Visit CafePress for more information.
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Protecting America. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Protecting America. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Thứ Tư, 4 tháng 9, 2013
IT IS TIME: The Bumper Sticker
Writer Joseph Somsel and his wife designed this bumper sticker having been inspired by Mark Levin's latest book.
Visit CafePress for more information.
Visit CafePress for more information.
Thứ Hai, 2 tháng 9, 2013
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.
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.
Dave Gaubatz:
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.
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”
The Myth of a Runaway Amendments Convention
Guest post by Rob Natelson
The Founders bequeathed Americans a method to bypass the federal government and amend the Constitution, empowering two thirds of the states to call an Amendments Convention. In the wake of Mark Levin's bestselling book, The Liberty Amendments, proposing just such a convention, entirely unnecessary alarms have been raised by even some of the leading lights of conservatism, based on an incomplete reading of history and judicial case law.
Phyllis Schlafly is a great American and a great leader, but her speculations about the nature of the Constitution's
"convention for proposing amendments" are nearly as quaint as Dante's speculations about the solar system. Those speculations simply overlook the last two decades of research into the background and subsequent history of the Constitution's amendment process. They also ignore how that process actually has worked, and how the courts elucidate it.
The Founders provided, in Article V of the Constitution, for a "convention for proposing amendments." They did this to enable the people, acting through their state legislatures, to rein in an abusive or runaway federal government. In other words, the Founders created the convention for precisely the kind of situation we face now.
Mrs. Schlafly doesn't think we know much else about the process. She writes, "Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody's guess."
But she's wrong. There is no need to guess. We now know that:
The "convention for proposing amendments" was consciously modeled on federal conventions held during the century leading up to the Constitutional Convention, when states or colonies met together on average about every 40 months. These were meetings of separate governments, and their protocols were based on international practice. Those protocols were well-established and are inherent in Article V.
Each federal convention has been called to address one or more discrete, prescribed problems. A convention "call" cannot determine how many delegates ("commissioners") each state sends or how they are chosen. That is a matter for each state legislature to decide.
A convention for proposing amendments is a meeting of sovereignties or semi-sovereignties, and each state has one vote. Each state commissioner is empowered and instructed by his or her state legislature or its designee.
As was true of earlier interstate gatherings, the convention for proposing amendments is called to propose solutions to discrete, pre-assigned problems. There is no record of any federal convention significantly exceeding its pre-assigned mandate -- not even the Constitutional Convention, despite erroneous claims to the contrary.
The state legislatures' applications fix the subject-matter for a convention for proposing amendments. When two-thirds of the states apply on a given subject, Congress must call the convention. However, the congressional call is limited to the time and place of meeting, and to reciting the state-determined subject.
In the unlikely event that the convention strays from its prescribed agenda (and the commissioners escape recall), any "proposal" they issue is ultra vires ("beyond powers") and void. Congress may not choose a "mode of ratification," and the necessary three-quarters of the states would not ratify it in any event.
Contrary to Mrs. Schlafly's claim that "Article V doesn't give any power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen," the courts can and do adjudicate Article V cases. There has been a long line of those cases from 1798 into the 21st century.
"But," you might ask, "Will the prescribed convention procedures actually work?"
They already have. In 1861, in an effort to prevent the Civil War, a convention of the states was called to propose a constitutional amendment to Congress. Congress subsequently deadlocked over the amendment, but the convention did everything right: It followed all the protocols listed above, and it produced a compromise amendment. Although the convention met in a time of enormous stress, this "dry run" came off well, with none of Mrs. Schlafy's speculative "horribles."
In any political procedure, there are always uncertainties, but in this case they are far fewer than predicted by anti-convention alarmists. And they must be balanced against a certainty: Unless we use the procedure the Founders gave us to rein in a "runaway" Congress, then Congress will surely continue to run away.
Rob Natelson, Professor of Law (ret.), The University of Montana, taught constitutional law and constitutional history, and currently serves as Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute. He is a widely-published scholar on the Constitution and on the amendment procedure, and several Supreme Court opinions have relied on his work. For his biography and bibliography, see http://constitution.i2i.org.
The Founders bequeathed Americans a method to bypass the federal government and amend the Constitution, empowering two thirds of the states to call an Amendments Convention. In the wake of Mark Levin's bestselling book, The Liberty Amendments, proposing just such a convention, entirely unnecessary alarms have been raised by even some of the leading lights of conservatism, based on an incomplete reading of history and judicial case law.
Phyllis Schlafly is a great American and a great leader, but her speculations about the nature of the Constitution's
"convention for proposing amendments" are nearly as quaint as Dante's speculations about the solar system. Those speculations simply overlook the last two decades of research into the background and subsequent history of the Constitution's amendment process. They also ignore how that process actually has worked, and how the courts elucidate it.The Founders provided, in Article V of the Constitution, for a "convention for proposing amendments." They did this to enable the people, acting through their state legislatures, to rein in an abusive or runaway federal government. In other words, the Founders created the convention for precisely the kind of situation we face now.
Mrs. Schlafly doesn't think we know much else about the process. She writes, "Everything else about how an Article V Convention would function, including its agenda, is anybody's guess."
But she's wrong. There is no need to guess. We now know that:
The "convention for proposing amendments" was consciously modeled on federal conventions held during the century leading up to the Constitutional Convention, when states or colonies met together on average about every 40 months. These were meetings of separate governments, and their protocols were based on international practice. Those protocols were well-established and are inherent in Article V.
Each federal convention has been called to address one or more discrete, prescribed problems. A convention "call" cannot determine how many delegates ("commissioners") each state sends or how they are chosen. That is a matter for each state legislature to decide.
A convention for proposing amendments is a meeting of sovereignties or semi-sovereignties, and each state has one vote. Each state commissioner is empowered and instructed by his or her state legislature or its designee.
As was true of earlier interstate gatherings, the convention for proposing amendments is called to propose solutions to discrete, pre-assigned problems. There is no record of any federal convention significantly exceeding its pre-assigned mandate -- not even the Constitutional Convention, despite erroneous claims to the contrary.
The state legislatures' applications fix the subject-matter for a convention for proposing amendments. When two-thirds of the states apply on a given subject, Congress must call the convention. However, the congressional call is limited to the time and place of meeting, and to reciting the state-determined subject.
In the unlikely event that the convention strays from its prescribed agenda (and the commissioners escape recall), any "proposal" they issue is ultra vires ("beyond powers") and void. Congress may not choose a "mode of ratification," and the necessary three-quarters of the states would not ratify it in any event.
Contrary to Mrs. Schlafly's claim that "Article V doesn't give any power to the courts to correct what does or does not happen," the courts can and do adjudicate Article V cases. There has been a long line of those cases from 1798 into the 21st century.
"But," you might ask, "Will the prescribed convention procedures actually work?"
They already have. In 1861, in an effort to prevent the Civil War, a convention of the states was called to propose a constitutional amendment to Congress. Congress subsequently deadlocked over the amendment, but the convention did everything right: It followed all the protocols listed above, and it produced a compromise amendment. Although the convention met in a time of enormous stress, this "dry run" came off well, with none of Mrs. Schlafy's speculative "horribles."
In any political procedure, there are always uncertainties, but in this case they are far fewer than predicted by anti-convention alarmists. And they must be balanced against a certainty: Unless we use the procedure the Founders gave us to rein in a "runaway" Congress, then Congress will surely continue to run away.
Rob Natelson, Professor of Law (ret.), The University of Montana, taught constitutional law and constitutional history, and currently serves as Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute. He is a widely-published scholar on the Constitution and on the amendment procedure, and several Supreme Court opinions have relied on his work. For his biography and bibliography, see http://constitution.i2i.org.
Thứ Bảy, 31 tháng 8, 2013
This is Not the War We've Been Waiting For
Guest post by Dan from New York
Remember "the mother of all battles?" It's easy to dismiss the primitive war cries coming from Iran, Hezbollah and Syria as the same schoolyard hyperbole we get every time the USA and the West take aim at the Islamic world. We've become inured to the empty threats, but listen up. This time will be different.
It won't be 1991 when Bush The Elder successfully blocked the Israelis from responding to Saddam's hapless Scud missiles. Today's Israel - even one led by Obama's cat's-paw, Benjamin Netanyahu – is in no mood for that. If the Islamics insist on hitting Israel with reprisal attacks, Israel will likely respond with disproportional force, and a furious multi-front exchange of unknown duration would ensue.
We certainly don't hear that grim possibility reported or "analyzed" by the Obama-controlled media. But folks, look around the room. That's the war we should all be worried about.
Editor's note: I've placed an All Points Bulletin for the oft-used term of yesteryear: chickenhawk:
Remember "the mother of all battles?" It's easy to dismiss the primitive war cries coming from Iran, Hezbollah and Syria as the same schoolyard hyperbole we get every time the USA and the West take aim at the Islamic world. We've become inured to the empty threats, but listen up. This time will be different.
It won't be 1991 when Bush The Elder successfully blocked the Israelis from responding to Saddam's hapless Scud missiles. Today's Israel - even one led by Obama's cat's-paw, Benjamin Netanyahu – is in no mood for that. If the Islamics insist on hitting Israel with reprisal attacks, Israel will likely respond with disproportional force, and a furious multi-front exchange of unknown duration would ensue.
We certainly don't hear that grim possibility reported or "analyzed" by the Obama-controlled media. But folks, look around the room. That's the war we should all be worried about.
The Daily Star (Lebanon), 8/31/13Israel faces retaliation if U.S. attacks Syria: Iran military
BEIRUT: Israel will face retaliation if the United States launches a military strike against Syria, a senior Iranian military official warned, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported Saturday.
