. By pushing to extend the tax cuts for everyone except “the rich,” Democrats get to look like champions of middle class tax cuts and Republicans can be portrayed as caring only about the rich.

And when the economy tanks, the Non-Fox Media will blame Republicans.

The economy will tank because, as you will recallhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/lb_icon1.png, Obama is still president. Government rules, regulations, restrictions, forms and inspections are about to drown the productive sector. Obamacare is descending on job creators like a fly swatter on a gnat. Obama has already managed to produce the only “recovery” that is worse than the preceding recession since the Great Depression. And he says, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.”

The coming economic collapse is written in the stars, but if Republicans “obstruct” the Democrats by blocking tax hikes on top income earners, they’re going to take 100 percent of the blame for the Obama economy.

You think not? The Non-Fox Media managed to persuade a majority of voters that the last four years of jobless misery was George W. Bush’s fault, having nothing whatsoever to do with Obama.

The media have also managed to brand Republicans as the party of the rich, even as eight of the 10 richest counties voted for Obama. And that doesn’t include pockets of vast wealth in cities — Nob Hill in San Francisco, the North Shore of Chicago, the Upper East Side of Manhattan and the Back Bay of Boston — whose residents invariably vote like welfare recipients. 

Seven of the 10 richest senators are Democrats.  The very richest is the useless gigolo.






Saturday, November 17, 2012

ObamaCare Takes Full Force SOON!


Barring any new amendments, the massive new healthcare law dubbed “ObamaCare” is set to take full force in the next 12 to 18 months.

Are you prepared for its sweeping changes to your healthcare and how it will affect individuals, seniors, small business, doctors and medical professionals and almost all Americans?

As a matter of fact, ObamaCare’s numerous provisions will soon alter:

  • How much you pay for your health insurance, your medical treatment, and your prescription drugs . . .
  • The type and quality of healthcare you can expect to get in the near future . . .
  • Even your ability to get in to see your own doctor (or any healthcare provider, for that matter) . . .

In fact, ObamaCare adds more than 30 million Americans to the healthcare rolls.

The program will be a massive tidal wave and experts says it may even cause doctor and nurse shortages.

And one study found that up to 40% of doctors are leaving practices due to the punitive regulations under ObamaCare.

You could be facing health-threatening delays just to visit a doctor, as well as potentially substandard treatment — if you’re not careful.

Plus, seniors in particular can expect alarming cuts to their Medicare benefits.

That’s because ObamaCare literally robs Peter to pay Paul by cutting $716 billion from Medicare over the next decade to fund other services under Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Worse, the law puts Medicaid on parity with Medicare, a fact that will likely weaken Medicare!

Given the election results, it is critically important you “be prepared” for these imminent changes – and plan on how to navigate the new law.

Those who don’t prepare could be hit very hard.


Friday, November 16, 2012

Military Votes Don't Get Counted


Military Absentee Ballots Delivered One Day Late,
Would Have Swung Election For Romney



by drew on November 7, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC – Sources confirmed today that hundreds of thousands of military absentee ballots were delivered hours after the deadline for them to be counted, with preliminary counts showing that they would have overturned the vote in several states and brought a victory for Governor Mitt Romney.
Officials say the ballots were delivered late due to problems within the military mail system. Tracking invoices show the ballots sat in a warehouse for a month, then they were accidentally labeled as ammunition and shipped to Afghanistan . At Camp Dwyer , Marine Sergeant John Davis signed for them and was surprised at the contents.

“I told Gunny we got a bunch of ballots instead of ammo,” Davis told investigators earlier today. “He told me to file a report of improper delivery and that the chain of command would take care of it. We didn’t hear anything for three weeks. While we were waiting we came under fire so we dumped a bunch of them in the Hescoes. We didn’t dig those ones back out.”

After military officials realized the initial error, the ballots were then sent back to the U.S. but suffered a series of setbacks.

Twelve boxes of ballots were dropped overboard during delivery to the USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) in the Persian Gulf, then while the ship sailed to Bahrain , postal clerks allegedly pocketed whatever ballots they wanted.

The remaining absentee ballots were loaded onto a C-130, but the flight was delayed until November 1st so the crew could get tax free pay for the month. Once the ballots arrived stateside they were promptly mailed to each state’s counting facility, reaching their final destination on November 7th.
“It’s a shame,” Rear Admiral John Dawes said when asked for comment. “I expected a delay so I ordered that everyone cast their votes eight months ago. It’s really unfortunate that our mail system failed us and directly affected the course of history.”

Upon hearing the news, angry Republicans have begun a demand for a recount, but most military absentee voters have shrugged off the news, with many wondering whether the care packages their families sent six months ago were ever going to show up.

