Tuesday, November 19, 2013


Bring Bowe Home ...
Remember...NO MAN LEFT BEHIND !!!
 
 
barack-obama-oprah

“There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American.”

No, Oprah. In all sincerity I disrespect Obama for the same reason I disrespect you… because he is not worthy of respect.
Hard as it is to believe, in some circles of this great and glorious land we call “America,” there are people who think for themselves. These are those who don’t wait for some overpaid, egocentric talk-show host to tell them what to believe, what to think, or how to vote. They are the countless millions who expect others to take responsibility for themselves and their own families.
You see, we grew up in a time when there was no Oprah show to tell us we were poor, downtrodden, mistreated and abused.
Instead, we had to shoulder both trial and tragedy with no one to blame for our state but the man in the mirror. If we succeeded or if we failed, it was because of something we had done, not the color of our skin. There have been many in America of every race who were born into truly poor and terribly disadvantaged homes, yet succeeded wildly. Take Barack Obama (please).

Now, your friend Barack sits between two worlds. “Barack”, the African son of black, Kenyan economist, Barack Obama Sr., and “Barry”, son of white, American economist Ann Dunham.

I don’t believe you understand the quandary you’ve placed yourself in!
On the one hand, you couldn’t help but defend “Barack’s” African-American heritage from the evil white man. After all, no white person could actually be judging the man based upon his actions. Whites are inherently racist, after all.
On the other hand, “Barry” is responsible for one of the largest economic declines for minorities in US history. How could you possibly allow his Caucasian side to get away with leading African-Americans into such a horrible state of affairs?
It appears you want to both have your cake and eat it too (and eat it… and eat it…).

I want to thank you for reminding us all of our apparent racism. I hope you’ll take the time to remind Barry of his.


Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2013/11/open-letter-oprah-barack-barry/#s36LZTDLmvFkjUjy.99
barack-obama-oprah

“There’s a level of disrespect for the office that occurs. And that occurs in some cases and maybe even many cases because he’s African American.”

No, Oprah. In all sincerity I disrespect Obama for the same reason I disrespect you… because he is not worthy of respect.
Hard as it is to believe, in some circles of this great and glorious land we call “America,” there are people who think for themselves. These are those who don’t wait for some overpaid, egocentric talk-show host to tell them what to believe, what to think, or how to vote. They are the countless millions who expect others to take responsibility for themselves and their own families.
You see, we grew up in a time when there was no Oprah show to tell us we were poor, downtrodden, mistreated and abused.
Instead, we had to shoulder both trial and tragedy with no one to blame for our state but the man in the mirror. If we succeeded or if we failed, it was because of something we had done, not the color of our skin. There have been many in America of every race who were born into truly poor and terribly disadvantaged homes, yet succeeded wildly. Take Barack Obama (please).

Now, your friend Barack sits between two worlds. “Barack”, the African son of black, Kenyan economist, Barack Obama Sr., and “Barry”, son of white, American economist Ann Dunham.

I don’t believe you understand the quandary you’ve placed yourself in!
On the one hand, you couldn’t help but defend “Barack’s” African-American heritage from the evil white man. After all, no white person could actually be judging the man based upon his actions. Whites are inherently racist, after all.
On the other hand, “Barry” is responsible for one of the largest economic declines for minorities in US history. How could you possibly allow his Caucasian side to get away with leading African-Americans into such a horrible state of affairs?
It appears you want to both have your cake and eat it too (and eat it… and eat it…).

I want to thank you for reminding us all of our apparent racism. I hope you’ll take the time to remind Barry of his.


Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2013/11/open-letter-oprah-barack-barry/#s36LZTDLmvFkjUjy.99

To Pass Health Plan, Obama and Dems Kept Mum About its Downsides

Byron York / Townhall Columnist

The journalist Jonathan Cohn, an ardent supporter of Obamacare, recently wrote in The New Republic that problems with the rollout of the Affordable Care Act should be "an opportunity to have a serious conversation about the law's trade-offs -- the one that should have happened a while ago."

