Friday, December 13, 2013

The "S" in President Obama's DHS doesn't stand for "security." It stands for "sleaze." In the wake of Dirty Harry Reid's sabotage of the filibuster, Democrats have rammed through the Senate nomination of a shady Chicago crony associated with dangerous Clinton corruption and at least two visas-for-sale schemes. 
 
The White House wants Alejandro Mayorkas to helm the No. 2 position at the Department of Homeland Security. It speaks volumes about this ethics-challenged administration that the most qualified person it could find for this important post is a government DHS hack currently under investigation by other DHS hacks. More on that in a moment.

On Tuesday, Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee advanced Mayorkas' nomination to the Senate floor by a 9-0 vote. All Republicans voted "present" in protest. Thanks to Reid's nuclear option on the filibuster, Obama's party water-carriers in the Senate only need a simple majority. The appointment (scheduled for a Wednesday vote) is all but assured.

What qualifies Mayorkas to serve as DHS deputy secretary? Well, there's his prodigious fundraising in 2008 as an Obama bundler, of course. There's his dutiful pro-open borders record in his current job as director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. And once again, the operational motto of the Beltway prevails: Screw up, foul up, move up.

During the Clinton years, then U.S. Attorney Mayorkas phoned the White House on behalf of convicted drug dealer Carlos Vignali. Mayorkas joined other high-profile California liberals in the dialing-for-pardons campaign. Vignali's father (also suspected of drug trafficking) had dumped $200,000 in the coffers of Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh, to secure his son's commutation. Mayorkas pleaded ignorance and admitted failure to do his "due diligence." Like fellow Clinton corruptocrat and current Attorney General Eric Holder, Mayorkas' pardongate "mistake" cost him nothing. He was instead rewarded with plum government positions and access.

Allegations of fraud, reckless rubber-stamping and lax enforcement -- from veteran internal whistleblowers -- have plagued Mayorkas' tenure at USCIS. Rather than keeping his nose clean, Mayorkas apparently got himself involved in even more rotten business. The DHS inspector general has been probing a slimy visas-for-sale scheme tied to the Obama bundler for the past 15 months.

(One reason for the delay: the IG's office itself is under investigation for unethical behavior and favoritism.)

Mayorkas and other higher-ups are being investigated for their alleged roles in intervening on behalf of GreenTech, a crony company with ties to Democratic Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton's other brother, Anthony. The scheme reportedly gave "special treatment" (in the words of one USCIS official) to the company, which wanted EB-5 visas for deep-pocketed Chinese investors.

In addition, The Washington Times reported this week that both Harry Reid and GOP Nev. Sen. Dean Heller lobbied the Obama administration to reverse itself on EB-5 decisions for foreign investors in a Las Vegas casino hotel.

None of this EB-5 corruption should surprise longtime readers of my column. As I first reported more than a decade ago, the EB-5 immigrant investor program was created under an obscure section of the 1990 Immigration Act. The law allows 10,000 wealthy foreigners a year to purchase green cards by investing between $500,000 and $1 million in new commercial enterprises or troubled businesses.

After two years, foreign investors, their spouses and their children all receive permanent resident status -- which allows them to contribute to U.S. political campaigns and provides a speedy gateway to citizenship. The benefits of the EB-5 economic development plan have gone to former federal immigration officials who formed lucrative limited partnerships to cash in on their access and to shady foreign fraudsters. The supposed economic benefits of the program are unverifiable and inflated hype.

Whistleblowers have been punished and ostracized. Independent media have been intimidated and, in the case of the Franklin Center, sued for raising questions about the Democrats and immigrant investor fraud. The most transparent and ethical administration ever is stonewalling to protect Mayorkas. And citizenship is available to the highest crony foreign bidders.

Perhaps when White House journalists finish protesting Obama control freaks limiting their access to photos, they'll take an interest in top homeland security officials recklessly selling access to our shores. There's much, much more to the stench and the story.
"Obamacare was sold on a trinity of lies."

That ornate phrase, more suitable for the Book of Revelations or perhaps the next installment of "Game of Thrones," comes from my National Review colleague Rich Lowry. But I like it. Most people know the first deception in the triumvirate of deceit: "If you like your health insurance you can keep it, period." The second leg in the tripod of deception was "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."

