EVERY SINGLE PENNY: The Obamacare Speech a Real Speaker of the House Would Give

Line in the Sand, a speech by Speaker of the House ___________________

The ill-named Affordable Care Act -- also known as Obamacare -- has been a "trainwreck" according to its very architects since day one. From the CLASS Act, to the delay of the Employer Mandate, to exempting Congress from the law, the sheer size and complexity of this partisan bill makes it virtually impossible to implement.

I and my peers, all of us, we took an oath to uphold the Constitution. And today we are going to stand by that oath and defend the Constitution of the United States.

This bill was passed in an unconstitutional fashion -- with bribes and payoffs and other skulduggery -- by a single party that temporarily held power during the 110th Congress. The bill consisted of thousands of pages and not one person was permitted to read the bill before it was voted upon.

This bill fundamentally changes the relationship of the citizen to the government.

This is an unconscionable violation of representative government. Nancy Pelosi famously told us we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it. Now we know, and it's an unconstitutional disaster.

Because a single judge bows to some unknown pressure, and changes his vote at the last minute to rewrite a bill that is clearly unconstitutional... because, unlike every other entitlement program, Democrats had no Republican support for this bill...

Because Democrats used every underhanded tactic -- bribes, payoffs and corporate reacharounds -- possible to pass a bill that not one of them read before voting upon...

Because the IRS, already caught punishing groups based upon their political and religious affiliations, will be the enforcers of Obamacare... because radical, left wing groups like La Raza and ACORN will be hired as "Obamacare Navigators" with access to their political opponents' most sensitive health care data...

Because jobs are being destroyed. Because good jobs are disappearing before our very eyes as small businesses are driven not to hire by the law. Because full-time jobs are turning to part-time jobs. Because employers are slashing benefits for spouses and other family members to adapt to a law no one read.

Because the lies that were told to sell this bill were as awful as they were brazen... Because you can't keep your policy, you can't keep your doctor, you can't keep your plan, you can't keep your insurer, and you will pay far more, not far less...

Because Democrat lobbyists and staffers are raking in million advising companies how to comply with the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that this law has spawned... Because they have built a law so complex that no one can possibly understand its effects without paying off the very people who created it!

Most of all, because the people who want Obamacare most are the very same people who have exempted themselves from the law! Obamacare waivers have been issued for Congress, staffers, unions, special interest groups...

I have a question for President Obama and the Democrats? Aren't the American people the most important special interest group Congress serves? The vast majority of Americans want a waiver from Obamacare, just like the lobbyists and the other Beltway elites.

True to my word, Republicans will not shut down the government. We have passed a continuing resolution that funds every single aspect of the federal government except for Obamacare. Every single penny.

But we are drawing a line in the sand when it comes to the trainwreck of Obamacare. We want at least a year delay in its implementation, just like Congress, just like the unions, just like the employers subject to the mandate, and just like other Democrat special interests got.

So if Democrats want to shut down the government, so be it. The House Continuing Resolution funds the entirety of the government -- every single penny -- just not the trainwreck called Obamacare, which President Obama has already defunded for his pals. The vast majority of the American people have told us over and over again: we want a waiver from Obamacare too, just like Congress got.

Call up your Representative and Senators now and tell them: we want a waiver too. Pass the House Continuing Resolution and delay Obamacare now.

STAR DRECK: EPA plans to shut down coal plants by requiring they use technology from the future that has yet to be invented

Mr. Peabody, does the Wayback Machine have a setting for the year 2030?

This past spring, EPA pulled its first attempt at a greenhouse gas emission standard for new power plants, fearing it was so draconian that it wouldn't stand up in a federal court...

The Washington Post reports that the agency is about to take a second stab at stacking the deck against new coal-fired power plants:

According to those familiar with the new EPA proposal, the agency will keep the carbon limit for large natural gas plants at 1,000 pounds but relax it slightly for smaller gas plants. The standard for coal plants will be as high as 1,300 or 1,400 pounds per megawatt hour.

However, the average coal plant emits 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, meaning new plants will need carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology--something that is a long way from being viable. Jeffrey Holmstead, who represents coal-fired power plant owners and is a former EPA official in the President George W. Bush administration, told the Post, “As a practical matter, this means that the new proposal will still stop any new coal-fired power plants for the foreseeable future.”

The International Energy Agency doesn't expect CCS technology to be routinely used by power generators until 2030. That’s years away. In the meantime, we need to continue improving the efficiency of current coal-fired technology and continue investing in CCS research instead of writing off an abundant and economical energy source.

The only campaign promise that President Obama appears to have kept with was his 2008 pledge to make "electricity prices necessarily skyrocket".

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, the price of electricity would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was... [t]hey will pass that money on to consumers." --Barack Obama, 1 November 2008

He can run, he can hide, he can evade, he can blame Bush and James Buchanan. But this is one campaign promise Barack Obama actually followed through with. And you. Ain't. Seen. Nothing. Yet.

IRS-GATE REIGNITES: Left-Wing Hit-Man Lois Lerner Indicted By Her Own Spiteful Words

That's not a typo. Yes, I said "hit-man". I mean, have you seen a picture of Lerner? That's a man, man.

Sorry, that's cruel, I know. But when these despicable hacks use their power and the instrumentalities of government to target political opposition, well, it's clear they are not real Americans. In fact, they despise the American form of government. They loathe free speech. And, most of all, they will use any scheme, no matter how unlawful, to retain their white-knuckled grip on power.

Congress's investigation into the IRS targeting of conservatives has been continuing out of the Syria headlines... [and the latest revelations] raise doubts about IRS claims that the targeting wasn't politically motivated and that low-level employees in Cincinnati masterminded the operation.

In a February 2011 email, Ms. Lerner advised her staff—including then Exempt Organizations Technical Manager Michael Seto and then Rulings and Agreements director Holly Paz—that a Tea Party matter is "very dangerous," and is something "Counsel and [Lerner adviser] Judy Kindell need to be in on." Ms. Lerner adds, "Cincy should probably NOT have these cases."

...Earlier this summer, IRS lawyer Carter Hull, who oversaw the review of many Tea Party cases and questionnaires, testified that his oversight began in April 2010. Tea party cases under review are "being supervised by Chip Hull at each step," Ms. Paz wrote to Ms. Lerner in a February 2011 email. "He reviews info from TPs, correspondence to TPs etc. No decisions are going out of Cincy until we go all the way through the process with the c3 and c4 cases here." TP stands for Tea Party, and she means 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups.

The emails also put the targeting in the context of the media and Congressional drumbeat over the impact of conservative campaign spending on the 2012 elections. On July 10, 2012 then Lerner-adviser Sharon Light emailed Ms. Lerner a National Public Radio story on how outside money was making it hard for Democrats to hold their Senate majority.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had complained to the Federal Election Commission that conservative groups like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity should be treated as political committees, rather than 501(c)(4)s, which are tax-exempt social welfare groups that do not have to disclose their donors.

"Perhaps the FEC will save the day," Ms. Lerner wrote back later that morning.