Cohn is right that there was no serious conversation about those trade-offs back when Congress was considering the law's passage in 2009 and 2010. But why was that? It was because President Obama and his Democratic allies could not speak seriously -- and honestly -- about those trade-offs and still pass their bill.

So instead, Obama assured Americans they could keep health care policies they liked. And it wasn't just Obama. "One of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in August 2009. "If you like what you have, you can keep it," said then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in October of the same year.

Many, many Democrats promised the same thing. They had to. If they had declared openly that millions of Americans would lose their current coverage and face higher premiums and deductibles -- if Obama and Democratic leaders had said that, they would not have been able to maintain party unity in support of the bill, and the Affordable Care Act would never have passed Congress.

It would not have mattered that Republicans opposed the bill unanimously. A frank public discussion of Obamacare would have divided Democratic support, with the result being no new law at all.

But now, as the reality of Obamacare begins to present itself in the lives of millions of Americans, the president and his party can no longer avoid an honest look at the law they passed. And one part of that honesty will be examining what they said when they passed Obamacare. There will likely be a lot of accountability in coming months.

For example, CNN's Jake Tapper recently asked Rep. Steve Israel, a leading congressional Democrat, whether the bill's supporters "were as forthright about some of the issues as they could have been" during the Obamacare debate. Tapper specified not just the president's keep-your-coverage promise but "some of the trade-offs" of the law that favor some Americans over others. "If you could go back in time, do you think there should have been more honest salesmanship?" Tapper asked.

"Well, there should have been certainly more precise education and more precise salesmanship, there's no question about that," Israel said. "But you can't go back in time."

Yes, you can. Not literally; of course Democrats can't have a do-over. But the American people can certainly go back in time and examine the Democratic sales job for Obamacare in light of today's reality. The president and his party knew full well the trade-offs they were making; they just didn't tell the rest of the country.

All during the debate, Democratic officeholders, aides, policy wonks, advocates and sympathetic journalists all knew coverage cancellations would be coming as part of Obamacare. Of course, the president knew, too. When Obama made the keep-your-coverage promise, over and over, those Washington insiders accepted the untruth as a necessary part of the process, something Democrats had to do to pass their bill.

But millions of Americans didn't get the memo and took Obama at his word. And now that the promise has been proven false, the president is trying to recover his credibility -- his desire to do so was painfully evident at his long and sometimes rambling news conference -- and his party is searching for cover.

There won't be any. In coming days, Republicans, who voted unanimously against Obamacare, will be happy to remind the public of what Democrats promised. On Thursday afternoon, for example, the House GOP leadership published a list of quotes from 61 House Democrats pledging that if Americans liked their health coverage they could keep it. And in the Senate, for those vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2014, the accountability could be quite painful indeed.

The situation could become infinitely worse if problems now plaguing the individual insurance market begin to infect employer-based insurance, which covers by far the largest number of Americans.

In response, Democrats will no doubt talk a lot about various measures to "fix" this or that part of Obamacare. But voters will know that those Democrats are just seeking to clean up a mess they made in the first place. The political price to be paid could be very, very high.


"The Affordable Care Act's political position has deteriorated dramatically over the last week." That, coming from longtime Obamacare cheerleader and Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein, was pretty strong language. And it was only Wednesday.

That was the day after the release of a devastating Quinnipiac national poll. It showed Barack Obama's approval rating at 39 percent, with his disapproval rating at 54 percent -- sharply down from 45 percent approval and 49 percent disapproval on Oct. 1, the day the government shutdown began and healthcare.gov went into (limited) operation.

Democrats hoped that Republicans would take a shellacking in public opinion for the Oct. 1-16 government shutdown. They did, briefly. But Quinnipiac's survey, conducted three weeks after the shutdown ended, indicated that the Obamacare rollout inflicted much more damage on the Democratic brand -- and the party's leader.