“Israel will be hit by retaliatory attacks if the United States launches an offensive on Syria since it [the Jewish state] is the first instigator in attacking [Syria],” Iranian Army Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi said.
Iran staunchly backs the regime in Damascus and is Hezbollah’s leading supporter in the region.
Firouzabadi accused Israel of spearheading efforts to drag Washington into a war with the government in Damascus.
The U.S. has stepped up its war rhetoric against Damascus after accusing President Bashar Assad’s regime of using chemical weapons earlier this month against opposition strongholds outside Damascus.
Editor's note: I've placed an All Points Bulletin for the oft-used term of yesteryear: chickenhawk:
There were several "red lines" on the walls of the Benghazi compound, ain't that right Rep. Chickenhawk, @NancyPelosi?
— Doug Ross (@directorblue) August 31, 2013
Thứ Năm, 29 tháng 8, 2013
RED LINES, INDEED: Obama to provide air support for Al Qaeda and Ambassador Chris Stevens' killers in Syria?
Guest post by Investors Business Daily
Mideast: The same al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Sharia that killed four Americans in Benghazi is now training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria's Islamist rebels. Are we about to provide them air support?
On Sept. 11, 2012, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was crouched in a safe room waiting for help as the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack, according to emails reaching the White House and the State Department.
Ambassador Stevens did not survive, nor did Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Ty Woods, all killed by the terrorists of Ansar al-Sharia and other groups whose training camps surrounded Benghazi and were ignored by an oblivious Obama administration that now calls the scandal "phony."
Well, phony scandals do not produce body bags.
President Obama promised to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice, which he has not. Ansar al-Sharia roams free. Ali Ani al-Harzi, a leading suspect in the attack and a member of Ansar al-Sharia who was taken into custody after fleeing Libya for Turkey and then sent to Tunisia, is also free.
"Make no mistake," President Obama told reporters the morning after the attack, "we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."
Well, not exactly. Fellow suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala was tracked down by the New York Times and found to be peacefully enjoying a strawberry frappe at a luxury Tunisian hotel.
Harzi came to the attention of U.S. intelligence investigators after he posted real-time information to a social media platform about the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi just as it was starting.
As Eli Lake reports in the Daily Beast, Harzi's brother is believed to be Tariq Abu Ammar, a mid-level planner for al-Qaida's franchise in Iraq. These days, Ammar's main job is arranging the travel of fighters from North Africa to Syria's al-Qaida-linked opposition.
As the Washington Free Beacon has reported, U.S. intelligence sources say Ansar al-Sharia is now running several training camps for jihadists destined for Syria in Benghazi and nearby Darnah, a port city further east.
The officials said the camps have been in operation since at least May and are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups. These include the al-Nusra Front, the most organized group fighting the Bashar Assad regime in Damascus. As we noted in June, Jabhat al-Nusra, with 7,000 fighters, is a branch of al-Qaida in Iraq that has publicly pledged allegiance to al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. It receives regular payments from al-Qaida in Iraq, and its goal is like that of a Middle Eastern caliphate.
In a revealing chart and article published by the Economist magazine, two of the three major fronts — the Syrian Islamic Front and the Syrian Liberation Front — are Islamist, as are 10 of the 12 identified rebel groups. We warned that arms destined for Syrian rebels would wind up in the hands of jihadists or al-Qaida backers.
All the ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi seems to have accomplished is to make Libya a focal point for al-Qaida terrorist activity in North Africa. Two men believed to be Tunisians arrested on Aug. 3 carrying six passports, an AK-47 and foreign currency have provided some details of the camps.
The Tunisians stated that they were trained in small-arms use and were on their way to join Syrian rebels by traveling first to Benghazi, then Istanbul, and over land across Turkey and into northern Syria.
One of the men said he was an associate of Ansar al-Sharia's leader Sufian Ben Qumu, an al-Qaida terrorist released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007.
That the United States may soon be fighting alongside Ansar al-Sharia jihadists in Syria is an indictment of the Obama administration's clueless and recklessly naïve foreign policy and a slap in the face for the victims of Benghazi and their families.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily
Mideast: The same al-Qaida-linked Ansar al-Sharia that killed four Americans in Benghazi is now training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria's Islamist rebels. Are we about to provide them air support?
On Sept. 11, 2012, U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was crouched in a safe room waiting for help as the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack, according to emails reaching the White House and the State Department.
Well, phony scandals do not produce body bags.
President Obama promised to bring the Benghazi attackers to justice, which he has not. Ansar al-Sharia roams free. Ali Ani al-Harzi, a leading suspect in the attack and a member of Ansar al-Sharia who was taken into custody after fleeing Libya for Turkey and then sent to Tunisia, is also free.
"Make no mistake," President Obama told reporters the morning after the attack, "we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."
Well, not exactly. Fellow suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala was tracked down by the New York Times and found to be peacefully enjoying a strawberry frappe at a luxury Tunisian hotel.
Harzi came to the attention of U.S. intelligence investigators after he posted real-time information to a social media platform about the assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi just as it was starting.
As Eli Lake reports in the Daily Beast, Harzi's brother is believed to be Tariq Abu Ammar, a mid-level planner for al-Qaida's franchise in Iraq. These days, Ammar's main job is arranging the travel of fighters from North Africa to Syria's al-Qaida-linked opposition.
As the Washington Free Beacon has reported, U.S. intelligence sources say Ansar al-Sharia is now running several training camps for jihadists destined for Syria in Benghazi and nearby Darnah, a port city further east.
The officials said the camps have been in operation since at least May and are part of a network that funnels foreign fighters to Syrian rebel groups. These include the al-Nusra Front, the most organized group fighting the Bashar Assad regime in Damascus. As we noted in June, Jabhat al-Nusra, with 7,000 fighters, is a branch of al-Qaida in Iraq that has publicly pledged allegiance to al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. It receives regular payments from al-Qaida in Iraq, and its goal is like that of a Middle Eastern caliphate.
In a revealing chart and article published by the Economist magazine, two of the three major fronts — the Syrian Islamic Front and the Syrian Liberation Front — are Islamist, as are 10 of the 12 identified rebel groups. We warned that arms destined for Syrian rebels would wind up in the hands of jihadists or al-Qaida backers.
All the ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi seems to have accomplished is to make Libya a focal point for al-Qaida terrorist activity in North Africa. Two men believed to be Tunisians arrested on Aug. 3 carrying six passports, an AK-47 and foreign currency have provided some details of the camps.
The Tunisians stated that they were trained in small-arms use and were on their way to join Syrian rebels by traveling first to Benghazi, then Istanbul, and over land across Turkey and into northern Syria.
One of the men said he was an associate of Ansar al-Sharia's leader Sufian Ben Qumu, an al-Qaida terrorist released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007.
That the United States may soon be fighting alongside Ansar al-Sharia jihadists in Syria is an indictment of the Obama administration's clueless and recklessly naïve foreign policy and a slap in the face for the victims of Benghazi and their families.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily
The Continuing Resolution Speech John Boehner Must Give
That is, if he wants to retain a majority and his Speakership next year.
Line in the Sand, a speech by Speaker of the House John Boehner
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 Senator and tell them: we want a waiver too. Pass the House Continuing Resolution and delay Obamacare now.
Line in the Sand, a speech by Speaker of the House John Boehner
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.
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 Senator and tell them: we want a waiver too. Pass the House Continuing Resolution and delay Obamacare now.
Thứ Sáu, 23 tháng 8, 2013
Thứ Năm, 22 tháng 8, 2013
MARK LEVIN TRANSCRIPT: Just How Desperate is the New Obamacare Sales Pitch?
Via Hannity
JOINING ME NOW, THE AUTHOR OF, NUMBER ONE ON AMAZON FOR OVER A WEEK, "THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS," MARK LEVIN FROM HIS BUNKER.
SIR, HOW ARE YOU?
>> I'M GOOD, HOW ARE YOU, SEAN?
>> I GUESS NEXT THEY'LL BE SINGING SONGS TO CASTRO AFTER THIS, MARK.
>> YEAH, WHY NOT? I MEAN, WE'RE ADOPTING THE CASTRO AGENDA, AREN'T WE? OBAMA CARE IS A -- NOT ONLY IS IT A COMPLETE DISASTER, BUT I'M AFRAID, SEAN, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET RID OF IT.
BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF IT.
AND INSTEAD OF TAKING ON OBAMA AND TAKING ON THE LEFT, THEY'RE TAKING ON THE CONSERVATIVES AND THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS AND ATTACKING THEM, TELLING US TO WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY.
THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS, THEY ARE ALWAYS SURRENDERING.
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALEAST ATTACK THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING OR USE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE TO PASS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION THAT FUNDS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT NOT THIS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT'S LEFT? ONCE THIS THING IS INSTITUTED, IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPLODE.
I HEAR THIS, OH, THE LAW IS GOING TO IMPLODE.
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF AN IMPLODING LAW?
>> NO, NEVER.
>> YOU HAVE TO REPEAL A LAW.
YOU HAVE TO DEFUND A LAW.
LAWS DON'T IMPLODE.
>> FOR ME --
>> THEY SAY --
>> YEAH.
>> THIS IS A LINE IN THE SAND.
EVERY ONE OF THESE GUYS RAN ON REPEALING OBAMA CARE AND REPLACING, EVERY ONE OF THEM.
I KNOW THE HOUSE, THEY HAD ALL THESE, I GUESS SYMBOLIC VOTES TO REPEAL IT, BUT NEVER OF THEM HAD TEETH IN IT.