That response suggests Ms. Lerner's political leanings, and it also raises questions about Ms. Lerner's intentions in a separate email exchange she had when an FEC investigator inquired about the status of the conservative group the American Future Fund. The FEC and IRS don't have the authority to share that information under section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code...

Ms. Lerner famously invoked her right against self-incrimination rather than testify under oath to Congress. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported this summer that its investigation had found Ms. Lerner had sent official IRS documents to her personal email account, and many questions remain unanswered. Democrats want to pretend the IRS scandal is over, but Ms. Lerner's role deserves much more exposure.

Lerner is a disgrace. If we had effective leaders in the House, she'd be serving time in Leavenworth, knitting sweaters for "Big Wanda".


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

AWESOME: Colorado Voters Abort Democrat State Legislators Who Sided With Rapists Over Victims

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


Rights: Colorado voters on Tuesday ousted two leading supporters of stricter gun control laws, saying "ready, aim, fired" to those who would deny movie patrons and college women the right to armed self-defense.

One would think that Colorado, the site of the tragedies at Columbine and the Aurora movie theater, the purple state where President Obama accepted his first nomination amidst faux Greek columns, would be the least receptive of states for the arguments of Second Amendment defenders.

Colorado state Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron found out differently on Tuesday as they were ousted by gun rights advocates in a recall election.

Colorado voters were persuaded that the perils of an unarmed citizenry and the spread of gun-free zones place the public in greater peril at the hands of the unhinged and criminal predators in their midst, and perhaps perceived the common thread in such tragedies — the absence of people willing and able to shoot back.

The National Rifle Association, which donated about $360,000 to support the recalls, in particular hailed Morse's loss, telling the Denver Post it "is proud to have stood with the men and women in Colorado who sent a clear message that their Second Amendment rights are not for sale."

Some would suggest this just demonstrates the power of the gun lobby, but Sen. Lois Tochtrop, an Adams County Democrat and longtime Second Amendment activist, thinks it's just a natural reaction to an overreach by Democrats in messing with gun rights.

Tochtrop feels the recall election was a reaction to seven gun-control measures introduced in the session, including a proposal by Morse. His law would have assigned liability for assault-style weapon damages to manufacturers and sellers.

Morse killed it at the 11th hour because he didn't have the votes to pass it through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

"I feel like all these gun bills have done — to quote the last words in the movie 'Tora! Tora! Tora!' — is to awaken a sleeping giant," Tochtrop said during the debate.

The Colorado legislature was recently the forum for a debate on legislation calling for a ban on concealed-carry on campus — even though such bans elsewhere, such as Virginia Tech, turned those campuses into free-fire zones.

It was at these hearings on the bill that rape victim Amanda Collins testified and was lectured and belittled by condescending Democratic legislators.

Collins was raped at gunpoint in a University of Nevada-Reno parking garage in October 2007. Nevada law prohibited her from carrying a gun on the campus, but her attacker had one.

She was raped 50 feet away from the campus police department office. Her attacker was James Biela, a serial rapist who also raped two other women and murdered another.

He attacked her at gunpoint in a gun-free zone. At the time of the attack, Collins had a concealed weapons permit, but not her firearm, due to university policies prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on campus.

Just such a gun-free zone policy is why the Aurora, Colo., shooter carefully chose the theater he did. And unlike the mall in Clackamass, Ore., where a concealed-carry holder prevented a massacre, there was no one in Aurora to shoot back.

Colorado State Rep. Joe Salazar had pompously responded to Collins' story and advocacy of armed defense by saying, "It's why we have call boxes; it's why we have safe zones; it's why we have the whistles; because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at."

Amanda Collins knew, and as she ended her compelling testimony, she asked the committee, "How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?" Colorado voters asked that same question on Tuesday.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily

AFL-CIO Looks to Turn All of America Into Detroit

Guest post by Eric Boehm

One of the major themes to emerge from this week’s national conference of the AFL-CIO in Los Angeles is a push to expand union organizing beyond the traditional collective bargaining agreement and into every workplace.

And after some brief flirting, the AFL-CIO is ready to go steady with “workers centers,” which are popping up around the nation to help organize workers in the service sector. Members of the AFL-CIO, an umbrella group for dozens of labor unions, approved a resolution this week to establish a more formal connection between the union and the workers centers that it has, in many cases, helped to start.

“The labor movement cannot be confined within bargaining units defined by government agencies or limited to workplaces where a majority of employees votes “Yes” in the face of a ruthless campaign by their employer to deny them representation,” the resolution reads.

The union said it would seek to organize workers who are not in traditional collective bargaining agreements and would “mobilize these new members in electoral and other political efforts and in support of organizing drives and collective bargaining campaigns.”

To achieve that end, the AFL-CIO pledged to work more closely with “workers centers” and with foundations providing seed money to those centers.

In many cases, these workers centers have morphed into front groups for unions by using Occupy-style tactics and threats of lawsuits to make employers comply with their demands, despite the lack of a collective bargaining agreement.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, echoed the “big tent” message during his keynote remarks to the conference Monday night.

“All over America, workers are organizing in all kinds of ways, and they call their unity by all kinds of names — workers’ unions, associations, centers, networks,” he said.

As Watchdog.org previously reported, one of those centers – the Restaurant Opportunity Center, or ROC United, which was launched in New York City in 2001 – has been at the forefront of a recent wave of protests in major cities, attempting draw attention to low-wage restaurant workers.

BIG TENT: AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka says the labor movement should not be limited by official agreements between workers and employers.

Saru Jayaraman, co-founder of ROC-United, was a featured speaker at the AFL-CIO conference this week.

Previously, Trumka specifically praised the work of Jayaraman and ROC-United for organizing workers in New York and dozens of other cities.

It’s probably no surprise unions are looking to broaden their horizons. Union membership has been on the decline nationally for a few decades, particularly in the private sector.

“If I were within that organization, I would probably be trying to do the exactly what they are doing,” said Jade West, senior vice president for the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors.

West said the unions’ declining influence has little effect on the daily lives of most employers, but the rise of workers centers and their organizing tactics is a real threat to workers and businesses.

In 2012, about 7 million private-sector workers were members of a labor union, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor. That’s half of the 14 million private-sector labor union members in 1980.

Growth in public sector unions — they now account for more than 50 percent of all union membership, up from just 28 percent in 1980 — has helped the labor movement continue its powerful influence in politics, but it has also changed how the movement works.

Instead of fighting for weekends, better working conditions and a decent wage for industrious, blue-collar workers, unions today are more likely to be defending the right of a 50-year-old white-collar worker to retire early with full pension benefits until death.

In 2009, public-sector unions outnumbered their private-sector counterparts for the first time ever.

The move toward workers centers and other low-pay, long-hours, service-sector employees brings unions back toward their original purpose. Plus, it comes with the added benefit of more workers to mobilize in electoral efforts, as the AFL-CIO indicated in its resolution.