Quinnipiac's numbers on Obamacare were also exactly the same as their numbers on Obama: 49 percent favored the health care legislation, 55 percent were opposed. Moreover, a near-majority -- 46 percent -- said the president knowingly deceived them when he assured Americans over and over that they could keep their health insurance plans.

There are few names a president can be called that are more damaging than liar.

The numbers are particularly daunting when you look at the groups that Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg identifies as major parts of "the big cultural and demographic wave that threatens to swamp the Republican party" -- young voters and Hispanics.

Obama carried voters under 30 by 66 percent to 32 percent in 2008 and 60 percent to 37 percent in 2010. He carried older voters by 1 point in the first election and lost them to Mitt Romney in the second.

Obama did even better with Hispanics: 67 percent to 31 percent in 2008 and 71 percent to 27 percent in 2012. This was one of the few demographic groups among which he ran stronger than four years earlier.

But that was then, and this is now. Quinnipiac shows young voters disapproving of Obama 54 percent to 36 percent and Hispanics disapproving 47 percent to 41 percent.

Both groups rate him negatively on the economy, the federal budget, immigration, foreign policy and health care. Bare majorities, 51 percent of both groups, say Obama cares about people like them.

Obamacare, popular among both groups in 2012, is now an Obama albatross. Young voters oppose it 51 percent to 42 percent and Hispanics 50 percent to 44 percent. Majorities of both groups give Obama negative ratings on health care.

One must note that this is just one poll and that opinions may change as events unfold. But it looks very much like the astonishingly disastrous Obamacare rollout has moved opinion decisively against the president and his trademark policy.

And all those predictions -- not just by Democrats -- that the Republican Party faced extinction because of overwhelming opposition from Millennials and Hispanics look to be, like Mark Twain's famous obituary, premature.

There's one other interesting result from Quinnipiac. Has the Obama administration "been competent in running the government"? Overall, 53 percent said no and only 43 percent said yes. Young voters (47 percent said yes, 46 percent said no) and Hispanics (51 percent said yes, 46 percent said no) were only slightly more positive.

The fiasco of the healthcare.gov website undoubtedly contributed to this. But perhaps Americans are also starting to notice that this president is not performing his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law -- and in this case, a law he and his party wrote.

The Obama administration announced last July that it is not enforcing Obamacare's employer mandate. It has admitted that it cannot verify the eligibility of applicants for Obamacare subsidies.

(Come and get it!)

It says it will provide subsidies for those buying insurance through the federal health care exchanges in 36 states -- even though the legislation nowhere authorizes that.

And last Thursday, as congressional Democrats were panicking and supporting measures to allow people to keep their current health insurance policies, Obama announced that he would not impose penalties on policies that don't comply with the law.

That was plainly a transparent attempt to fob off the blame for cancelled policies on insurers and state regulators who complied with the law as written. It is a political ploy inconsistent with the rule of law.

Quinnipiac and other pollsters are not in the habit of asking Americans whether presidents are faithfully executing the law. The assumption has been that, unlike in Russia, they mostly are -- or were.

The Framers of the Constitution regarded refusal to faithfully execute the law as tyranny. Barack Obama, with his Swiss cheese exceptions to Obamacare, seems to take a different view.

Obama White House ordered John Kerry to support Muslim Brotherhood

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Thumbnail image for kerry_john.jpgNot as bad as the others