But the third plank in the triad of disinformation hasn't gotten much attention: Obamacare will save you, me and the country a lot of money. This lie took several forms.

First, Obama promised on numerous occasions that the average family of four will save $2,500 a year in premiums. Where did that number come from? Three Harvard economists wrote a memo in 2007 in which they claimed that then-Sen. Obama's health-care plan would reduce national health-care spending by $200 billion. Then, according to the New York Times, the authors "divided [$200 billion] by the country's population, multiplied for a family of four, and rounded down slightly to a number that was easy to grasp: $2,500."

In September, the Obama administration's Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services used far more rigorous methods to predict that Obamacare would increase national health-care spending by $621 billion. Using Obama's own math, that would mean -- according to Chris Conover, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute and Duke University -- each family of four in America will spend an additional $7,450 thanks to Obamacare.

Of course, that methodology is still bogus. But it's probably closer to the truth.

The president and his allies also insisted that all of Obamacare's "free" preventative care would save the country vast amounts of money. As Obama put it in 2012: "As part of the health care reform law that I signed last year, all insurance plans are required to cover preventive care at no cost. That means free check-ups, free mammograms, immunizations and other basic services. We fought for this because it saves lives and it saves money -- for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody."

That's not true either. First of all, you'd think people would understand that there is no such thing as "at no cost." You are paying for "free" mammograms, blood tests and the rest, even if you don't see a line item for them on your bill. And even if you're poor enough that you don't even see a bill, that doesn't mean no one's paying. That's why millions of Americans who've lost their health insurance thanks to Obamacare are discovering that the new plans it offers are either more expensive, have higher deductibles or both.

Also, prevention doesn't necessarily save money. I know that Benjamin Franklin said an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (People always leave out the fact that he owned an insurance company that ran at a profit.) The idea that prevention saves money is one of these things that intuitively sounds like it has to be true. But think about it.

According to the National Cancer Institute, 12.4 percent of American women will get breast cancer at some point in their lives. So for every positive diagnosis there are seven negative diagnoses. Those tests cost a lot of money. Moreover, of the women who do get it, premature screenings won't necessarily catch it. That in no way means that screenings don't make sense. They do, particularly for women in high-risk groups. But testing everybody isn't a great way to save money. As the Congressional Budget Office reported in August, "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."

When presented with these and other facts, Obamacare's defenders note that the rate of increase in health-care costs has slowed in recent years. "I'm not going to walk away from something that has helped the cost of health care grow at its slowest rate in 50 years," Obama said last month.

This spin doesn't work either. The slowing of health-care costs began a decade ago, and even the administration's own actuaries say the recent drop is mostly attributable to the lousy economy. But even that's too generous to Obama. Costs haven't dropped. The rate of increase in spending has slowed. We're still on course to spend a record $2.9 trillion on health care in 2013.

Obamacare may have been sold on a trinity of lies, but it turns out it's also lies all the way down.
Good news and bad news about Muslim infiltration into America

From: Bare Naked Islam

 

GOOD NEWS 

Washington Post  The Catholic church (blue) and Southern Baptists (red) dominate the map below, which marks the religion with the largest number of adherents in every American county. Blanketed red, the Bible Belt is alive and well. Evangelicals in orange can lay claim to a smattering of Midwestern and Western counties, while Mormonism (gray) is, unsurprisingly, the largest religion in every Utah county and in chunks of Utah’s neighboring states.

2010-Largest-Group-by-County-e1386922510680

 

BAD NEWS

Islam is the largest non-Christian religion in the nation, claiming 20 states scattered mostly throughout the Midwest and South…with the greatest increases being recorded AFTER 9/11.

 

LargestNonChristian

More Ice Or Less Doesn’t Matter, It’s All Causing Global Weather Disasters

by / Personal Liberty Digest


More Ice Or Less Doesn’t Matter, It’s All Causing Global Weather Disasters
PHOTOS.COM
In 1974, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reported that greatly increased areas of snow and ice over the north polar cap presaged the dawning of a “little ice age.”