NOW IS THE MOMENT OF TRUTH AND IF THEY DON'T DO IT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THEY'RE NOT ANY BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EVEN FIGHTING.
THEY DON'T REPRESENT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
>> AND THEY WON'T EVEN FIGHT.
I MEAN, YOU GOT TO GIVE THIS TO THE LEFT.
THEY NEVER GIVE UP.
THEY FOUGHT FOR 100 YEARS FOR GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE.
THESE GUYS CAN'T EVEN FIGHT FOR TWO WEEKS.
ALL THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT SHUT DOWN, WE'LL GET BLAMED FOR IT.
SEE THIS LIST HERE -- SORRY, I LEFT MY THIRD GRADE WHITE BOARD AT HOME.
I GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL AND I USED WHAT IS CALLED PAPER.
SEE THIS LIST HERE? THESE ARE ALL THE TIMES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS, REPUBLICAN HOUSES AND SENATE, DEMOCRAT HOUSES AND SENATE.
THEY TALK ABOUT A POLITICAL CATASTROPHE IF WE SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT LIKE WE DID IN '95 AND '96 FOR THREE WEEKS.
SEAN, WE GAINED TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, LOST NINE IN THE HOUSE AFTER A BIG HOUSE WIN.
THESE WERE SOFT HOUSE SEATS.
WE KEPT A HUGE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, PICKED UP TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, MOVED TOWARD A BALANCED BUDGET, GOT WORK FAIR IN THE WELFARE PROGRAM AND THE REPUBLICANS TODAY ARE CLAIMING THAT THAT'S THE POLITICAL DISASTER IF WE STAND STRONG.
>> ALL RIGHT, LET'S CUT THROUGH THE CLUTTER.
LET'S WALK THROUGH.
ALL RIGHT, SO, THEY COME BACK FROM THEIR AUGUST RECESS AND VACATION, AND LET'S SAY THEY FUND THE MILITARY, THEY FUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, EVERY ASPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT, OUR DEBT, OUR OBLIGATIONS, THEY FUND IT ALL.
EXCEPT FOR OBAMA CARE.
THEN THEY SEND IT OVER TO THE SENATE.
THE MAJORITY, THEY HAVE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE.
LET'S WALK THROUGH THIS.
SO, THE GOVERNMENT IS FULLY FUNDED BUT FOR OBAMA CARE.
THEN IT GOES THE SENATE.
SAY THEY DON'T PICK IT UP.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
>> WELL, THEY'RE AFRAID THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE, THE CONFIDENCE, THE KNOWLEDGE, OR THE ABILITY TO ARTICULATE WHO IS ACTUALLY SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.
NOW, I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, HARDLY.
BUT DO YOU REALIZE EVERY WEEKEND, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? DO YOU REALIZE EVERY HOLIDAY, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? I LIKE THE WEEKENDS, I LIKE MY HOLIDAYS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN.
>> ME, TOO.
>> AND THESE ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL, THEY NEVER GO HOME.
WHETHER IT'S THE EPA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
THERE ARE FEDERAL LAWS IN PLACE FOR SO-CALLED ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL.
SO, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
DO YOU EVER PLAY POKER AND SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND?
>> NEVER.
>> YOU SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND, THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND, SAYING, DON'T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, DON'T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.
SO, WHAT DOES OBAMA SAY? THEY'RE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH INCOMPETENT POLITICS.
>> IT'S COWARDLY.
>> WELL --
>> THERE WAS A REPORT BACK THAT YOU AND GOVERNOR PALIN TALKING ABOUT MAYBE HAVING A THIRD PARTY.
REAGAN ADDRESSED THIS.
YOU WORKED IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.
AND HE SAID, NO, WE NEED A REVITALIZED SECOND PARTY.
IF THIS ISN'T THE ISSUE TO REVITALIZE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THEN THEY ARE LETTING THIS OPPORTUNITY GO.
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT CONSERVATIVES LIKE MYSELF AND LIKE YOURSELF, I'M DONE WITH THE REPUBLICANS, IF THEY DON'T FIGHT HERE.
I DON'T -- I WILL NOT SUPPORT, I WILL NOT ENDORSE, I WILL NOT -- ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND UP ON THIS ISSUE.
BECAUSE IT'S DEVASTATING TO THE COUNTRY, WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN IT.
DO YOU THINK THAT MOVEMENT WILL BE BIG?
>> I THINK SO.
I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.
HERE'S THE THING.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T EVEN LIKE THIS LAW.
THE MORE THEY LEARN ABOUT IT, MORE OF IT THAT'S IMPLEMENTED AND OBAMA IS TRYING TO HIDE PARTS OF IT UNTIL AFTER THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS, THE WORSE IT'S GOING TO BE.
CAN YOU IMAGINE, THE REPUBLICANS ARE BEING HANDED AN ISSUE OF A GENERATION.
THE -- OBAMA IS DESTROYING HEALTH CARE.
HE'S DRIVING UP COSTS.
HE'S CREATING DISLOCATION.
THEY CAN LAY THAT ALL AT HIS FEET.
IT'S BEEN HANDED TO THEM.
AND THERE'S SUCH MUSH HEADS AND MARBLE MOUTH, THEY CAN'T ARTICULATE THE CASE AGAINST IT.
>> LET ME TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF OBAMA CARE.
YOU ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER.
BY THE WAY, CONGRATULATIONS, YOUR BOOK HAS BEEN NUMBER ONE FOR OVER A WEEK ON AMAZON.
COM.
OBAMA'S MISSED NOW HALF THE DEADLINES FOR IMPLEMENTING OBAMA CARE.
NOW, THIS WAS NOT EVEN PASSED, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IN A LEGAL FASHION.
FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, IF THAT'S THE LAW, AND THE DEADLINES ARE NOT MET, DOES THE PRESIDENT UNILATERALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY HE'S NOT GOING TO IMPLEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EMPLOYER MANDATE OR THE OTHER AREAS THEY PUT IN DELAYS? >> IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW REPEATEDLY, THE ANSWER IS YES.
IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION REREPEATEDLY, INCLUDING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE, THE ANSWER IS YES.
IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, NOT A SINGLE PERSON.
>> WHY?
>> WHY, WELL, LOOK AT JOHN BOEHNER AND MITCH McCONNELL.
THE SUPREME COURT REWROTE THE CONSTITUTION AND REWROTE THE LAW TO PUT IT IN PLACE.
THIS IS THE POINT.
IF WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME KIND OF LIBERTY REFORMATION OR REVITALIZATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION WITH A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS CREATED ITS OWN DESIGN WITH DEMOCRATS THAT KEEP DRAGGING US OVER THE CLIFF AND REPUBLICANS WHO KEEP STANDING THERE WATCHING, WE'RE NOT.
WHICH IS THE REASON I WROTE THE BOOK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE CHALLENGES NOW THAT EXIST FOR INCUMBENT SENATORS LIKE LINDSEY GRAHAM AND LAMAR ALEXANDER, THESE TEA PARTY CANDIDATES NOW STEPPING UP AND THEY'RE CHALLENGING THEM.
DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES AND THESE GUYS MAY PAY A PRICE FOR NOT FIGHTING? >> I DON'T KNOW EVERY CANDIDATE IN EVERY CASE, BUT I SAY MORE POWER TO THEM.
WE NEED AS MANY CAPABLE, ARTICULATE, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN GET THEM WELL FUNDED CANDIDATES, TO CHALLENGE THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS AS POSSIBLE.
LINDSEY GRAHAM IS A DISASTER.
I MEAN -- I CAN PICK ALMOST ANY ISSUE IN WHICH HE'S A DISASTER.
LAMAR ALEXANDER IS ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICANS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS GUY STANDS FOR.
>> LET ME PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.
WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT SAY, THOSE MODERATES, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAN GET ELECTED.
REPUBLICANS NEED TO BE MORE MODERATE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.
YOU HEAR IT SAID ON THIS NETWORK.
>> YOU MEAN --
>> WHAT?
>> RIGHT.
WE CAN ONLY ELECT MODERATES FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY? I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE AT ALL.
WE CAN ELECT SOLID CONSERVATIVES FROM THOSE STATES AND IN THE PAST, WE HAVE.
WHAT HAPPENS IS, THESE GUYS, THEY GET TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND IMMEDIATELY, BOOM.
RATHER THAN THEM REPRESENTING US IN WASHINGTON, THEY REPRESENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO US AND THEY TRY TO CONVINCE US TO GO ALONG.
I'VE HAD IT.
YOU'VE HAD IT.
MILLIONS OF US HAVE HAD IT.
>> GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.
MORE WITH THE GREAT ONE, MARK LEVIN.
HIS NEW BOOK IS IN BOOKSTORES EVERYWHERE.
Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.
JOINING ME NOW, THE AUTHOR OF, NUMBER ONE ON AMAZON FOR OVER A WEEK, "THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS," MARK LEVIN FROM HIS BUNKER.
SIR, HOW ARE YOU?
>> I'M GOOD, HOW ARE YOU, SEAN?
>> I GUESS NEXT THEY'LL BE SINGING SONGS TO CASTRO AFTER THIS, MARK.
>> YEAH, WHY NOT? I MEAN, WE'RE ADOPTING THE CASTRO AGENDA, AREN'T WE? OBAMA CARE IS A -- NOT ONLY IS IT A COMPLETE DISASTER, BUT I'M AFRAID, SEAN, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET RID OF IT.BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO GET RID OF IT.