But he didn't say what they wanted him to say. New respect for John Kerry: "Exclusive: John Kerry Defies the White House on Egypt Policy," by Josh Rogin for the Daily Beast, November 18 (thanks to Kenneth):
The secretary doesn’t agree with Obama’s team, especially Susan Rice, on how to deal with Egypt. Unfortunately for Rice, Kerry is the one on the ground—and he’s doing things his way. 
Before Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent trip to Cairo, National Security Adviser Susan Rice told him to make strong statements in public and private about the trial of deposed President Mohamed Morsi. On his own, Kerry decided to disregard the White House’s instructions.
The tension between the national security adviser and the secretary of state spilled over into public view in the past week, when Rice laid out her critical appraisal of the Egyptian government, which contradicted Kerry’s assessment that Egypt was “on the path to democracy.” The now public rift has been simmering behind the scenes for months and illustrates the strikingly divergent Egypt policies the White House and the State Department are pursuing.
The turf battles and internal confusion are hampering the administration’s approach to Egypt, say lawmakers, experts, and officials inside both governments.
“John Kerry doesn’t agree with Susan Rice on big portions of our Egypt policy, and he made a deliberate and conscious decision not to mention Morsi in his Cairo meetings,” an administration official told The Daily Beast. “Susan Rice wasn’t happy about it.”...
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee, told The Daily Beast in an interview that he is opposed to giving the government of Egypt any more aid until it takes major steps toward restoring the rule of law.
“I’m not going to authorize more assistance to Egypt until they march toward a transition to a civilian-controlled government,” he said. “My goal is to not reinforce the coup but to reinforce the transition.”
Asked about the Kerry-Rice split on Egypt policy, Graham said, “I’m in the Susan Rice camp.”
What a surprise.

You Should Feel Sorry For Sheeple; Here’s Why
by   / Personal Liberty Digest
You Should Feel Sorry For Sheeple; Here’s Why
PHOTOS.COM

It is often said there only two kinds of people in this world: those who know, and those who don’t. I would expand on this by pointing out that there are actually three kinds of people: those who know, those who don’t know and those who don’t care to know.

Members of the last group are the kind of people I would characterize as “sheeple.”

Sheeple are members of a culture or society who are not necessarily oblivious to the reality of their surroundings; they may have been exposed to valuable truths on numerous occasions. However, when confronted with facts contrary to their conditioned viewpoint, they become aggressive and antagonistic in their behavior, seeking to dismiss and attack the truth by attacking the messenger. So-called mainstream media outlets go out of their way to reinforce this aggressive mindset by establishing the illusion that the sheeple are the “majority” and that the majority perception (which has been constructed by the MSM) is the only correct perception.

Many liberty movement activists have noted recently that there has been a surge in media propaganda aimed at painting the survival, preparedness and liberty cultures as “fringe,” “reactionary,” “extremist,” “conspiracy-minded,” etc. National Geographic’s television show “Doomsday Preppers” appears to have been designed specifically to seek out the worst possible representatives of the movement and parade their failings like a carnival sideshow. Rarely do they give focus to the logical arguments regarding why their subjects become preppers, nor do they choose subjects who can explain as much in a coherent manner. This is a very similar tactic used by the establishment media at large-scale protests; they generally attempt to interview the least-eloquent and easiest-to-ridicule person present and make that person a momentary mascot for the entire group and the philosophy they hold dear.

The goal is to give sheeple comfort that they are “normal” and that anyone who steps outside the bounds of the mainstream is “abnormal” and a welcome target for the collective.

It would appear that the life of a sheeple is a life of relative bliss. The whole of the establishment machine seems engineered to make them happy and the rest of us miserable. But is a sheeple’s existence the ideal? Are they actually happy in their ignorance? Are they truly safe within the confines of the system? Here a just a few reasons why you should feel sorry for them.

 

Sheeple Are Nothing Without The Collective

A sheeple gathers his entire identity from the group. He acts the way he believes the group wants him to act. He thinks the way he believes the group wants him to think. All of his “ideas” are notions pre-approved by the mainstream. All of his arguments and talking points are positions he heard from the media, and he has never formed an original opinion in his life. Without the group telling him what to do, the average sheeple is lost and useless. When cast into a crisis situation requiring individual initiative, he panics or becomes apathetic, waiting for the system to come and save him rather than taking care of himself. Sheeple are so dependent on others for every aspect of their personality and their survival that when faced with disaster, they are the most likely people to curl up and die.