West said many workers are no longer looking for a 25-year job with a single company that ends with a gold watch and a pension, leaving unions to scramble for a new generation of members.

“They have almost become an anachronism,” said West. I don’t think the workforce really sees the need for a union.”

 
Boehm is a reporter for Watchdog.org and can be reached at Eric@PAIndependent.com. Follow @EricBoehm87 on Twitter for more.
 

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? One Year Later, the Families of the Benghazi Dead and Wounded Want Answers

Guest post by Investors Business Daily


Scandal: As cruise missiles are readied to aid Syria's al-Qaida-linked rebels, the president has yet to keep a promise to avenge the Benghazi dead and bring the killers to justice.

A year has passed since Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Ty Woods were murdered in a Sept. 11 terrorist attack on our diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

A month later, Obama said of the attack that "my biggest priority now is bringing those folks to justice, and I think the American people have seen that's a commitment I'll always keep."

That depends on what he means by "bringing them to justice." It's not like we don't know who they are or we have failed to finger the suspects. As an Associated Press report detailed in May:

"The U.S. has identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year, and has enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists, officials say. But there isn't enough proof to try them in a U.S. civilian court as the Obama administration prefers."

So we essentially do nothing while the FBI "continues to investigate." The status of that investigation came up over the weekend as "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace invoked the approaching first anniversary of the attack and asked White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough why the perpetrators hadn't been brought to justice.

Wallace was especially interested in why the U.S. had not brought in Ahmed abu Khattala, who has been charged with the crime but not arrested, despite having given interviews to several news outlets.

"Why is it that reporters seem to be able to find this guy, who the government is charging with involvement in Benghazi, but law enforcement can't find him?" Wallace asked. "It's been a year, sir."

"The United States government does what it says, and we will do what we say in this instance, as we do in every other instance," McDonough said as he tap-danced in response to Wallace's repeated queries as to why the AP can find him, the New York Times can find him, but the U.S. government can't.

At an Aug. 9 press conference, Fox News correspondent Ed Henry reminded the president of his words last year about getting the Benghazi perpetrators. "Eleven months later, where are they, sir?" Henry asked in a question that did not sit well with the commander in chief.

"I also said that we'd get bin Laden, and I didn't get him in 11 months," was Obama's testy response. "So we have informed, I think, the public that there is a sealed indictment. It's sealed for a reason, but we are intent on capturing those who carried out this attack."

By the way, Mr. President, you didn't build that mission. Bin Laden was killed while you were president, not because you were president.

Bin Laden was indicted once, too. But in the end, it was a team of Navy SEALs not intent on reading him his Miranda rights that killed him in a daring raid on his compound in Pakistan. They locked and loaded and left the search warrants behind. It was a mission aided by the very "enhanced interrogation techniques" that President Obama despises.

The president wanted to try Khalid Sheik Muhammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attack on New York City and Washington, D.C., who still enjoys free room and board courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer, in a civil court just blocks from Ground Zero. He wants to try the Benghazi terrorists in civil court as well, instead of just going and grabbing them and bringing them to justice as promised.

Meanwhile, the deaths of Stevens, Doherty, Smith and Woods have not been avenged. Justice has been delayed and therefore denied. Maybe in President Obama's mind he's thinking, "What difference does it make now?"


Read More At Investor's Business Daily

Warning - Obamacare May Be Hazardous to Your Health: Heritage Unveils Massive Times Square Billboard

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is the single most important legislative research and educational institution in the world. And it is doing yeoman's work educating Americans on the unfolding catastrophe called "Obamacare".

We’ve talked a lot about Obamacare’s costs—how it will hurt the economy, kill jobs, and cost you and your family more when you pay for health care.

But there’s an even more important cost: your health.

Obamacare will affect the quality of care in this country. It will limit the choices we have in doctors, hospitals, and treatments. People are already learning that their trusted doctors aren’t going to be available to them in the new insurance plans Obamacare is forcing them into.

And disrupting your relationship with your doctor is not how health care reform should be.

...Our new billboard in the heart of New York City will be installed this week to get people thinking and to raise awareness about the need to stop Obamacare.

Why? Because we don’t want to see people lose their health coverage—and the doctors they trust.

We don’t want to see access to treatments and procedures determined by government boards, putting bureaucrats between doctors and patients.

We don’t want to see seniors’ care suffer because of Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare.

We don’t want to see millions of Americans dumped into Medicaid—because it is not quality health care... We can’t stand by and watch these threats to our health and our families’ health go unchallenged. We must stop Obamacare.

We need to defund Obamacare so that we can start over on health care reform, with a blank slate, with solutions that leave health care decisions firmly in the hands of individuals and their doctors.

Contract your House Representative now and demand they de-fund Obamacare. The Framers gave the House the power of the purse for a reason: to check and balance an out-of-control Executive Branch.

And that's precisely what we have today. Call your representative now. The clock is ticking on our health care system and lives hang -- quite literally -- in the balance.


Related: HEALTH CARE INSIDER: Obamacare Has Two Fatal Flaws Designed to Kill Health Insurers, Bring About Single-Payer.

"TASTES LIKE VOMIT": Michelle Obama Says Her Anti-Obesity Program is Wildly Successful, But Schools Nationwide Have Kicked It to the Curb

Yea! Three cheers for FLOTUS! Her 'healthy eating' program has saved the country from obesity!

Michelle Obama credited her anti-obesity program with bringing about a “cultural shift” in the way Americans eat.

“Make no mistake about it. We are changing the conversation in this country. We are creating a cultural shift on how we live and eat. And our efforts are having an impact on our children’s lives.”

The first lady touted the success of her Let’s Move anti-obesity program during a visit on Friday to Orr Elementary School in Washington, D.C.

Yet even CBS News reports that school districts throughout the country -- including California -- have abandoned Michelle's "healthy eating" program.

The Laguna Beach Unified School District, in Southern California, is the latest district to rebel against the federal healthy lunch program -- a cornerstone of first lady Michelle Obama's campaign against childhood obesity. The school district announced Tuesday night that it will revise its lunch menus.

The USDA (which administers the program) says growing pains are to be expected, but the complaints from school officials are getting louder; they say kids aren't eating the vegetables and low-fat choices and end up too hungry to learn. And they're saying they're losing money from throwing out all the uneaten food.

The new lunch rules, some districts say, are just unpalatable. Grumblings came from school boards in California to Illinois, Indiana and New York.

In Kentucky, one official said students thought the healthy fare "tastes like vomit."

In fact, things are going so great for Michelle's health eating program that schools in 19 states are measuring kids' BMI for obesity:

...schools in 19 states have started to conduct annual weigh-ins of students that test for their body mass index, the primary measurement used to determine if someone is overweight or obese, and then sending students home with reports – or “fat letters” – of the results.

“We look at growth charts and percentiles. And when a child is at 95 percent of their…we can look at weight for age or weight for height…that child would be considered obese,” Lauren Schmitt, a registered dietitian in California who measures the weight of hundreds of preschoolers in the San Fernando Valley, told CBS Los Angeles.