AND INSTEAD OF TAKING ON OBAMA AND TAKING ON THE LEFT, THEY'RE TAKING ON THE CONSERVATIVES AND THE CONSTITUTIONALISTS AND ATTACKING THEM, TELLING US TO WAIT UNTIL TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY.
THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS, THEY ARE ALWAYS SURRENDERING.
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALEAST ATTACK THE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING OR USE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE TO PASS A CONTINUING RESOLUTION THAT FUNDS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, BUT NOT THIS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT'S LEFT? ONCE THIS THING IS INSTITUTED, IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPLODE.
I HEAR THIS, OH, THE LAW IS GOING TO IMPLODE.
HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF AN IMPLODING LAW?
>> NO, NEVER.
>> YOU HAVE TO REPEAL A LAW.
YOU HAVE TO DEFUND A LAW.
LAWS DON'T IMPLODE.
>> FOR ME --
>> THEY SAY --
>> YEAH.
>> THIS IS A LINE IN THE SAND.
EVERY ONE OF THESE GUYS RAN ON REPEALING OBAMA CARE AND REPLACING, EVERY ONE OF THEM.
I KNOW THE HOUSE, THEY HAD ALL THESE, I GUESS SYMBOLIC VOTES TO REPEAL IT, BUT NEVER OF THEM HAD TEETH IN IT.
NOW IS THE MOMENT OF TRUTH AND IF THEY DON'T DO IT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THEY'RE NOT ANY BETTER THAN THE DEMOCRATS, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EVEN FIGHTING.
THEY DON'T REPRESENT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.
>> AND THEY WON'T EVEN FIGHT.
I MEAN, YOU GOT TO GIVE THIS TO THE LEFT.
THEY NEVER GIVE UP.
THEY FOUGHT FOR 100 YEARS FOR GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE.
THESE GUYS CAN'T EVEN FIGHT FOR TWO WEEKS.
ALL THE GOVERNMENT MIGHT SHUT DOWN, WE'LL GET BLAMED FOR IT.
SEE THIS LIST HERE -- SORRY, I LEFT MY THIRD GRADE WHITE BOARD AT HOME.
I GRADUATED HIGH SCHOOL AND I USED WHAT IS CALLED PAPER.
SEE THIS LIST HERE? THESE ARE ALL THE TIMES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SHUT DOWN.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS, DEMOCRAT PRESIDENTS, REPUBLICAN HOUSES AND SENATE, DEMOCRAT HOUSES AND SENATE.
THEY TALK ABOUT A POLITICAL CATASTROPHE IF WE SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT LIKE WE DID IN '95 AND '96 FOR THREE WEEKS.
SEAN, WE GAINED TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, LOST NINE IN THE HOUSE AFTER A BIG HOUSE WIN.
THESE WERE SOFT HOUSE SEATS.
WE KEPT A HUGE MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE, PICKED UP TWO SEATS IN THE SENATE, MOVED TOWARD A BALANCED BUDGET, GOT WORK FAIR IN THE WELFARE PROGRAM AND THE REPUBLICANS TODAY ARE CLAIMING THAT THAT'S THE POLITICAL DISASTER IF WE STAND STRONG.
>> ALL RIGHT, LET'S CUT THROUGH THE CLUTTER.
LET'S WALK THROUGH.
ALL RIGHT, SO, THEY COME BACK FROM THEIR AUGUST RECESS AND VACATION, AND LET'S SAY THEY FUND THE MILITARY, THEY FUND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, EVERY ASPECT OF THE GOVERNMENT, OUR DEBT, OUR OBLIGATIONS, THEY FUND IT ALL.
EXCEPT FOR OBAMA CARE.
THEN THEY SEND IT OVER TO THE SENATE.
THE MAJORITY, THEY HAVE THE POWER OF THE PURSE IN THE HOUSE.
LET'S WALK THROUGH THIS.
SO, THE GOVERNMENT IS FULLY FUNDED BUT FOR OBAMA CARE.
THEN IT GOES THE SENATE.
SAY THEY DON'T PICK IT UP.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?
>> WELL, THEY'RE AFRAID THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE, THE CONFIDENCE, THE KNOWLEDGE, OR THE ABILITY TO ARTICULATE WHO IS ACTUALLY SHUTTING DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.
NOW, I DON'T SPEAK FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, HARDLY.
BUT DO YOU REALIZE EVERY WEEKEND, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? DO YOU REALIZE EVERY HOLIDAY, THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN? I LIKE THE WEEKENDS, I LIKE MY HOLIDAYS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUT DOWN.
>> ME, TOO.
WHETHER IT'S THE EPA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
THERE ARE FEDERAL LAWS IN PLACE FOR SO-CALLED ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL.
SO, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS.
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
DO YOU EVER PLAY POKER AND SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND?
>> NEVER.
>> YOU SHOW THE OTHER SIDE YOUR HAND, THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND, SAYING, DON'T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT, DON'T SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.
SO, WHAT DOES OBAMA SAY? THEY'RE GOING TO SHUT DOWN THE GOVERNMENT.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH INCOMPETENT POLITICS.
>> IT'S COWARDLY.
>> WELL --
>> THERE WAS A REPORT BACK THAT YOU AND GOVERNOR PALIN TALKING ABOUT MAYBE HAVING A THIRD PARTY.
REAGAN ADDRESSED THIS.
YOU WORKED IN THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION.
AND HE SAID, NO, WE NEED A REVITALIZED SECOND PARTY.
IF THIS ISN'T THE ISSUE TO REVITALIZE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THEN THEY ARE LETTING THIS OPPORTUNITY GO.
AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT CONSERVATIVES LIKE MYSELF AND LIKE YOURSELF, I'M DONE WITH THE REPUBLICANS, IF THEY DON'T FIGHT HERE.
I DON'T -- I WILL NOT SUPPORT, I WILL NOT ENDORSE, I WILL NOT -- ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE COURAGE TO STAND UP ON THIS ISSUE.
BECAUSE IT'S DEVASTATING TO THE COUNTRY, WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN IT.
DO YOU THINK THAT MOVEMENT WILL BE BIG?
>> I THINK SO.
I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.
HERE'S THE THING.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T EVEN LIKE THIS LAW.
THE MORE THEY LEARN ABOUT IT, MORE OF IT THAT'S IMPLEMENTED AND OBAMA IS TRYING TO HIDE PARTS OF IT UNTIL AFTER THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS, THE WORSE IT'S GOING TO BE.
CAN YOU IMAGINE, THE REPUBLICANS ARE BEING HANDED AN ISSUE OF A GENERATION.
THE -- OBAMA IS DESTROYING HEALTH CARE.
HE'S DRIVING UP COSTS.
HE'S CREATING DISLOCATION.
THEY CAN LAY THAT ALL AT HIS FEET.
IT'S BEEN HANDED TO THEM.
AND THERE'S SUCH MUSH HEADS AND MARBLE MOUTH, THEY CAN'T ARTICULATE THE CASE AGAINST IT.
>> LET ME TALK ABOUT THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF OBAMA CARE.
YOU ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER.
BY THE WAY, CONGRATULATIONS, YOUR BOOK HAS BEEN NUMBER ONE FOR OVER A WEEK ON AMAZON.
COM.
OBAMA'S MISSED NOW HALF THE DEADLINES FOR IMPLEMENTING OBAMA CARE.
NOW, THIS WAS NOT EVEN PASSED, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IN A LEGAL FASHION.
FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, IF THAT'S THE LAW, AND THE DEADLINES ARE NOT MET, DOES THE PRESIDENT UNILATERALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SAY HE'S NOT GOING TO IMPLEMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EMPLOYER MANDATE OR THE OTHER AREAS THEY PUT IN DELAYS? >> IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW REPEATEDLY, THE ANSWER IS YES.
IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS PRESIDENT VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION REREPEATEDLY, INCLUDING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE, THE ANSWER IS YES.
IF YOU ARE ASKING ME IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, NOT A SINGLE PERSON.
>> WHY?
>> WHY, WELL, LOOK AT JOHN BOEHNER AND MITCH McCONNELL.
THE SUPREME COURT REWROTE THE CONSTITUTION AND REWROTE THE LAW TO PUT IT IN PLACE.
THIS IS THE POINT.
IF WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME KIND OF LIBERTY REFORMATION OR REVITALIZATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION WITH A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS CREATED ITS OWN DESIGN WITH DEMOCRATS THAT KEEP DRAGGING US OVER THE CLIFF AND REPUBLICANS WHO KEEP STANDING THERE WATCHING, WE'RE NOT.
WHICH IS THE REASON I WROTE THE BOOK IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE CHALLENGES NOW THAT EXIST FOR INCUMBENT SENATORS LIKE LINDSEY GRAHAM AND LAMAR ALEXANDER, THESE TEA PARTY CANDIDATES NOW STEPPING UP AND THEY'RE CHALLENGING THEM.
DO YOU THINK THAT THEY'RE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES AND THESE GUYS MAY PAY A PRICE FOR NOT FIGHTING? >> I DON'T KNOW EVERY CANDIDATE IN EVERY CASE, BUT I SAY MORE POWER TO THEM.
WE NEED AS MANY CAPABLE, ARTICULATE, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN GET THEM WELL FUNDED CANDIDATES, TO CHALLENGE THESE FRENCH REPUBLICANS AS POSSIBLE.
LINDSEY GRAHAM IS A DISASTER.
I MEAN -- I CAN PICK ALMOST ANY ISSUE IN WHICH HE'S A DISASTER.
LAMAR ALEXANDER IS ONE OF THE MOST LIBERAL REPUBLICANS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THIS GUY STANDS FOR.
>> LET ME PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.
WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT SAY, THOSE MODERATES, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAN GET ELECTED.
REPUBLICANS NEED TO BE MORE MODERATE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.
YOU HEAR IT SAID ON THIS NETWORK.
>> YOU MEAN --
>> WHAT?
>> RIGHT.
WE CAN ONLY ELECT MODERATES FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, TENNESSEE AND KENTUCKY? I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE AT ALL.
WE CAN ELECT SOLID CONSERVATIVES FROM THOSE STATES AND IN THE PAST, WE HAVE.
WHAT HAPPENS IS, THESE GUYS, THEY GET TO WASHINGTON, D.C., AND IMMEDIATELY, BOOM.
RATHER THAN THEM REPRESENTING US IN WASHINGTON, THEY REPRESENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO US AND THEY TRY TO CONVINCE US TO GO ALONG.
I'VE HAD IT.
YOU'VE HAD IT.
MILLIONS OF US HAVE HAD IT.
>> GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.
MORE WITH THE GREAT ONE, MARK LEVIN.
HIS NEW BOOK IS IN BOOKSTORES EVERYWHERE.
Hat tip: BadBlue News Service.
Thứ Tư, 21 tháng 8, 2013
Attention, Reince Priebus and John Boehner: More Than a Dozen Maine Republicans Just Fled the Party
If the Republican Party disintegrates, you can thank its spineless [air quotes] "leadership" including John Boehner and Reince Priebus. James Daniels at DownTrend explains:
Mark Levin alludes to this kind of drastic action in his new book, The Liberty Amendments. Levin asserts that the answers for fixing Washington cannot be found in Washington.
The answers instead lie in the power of the states, the very states that gave birth to the federal government. These powers, articulated in the second amendment process of Article V of the Constitution, have laid dormant for more than two centuries.
The second Article V process allows the states to amend the Constitution without any Congressional or Executive Branch involvement. It bypasses the federal government altogether. It is an escape hatch against an oppressive federal government.
Levin notes that the second process was only included at the insistence of George Mason -- the famed anti-federalist -- who predicted the very quandary in which know find ourselves. That is, a federal government run amok, with each branch conspiring with the other to evade the constraints of the Constitution, growing ever larger and more tyrannical, tightening the circle of liberty around each individual like a noose.
Such a federal government, Mason presciently observed, would never agree to limit itself. And such is the political landscape today, with a far left political-and-media complex running an Executive and an immense, unelected fourth branch of government, unchecked by the courts and assisted by Congress.
Levin's approach is an escape hatch for liberty.
The states that created the federal government must be the instruments that reign it back in, reestablishing the Constitutional limits that made America great.
Hat tip: BadBlue News.
Bangor Daily News published an interesting letter Monday from 13 Maine Republicans to State GOP Secretary Chuck Mahaleris. The letter, signed by six Maine Republican state committee members, a state RNC member and six other registered Republicans, addresses numerous glaring problems within the party both at the state and federal level.One of their most notable criticisms is that of Speaker of the House John Boehner. The defecting Republicans condemn him for his decision to purge the most fiscally conservative Republicans from their leadership positions in late 2012.
And, they criticize the House’s “utter disdain” for the Constitution in its handling of the Amash Amendment, which would have restrained NSA surveillance... Among their other criticisms of Congressional Republicans include their support for:
• An Internet sales tax
• Gun control
• Illegal immigrants
• Illegal wars
The group also claims the RNC has “no intention of reforming and would rather fly under invalid rules than to right the wrongs of Tampa” in reference to rules battles that have taken place since the 2012 convention...
Hopefully, their decision will serve as a wakeup call to the Republican Party, which all-too-often abandons the principles of fiscal responsibility and freedom for its own gain. Until then, let’s hope more Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter) jump ship instead of contributing to the destruction of the very values that once made America great.
Mark Levin alludes to this kind of drastic action in his new book, The Liberty Amendments. Levin asserts that the answers for fixing Washington cannot be found in Washington.
The answers instead lie in the power of the states, the very states that gave birth to the federal government. These powers, articulated in the second amendment process of Article V of the Constitution, have laid dormant for more than two centuries.The second Article V process allows the states to amend the Constitution without any Congressional or Executive Branch involvement. It bypasses the federal government altogether. It is an escape hatch against an oppressive federal government.
Levin notes that the second process was only included at the insistence of George Mason -- the famed anti-federalist -- who predicted the very quandary in which know find ourselves. That is, a federal government run amok, with each branch conspiring with the other to evade the constraints of the Constitution, growing ever larger and more tyrannical, tightening the circle of liberty around each individual like a noose.
Such a federal government, Mason presciently observed, would never agree to limit itself. And such is the political landscape today, with a far left political-and-media complex running an Executive and an immense, unelected fourth branch of government, unchecked by the courts and assisted by Congress.
Levin's approach is an escape hatch for liberty.
The states that created the federal government must be the instruments that reign it back in, reestablishing the Constitutional limits that made America great.
Hat tip: BadBlue News.
Chủ Nhật, 18 tháng 8, 2013
Marines preparing for IEDs carrying WMD payloads
Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Iran: since the ascent of Barack Obama to the presidency, a series of baffling and bizarre decisions (and non-decisions) on the part of the administration have left the Mideast awash in violence and misery.
Which explains the U.S. Marines preparing for WMDs in improvised explosive devices (IEDs):
Which reminds me: Hillary Clinton is the greatest Secretary of State ever.
Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.
Which explains the U.S. Marines preparing for WMDs in improvised explosive devices (IEDs):
The Marine Corps’ explosives experts are enhancing their training to prepare for expected future encounters with improvised bombs carrying chemical, biological or radiological agents — so-called weapons of mass destruction...To date, such improvised explosives have not been a credible threat on the battlefield, especially in improvised explosive devices. In Iraq, a few failed attempts were made using industrial chemicals, but the Marine Corps considers improvised WMDs a threat that’s likely, according to a contract solicitation from the service seeking assistance in developing this new training.
Marines with 1st Explosive Ordnance Disposal Company at Camp Pendleton will attend the new Weapons of Mass Destruction Design and Defeat Course in October. The goal is to improve EOD techs’ chances for survival should they encounter improvised WMD, and help deployed forces adapt to the threat.
It is a matter of time before improvised WMD are used against U.S. forces, says Steven Bucci, ... a retired Army Special Forces officer, said attempts in Iraq demonstrated the enemy’s willingness to use them. All they lack are the materials, and failing states like Syria, which possess weaponized chemical agents, could provide them.
Improvised WMD would most likely incorporate chemical agents, Bucci said. While they are difficult to manufacture and weaponize, much of the work is done if enemy forces obtain chemical weapons from an unsecured national stockpile — artillery shells, for example.
“The bad guys know how to detonate artillery shells as IEDs,” Bucci said. “They did that in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they are chemical weapon shells or warheads, then you have a potential problem. So while that has not been a particular threat in the past — other than these lame attempts in Iraq — if they can get some of these things out of Syria, the possibility of creating chemical IEDs goes way up..."
Which reminds me: Hillary Clinton is the greatest Secretary of State ever.
Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.
Thứ Sáu, 16 tháng 8, 2013
Will Mark Levin Actually Moderate the GOP Debates? Exclusive Interview with RNC Communications Director Sean Spicer
A few days ago Sean Spicer, the Communications Director of the Republican National Committee, made a surprising statement: he said that Mark Levin should moderate the GOP debates. Levin has formally accepted the offer. To explore this issue and a few others, I made a few attempts to get a hold of Mr. Spicer and, after a time, was able to synch up with him this evening.
Ross: Sean, thanks very much for taking the time out of your schedule to meet with us. Give us a little bit of background on yourself and how you arrived at the RNC and rose to such a key position.
Spicer: I got involved in several Congressional campaigns, House races in the nineties... after a time, I became the Republican National Congressional Committee's Retention Director. Three years later, I became a spokesman for the House Budget Committee. More recently, for the last three years of the Bush Administration I had a very lengthy title, but was really a trade spokesman.
Ross: Sean, a recent statement you made really caught conservatives by surprise -- and in a positive way. You said you thought Mark Levin and perhaps other conservative thought leaders should moderate GOP debates. How serious was that statement and did the reaction catch you by surprise?
Spicer: That was a very serious statement. Obviously, we're not at a point yet of picking debate forums or moderators, but we are definitely committed to energizing the conservative base. It's common sense: anyone's who listening to Rush, Levin, Hannity... they are addressing the issues that the grassroots are concerned with.
What I also find absolutely unbelievable is that in 2008 Chris Matthews, of all people, moderated two GOP debates. Yet why wouldn't we insist on the converse situation?
Ross: Mark Levin and other conservative pundits have been pretty harsh on the GOP leadership. Where, in your view, is that criticism legitimate and where do you think it's off-base?
Spicer: I'm not sure what the question is... what are you asking?
Ross: One of the many things that seems to aggravate the grassroots is the apparent disdain the RNC has for the conservative base. Is this an unfair impression and, if so, why?
Spicer: Look, we cannot win without the Tea Party, Constitutional conservatives, etc. And anyone who doesn't understand that isn't paying attention. We know the importance of the grassroots.
Ross: Fair enough, but we look at races like Dick Lugar vs. Richard Mourdock, Karl Rove attacking Christine O'Donnell, Lisa Murkowski going after Joe Miller, John McCain attacking Ted Cruz, etc. It seems as though when an establishment Republican loses to a conservative in a primary, they often do everything they can to sabotage the Republican side in the race. Yet when a conservative loses in a primary, the reverse seldom (if ever) happens. Is that accurate or inaccurate in your view?