The report claimed that satellites had first noticed the increasing snow and ice in 1972 and blamed it on weather events that occurred that year around the globe. Among those weather events were hot, dry conditions in the Moscow region of the Soviet Union that killed food crops; a shortened monsoon season in India that reduced grain production; and inadequate rains in Argentina and Australia that likewise damaged crops. In the United States, abnormally wet weather in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 reduced corn and soybean production.

The result of this, according to the report, was skyrocketing food prices and widespread food shortages.

The report proclaimed: “There are strong signs that these recent climate disasters were not random deviations from the usual weather, but instead signals of the emergence of a new normal for world climates. If so, it is a normal that will be far less favorable to global agriculture, and thus to world food supplies.”

According to the report, the climate changes presaged a new “little ice age” that would not be as extreme as the one that occurred around 1,700 A.D., but would more likely resemble the one that occurred during the period 1880-1920.

Climatologists attending a workshop in Bonn, Germany, in 1974 looked at the satellite data and determined that during the 30 years prior to 1974, temperatures had been steadily cooling in the northern hemisphere. This cooling would continue, they said, and lead to a period wrought with agriculturally adverse droughts, abnormally cold spells and heat waves, with other extremes becoming more common.

When it comes to climate change — or that thing that most people call “weather” — it seems the more things stay the same, the more the climate change mafia changes their stories. The predicted ice age never materialized. Instead, some of same scientists soon turned around and forecast a rise in global temperatures, lessening ice at the poles and coming disasters like rising sea levels, droughts, floods and even snowstorms — the same “disasters” they had just blamed on increasing ice.

Now, Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis is out with a new study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, that notes ice at the North Pole is disappearing at an alarming rate and researchers “are finding a link with recent bouts of extreme weather.” Of course.

According to Francis, just half as much of the North Pole is covered by ice as was the case 30 years ago. This despite the fact that since 1997 there has been no significant increase in global average surface temperature, and some areas — notably the Northern Hemisphere — have actually cooled.

In editorializing on Francis’ report, Voice of America tells us, “At the same time, the northern hemisphere has seen some unbelievable weather with the last decade: Record-breaking heat waves and droughts in North America and Europe, and devastating floods in east Asia, to name a few.”

Francis and colleagues went back through three decades of weather data and measurements of Arctic ice and snow cover in northern latitudes. VOA tells us they found that, “’when there was less ice or less snow in any given year during the summertime, that that was more likely to occur at the same time as the occurrences of heat waves,’ she says.”

The takeaway is that climate science is far from settled. The climate change mafia has for years been fudging its statistics and making things up from whole cloth and has no compunction over it.

Their goal is not to “settle” the science, reduce so-called “greenhouse” gases or control the weather to the benefit of mankind. Their goal is simply to redistribute wealth and place more power in the hands of the elites.

Explosive book shows that all is not what it seems to be in Islam's origins 

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer


WhatModernMartyrShouldKnow.jpg

All over the world, believers in the canonical story of Islam’s origins are structuring their lives around the teachings of the Qur’an and Muhammad, and waging jihad warfare against unbelievers in accord with those teachings. If they cared to look into the strange history of the origins of Islam, however, they might think twice – as a landmark book, Norbert Pressburg’s What the Modern Martyr Should Know, abundantly illustrates.

Pressburg demonstrates that even the controversy over Islam’s canonical story has for centuries been wrongly framed. According to that story, Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, received his first revelation from Allah in a visitation by the angel Gabriel in the year 610. For the next twenty-three years, until his death in 632, he received more revelations periodically.

Armed with his new holy book, even as large portions of it then existed only in the memories of various of his companions, teachings, and his own teachings, his followers stormed out of Arabia after his death and conquered huge expanses of territory in the Middle East, North Africa, and Persia, bringing these conquered lands within the fold of the new religion.

Meanwhile, in 653, the caliph Uthman, Muhammad’s third successor as the leader of the Muslim community, gathered together all those who had memorized portions of the Qur’an or preserved parts of it in writing, had it all written and collated, and ordered the variants burnt.