She added that out of the 900 pre-schoolers she looks at annually, roughly 200 are considered obese.

Success! Only one in four kids are obese!

Oh, and I forgot: the economy is so great a whopping one-sixth of the nation is on food stamps, and we know those are all used for the healthiest food choices imaginable.

Were they not in power, these Leftists would be employable only as comic relief.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

HEALTH CARE INSIDER: Obamacare Has Two Fatal Flaws Designed to Kill Health Insurers, Bring About Single-Payer

Guest post by Tyrion


I was fortunate enough to have a conversation today with one of the country's foremost insurance product experts. She is responsible for the actuarial analysis and design of life and health care products.

She was commiserating about the difficulty of working with state exchanges: in her opinion, it is virtually impossible to find out which companies are going to offer products in the state exchanges.

Remember, enrollment starts on October 1st, so this is a crucial problem for the exchanges. The vast majority of states won't disclose which carriers will participate or, crucially, whether any carriers have even elected to join.

And which consumers are supposed to participate in the state-run exchanges? The intent is to provide affordable coverage for those who are uninsured or for employees who don't receive health insurance through their employer.

Fatal Flaw 1 - When Underwriters are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Underwriting

The first fatal problem with the exchanges, according to this expert, is that the population entering the exchanges is likely to have increased morbidity (higher risk for disease). Her contention is that due to the economic strata of those who use the state exchanges, many health insurers will avoid entering those risk pools.

In other words, since the insurers are forbidden from underwriting (i.e., the backbone of insurance), they will avoid the state exchanges to decrease their risks.

It is therefore likely that the exchanges in many states will be stillborn, with very few insurers participating.

Fatal Flaw 2 - Health Insurance Is Not the Same as Getting Treated

The other problem with the state exchanges, she said, is that people will assume that health insurance is the same as getting treated for health problems.

What if, she asked, you buy a Bronze policy from a small insurer in your state, and find out their network of providers is exceptionally small? You want to see a specialist for a bad knee and you're told you'll need to wait six months?

This is precisely what happens in Canada and the U.K. The expert says that those health care systems do a fine job with the easy, basic tasks of medical care, but specialties must be rationed because central planning can never work as efficiently as a market-based system.

She believes a significant percentage of the population will be outraged when they see firsthand how little treatment they are able to get from the exchanges.

Executive Summary: Obamacare is an Untenable Ruse Designed to Lead to Single-Payer

By removing competition, by designing products for insurers, by prohibiting underwriting, by instituting price controls (e.g., mandated medical loss ratios), she believes that the health care industry as it stands today is doomed.

Obamacare isn't going to collapse, in her opinion, it's going to destroy the health insurance industry and transfer even more control to the federal leviathan. Obamacare is a ruse designed to collapse private insurance.

Scared yet? You should be.

Contract your House Representative now and demand they de-fund Obamacare. The Framers gave the House the power of the purse for a reason: to check and balance an out-of-control Executive Branch.

And that's precisely what we have today. Call your representative now. The clock is ticking on our health care system and lives hang -- literally -- in the balance.


Cartoon: A.F. Branco at CDN.

No Wonder the EPA is Illegally Hiding Its Temperature Data

If the radical Leftists controlling the Democrat Party had even an iota of evidence suggesting the validity of global warming, they would be clamoring to make public its data. Instead, they are unlawfully concealing the data, violating Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests and other demands.

It would seem to be common sense for the data used in a study that guides public policy and the writing of federal regulations to be publicly available. That’s not the case when it comes to EPA and air pollution data.

As J.R. Reed explained on Free Enterprise in July:

During their pursuit of regulations that would cost businesses billions of dollars, EPA officials have refused to reveal the data used to support these proposals – not to White House officials, not to Congress, not to leading environmental experts, and not to the American people. The data sets have not been analyzed by independent scientists or gone through a peer-review process, and, yet, these findings are being used to justify onerous regulations.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Science Committee, sent six letters to EPA asking for the data. In 2011, current EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy promised to do so, but never delivered it. Rep. Smith subpoenaed the agency on August 1.

ScienceInsider reports that EPA continues refusing to turn over the requested data so, Rep. Smith found EPA in default:

“You did not provide the Committee with anything new,” Smith wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. Instead, Smith wrote, the agency responded to his 1 August subpoena by providing “a file of already public information along with a letter outlining excuses for why EPA did not comply.”

In a statement, Rep. Smith explained,

EPA is using the subpoenaed data to support regulations that could cost the American people trillions of dollars. Yet the agency has refused to make the data available to Congress or the American people. Regulations based on secret data have no place in a democracy.

Ah, there's your mistake, Rep. Smith. We no longer live in a Constitutional republic, the kind in which a virtuous government does its best to hew to the letter of the law. Instead we have an out-of-control administration, with officials laced throughout the bureaucracy defying the courts and Congress.

As for "global warming"? Even the United Nations has been forced to confess the Earth is cooling.

Well, this is awkward. A leaked report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that the world is not warming but actually cooling, and will continue to get colder until the middle of the century.

You remember the IPCC, right? It’s the group whose 2007 report on global warming said that snow would disappear from everywhere but the highest mountains, icebergs would melt, sea levels would rise, deserts would spread, people would die in heat waves and pretty much the earth was going to end if we didn’t immediately destroy our carbon-fueled economy with job-killing government regulations.

Well, that’s not happening. In fact, the Arctic ice cap has grown by 60 percent since 2012.

Thanks to the IPCC’s original predictions, billions of dollars were spent on supposed green measures to curb global warming ... Now, either those measures really, really paid off, or the skeptics were right all along.

There are only three reasonable ways to explain a "belief" in global warming. In order of increasing malevolence, they are hubris, greed, and Marxism. And they are not mutually exclusive; see exhibit A: Al Gore.


Related: Global Warming Comics -- The Fraudulent And The Immoral. Hat tip: Weasel Zippers.

'This Week' Transcript: Benghazi Whistleblower Gregory Hicks

On ABC's This Week earlier today, former Clinton apparatchik-turned-journalist George Stephanopoulos interviewed Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks -- the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya -- as the anniversary of the deadly attack nears.

And we still can't find out what the President what was doing for nine hours as Americans fought, bled and died.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We're talking about people being killed by gas and you want to go talk about Benghazi.

REPRESENTATIVE JEFF DAVIS: Absolutely want to talk about Benghazi. Four Americans lost their lives.

SECRETARY KERRY: We don't deserve to drag this into yet another Benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the Congress is going to stand up for international norms.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: One year later as you can see, the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is still a political football. But for the Americans there on the ground it was a story of heartbreak and the struggle to survive. Greg Hicks was the Diplomat in Charge that night. The only officer who has spoken out about that harrowing night. This dramatic account is an ABC News exclusive.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREGORY HICKS, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION IN LIBYA: I've been perplexed and frustrated with the way this has all played out. Because to me this is a simple story. Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi to do his job. To what he knew Secretary Clinton wanted him to do. And he was attacked while he was there.