Florida Denny's, Dairy Queens Putting 'Obamacare Surcharge' on Bill

Thursday, 15 Nov 2012 10:39 AM
By Bill Hoffman


Financial fallout from Obamacare will spur dozens of eateries in South Florida to tack a five-percent surcharge onto all meals, one restaurant mogul says.

John Metz — who runs 40 Denny's and Dairy Queens and owns the Hurricane Grill & Wings franchise — says his business will be hit hard by the January 2014 start of President Barack Obama’s healthcare mandate.

And his only alternative is, “I’ve got to pass on the cost to the customer,’’ he told the Huffington Post.

When patrons see they have to cough up a five-percent surcharge, one possibility is they could end up reducing the amount of the tip they leave for their server.
When patrons see they have to cough up a five-percent surcharge, one possibility is they could end up reducing the amount of the tip they leave for their server.

In addition, Metz will reduce the hours of his employees.

“I think it's a terrible thing. It's ridiculous that the maximum hours we can give people is 28 hours a week instead of 40,’’ the West Palm Beach businessman said. “It's going to force my employees to go out and get a second job.'’

Metz plans to hold meetings at his restaurants next month to tell his staffers of the upcoming changes.

Obamacare will make businesses or franchises with more than 50 workers to offer a government-approved insurance plan.

Either that or they will have to pay a penalty of $2,000 for each full-time worker in businesses with more than 30 workers.

Other restaurant chains including Papa John's, Olive Garden and Red Lobsters have already announced that they will have to reduce employees’ hours.

Despite the potential turmoil to Americans’ wallets, a recent poll for Kaiser Health Tracking found 43 percent Americans had a favorable opinion of Obamacare as opposed to 39 percent against it.

The decision to tack on an Obamacare surcharge has caused plenty of reaction on Twitter, such as MPHUnlimited, who wrote: "Denny's to feature new 'Obabam Slam', you order one meal but you have to pay for every Taker currently waiting in the restaurant."

Monday, November 12, 2012

Base Facts - Keep to Compare over next four years


Base facts:

Unemployment
9/2008 8m unemployed 5.4% rate
9/2012 12.5m unemployed 8.1%

Median Household Income
9/2008 = $54,788
9/2012 = $50,054

Price of Gasoline
9/2008 =         $1.92
9/2012 =         $3.83

Federal Debt
9/2004            $7.4 Trillion
9/2012            $16.1 Trillion

Presidential Perks
2011 = $1.4 billion

Royal Family Perks
2011 = $57.8 million

Welfare Benefits for low income people
2008   =          $563 Billion
2012   =          $746 Billion

National Debt
Federal debt exploded during World War II to over 120 percent of GDP, and then began a decline that bottomed out at 32 percent of GDP in 1974. Federal debt almost doubled in the 1980s, reaching 60 percent of GDP in 1990 and peaking at 66 percent of GDP in 1996, before declining to 56 percent in 2001. 

Federal debt started increasing again in the 2000s, reaching 70 percent of GDP in 2008. Then it exploded in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008, reaching 102 percent of GDP in 2011.
 Federal debt has breached 100 percent of GDP twice since 1900: during World War II and in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008

* As of November 1, 2012, the official debt of the United States government is $16.2 trillion ($16,221,685,381,838).[1] This amounts to:
• $51,616 for every person living in the U.S

Cause of Change in U.S. Debt Position (2001 Projected vs. 2011 Actual)


Sunday, November 4, 2012

Welfare in 2011: $60,000 Per Household


Taxpayers last year spent $1 trillion on welfare programs for households below the poverty line — enough to give each low-income household a check for $60,000.

According to a report from the Senate Budget Committee’s Republican staff and ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the federal government spent $746 billion on welfare in the 2011 fiscal year, and states paid out $254 billion in matching funds.

The federal total was up from $563 billion in fiscal year 2008, the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency, and up from $692 billion in fiscal 2009.

The federal welfare spending cited in the report does not include programs such as Medicare and Social Security, which are not means-tested and directed toward lower-income Americans, and does not include programs for veterans.

The Congressional Research Service reported that federal spending on health benefits for people with low income totaled $339 billion in fiscal 2011, with $295 billion spent on Medicaid.

The second largest category, Cash Aid, totaled $145 billion.

Federal taxpayers shelled out $101 billion for food assistance, including $80 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps). That’s double what they spent in 2008.

The total also includes $2 billion for Nutritional Assistance for Puerto Rico.

Taxpayers also spent $41.4 billion on Pell Grants, $46 billion on Housing and Development, $7.5 billion on Head Start, and $5 billion on Energy Assistance.