Spicer: I would dispute the accuracy of that. Picking out individual situations involving Dick Lugar and Karl Rove... those aren't the RNC. We're not defending John Boehner or John McCain. We're not there to promote or defend particular policies or issues.
What I will tell you is that we have a huge fight on our hands and we need as united a front as we can get.
Ross: Where is the outreach to bloggers? I've been around nearly 10 years now and haven't seen much formal outreach to the folks I know. Am I missing something? Is there some formal program or platform that's needed?
Spicer: We are definitely connected to some of the major bloggers. We're not perfect, for sure, but we have regular dealings with RedState, Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, etc. So, factually, I'm not sure that's totally accurate. Our staff is trying to reach out, and we'd like to help.
We also don't view it as a one-way street. If you need content, if you need messaging, ask us. We understand that it's not just spamming out messages, we want to help the blogosphere.
Ross: What was a very energized conservative base in 2010 now appears, in my view, very dispirited and unlikely to turn out (at least at this point) for the mid-terms. This could spell disaster for the GOP and literally could permanently eradicate the Republican Party by returning control of the House to Nancy Pelosi.
Some sample reasons for a major decline in morale:
- A year after the attack in Benghazi and despite a huge majority of Republican House members signing on for a Select Committee, the Speaker refuses to dedicate staff and funding, despite this being a very common way to address controversial tactics by an administration
- One of the articles of impeachment for Nixon related to his political handling of the IRS; yet Congress hasn't called for a special prosecutor
- Likewise, unlawful attacks on the press -- from the AP to James Rosen -- have been largely ignored
- Obamacare law is being systematically rewritten by the president, with no less a commentator than George Will labeling it an impeachable crime
So the impression of the base is that our constitutional system of checks and balances is being systematically dismantled, and there's virtually no visible efforts by the House to push back. Instead, they want to slide Amnesty -- of all things -- by the American people.
Spicer: Look, our current immigration system is broken --
Ross: And who broke it? Congress --
Spicer: But ultimately the system needs to be fixed --
Ross: And that's what I don't understand. Pew indicates that 7 out of 8 of legalized illegals would vote Democrat. Why would the GOP want to commit political suicide?
Spicer: Look, we are well aware that border security is paramount.
Ross: But everything we read indicates that there's an effort to break the Senate bill into little pieces to make it appear border security will come first, when in fact it will all end up in a conference committee and a Schumer-Reid Amnesty Bill would emerge --
Spicer: But that's pure speculation, and truly not in my wheelhouse. We know how important border security will be, we know it's critical.
As for a Select Committee on Benghazi, I've been told the normal committee process is working... that's not in my wheelhouse to be sure, but --
Ross: But a Select Committee, with an experienced prosecutor --
Spicer: Again, that's not really my area, but I can assure you there is focus.
Ross: Well, Sean, I know you're short on time, but I do want to thank you for your willingness to open lines of communication here.
Spicer: Just to reemphasize, we both want the same things. We want to get the system back under control. We may differ on some of the tactics, but we have to figure out how to cooperate, because if we don't, the other side wins. And we all know what that means.
Ross: Thanks, Sean.
Ross: Sean, thanks very much for taking the time out of your schedule to meet with us. Give us a little bit of background on yourself and how you arrived at the RNC and rose to such a key position.
Ross: Sean, a recent statement you made really caught conservatives by surprise -- and in a positive way. You said you thought Mark Levin and perhaps other conservative thought leaders should moderate GOP debates. How serious was that statement and did the reaction catch you by surprise?
Spicer: That was a very serious statement. Obviously, we're not at a point yet of picking debate forums or moderators, but we are definitely committed to energizing the conservative base. It's common sense: anyone's who listening to Rush, Levin, Hannity... they are addressing the issues that the grassroots are concerned with.
What I also find absolutely unbelievable is that in 2008 Chris Matthews, of all people, moderated two GOP debates. Yet why wouldn't we insist on the converse situation?
Ross: Mark Levin and other conservative pundits have been pretty harsh on the GOP leadership. Where, in your view, is that criticism legitimate and where do you think it's off-base?
Spicer: I'm not sure what the question is... what are you asking?
Ross: One of the many things that seems to aggravate the grassroots is the apparent disdain the RNC has for the conservative base. Is this an unfair impression and, if so, why?
Spicer: Look, we cannot win without the Tea Party, Constitutional conservatives, etc. And anyone who doesn't understand that isn't paying attention. We know the importance of the grassroots.
Ross: Fair enough, but we look at races like Dick Lugar vs. Richard Mourdock, Karl Rove attacking Christine O'Donnell, Lisa Murkowski going after Joe Miller, John McCain attacking Ted Cruz, etc. It seems as though when an establishment Republican loses to a conservative in a primary, they often do everything they can to sabotage the Republican side in the race. Yet when a conservative loses in a primary, the reverse seldom (if ever) happens. Is that accurate or inaccurate in your view?
Spicer: I would dispute the accuracy of that. Picking out individual situations involving Dick Lugar and Karl Rove... those aren't the RNC. We're not defending John Boehner or John McCain. We're not there to promote or defend particular policies or issues.
What I will tell you is that we have a huge fight on our hands and we need as united a front as we can get.
Ross: Where is the outreach to bloggers? I've been around nearly 10 years now and haven't seen much formal outreach to the folks I know. Am I missing something? Is there some formal program or platform that's needed?
Spicer: We are definitely connected to some of the major bloggers. We're not perfect, for sure, but we have regular dealings with RedState, Guy Benson, Katie Pavlich, etc. So, factually, I'm not sure that's totally accurate. Our staff is trying to reach out, and we'd like to help.
We also don't view it as a one-way street. If you need content, if you need messaging, ask us. We understand that it's not just spamming out messages, we want to help the blogosphere.
Ross: What was a very energized conservative base in 2010 now appears, in my view, very dispirited and unlikely to turn out (at least at this point) for the mid-terms. This could spell disaster for the GOP and literally could permanently eradicate the Republican Party by returning control of the House to Nancy Pelosi.
Some sample reasons for a major decline in morale:
- A year after the attack in Benghazi and despite a huge majority of Republican House members signing on for a Select Committee, the Speaker refuses to dedicate staff and funding, despite this being a very common way to address controversial tactics by an administration
- One of the articles of impeachment for Nixon related to his political handling of the IRS; yet Congress hasn't called for a special prosecutor
- Likewise, unlawful attacks on the press -- from the AP to James Rosen -- have been largely ignored
- Obamacare law is being systematically rewritten by the president, with no less a commentator than George Will labeling it an impeachable crime
So the impression of the base is that our constitutional system of checks and balances is being systematically dismantled, and there's virtually no visible efforts by the House to push back. Instead, they want to slide Amnesty -- of all things -- by the American people.
Spicer: Look, our current immigration system is broken --
Ross: And who broke it? Congress --
Spicer: But ultimately the system needs to be fixed --
Ross: And that's what I don't understand. Pew indicates that 7 out of 8 of legalized illegals would vote Democrat. Why would the GOP want to commit political suicide?
Spicer: Look, we are well aware that border security is paramount.
Ross: But everything we read indicates that there's an effort to break the Senate bill into little pieces to make it appear border security will come first, when in fact it will all end up in a conference committee and a Schumer-Reid Amnesty Bill would emerge --
Spicer: But that's pure speculation, and truly not in my wheelhouse. We know how important border security will be, we know it's critical.
As for a Select Committee on Benghazi, I've been told the normal committee process is working... that's not in my wheelhouse to be sure, but --
Ross: But a Select Committee, with an experienced prosecutor --
Spicer: Again, that's not really my area, but I can assure you there is focus.
Ross: Well, Sean, I know you're short on time, but I do want to thank you for your willingness to open lines of communication here.
Spicer: Just to reemphasize, we both want the same things. We want to get the system back under control. We may differ on some of the tactics, but we have to figure out how to cooperate, because if we don't, the other side wins. And we all know what that means.
Ross: Thanks, Sean.
Thứ Năm, 15 tháng 8, 2013
EXCLUSIVE: White House releases new photo from Situation Room during Bin Laden raid; proves Love and Obama weren't playing cards
Earlier today Biff Spackle received the following encrypted email concerning the Reggie Love-Barack Obama card game controversy:
Well, I suppose that clears things up.
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 16:04:06 -0700
To: Biff Spackle <biff@badblue.com>
From: Richard Windsor <fatlisa@whitehouse.gov>
Subject: Proof that Obama was in the Situation Room during Bin Laden raid
TELL YOUR WINGNUT FRIENDS THAT WE HAVE PROOF THAT OUR LIGHTBRINGER WAS NOT1!!!!!!!! PLAYING CARDS WITH REGGIE!!!!!!
SEE???? WE WANT A RETRACTION!!!! BECHES@!!!.
RW
Well, I suppose that clears things up.
China aggressively testing advanced nukes that can hit mainland U.S. as Obama slashes missile defense
Guest post by Investors Business Daily
Defense: Beijing tests a mobile missile capable of hitting the continental U.S. and prepares to deploy ballistic missile submarines that can do the same, while our commander-in-chief slashes our missile defenses.
In a speech before the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Rep. Mike Rogers, R.-Ala., chairman of the House armed services subcommittee on strategic forces, warned that the Obama administration has cut $6 billion from U.S. missile defense programs at a time of growing missile threats from potential adversaries.
According to Rogers, Obama cut $1.16 billion from missile defense — a 10% reduction — in his first budget as president and has continued the reductions. "Over four fiscal years, this underfunding adds up to almost $6 billion less than President Bush planned for missile defense; this represents a 16% reduction," Rogers said.