Islamic apologists claim that Allah miraculously guided all of this process, protecting the Qur’an from error from the time of Muhammad’s first revelation to this day. Non-Muslims throughout history have disputed this by pointing to the book’s abundant obscurities; numerous grammatical, historical and factual errors; and its doctrines of warfare against unbelievers, oppression of women, and the like, in order to portray Muhammad as a false prophet, a liar, a con man, or worse.

Pressburg, however, demonstrates in this book that there is very good reason to think that Muhammad was neither a prophet nor a false prophet, but a work of fiction, an invention of the early Arabic conquerors: an Arabic prophet and an Arabic religion for their Arabic empire. Pressburg examines numerous anomalies that cast the canonical story into serious doubt: the use of crosses on official inscriptions by the caliph Muawiya, who was supposed to be the leader of a religion whose prophet and holy book abhorred and rejected crosses; the minting of coins around the same period that appear to use muhammad not as a proper name, but as a title: “the praised one,” often applied to Jesus Christ.

In fact, Pressburg notes, the philologist Christoph Luxenberg “provides evidence that muhamad is a gerund and could, under no circumstances, be understood as a name – it would be a grammatical impossibility.” What’s more, there is no trace of the superabundance of finely detailed biographical material that has come down to us about Muhammad – all of it dates from the eighth and ninth centuries, and there is no indication dating from the seventh century that anyone knew it even existed.

And so what of the prophet of Islam? “It is certainly impossible,” Pressburg correctly notes, “to prove the nonexistence of a person. But it is, however, possible to verify the information that exists about a person. And, for Muhammad, the attempt at verification has failed. Up to this day, we still have nothing, not a single proof in our hands, as scientists like Weil, Goldziher, Blachere, Luxenberg, and others have demonstrated. Beyond the religiously motivated assumptions, there is not even the slightest trace of a real-world Prophet in sight."

But surely there is archaeological evidence – notably, early mosques such as the Dome of the Rock, built late in the seventh century, no? No. Pressburg shows that the Dome of the Rock was actually built as a church, and became a mosque only as Muhammad began first to be invoked as an individual, a prophet, and the founder of a new religion – fully six decades and more after he is supposed to have lived.

The Qur’an, as Pressburg elucidates in detail, underwent a similar period of revision and development before it became the centerpiece of the new religion, and the stories about Muhammad were fabricated in the wake of its codification – often by squabbling parties within the new Islamic community, hoping to gain support for their position on a disputed issue by putting their view into the mouth of the newly minted Prophet.

Pressburg’s myth-busting doesn’t end there. He concludes with an excursus on the “Golden Age of Islam,” demonstrating that a great deal of the intellectual achievements that are commonly attributed to Islam today are actually the work of Arabic-speaking non-Muslims, and that the much-vaunted Islamic philosophers were actually decried as heretics within the Islamic world. After that Pressburg likewise explodes the “Myth of al-Andalus,” showing that Muslim Spain was not the paradise of proto-multiculturalism it is taken for granted as having been today, but a place of oppression and untold misery for dhimmi Jews and Christians subjugated under the rule of Islamic law.

The reader thus comes away from What the Modern Martyr Should Know with the wholly justified impression that virtually everything that is taught and taken for granted today in the West about Islam’s origins, teachings and history is false. Reality is murkier and darker, clouding over the sunny picture of Islam that Western leaders are so desperate for their citizens to accept today with a record of deception, violence, and supremacism stretching back far longer than most Western analysts have dared imagine.

Pressburg’s book, consequently, should be issued to all policymakers who have had any hand in formulating the stance toward Islam of any Western government; they would find it enlightening and disquieting in equal measure – but we could hope that at least some would take it as a foundation for formulating saner policies more conducive to the defense of human rights for all people. What the Modern Martyr Should Know was originally written in German, and the translation is sometimes infelicitous, marred with spelling and grammatical errors; they do not, however, overshadow either the book’s points or its importance. This book would make a perfect Christmas gift for the uncritically accepting multiculturalist in your life.
Op-ed: 
Congress...mandated to ObamaCare...let's see how they like it
By: Diane Sori

Democrats vs. Republicans…the ruling elite vs. ‘We the People’…what’s NOT good for the goose is so good for the gander…or so it seems.

“Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and Congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are — (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an Amendment made by this Act).”