And the American staff in Benghazi and in Tripoli responded as we've been trained to do, in an amazing way, to save the lives of our people who were in Benghazi. Unfortunately we lost four people in the line of duty.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's take a look back at the events of that night. You're home in Tripoli--

HICKS: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That evening at around what, 9:45?

HICKS: It's at 9:45 Tripoli time, right, 3:45 Washington time. Our regional security officer comes running into the house where I was and yells, Greg! Greg! The consulate's under attack! And I immediately look at my telephone and I see a missed call. I call back on that number, I get the Ambassador.

And the Ambassador says Greg we're under attack.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Chris Stevens.

HICKS: Chris Stevens. And I say, OK and the line is cut.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That's it.

HICKS: And that's all.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We are under attack.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You knew there were a lot of bad, a lot of bad guys in country.

HICKS: We knew that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were also worried about the overall security situation and the amount of protection both the Embassy and the Consulate had.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And the Ambassador had been concerned about that?

HICKS: He had been concerned. He had sent in a cable in July requesting that our security personnel situation not change.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You had a special security team in place.

HICKS: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Then it was reassigned.

HICKS: Exactly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: On the night of the attack, there were five diplomatic security agents with Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. There are at least 20 hostile attackers in the compound.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Months earlier the State Department had forged an agreement that in the event of an attack on the vulnerable Benghazi Mission, Security personnel would response from a nearby facility called The Annex, run by the CIA.

I know that you can't say so, but we know it was a CIA facility, and we know that the CIA facility was getting protection and more security than the diplomatic facility.

HICKS: The numbers are clear about twice as many in terms of trained security providers.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What did you tell Washington?

HICKS: I called Washington right after I talked to the Annex Chief and I told them that the consulate was under attack. That the--

STEPHANOPOULOS: You used the word attack?

HICKS: I did use the word attack. That there were at least 20 armed intruders in the compound and that help was on the way from the Annex.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Had you heard anything earlier in the day about any kind of protest or were you worried at all because of these reports of this video?

HICKS: No it was a non-event, the video, in Libya. And we had heard nothing about protests. The building had been set on fire by the attackers and our Diplomatic Security Agents there were heavily outnumbered.

STEPHANOPOULOS: About an hour after the attack began, the heavily armed CIA Team arrives at the mission.

HICKS: They began trying to find the Ambassador and Sean Smith who were unable to get out of the burning building. After tremendous efforts and exposing themselves to serious harm, they did find Sean and pulled him out. Unfortunately he was already dead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So while all this is happening, what are you saying to Washington?

HICKS: I'm reporting it back to Washington every 15 or 20 minutes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: State Department?

HICKS: State Department Operations Center. Exactly. By this time there's a second wave of attackers and looters coming to the Compound. Many, many poor people than--

STEPHANOPOULOS: Dozens?

HICKS: Yeah dozens. Perhaps hundreds. There's no way that 10 or 11 guys who were there can hold that off. So the decision is made to evacuate. They have to ram their way out of the compound. They are immediately brought under fire including heavy machine gun fire.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The entire group now heads back to the Annex but they have not found Ambassador Stevens.

HICKS: When they get back to the Annex they come under attack there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So at this point, this is ongoing battle. Did you ask for reinforcements?

HICKS: I had already spoken to the defense attache. I asked what help is coming? And he said there's some fighters in Aviano but it's going to be 2 or 3 hours before they could make an appearance. It was clear it was going to be a long time before any help came. So I made sure that people knew that they were going to have to hold out for as long as they could.

STEPHANOPOULOS: As the battle aged at the CIA Annex, a crowd overruns the now abandoned Mission. Some Libyans locate Ambassador Stevens, clinging to life, and rush him to a local hospital.

Meantime a team of reinforcements from Tripoli, military and CIA security has arrived at the Benghazi airport.

HICKS: About 3am, 9pm Washington, they get the call from the Prime Minister than Ambassador Stevens is dead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What did he tell you?

HICKS: He just says, I'm very sorry Greg to tell you this, but our friend Chris has passed on. I think those were his words. There was deep remorse in his voice when he said it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you?

HICKS: For me it, I think it's the saddest moment in my career honestly.

STEPHANOPOULOS: With the news of Stevens' death, the security team from Tripoli heads to the Annex.

HICKS: And soon after they get there the attack on the Annex is renewed. And then the mortars come in. Those are the rounds that killed Ty and Glen.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Since this has all happened we've seen all of the top Pentagon officials at the time, all the top Military officials said there was just no way to respond in time. Military assets could not get there.

HICKS: I don't know exactly what was available. I still don't quite understand why they couldn't fly aircraft over to Benghazi. When I was a kid I grew up watching Western movies. And you know the Calvary always came. I just thought that they would come.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've had, you know, quite a journey yourself in this last year. Deciding to speak to Congress.

HICKS: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Back in May. Since then it appears you've been in something of career limbo inside the State Department.

HICKS: That's correct. That's true.

STEPHANOPOULOS: State Department this was an assignment you requested, you're getting the same pay as before. But do you feel you're being punished for speaking out?

HICKS: Yes I feel that I have been punished. I don't know why I was punished. I don't know why I was shunted aside. Put in a closet if you will.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the State Department know you're speaking out now?

HICKS: No. They don't know I'm here with you.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Then why talk?

HICKS: Because the American people need to have the story. And Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods and Glen Dohery's names are names that should be remembered by every American for the sacrifice that they made.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Could those four American heroes have been saved?

HICKS: Sadly, I think that Ambassador Stephens and Sean Smith maybe not. Ty and Glen of course were killed in the mortar attack that took place eight hours after the initial attack. It's possible they could have been saved, I think.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And what's the best way we can honor the memory of the four diplomats and security professionals who lost their lives that night?

HICKS: We can't forget them. And we need to make sure that those people who are going out into the world on our behalf have the tools that they need and the resources they need to do the job that they've been asked to do for the people of the United States.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Greg Hicks right there. In response to his contention that he's been punished, the State Department has sent us this statement which reads in part, "The State Department has not punished Mr. Hicks in any way. We appreciate his exemplary service on the evening of September 11th. His departure from Libya was entirely unrelated to any statements he may have made relating to the attack in Benghazi, and we are working with him on his next permanent assignment."


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

WAPO: Obama Lied to American People, Had Bush-Era Restrictions on NSA Surveillance of Americans Lifted in 2011

Only a few short weeks ago, President Barack Obama spoke to the American people and said, essentially, that the government's surveillance of Americans' phone records and emails were targeted and had been "ongoing for years".

On the heels of a series of reports detailing the U.S. government's practice of tracking private citizens' phone and internet use, President Obama on Friday sought to downplay the invasiveness of the procedure, assuring a California audience that "nobody is listening to your phone calls," and that any data tracking is governed by comprehensive oversight spanning all three branches of U.S. government...

...But he reminded Americans that these programs have been ongoing for years, and that Congress regularly reauthorizes the programs and receives updates on how they are conducted.