 

Sheeple Need Constant Approval From Others

Sheeple are not only reliant on the collective for their identity and their survival; they also need a steady supplement of approval from others in order to function day to day. When a sheeple leaves his home, he is worried about how his appearance is perceived, how his attitude is perceived, how his lifestyle is perceived and how his opinions are perceived. Everything he does from the moment his day begins revolves around ensuring that the collective approves of him. Even his acts of “rebellion” are often merely approved forms of superficial “individualism” reliant on style rather than substance.

This approval becomes a kind of emotional drug to which the sheeple is addicted. He will never make waves among the herd or stand out against any aspect of the herd worldview, because their approval sustains and cements his very existence. To take collective approval away from him would like cutting off a heroin junky’s supplier. To be shunned by the group would destroy him psychologically.

 

Sheeple Are Incapable Of Original Creativity

Because sheeple spend most of their waking moments trying to appease the collective, they rarely, if ever, have the energy or inclination to create something of their own. Sheeple do not make astonishing works of art. They do not achieve scientific discovery. They do not make history through philosophical or ideological innovation. They remain constant spectators in life, watching change from the bleachers, caught in the tides of time and tossed about like satellites of Pacific Ocean garbage from Fukushima. The destiny of the common sheeple is entirely determined by the outcome of wars and restorations waged by small groups of aware individuals — some of them good, some of them evil.

 

Sheeple Have No Passion

If you draw all of your beliefs from what the collective deems acceptable, then it is difficult, if not impossible, to become legitimately passionate about them. Sheeple have little to no personal connection to their ideals or principles; so they become mutable, empty and uninspired. They tend to turn toward cynicism as a way to compensate, making fun of everything, especially those who are passionate about something. The only ideal that they will fight viciously for is the collective itself, because who they are is so intertwined with the survival of the system. To threaten the concept of the collective is to threaten the sheeple’s existence by extension.

 

Sheeple Are Useless

The average sheeple does not learn how to be self-reliant because it is considered “abnormal” by the mainstream to be self-reliant. The collective and the state are the provider. They are mother and father. Sheeple have full faith that the system will protect them from any and all harm. When violence erupts, they cower and hide instead of defending themselves and others. When large-scale catastrophe strikes, they either sit idle waiting for the state to save them or they join yet another irrational mob.

They do not take proactive measures, because they never felt the need to learn how.

Consider this: Why do the mainstream and the people subject to it care if others prepare for disaster or end their dependency on the establishment? Why are they so desperate to attack those of us who find our own path? If the system is so effective and the collective so correct in its methodology, then individualists are hurting only themselves by walking away, right? But for the sheeple, successfully self-reliant individuals become a constant reminder of their own inadequacies. They feel that if they cannot survive without the system, no one can survive without the system; and they will make sure that individualists never prove otherwise. “You didn’t build that” becomes the sheeple motto, as they scratch and scrape like spoiled children, trying to dismantle the momentum of independent movements and ventures in non-participation.

 

Sheeple Are Easily Forgotten

To live a life of endless acceptance is to live a life of meaningless obscurity. When one arrives at his deathbed, does he want to reflect on all of his regrets or all of his accomplishments? Most of us would rather find joy than sadness when looking back over our past. For sheeple, though, this will not be possible — for what have they ever done besides conform? What will they have left behind except a world worse off than when they were born? What will they have accomplished, but more pain and struggle for future generations? In the end, what have their lives really been worth?

I cannot imagine a torture more vicious and terrifying than to realize in the face of one’s final days that one wasted his entire life trying to please the plethora of idiots around him, instead of educating them and himself and molding tomorrow for the better. I cannot imagine a punishment more severe than to spend the majority of one’s years as a slave without even knowing it. I cannot imagine an existence more deserving of pity and remorse than that of the sheeple.
Op-ed: 
Honoring and dishonoring words that changed the course of our nation 
By: Diane Sori


A two-minute speech delivered 150 years ago today on the once bloodied grounds at Gettysburg PA…a two-minute speech that turned the tide of a war...a war that pit brother against brother…father against son…where 170,000 fought…where a third of Lee’s army died or lay wounded…where a quarter of the of the Union forces suffered the same fate.