According to the Census Bureau, last year 16.8 million U.S. households were below the poverty line of $23,000 per year for a family of four. If all households received an equal share of the $1 trillion in welfare spending, they would each get $59,523.

And if only the federal share of welfare spending is considered, without state matching funds, each low-income household would still receive $44,404 — nearly double the federal poverty line of $23,000. 

Obama is dangerously emasculating our military!


By Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, U.S. Army (ret.)
In an election climate that reeks of economic chaos, we may be overlooking a greater threat to our future. Economically, President Obama, all by himself, is a target-rich environment. Voters just need to ask a few simple questions. Would I want this man to invest my family funds or run my family business – for another four years? Or would I trust my family's money to Mitt Romney? That should do it – but economics pales in the face of Obama's emasculation, socialization and feminization of our military, which, although related, I believe is a greater threat to our future than economic miseries.
For veterans and those interested in the security of America, the question is: Would I want this man with me in combat? Could he be trusted to lead a military squad let alone be commander in chief? Can you picture Obama in a duck blind – or even holding a gun? Has he ever held a gun? (Be assured he will assault the Second Amendment if he gets a second term.) Can you see him as a fighter pilot a la the Bushes? Or commanding a PT boat as did John Kennedy? This is not a man I would want with me in combat and neither should America.
For many veterans, and me President Obama's military priority was initially evident at his Inauguration. One of the inaugural balls honors veterans, including Medal of Honor recipients. For the first time in memory, a president, Obama, snubbed that ball. His ignorance and disdain for the military continued when he put victory in the hands of the enemy in Afghanistan by announcing the date we would quit. Weak leaders often try to project an image of toughness by "kicking ass." Accordingly, he fired a senior commander for a revealing story in that paragon of journalistic integrity – Rolling Stone.
In the meantime, his secretary of defense, Robert Gates, a fellow faculty-lounge lizard and weak ass kicker, fired the surgeon general along with his deputy and the secretary of the Army for a story in the Washington Post on mice and mold at Walter Reed. Gates would then fire another service secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who disagreed with homosexual conduct in military barracks – illegal at the time. Gates' chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Michael Mullen, would actually boast of covering for homosexuals in the Navy – illegal at the time.
It is easy to see why the leadership of our military is so intimidated and quickly cowered to Obama's demand for a quad-sexual (LGBT) military. Like lemmings they worried that the terrorist massacre at Fort Hood would hurt diversity and even formed an office to promote diversity in the military – which is already as diverse as any organization in America. (It is reported that those people wounded at Fort Hood and the families of the dead are being denied military benefits in an effort to deny it was a terrorist attack but rather work place violence!) Military leaders actually denounce retired military voices who criticize their boss – except Colin Powell, who supports their boss. They are now busy bowing to Obama on women in combat – they want to teach our sisters, daughters and mothers to kill. I wonder if Obama or Gates would want their daughters in a unit half full of women fighting an enemy unit all full of men?
Under the leadership of the Obama/Gates/Mullen trinity, our military has suffered as never before. Gates supervised the waste and fiscal incompetence at the Pentagon (millions of dollars lost). He instituted an insane op tempo (60 out of 80 months deployed is not unusual), causing unprecedented suicide and PTSD rates among soldiers and depression and anxiety in their families. Military pay cuts are coming, and the administration actually lost graves and urns at Arlington. There is an effort to raise health insurance premiums for retirees. The number of stolen top-secret documents is unmatched in our history. On the silly side, Gates' Pentagon actually considered giving medals to soldiers for not shooting!
On the battlefield, they have stripped the premier combat life saver, Aeromedical Evacuation, from the medics. This is the first time a medical resource has been so usurped since the Civil War, and I have heard horror stories from the battlefield on delayed reaction times. (I actually had a soldier from Iraq turn his back on me when I told him I was a Dust Off pilot in Vietnam; he said forces had failed to react in time to save his friend's life.) It may be a surprise to Vietnam veterans that the Congress authorized a program to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War and honor its veterans; but it will be no surprise that Gates drastically cut its funds. We will soon be longing for the "hollow military" of the '70s.
Just as frightening is the lack of military experience or expertise in Congress. When you mix all this with a population that consists of a significant number of liberals and a media that dislike the military and have never served (nor would they), along with the specter of sequestration budget cuts, the jeopardy of our military is evident.
The recent terrorist attack on American soil in Libya and the murder of four Americans, including our ambassador, should be a forewarning of things to come. It is a culmination of the cataclysmic calamity that is the daily currency of a White House governed only by politics. American corpses were barely cold, and the president was off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. The fundraiser was followed by endless misinformation, distortions and outright lies equaling one of the most scandalous cover-ups in our history. (Obama also went on vacation after committing our military to help liberate Libya. Compare that to President George W. Bush who quit playing golf after we went to war in Iraq.) Watergate pales in comparison with the Benghazi massacre – and a majority of the media are complicit in the cover-up.
Obama's replacement for Gates, Leon Panetta, had an astonishing response in answer to a query concerning why we ignored the plea for help from the Americans about to be slaughtered in Benghazi: "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what is going on." Excuse me. Did we not know that Americans were under attack and pleading for help? What else do you need to know? By his standard you would never go. In combat and chaos you are never sure of what is going on. Is it the standard of this administration that American should never risk lives to save lives? Risking lives to save lives is the essence of our wars! Our firefighters and police do it every day. In Vietnam, my only experience in combat, Dust Off pilots went every day into harm's way without knowing exactly what was going on – only that some one was hurt and needed help. That should be enough – and refusing to at least give it a shot is scandalous.
America is impotent without a strong military – and so is American policy. Our military strength is the one sure force for peace in the world. It deters the bad guys – not only from attacking us but others as well. Weakness emboldens evil, and ultimately we will be drawn into some disaster whether we like it or not. All the sheep and chickens in the world – and many liberals – would like for everyone to be vegetarians – won't happen, there are too many wolves out there. Yet how could any objective, informed person not see the deliberate dismantling of our military? Obama personally authored sequestration, which will bench us from the field of world affairs. But why?
I believe that Obama has no knowledge of or interest in military matters. Nor does he have the capacity to deal with crisis – the reason for a military – and he knows it. A feeble military would give him cover. A lack of resources is the perfect excuse for doing nothing, an Obama hallmark. And there are no votes in military spending – this man lives for votes. In a world aflame with uncertainty and violence, watch the president's campaign media. You will never hear a word about increasing or preserving our military strength, only that the troops are coming home. Ignorance of military matters is one thing and can be overcome, but ignorance of the importance of military might in promoting peace worldwide and protecting America is deadly. 