The Washington Post reports today, however, that both assertions appear to be bald-faced lies.

The Obama administration secretly won permission from a surveillance court in 2011 to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and e-mails, permitting the agency to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases...

...the court in 2008 imposed an explicit ban — at the [Bush administration]’s request — on ... searches [of U.S. communications], that officials in 2011 got the court to lift the bar and that the search authority has been used.

Together the permission to search and to keep data longer expanded the NSA’s authority in significant ways without public debate or any specific authority from Congress...

...Officials would not say how many searches have been conducted.

...The court’s expansion of authority went largely unnoticed when the opinion was released, but it formed the basis for cryptic warnings last year by a pair of Democratic senators, Ron Wyden (Ore.) and Mark Udall (Colo.), that the administration had a “back-door search loophole” that enabled the NSA to scour intercepted communications for those of Americans.

The Constitution's Bill of Rights has a Fourth Amendment for a reason.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Americans of all party affiliations should reject this administration's lawless behavior, its unconstitutional maneuvers and all of its many, attendant lies.


Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.

When it comes to obscenity, Eric Holder trumps Miley Cyrus

Guest post by Larry Sand

When it comes to obscenity, cheating kids out of a good education is far worse than a salacious dance act.

While it is a sad spectacle to watch a gawky 20 year-old stick out her tongue and sex it up in front of millions on national television, the 62 year-old U.S. Attorney General’s act is far worse, as his will do much more lasting harm. He waves his magic wand and poof – thousands of poor children are chained to the confines of failing schools in Louisiana.

Miley Cyrus would appear to be a lost puppy whose father claimed in 2011 that she was influenced by Satan. On the other hand, Eric Holder would seem to be under the spell of the teachers unions and the overrated god of diversity.

The Holder story has its roots in May when the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that:

the current method of funding the statewide school voucher program is unconstitutional. Act 2, part of Gov. Bobby Jindal‘s 2012 package of education reforms, diverts money from each student’s per-pupil allocation to cover the cost of private or parochial school tuition. The act authorizes both the Louisiana Scholarship Program and the new Course Choice program.

In other words, the voucher program is sound, but the court thought its funding mechanism wasn’t constitutional. So on June 6^th, the Louisiana House and Senate compromised on a budget that allowed the program to use funds not allocated through the state’s funding formula.

Problem solved, right?

Not quite.

Later in June, the teachers unions – School Choice Enemy No. 1 – promptly swung into action.

The Louisiana Association of Educators and several local teachers associations have filed a class-action suit charging that the state owes local school boards $199 million as a result of the Louisiana Supreme Court decision striking down part of the state’s voucher law.

Okay, so we are still dealing with funding issues, not the legality of vouchers.

But then in August, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder dropped the bomb and The Wall Street Journal pointed out its stunning irony,

On nearly the same day the Attorney General spoke in Washington to honor the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech, his Justice Department sued to block the educational dreams of minority children in Louisiana.

Late last week, Justice asked a federal court to stop 34 school districts in the Pelican State from handing out private-school vouchers so kids can escape failing public schools. Mr. Holder’s lawyers claim the voucher program appears “to impede the desegregation progress” required under federal law. Justice provides little evidence to support this claim, but there couldn’t be a clearer expression of how the civil-rights establishment is locked in a 1950s time warp.

Passed in 2012, Louisiana’s state-wide program guarantees a voucher to students from families with incomes below 250% of poverty and who attend schools graded C or below. The point is to let kids escape the segregation of failed schools, and about 90% of the beneficiaries are black. (Emphasis added.)

Impeding desegregation? On what grounds does the Justice Department make this claim? Cato’s Jason Bedrick explains,

In Tangipahoa Parish, for instance, Independence Elementary School lost five white students to voucher schools, the petition states. The consequent change in the percent of enrolled white students “reinforc(ed) the racial identity of the school as a black school.”

Five students! According to the National Center for Education Statistics, there were 143 white students out of 482 students at Independence Elementary School in 2010-11 (the most recent year for which data is available). Assuming that recent enrollment and racial composition is the same and that no black students received vouchers as well, that’s a shift from 29.6 percent white to 28.9 percent white. Though the students at Independence almost certainly would not have noticed a difference, the racial bean counters at the DOJ see worsening segregation.

But the DOJ is not content merely to prevent white students from exercising school choice. The petition also cites Cecilia Primary School, which in 2012-13 “lost six black students as a result of the voucher program,” thereby “reinforcing the school’s racial identity as a white school in a predominantly black school district.” In the previous school year, the school’s racial composition was 30.1 percent black, which the DOJ notes was 16.4 percentage points lower than the black composition of the district as a whole. According to the NCES, in 2010-11 there were 205 black students out of a total enrollment of 758, so the school was 27 percent black. Assuming a constant total enrollment, the DOJ’s numbers suggest that there were 228 black students in 2011-12. The loss of six black students would mean the school’s racial composition shifted from 30.1 percent black to 29.2 percent black as a result of the voucher program. Again, imperceptible to untrained eye but a grave threat to racial harmony according to the Obama administration’s Department of Justice.

These are the only two schools cited directly in the DOJ’s petition, so presumably they represent the two cases with the largest impact. A footnote reveals that “The net loss ranged up to thirteen students per school.”

Why is Holder doing this obscene dance?

Is he so smitten with the concept of diversity that he is letting it take precedent over the needs of poor kids in failing schools? Could be, but then again, as noted above, the voucher-driven diversity realignment is miniscule. Or, is he doing the bidding of the teachers unions who are powerful political allies? Maybe both. But whatever the motivation, the lawsuit stinks, and the harm it will inflict on mostly underprivileged, minority children is tragic.

What Holder and his ilk don’t seem to understand is that most parents are not stricken with the diversity obsession, and simply want the best education possible for their kids. If you ask any parent of any ethnicity if they rather their kid get a first class education at single-ethnicity school or a mediocre-to-lousy one at a rainbow-school, we all know what the answer would be.

Louisiana’s gutsy governor Bobby Jindal put it all into perspective in an interview with Neil Cavuto,

My parents came here over 40 years ago in search of the American dream, confident if you worked hard, it didn’t matter what race you were, didn’t matter who you knew. That’s what we’re trying to deliver for our kids. And that’s why it’s just ridiculous to me that the Obama administration would side with teachers unions over these young children.

Cavuto then asked Jindal if he thought that the teachers unions were pushing the issue because vouchers endanger their jobs. Jindal responded,

Oh, absolutely. Look, they tried, they tried to take us all the way up to the state Supreme Court to stop this program. The teachers unions did. The program is still here. They tried recalling our speaker of the House and me and some others. And we’re still here. The reality is, teachers unions, when we started this statewide, said that parents don’t have a clue when it comes to making choices for their kids. (Emphasis added.)

That’s their world viewpoint. These government unions think the bureaucrats know better. I have met with the moms. And, Neil, it would break your heart that they’re working multiple jobs. They want their kids to have a better quality of life than they have had. They’re trying to do the right thing. They’re telling me this is the first time my kid is bringing home homework, my kid is going to school with discipline. My kids are talking about for the first time thinking about going to college, the first one in our families to graduate from high school. They’re talking about becoming the first ones.