The Gettysburg Address…a speech that remains one of the greatest pieces of oratory the world has ever known
…a speech that reinforced what our great nation stood for then and most importantly stands for today, “…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

What our nation stands for today…what ‘We the People’ stand for…what our sham of a president does NOT.

According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief the president is sometimes asked to officiate at dedication ceremonies for military memorials, parks, national cemeteries, battleships, military bases, national monuments, and at other military related events.

To be asked to officiate at such events is an honor and should be treated as such for those being honored are those who gave their lives…are those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom. Lincoln knew this and Lincoln honored those who died in one of the deadliest battles of the Civil War in a speech for the ages…in a speech that speaks of America’s dedication to God, Country, and Freedom.

And yet when it came time for Barack HUSSEIN Obama to NOT only honor those lost on that field in July 150 years ago…when it came time to honor the words that helped heal a nation…this most vile of men…this disgrace to NOT only the presidency itself but to his role as Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces…a man totally detached from honor and decency…decided NOT to attend the ceremony that will be held at the Soldiers’ National Cemetery. And coward that he is Barack HUSSEIN Obama had The National Park Service do his dirty work and announce his decision NOT to go.

And the man who loves to invoke Lincoln’s name time and again and to talk of his admiration for our 16th president…the man who loves to say that he’s from the ‘Land of Lincoln’…the man who used the Lincoln Bible for both his inauguration ceremonies ...cannot be bothered to pay tribute to one of our nation’s greatest speeches by one of our nation’s greatest presidents. Our nation’s first (supposed) black president, should be there if for NO other reason than to show the American people how far our nation has come since the days of the Civil War when the idea of a black president was NOT even a thought to be considered.

And when asked why he wasn’t going, Obama’s mouthpiece Jay Carney gave NO reason why other than to say he had NO updates on the president’s schedule for November 19th.

“I think that is an enormously significant event in our history, and I think Americans will take the appropriate time to consider it, consider the speech that was delivered there,” he said. “But beyond that, I don’t have any updates on the President’s schedule,” Carney bloviated, sidestepping the issue like he does for many other issues concerning our Traitor-in-Chief.

But this snub of Obama’s is NOT unique and will be added to his ever growing list of snubs towards anything having to do with our military or military related events. Remember, Obama skipping the Wreath Laying Ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in 2010 choosing to go to Chicago instead, but made sure to attend the ceremony in 2012 as it was a mere six months before the presidential elections and he needed the photo-op. Remember, Obama has failed to commemorate D-Day every year since 2010, and in his first visit to the Viet Nam Memorial, again before the election, was for a photo-op and NOTHING more for while he was there vets were blocked from their own memorial. And let’s NOT forget Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s ultimate slap in the face to our military when he stopped elderly WWII veterans from visiting their own open-air memorial during the joke of a recent government shutdown.

And to add insult to injury, Obama is sending newly appointed…as in just this year…Interior Secretary Sally Jewell to honor those lost…to honor the most honorable of all Lincoln's words…on behalf of this administration. Sending Jewell to honor the man who freed the slaves when Obama himself should be in attendance to offer words of NOT only racial healing for the wounds he and his cohorts opened anew but also to offer words of bi-partisan reconciliation to do what’s right for the country NOT for what’s right for the body politics...this is the message...the words that Obama should be delivering today...a message of healing...a message of hope...like Lincoln delivered all those years ago.

And while great presidents exude pride NOT just in themselves and in the office to which they were elected, they show pride in how they speak of the American military and in how they relate to the American people. Maybe this means that in the end its best that Obama NOT attend today’s ceremonies for he does neither.

And maybe his NOT attending will allow those who died at Gettysburg to continue in an undisturbed Everlasting Rest for they will NOT be dishonored by this most dishonorable of men. And maybe the words of Abraham Lincoln…words that reset the course of a nation…can continue to be honored, revered, and respected without the stain Barack HUSSEIN Obama would put upon them…period.