Thanks largely to President George W. Bush and his push to fulfill President Ronald Reagan's dream, the continental U.S. and overseas allies are protected against missile attack by 30 deployed long-range Ground Based Interceptors (GBI), 32 ships armed with more than 100 SM-3 IA interceptors, and two dozen advanced SM-3 IB interceptors, dozens of Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors, and eight X-band missile defense radars deployed abroad.
However, a GBI test on July 5, the first such test in five years, failed. Our missile defense capabilities, which President Obama told the Russians he would have more "flexibility" to scuttle after his re-election, have been allowed to atrophy and deteriorate.
To placate Moscow, President Obama betrayed our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic by abandoning plans to deploy GBIs and missile defense radar there.
Other programs canceled by the Obama administration include a missile defense space sensor system; a next-generation Aegis missile, which was to replace the abandoned European GBIs; the Airborne Laser, an airborne sensor system; and a next-generation missile defense interceptor kill vehicle.
Our Chinese friends have noticed that the famous "reset" button has been replaced with one marked "easy." China's military carried out on July 24 a third test of a long-range DF-31A road-mobile ballistic missile capable of hitting the U.S. with nuclear warheads.
A recently published report by the Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center concluded, "China has the most active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world."
The report states that China's military has "more than 15" DF-31A launchers for the solid-fueled, single-warhead ICBM that has a range greater than 6,835 miles. The July 24 test came exactly a year after the Chinese conducted what U.S. officials said was one of the first flight tests of a new longer-range ICBM called the DF-4, expected to carry 10 nuclear warheads.
Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon also reports China's navy will begin the first sea patrols next year of a new class of strategic missile submarines, the Type 094, each built with 12 missile launch tubes that will hold the recently flight-tested JL-2 ballistic missile, which has an 8,000-kilometer (5,000-mile) range.
As with the GBIs, the U.S. rarely tests its missiles. A Minuteman III missile test was put off last year until after the presidential election and delayed again until May over concerns an ICBM flight test might frighten North Korea, led by its raging runt Kim Jong-un.
The 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont. , a unit responsible for 150 Minuteman 3 nuclear missiles that stand on 24/7 alert for potential launch against targets around the globe, recently failed a safety and security inspection.
Last spring the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., received grades on an inspection that were so poor that 17 officers temporarily lost their authority to operate missiles.
While we gut our military, cut back on readiness, training and weapons modernization, our adversaries are building up their arsenals of tyranny.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily
Defense: Beijing tests a mobile missile capable of hitting the continental U.S. and prepares to deploy ballistic missile submarines that can do the same, while our commander-in-chief slashes our missile defenses.
According to Rogers, Obama cut $1.16 billion from missile defense — a 10% reduction — in his first budget as president and has continued the reductions. "Over four fiscal years, this underfunding adds up to almost $6 billion less than President Bush planned for missile defense; this represents a 16% reduction," Rogers said.
Thanks largely to President George W. Bush and his push to fulfill President Ronald Reagan's dream, the continental U.S. and overseas allies are protected against missile attack by 30 deployed long-range Ground Based Interceptors (GBI), 32 ships armed with more than 100 SM-3 IA interceptors, and two dozen advanced SM-3 IB interceptors, dozens of Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors, and eight X-band missile defense radars deployed abroad.
However, a GBI test on July 5, the first such test in five years, failed. Our missile defense capabilities, which President Obama told the Russians he would have more "flexibility" to scuttle after his re-election, have been allowed to atrophy and deteriorate.
To placate Moscow, President Obama betrayed our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic by abandoning plans to deploy GBIs and missile defense radar there.
Other programs canceled by the Obama administration include a missile defense space sensor system; a next-generation Aegis missile, which was to replace the abandoned European GBIs; the Airborne Laser, an airborne sensor system; and a next-generation missile defense interceptor kill vehicle.
A recently published report by the Air Force National Air and Space Intelligence Center concluded, "China has the most active and diverse ballistic missile development program in the world."
The report states that China's military has "more than 15" DF-31A launchers for the solid-fueled, single-warhead ICBM that has a range greater than 6,835 miles. The July 24 test came exactly a year after the Chinese conducted what U.S. officials said was one of the first flight tests of a new longer-range ICBM called the DF-4, expected to carry 10 nuclear warheads.
Bill Gertz of the Washington Free Beacon also reports China's navy will begin the first sea patrols next year of a new class of strategic missile submarines, the Type 094, each built with 12 missile launch tubes that will hold the recently flight-tested JL-2 ballistic missile, which has an 8,000-kilometer (5,000-mile) range.
As with the GBIs, the U.S. rarely tests its missiles. A Minuteman III missile test was put off last year until after the presidential election and delayed again until May over concerns an ICBM flight test might frighten North Korea, led by its raging runt Kim Jong-un.
The 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont. , a unit responsible for 150 Minuteman 3 nuclear missiles that stand on 24/7 alert for potential launch against targets around the globe, recently failed a safety and security inspection.
Last spring the 91st Missile Wing at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., received grades on an inspection that were so poor that 17 officers temporarily lost their authority to operate missiles.
While we gut our military, cut back on readiness, training and weapons modernization, our adversaries are building up their arsenals of tyranny.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily
Thứ Tư, 14 tháng 8, 2013
CNN: During Bin Laden Attack, Obama Abandoned Situation Room to Play Hours of Cards With Reggie Love
While the famous photo op depicts President Obama hunkered down in the Situation Room while SEAL Team 6 pulled off its dazzling assault on Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, the reality was far more galling.
Via CNN, we discover that a bored President Obama and his "body man" Reggie Love were deeply engaged in hours of card-playing during the attack.
The revealing video appears to have been sufficiently damning that it has since been removed by the user who uploaded it.
Which begs the question: since the media still will not ask what the president was doing for eight hours while the Benghazi attack raged, perhaps we could ask Reggie Love.
And: what the hell is a "body man"?
Hat tips: Weasel Zippers and Wanda.
Via CNN, we discover that a bored President Obama and his "body man" Reggie Love were deeply engaged in hours of card-playing during the attack.
A famous photo shows President Barack Obama hunkered down in the Situation Room in May 2011 with his national security team as U.S. Navy SEALS carried out the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
But his former body man Reggie Love said in an interview posted online Wednesday that Obama also played cards to distract himself during the day-long ordeal...
...In the July 18 interview, which took place during a lunch hosted by UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs, Love talked about life with the president, including the historic moment more than two years ago when bin Laden was killed.
Describing it as a "very long day," Love said most people were in the Situation Room but Obama came to the private dining room to play cards with Love, White House photographer Pete Souza and staffer Marvin Nicholson.
"[President Obama] was like, 'I'm not, I'm not going to be down there, I can't watch this entire thing'," Love said. "We must have played 15 hands-15 games of Spades."
The revealing video appears to have been sufficiently damning that it has since been removed by the user who uploaded it.
Which begs the question: since the media still will not ask what the president was doing for eight hours while the Benghazi attack raged, perhaps we could ask Reggie Love.
And: what the hell is a "body man"?
Hat tips: Weasel Zippers and Wanda.
Thứ Ba, 13 tháng 8, 2013
It Would Seem That the Email Address of Sean Spicer, the so-called RNC "Communications Director", is a National Secret
There's a rumor circulating that the Republican Party has a Communications Director by the name of "Sean Spicer".
I had the idea of interviewing Mr. Spicer concerning his offer to Levin -- which the famed author, attorney and radio host has formally accepted -- but contacting the "Communications" director has proven more difficult than interviewing Jimmy Hoffa.
Tweeting @SeanSpicer hasn't worked thus far.
Nor has emailing every permutation of email address I can think of, including -- but not limited to:
• sean.spicer@rnc.org; sean@rnc.org; seans@rnc.org; spicer@rnc.org; ssspicer@rnc.org;
• sean.spicer@gop.com; sean@gop.com; seans@gop.com; spicer@gop.com; ssspicer@gop.com;
All of which were returned as undeliverable.
It would seem that the Republican Party's "Communications Director" is in the Witness Protection Program.
He's harder to get a hold of than Howard Hughes.
All of which seems appropriate for a GOP that is more out of touch with its conservative base than Michael Moore with his toes.
Update: Hallelujah! I have received an email and a tweet from Mr. Spicer himself. I will keep you apprised as to our communications.
Hat tip: Mark Levin.
Sean Spicer, the communications director for the Republican National Committee (RNC), said conservative talk radio host Mark Levin should ask 2016 Republican presidential candidates questions in debates during the next election cycle... [he said,] "the people who are out there talking to grassroots" should be asking Republican presidential candidates questions in the debates...
"Mark Levin should ask the questions," Spicer declared...
...He urged listeners to follow him and send him feedback and ideas on twitter to him (@SeanSpicer) and Priebus (@Reince).
Spicer said he could not emphasize how even the simplest suggestion can be adopted and help make the RNC better and more receptive to the concerns that grassroots conservatives, bloggers, and activists have...
I had the idea of interviewing Mr. Spicer concerning his offer to Levin -- which the famed author, attorney and radio host has formally accepted -- but contacting the "Communications" director has proven more difficult than interviewing Jimmy Hoffa.
Tweeting @SeanSpicer hasn't worked thus far.
Nor has emailing every permutation of email address I can think of, including -- but not limited to:
• sean.spicer@rnc.org; sean@rnc.org; seans@rnc.org; spicer@rnc.org; ssspicer@rnc.org;
• sean.spicer@gop.com; sean@gop.com; seans@gop.com; spicer@gop.com; ssspicer@gop.com;
All of which were returned as undeliverable.
It would seem that the Republican Party's "Communications Director" is in the Witness Protection Program.