As we all know, Martin Luther King concluded his famous speech 50 years ago with the inspirational words, “Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.” But if Mr. Holder and the teachers unions get their way, a bunch of school kids and their families in Louisiana will remain shackled to their failing schools, guaranteeing that their shot at achieving the American dream and true freedom will be next to impossible. Dr. King would be outraged.

 

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues.

A Letter from a Republican to Hispanics

Guest post by Dennis Prager


I am writing to you as a concerned and sympathetic American who is a Republican. My sentiments do not represent every American -- that would be impossible. But I believe the following represent most Americans.

First, a message to those of you here illegally:

You may be very surprised to hear this, but in your position, millions of Americans, including me, would have done what you did.

If I lived in a poor country with a largely corrupt government, a country in which I had little or no prospect of hope for an improved life for me or my children, and I could not legally get into the world's freest, most affluent country, the country with the most opportunities for people of any and every background, I would do whatever I could do to get into that country illegally.
Mexico and many other Central and South American countries are largely hopeless places for most of their people. America offers hope to everyone willing to work hard. Who could not understand why any individual, let alone a father or mother of a family, would try to get into the United States -- legally preferably, illegally if necessary?

Now that I have made it clear that millions of us understand what motivates you and do not morally condemn you for entering America illegally, I have to ask you to try to understand what motivates us.

No country in the world can allow unlimited immigration. If America opened its borders to all those who wish to live here, hundreds of millions of people would come here. That would, of course, mean the end of the United States economically and culturally.

If you are from Mexico, you know that Mexico's treatment of illegal immigrants from south of its border is far harsher than my country's is of illegal immigrants. All it takes is common sense to understand that we simply cannot afford to take care of all of you in our medical, educational, penal and other institutions. However much you may pay in sales tax, most illegal immigrants are a financial and social burden in those states to which most them move.

Yes, many of you are also a blessing. Many of you take care of our children and our homes. Others of you prepare our food and do other work that is essential to our society. We know that. As individuals, the great majority of you are hardworking, responsible, decent people.

But none of that answers the question: How many people can this country allow into it?

The moment you have to answer that question is the moment you realize that Americans' worries about illegal immigration have nothing to do with "racism" or any negative feeling toward Hispanics.

Those who tell you it is racism or xenophobia are lying about their fellow Americans for political or ideological reasons. You know from your daily interactions with Americans that the vast majority of us treat you with the dignity that every fellow human being deserves. Your daily lives are the most eloquent refutation of the charges of racism and bigotry. The charge is a terrible lie. Please don't believe it. You know it is not true.

Democrats will act as your defenders by telling you that opposition to your presence here is race-based. There is no truth to that. As you probably know in your hearts, you have come to the least racist place on earth. The vast majority of us could not care less if your name is Gonzalez or Jones. That's why the chances are 50-50 that the child of Hispanic immigrants will end up marrying a non-Hispanic American.

One more thing: Many of you desire to return to your homelands. This is understandable, as many of you did not come here in order to become American but in order to earn the money that would allow you to afford to return home and lead a better life there. But as understandable as that is on an individual level, you must understand that that having millions of people in our midst who feel no bond to our country and who do not want to become one of us is a serious problem. You would feel the same about people who came to your countries to make money and use your country's medical, social, educational and other services paid for by the people of your country.

It is also a moral problem. There are countless people around the world who wish to come to America in order to become Americans, not just to earn money here. Many of you are taking their places. That is not fair to them or to America.

So, the truth is, in fact, simple: If you were an American, you would want to stop illegal immigration, and if most of us were you, we would do what you did to get into America. Neither of us is bad. You care about your family. We care about our country.
Now, a note to those of you who are here legally and to those of you who are American citizens.

First, while many of you understandably sympathize with the plight of fellow Latinos who are here illegally, you surely must understand that America cannot afford unlimited illegal immigration. This may well create a tension between your mind and your heart, and between your ethnic heritage and your allegiance to America.

If it does, your fellow Americans ask that you be guided by your mind (and we, believe, conscience) and by your concern for America. If anyone knows how extraordinarily welcoming America has been to Latinos -- from Mexico to Cuba to South America -- it is you. For your sake as well as America's, please do not succumb to the politics of victimization that are used solely and cynically to get your support for the Democrat Party.

Finally, and most important, by voting for Democratic Party candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled. Take the Mexican example. The Democratic Party is, in most important ways, an American version of the PRI. For 70 years, the PRI governed Mexico and brought its economy to its knees because of vast government spending, the squashing of individual initiative, a bloated bureaucracy, unsustainable debt and the subsequent devaluing of the Mexican peso.
Why, for God's sake, would you want to see that replicated in America? The very reason America has been so prosperous and so free -- the very reasons you or your ancestors, like almost every other American's ancestors, came here -- is that America has had more limited government and therefore more liberty than any other country in the world. The Republican Party represents all that you or your parents came to America for -- and why you left Mexico and other countries: individual opportunity and individual responsibility. It is also the party that represents your social values.

Admittedly, the Democratic Party appeals to your emotions. But a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote to make America like the Mexico of the PRI. And a vote for the Democratic Party is a vote to undo the great American achievement of uniting the children of immigrants from all over the world as Americans.


Visit the Dennis Prager Show website for more information

In a single paragraph, a commenter destroys the National Journal's Matthew Cooper and his 'no voting fraud' fantasies

Writing at the hard left National Journal, someone named "Matthew Cooper" (if that is his real name), proffers the insane notion that vote fraud really isn't a concern in the U.S.

...voter-ID laws generally represent an answer in search of a problem. There just isn't much evidence of voter fraud...

...Civil-rights groups have been apoplectic about these laws, saying that they are discriminatory. And they would seem to have a pretty good case, as there's no fraud epidemic and those who would have the hardest time complying with the law are poor and minorities. That's because minorities and the poor are much less likely to have the kind of government-issued photo IDs that some states require...

Commenter Raphael Semmes shreds Cooper's nonsense:

This article makes me lose respect for your publication. Most democracies in the world require a photo voter ID, and it is part and parcel of democracy. I have personally been an accredited international election observers in six foreign elections where the country had long required photo ID to vote. There was no suggestion at any time from ANY side that this produced any ''vote suppression'' whatsoever. What it produced was an honest vote. Republicans are quite right to protect our election process, and Democrats are scoundrels to demagogue this issue. I have also worked in an election campaign, in the 4th district of North Carolina in 1972, where the election was stolen by voter fraud, so I get the fact that this is a problem that needs to be corrected.

It would seem Cooper missed the story about the "Mississippi NAACP leader sent to prison for 10 counts of voter fraud."

And the fact that more than 50 people employed by or linked with ACORN have been convicted of voter fraud.