Saturday, November 3, 2012

Medicare Advantage Coverage and Obamacare


The ability of millions of older Americans on Medicare to purchase supplemental Medicare Advantage insurance is compromised -

 BOHEMIA, NY, Nov 2 – “Millions of seniors on Medicare could lose access to their cherished Medicare Advantage if President Obama gets a chance to fully implement his ObamaCare program,” according to Dan Weber, president of the Association of Mature American Citizens.

Weber said that the Affordable Care Act strips Medicare of $713 billion in funding in order to cover the “enormous cost of ObamaCare’s ‘all things to all people’ approach to healthcare.  As a result, the ability of millions of older Americans on Medicare to purchase supplemental Medicare Advantage insurance is compromised.”

The impact will be felt in every state, he said in a report Weber issued today: “Our industry sources tell us that these cuts will adversely affect the older population in two ways. First, most people with Medicare Advantage plans will begin to see higher out of pocket payments, premium increases, and a reduction in benefits, costing $46 per month or more on average. This is scheduled to start in 2013.

“Even more dangerous is the possibility that some Medicare providers will stop treating Medicare patients entirely because of the loss of income from these cuts. According to the 2012 Medicare Trustees report, the payment cuts will cause an estimated 15% of Medicare providers to operate in the red,” he said.

Weber continued, “The real effect of the total $716 billion being cut from Medicare will be felt in places like Ohio, where both the older population and the Hospitals and doctors will bear the brunt of the changes”

He noted that more than $21 billion dollars will be diverted from Medicare to pay for Obamacare in Ohio alone, from 2013 to 2022.  State Auditor Dave Yost called the impact on that state “eye popping.  Ohio seniors clearly love Medicare Advantage,” Yost said.  “An awful lot of folks are going to lose that choice.”

It will be the same across the country, Weber added.  Beginning next year, unless Obamacare is changed, it appears those on Medicare and Medicare Advantage will be in for tough times.

“It is extremely unfair to take money away from senior citizens, many of whom are on fixed incomes, in order to pay for the rest of the Affordable Care Act,” he concluded.

No Bible Reading in a HUD-Funded Building


Written by Gary North on October 30, 2012

 Some bureaucrat who polices a retirement center that was built with HUD funding is making sure there is no public Bible reading going on.

She told Ruth Sweats to stop reading her Bible and discussing it with another resident. To read the Bible and then discuss it — yes, my friends, actually discuss it . . . in full public view! — is a violation of the separation of church and state. So says the bureaucrat.