In other words, as required by law Congress must sign up for Obamacare.

And now under emotional duress the Republicans…who all voted against ObamaCare by the way…are now one by one being forced…just like the American people are being forced...into signing up for the very thing they oppose. And while I am NOT now or ever was a fan of Rand Paul and now NOT a fan of Paul Ryan after his caving to the Democrats on the budget, they are following the law even though they oppose the law. And now that it’s been mandated, they like the rest of us need insurance for themselves and their families, so there really is NOTHING wrong with Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) joining the ObamaCare DC Health Link, the healthcare exchange designated for members of Congress…as has my Senator…Senator Marco Rubio.

And just yesterday Republican…albeit RINO…Sen. Lindsey Graham decided to sign up for ObamaCare in the South Carolina (his home state) exchange instead of the DC Exchange but ObamaCare is ObamaCare NO matter where you sign-up for it. “Obamacare is being pushed on the American people and we should live under it just like everyone else,” Graham said.

Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota and Sen. Michael Enzi of Wyoming will also be signing up in their home states, and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann…whose insurance was cancelled because of ObamaCare…will be doing so too but at almost three times the amount she was previously paying. And the numbers of Senators and Representatives signing up will be increasing as the website starts working better…gagging on that one.

And while all to date except Graham and Enzi have taken the subsidies offered…a ‘perk’ that comes with the job…neither they nor their staff will get any benefits they don’t already get. And you really cannot blame them for taking the subsidies when one has a number of young children. Also, remember the simple fact that Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley added an amendment to ObamaCare that all members of Congress and their aides would be required to obtain their health care coverage from the newly created exchanges to make sure they had a stake in the quality and efficiency of the exchanges…but what was NOT added to ObamaCare was the elimination of the subsidies automatically given.

“My interest in having Members of Congress participate in the exchange is consistent with my long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country,” Grassley said.

But just the thought of doing away with that subsidy…employer contributions actually as in the federal government being the employer…put fear into Democrats in Congress and into said government employees...all Obama loyalists who faced large premium increases under ObamaCare as originally written and passed. And with Obama’s fears of losing his loyalists…and knowing all the LIES he concocted just to get ObamaCare passed…caused this administration to step in and surprise... surprise…the subsidies stayed as Obama announced that the federal government would continue to contribute to health care premiums for members of Congress and their aides once they enrolled in ObamaCare.

And this is what Rubio, Paul, Ryan and the others signed onto…and they can always down the road return the subsidies…which I’m sure they will do…hint, hint. These three worked together to try and…for lack of a better word…kill…the dreaded Obamacare, and all declined to support a ‘stopgap bill’ to fund the government unless that bill also defunded as Rubio said, “this Obamacare bill that is going to be an absolute disaster for the American economy.” 

So retuning the subsidies would be the right and honorable thing to do and they know it.

And if you think about it, their signing on might in the end actually be a good thing for their experiences now become a true gauge of the exchanges and how they work or more likely how they don’t work…a gauge we can trust a hell of a lot more than what we’re being fed by Obama’s people….and we get it without the phony, done for money endorsements given by those handpicked by the left. And Rand Paul’s experience last week shows the true nightmare ObamaCare really is for even with said subsidies in place, Rand Paul saw firsthand the sticker shock regular Americans are seeing when he had to pay $20,000 for his plan, four times as much as he paid five years ago. And as an added little bit of happiness Paul said it took him over two hours to successfully enroll because the anything but wonderful ObamaCare DC Health Link lost the data he entered the first time he put it in.`

And this sticker shot hit Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio as well allowing them to feel the pain just like ‘We the People’ are feeling it.

“Senator Rubio spent time looking at all the options and decided to enroll through the D.C. exchange for coverage for him and his family,” Rubio’s spokeswoman Brooke Sammon said, adding that “Senator Rubio is following the law, even though he opposes it.” And contrary to the media rantings and political pundit put downs against Rubio for enrolling in the DC Exchange, this is the action of a man who truly has Americans best interests at heart.

By NOT putting themselves above ‘We the People’ when they easily could have, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, and the others have indeed done the right thing for this shows they are NOT above America’s citizenry but stand united with us.