He's harder to get a hold of than Howard Hughes.
All of which seems appropriate for a GOP that is more out of touch with its conservative base than Michael Moore with his toes.
Update: Hallelujah! I have received an email and a tweet from Mr. Spicer himself. I will keep you apprised as to our communications.
Hat tip: Mark Levin.
GERAGHTY: McAuliffe vs. Cuccinelli is a dry run for Hillary 2016
Writing at The Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty raises some excellent points for conservatives to ponder.
We Constitutional conservatives like to think we have far more support for our principles than the RINO establishment has for its non-principles. We need to prove it when it comes to serious candidates like Cuccinelli, especially when lined up against loathsome, crooked-as-a-corkscrew moonbats like Terry McAuliffe.
If you have a few bucks to spare, please drop by Ken Cuccinelli's site and help out.
You can read Geraghty most days he decides to wake up before noon by subscribing to The Morning Jolt.
Why the Cuccinelli vs. McAuliffe Race Matters to You, Even If You Don't Live in VirginiaGeraghty's right.
First, does anyone want to argue that Ken Cuccinelli–Virginia's attorney general, and the current GOP candidate for governor – is not a conservative?
- Led the legal challenge to Obamacare.
- Defended Arizona's immigration-enforcement statute.
- Filed legal challenges to the EPA's findings on greenhouse gases being a threat to human health and thus an emission they have the authority to regulate.
- Supports right to life from conception until death, supported and pushed several pro-life bills while in the state legislature.
- Endorsed by the NRA.
...So if you're one of those folks who believes that Mitt Romney was a RINO squish, and that Republicans always lose when they nominate RINO squishes, then you really, really, really need Ken Cuccinelli to win this year.If Ken Cuccinelli – Mr. Conservative Record – loses against a flawed competitor like Terry McAuliffe, in a purple state like Virginia . . . and simultaneously, Governor Hug-Obama-After-a-Hurricane-and-Move-Left wins in a landslide up in New Jersey . . . the message to the rest of the Republican party will be pretty clear. What you fervently believe – conservatives win, moderate squishes lose – will be refuted in the eyes of many Republicans. Proud conservatives like to believe that their like-minded grassroots voters are, collectively, like a sleeping giant... [but if] the conservative grassroots are indeed a sleeping giant, so far they're hitting the "snooze" button on this race. At least through mid-summer, Cuccinelli's fundraising is pretty "meh"...Cuccinelli, 44, had $2.7 million in cash as of the end of June, compared with $6 million for McAuliffe, 56, the former national Democratic Party chairman and fundraiser. While McAuliffe had been expected to out-raise Cuccinelli, the Republican is lagging behind where McDonnell was at this point in his 2009 race, when he had $4.9 million in cash on hand.What, national conservatives, the stakes aren't high enough? You don't feel sufficiently invested in the success of Cuccinelli in November?Okay, then think of the Terry McAuliffe 2013 campaign as a dress rehearsal for the Hillary Clinton 2016 effort.Because that's how the McAuliffe team sees themselves ... In fact, McAuliffe and some of his top allies have suggested to big donors and consultants that supporting his campaign is a way to get in on the ground floor of Hillary 2016, several donors and operatives told POLITICO.
We Constitutional conservatives like to think we have far more support for our principles than the RINO establishment has for its non-principles. We need to prove it when it comes to serious candidates like Cuccinelli, especially when lined up against loathsome, crooked-as-a-corkscrew moonbats like Terry McAuliffe.
If you have a few bucks to spare, please drop by Ken Cuccinelli's site and help out.
You can read Geraghty most days he decides to wake up before noon by subscribing to The Morning Jolt.
Thứ Hai, 12 tháng 8, 2013
Full-auto Gauss gun "has 3D printed guns running scared"
Daddy like.
The video at the link won't have anyone trading in their AR-15, but the technology does show a great deal of promise.
Hat tip: BadBlue Tech News.
3D-printed guns have been making the news a lot recently. That's not to say that they and their creators don't deserve the press — people arming themselves without so much as a permit is pretty terrifying. But whoever it was that said 3D printing was the only way for people to circumvent the law and arm themselves just might not have seen this bad boy.
This fully-automatic Gauss gun, dubbed the CG-42, has a 15-round capacity and can fire an entire clip of ammo in 1.5 seconds. What it fires is almost as frightening as the gun itself, because the CG-42 is armed with nails, side-stepping the need for even the slightest of paper trails.
A Gauss gun, also known as a coilgun, is a battery-operated, electromagnetic linear motor which pulls a projectile forward faster and faster until it exits the weapon's muzzle, no gunpowder required. The CG-42 has a muzzle velocity of 138 feet per second, which doesn't sound like a lot until you see it put a nail right through a laptop's casing. Gauss guns also get more powerful the longer you make them, so a Gauss "rifle" would be capable of much more destruction...
The video at the link won't have anyone trading in their AR-15, but the technology does show a great deal of promise.
Hat tip: BadBlue Tech News.
Thứ Tư, 7 tháng 8, 2013
President Obama Orders 22 U.S. Embassies Closed Over Fears of Widespread Workplace Violence
Al Qaeda, as the theme song of the Democrat National Convention goes, is on the run.
Indeed, worldwide terrorist groups are quite literally on the run, including a recent and explosive entry in the Boston Marathon. All over the world, radical Jihadists have grown sufficiently emboldened to convene a global conference call, patching in at least 20 terror leaders for what must have been a jolly recounting of the Obama administration's policy of weakness, appeasement and preemptive surrender.
Let me put this in terms even a Democrat can understand: the Obama administration's policies of willful blindness and Jihadi appeasement have resulted in a global, de facto surrender to radical Islam.
Obama's failures are represented perfectly in the case of former U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan. This piece of pig excrement is on trial in Killeen, Texas this week on charges of "workplace violence" after he killed or wounded 43 individuals at a Texas Army base.
In an utterly disgraceful act on the part of the Obama administration, Hasan's rampage has not been categorized as an act of terrorism though that is clearly what it was. Sara Noble explains that the Holder Justice Department has instead labeled Hasan's slaughter as "workplace violence".
As Noble observes, the Ft. Hood attack was categorized as "workplace violence" because he faced reelection and needed to pretend that Al Qaeda was "on the run". Just like Benghazi. Just like Benghazi.
Hat tip: BadBlue News.
Indeed, worldwide terrorist groups are quite literally on the run, including a recent and explosive entry in the Boston Marathon. All over the world, radical Jihadists have grown sufficiently emboldened to convene a global conference call, patching in at least 20 terror leaders for what must have been a jolly recounting of the Obama administration's policy of weakness, appeasement and preemptive surrender.
The crucial intercept that prompted the U.S. government to close embassies in 22 countries was a conference call between al Qaeda’s senior leaders and representatives of several of the group’s affiliates throughout the region...
...included [on the call were] the leaders or representatives of the top leadership of al Qaeda and its affiliates calling in from different locations, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence. All told, said one U.S. intelligence official, more than 20 al Qaeda operatives were on the call...
...Al Qaeda members included representatives or leaders from [Yemen,] Nigeria’s Boko Haram, the Pakistani Taliban, al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and more obscure al Qaeda affiliates such as the Uzbekistan branch. Also on the call were representatives of aspiring al Qaeda affiliates such as al Qaeda in the Sinai Peninsula...
Let me put this in terms even a Democrat can understand: the Obama administration's policies of willful blindness and Jihadi appeasement have resulted in a global, de facto surrender to radical Islam.
Obama's failures are represented perfectly in the case of former U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan. This piece of pig excrement is on trial in Killeen, Texas this week on charges of "workplace violence" after he killed or wounded 43 individuals at a Texas Army base.
[Hasan] said he was as a soldier who switched sides in what he described as a war between America and his Islamic faith. He then fell silent for most of the day... Maj. Hasan had also asked to argue that he carried out the shooting in "defense of others," namely members of the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan, but the judge denied that strategy.
Nadal Hassan... began his opening statement at his trial Tuesday saying, “The evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter... We mujahedeen are imperfect soldiers trying to form a perfect religion. I apologize for any mistakes I made in this endeavor,” the unrepentant Hasan said...
...The act of terror by Hasan, who was in contact with now-deceased terrorist Anwar al-Awalaki, was declared an incident of workplace violence though it was obviously a terrorist attack...
...The victims are and were not eligible for the Purple Heart as a result.
As Noble observes, the Ft. Hood attack was categorized as "workplace violence" because he faced reelection and needed to pretend that Al Qaeda was "on the run". Just like Benghazi. Just like Benghazi.
Hat tip: BadBlue News.
Thứ Ba, 6 tháng 8, 2013
15 Overpasses for Impeachment Photos You'll Never See in Legacy Media
"Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment" Rallies were held nationwide today to protest both the president's stunning series of scandals and the silence of a complicit media.
Some of the highlights:
Via @MsJulie
Via @ShariaFighter
Via @RedEarthFlame
Via @MericanDude
Via @Nadine19751
Via @TrulyBlessed2
Via @Lipton1942
Via Tea Party of Boone County
Via Merican866
Via Fox News 19
Via Nice Deb at Breitbart
Via Nice Deb
Today's rallies appear to have been inspired -- at least in part -- by a June 12th overpass protest that "tied up traffic for 10 miles in L.A.
Good work, patriots!
See: Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment for more information.
Some of the highlights:
Today's rallies appear to have been inspired -- at least in part -- by a June 12th overpass protest that "tied up traffic for 10 miles in L.A.
Good work, patriots!
See: Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment for more information.
Đăng ký:
Bài đăng (Atom)