Religious speech is allowed in private rooms, but not the commons area. So said the bureaucrat.

Mrs. Sweats contacted a public interest law organization to send this bureaucrat’s employer a letter, which the firm did.

The social worker reportedly said that since the non-profit complex receives federal funding, Sweats s
 “did not have First Amendment rights because HUD does not allow religious discussions in public area of the complex,” 
reported Todd Starnes of Fox News.

This human interest story was not picked up by the mainstream media. It is all over the blogosphere.

My guess is that the over-zealous employee will find that her boss prefers to avoid a law suit. The policy will no longer be enforced, if it really is policy. Senior bureaucrats do not like dealing with public-interest lawyers. The defense costs are high, and the publicity is bad.

Biden Opens Mouth and Inserts Foot : The Last Resistance

Biden Opens Mouth and Inserts Foot : The Last Resistance

Friday, November 2, 2012

Law Could Imprison Pastors for Preaching Biblical Doctrines


In 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law.  The law was pushed by every gay rights organization in the country.  They claim that anyone who says anything negative about homosexuality is guilty of bullying them and therefore constitutes a hate crime.

Under the strictest definition of the law, any biblical preaching against sin in general, especially that of homosexuality could be considered hate language and therefore a hate crime.  If convicted of the felony offense, a person could spend as much as 10 years in prison.

In 2010, the Hate Crimes Prevention Act’s constitutionality was challenged in court by the American Family Association of Michigan along with several Michigan pastors, Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette and James Combs.  The pastors and AFA of Michigan president Gary Glenn actively preached against homosexuality and that it was a sin according to the Bible.  They saw the Hate Crimes Prevention Act as a violation of their constitutional rights for free speech and religion.  Their federal lawsuit was filed against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Later that year Holder filed for a dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds of standing and ripeness.  Standing and ripeness are legal terms that have to do with their legal ability to file the suit for future circumstances that may or may not ever happen.  A federal district judge granted Holder’s request and dismissed the lawsuit.

The dismissal ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by Robert Muise, Senior Counsel and Co-Founder of AFLC Co.  Muise argued his case before the court in January of this year.  The Sixth Circuit also dismissed the case claiming that the plaintiffs did not have proper legal standing to challenge the law.

After the disappointing news of the dismissal, Muise commented:

“There is no doubt that this federal criminal statute violates the First Amendment on its face.  Thus, the Act chills the exercise of free speech, specifically the free speech of our clients, who speak out against homosexuality.  This chilling effect is sufficient to confer standing to challenge the Act as a matter of law.”
David Yerushalmi, another Senior Counsel and Co-Founder of AFLC offered this statement:

 “Criminalizing religious opposition to homosexuality while elevating those who engage in homosexual acts to a protected class under federal law is a clear violation of the Constitution and a frightening abuse of federal power.”

Not every member of Congress was in favor of the bill as it was passed when the Democrats ruled both the House and Senate.  Iowa Congressman Steve King (R) wrote to AFLC on their efforts to challenge the legality of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act saying:

“I want to commend you for your courage to challenge the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.  As a Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I worked hard to stop this legislation in Committee and on the floor of the House of Representatives. . . .  Like you, I believe this ‘Hate Crimes’ Act is unconstitutional and marks an unprecedented move to regulate and criminalize thoughts.”

This week, the AFLC took steps to have their case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court by filing a writ of certiorari.  They are asking the high court to review the lower courts’ decisions to dismiss the case that challenges the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes law.

If the Supreme Court rejects the request to hear the case, then the Hate Crimes Prevention Act may and will be used against anyone that says or does anything that a homosexual deems offensive or hurts their pride and self-esteem.  Pastors in churches across the country could find themselves facing 10 years in prison for preaching God’s Word.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act protects perverted sinners from having their feelings hurt, but it does nothing to protect Christians from having someone like a homosexual denigrate their beliefs and feelings.  They will still be allowed to say what they want about Jesus Christ or anyone that follows Him and that won’t be considered hate language.  But tell someone that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin against God and you could go to jail.

This ladies and gentlemen is Obama’s agenda and if he gets re-elected next week, it will only get worse for us Christians.  It will be the first time in our nation’s history that Christians will be openly and legally persecuted.

If you are not having fun ...


From a blogpost by Sir Richard Branson, 10/2/12, on starting a successful business:
"If you aren’t having fun, you are doing it wrong. If you feel like getting up in the morning to work on your business is a chore, then it's time to try something else. If you are having a good time, there is a far greater chance a positive, innovative atmosphere will be nurtured and your business will fluorish [sic]. A smile and a joke can go a long way, so be quick to see the lighter side of life."