During the 2008 election cycle alone, ACORN was linked to as many as 600,000 bogus voter registrations. Combined with their tactics of encouraging early voting and use of absentee ballots, it is an indisputable fact that ACORN was and is responsible for widespread election fraud.

17 seconds using Google would have allowed an honest journalist to investigate vote fraud (the elections of JFK and LBJ being archetypes of Democrat vote fraud).

But because this is National Journal -- and some hack named "Matthew Cooper" -- we're talking about, any connection to the truth is purely coincidental.


Related: If you read the list of things you need an ID to do, you would -- if you had an ounce of intellectual honesty -- admit that the entire bogus voter ID controversy is about one thing: the Democrats' insatiable desire to destroy the integrity of the ballot box.

Mexican Border Town's Black-Clad, Blonde Vigilante Said to be Avenging Brutal Deaths of Innocent Women

At The Los Angeles Times, Tracy Wilkinson and Cecilia Sanchez report:

Like a character from a graphic novel, she dresses in black, has unusually blond hair — and kills bus drivers who sexually assault women.

In a place like Ciudad Juarez, known for its years of brutal killings of women, the story has inexorable appeal. But how much of it is true?

Authorities are taking the reports seriously enough to investigate and have posted undercover cops on buses. Women’s advocates say they wouldn’t be surprised if someone finally had taken long-denied justice into her own hands.

Two bus drivers were slain in the last week, and over the weekend an electronic message claiming responsibility was sent to several news outlets.

“You think because we are women we are weak, and maybe we are,” the message says. “But only to a certain point.... We can no longer remain quiet over these acts that fill us with rage.

“And so, I am an instrument who will take vengeance.”

Signed: Diana, Huntress of Bus Drivers.

The message says women who work the night shifts in Juarez’s enormous maquiladora industry repeatedly fall prey to the bus drivers on whom they must rely to get home in the dark.

For now, at least, there is no way to verify the veracity of the message, whether it was written by the actual killer or killers of the bus drivers, whether Diana the Huntress really exists, or even whether she is a she.

What is clear is that for the last two decades, hundreds of women, many of them maquiladora workers, have been killed or have gone missing in Ciudad Juarez. Some disappeared after boarding buses, their raped and tortured bodies later found dumped in the desert. Few of the cases are ever resolved, and families have endlessly protested the lack of justice for their daughters, sisters and mothers...

Human rights activists in the region said that police appeared to be investigating the avenger much more diligently than the rapists.

And, by all means, let's keep those borders open, Democrats!


Hat tip: BadBlue News.

Inside the Muslim Recruiting Station on Lackland Air Force Base, TX

Guest post by Dave Gaubatz

A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to visit the Islamic Center of San Antonio, San Antonio, TX. The research findings were typical of most Sunni mosques around America. This is a Salafist (Wahabi) mosque. Inside were the typical violent materials such as Fiqh Us Sunnan, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Riyadh Al Salheen, and more.

The research findings were not a surprise since I have seen this type mosque hundreds of times during my research. What was interesting is the Islamic Center is near Lackland AFB. This is one of the U.S. Military largest training bases. All USAF personnel must conduct their initial training on this base. Here is what I discovered:

1. The Imam is Yousef Said, Ph D. Most of the worshippers are from Pakistan/Sunni-Salafist.

2. They had all the materials that identify them as supporting Al Qaeda, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

3. Very strict Sharia adherence. Many of the young girls were completely veiled.

4. The Center has a strong security team on the grounds 24 hours a day.

5. I met several men, the Imam, custodians, and their head of security.

6. The Islamic Center is closely linked to Masjid Beit El Magdes, 7627 Culebra Rd., San Antonio. They are also behind the Mosque on Lackland AFB. A Brother Jeffrey is the Imam at the Lackland mosque. I was informed the new USAF recruits at Lackland must study Islam and attend the mosque on base. Brother Jeffrey has a goal of recruiting/converting at least 3 Airmen per week. Thus far they have had no problem doing this.

7. There were brochures of Imam Siraj Wahhaj coming to San Antonio on 8 June 2013. Remember I have always said Wahhaj is America’s most dangerous Islamic leader. The meeting is open for all and will be held at the Crossroads Mall Wonderland of America, 4522 Fredericksburg Rd, San Antonio, TX 7pm – 10pm.

8. A former U.S. military member Terry Holdbrooks assigned to GITMO was converted by three GITMO prisoners. Holdbrooks now speaks at mosques. He was in San Antonio on 24 May 2013.

9. The Islamic Center has close ties with CAIR National.

Lackland Air Force Base is also home to a large number of Saudi Military. They attend training at this base for various aircraft related fields of study. Over the years there have been Saudi military that suddenly disappear into the American landscape. Many are part of the underground Islamic sleeper cell community.

Lackland AFB has a mosque and what I found disturbing was that non Muslims AF trainees at Lackland attend Islamic services at the mosque. The Islamic leaders at the Islamic Center of San Antonio informed me that new AF recruits must attend Islamic services at the mosque.

While the U.S. military has clamped down on military members having any connection to the Christian and Jewish faith, or speaking to one another about their religious beliefs, the military leaders are encouraging and demanding non Muslim USAF members attend Islamic services.

On August 23rd, 2013, I contacted the Chaplains office at Lackland AFB. I was informed Chaplain Rockman is the point of contact for Islamic services and holds services at Hope Chapel, Lackland AFB.

It is a sad day when our military leaders are emerging more as politicians than military men and women. It is sad that our USAF trainees are being shuttled to Islamic services and ultimately recruited by Islamic leaders at the rate of three per week, just on this base alone.

Not only is it sad that our military men and women are having to listen to the propaganda of Islamic leaders, it is a national security concern. Sharia law and the U.S. constitution are in no way compatible, and one can’t serve both Allah (Muslim God) and the God of Christians and Jews.

They also can’t faithfully serve our country and Sharia law at the same time. This is the lesson we have failed to learn given the recently ended trial of former, now convicted murderer, Nidal Hassan.

New Muslim brother initiated at Masjid Beit El Magdes:

Dave Gaubatz:

Paul “Dave” Gaubatz is a former Federal Agent, is a U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and counterterrorism specialist. Working on assignments in Middle-Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Iraq, Dave Gaubatz has more than two decades of experience. Mr. Gaubatz is the owner of Wahhabi CT publications and provides counter-terrorism training materials for law enforcement and other organizations. He is frequently called upon for speaking engagements and training.

The first U.S. civilian Federal Agent deployed to Nasiriyah, Iraq, in 2003, Mr. Gaubatz was able to travel to various cities throughout Iraq, using his Arabic-language training extensively. He collected intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and espionage. During this time, he led a mission to rescue the family of Mohammed Odeh Al-Rehaief, the Iraqi lawyer who aided in rescuing Pfc. Jessica Lynch.

Dave Gaubatz was born in Sault Ste. Marie, Mich., and he grew up in Rocky Mount near Roanoke, Va. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in management from Saint Leo College, Saint Leo, Fla.

Dave Gaubatz co-authored with Paul Sperry, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America”

More Posts