Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Apart from gutting America's military, our standing in the world, our fiscal stability, the economy, the office of the presidency, conventional energy sources, the free market and religious liberty, Obama has little to boast about other than Obamacare, so let him go for it.

Yes, let him gloat, because the more he bloviates in defense of the indefensible -- the more he spins the unspinnable -- the more damage he'll do to the cause he's trying to promote: the election of Democratic congressmen in November.

Obama wasn't content with having just one news conference to tout the "success" of his Obamacare sign-up efforts, the one in which he fraudulently claimed he had met his goal of enrolling 7 million new people to fund this monster. As I've previously written, that number was staggeringly misleading for a variety of reasons, including that millions of new enrollees already had other coverage, far too few were in the necessary "young and healthy" category, 15 to 20 percent of the enrollees hadn't secured coverage because they hadn't paid their premiums, and an estimated 1 million more people lost their insurance and couldn't afford to replace it because Obamacare's mandated coverage provisions caused premiums to increase. (Also, how hard is it to add enrollees when uninsured Americans have a gun to their heads to force them to acquire insurance? Isn't this kind of like a bank robber's bragging about his "earnings?")

Obama conducted another self-congratulatory news conference just a few days ago to celebrate that 8 million people have now signed up, and this time, he was even more baselessly triumphant. As you may have heard, he declared -- he is the president, after all -- that the debate is now over and instructed his subjects -- i.e., Republicans -- that "it's well past time to move on."

Oh, maybe that's why he wouldn't respond to questions during the first news conference. Why should he have to provide information when there's nothing left to discuss? Silly us.

I'm not quite sure, though, that this "debate is over" edict is going to work too well, as a recent Fox News poll reports that 61 percent of Americans believe that Obama "lies" about important public issues either "most of the time" or "some of the time." As The Washington Examiner's editors aptly noted, "no other president in living memory has conducted himself in a manner that warranted even asking if such a description was appropriate."

There is just no getting around Obama's Obamacare lies: "If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them," and health care insurance premiums for an average family of four will go down by some $2,500.

As painfully narcissistic as Obama is, the immediate reason he is so often sprinting to the presidential podium now -- when he otherwise studiously avoids it -- is not to defend Obamacare because it's his "baby," though that is a close second. It is to change the narrative on Obamacare in a desperate attempt to prevent an electoral bloodbath for Democrats in November.

Unhappily for Obama, one of his biggest Obamacare lies -- the one that served as the main premise underlying our allegedly urgent need for Obamacare in the first place -- has yet to be fully realized by the American public he continues to victimize with this law.

The primary impetus for Obamacare was that 46 million Americans were uninsured and Obamacare would correct that. Forget the unconscionable fraud in that number, and put aside the fact that Obamacare is not getting appreciably more people insured. Even if it ends up doing better, don't forget that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that after the law is fully implemented, some 30 million will remain uninsured.

The main fraud in Obama's sales pitch about the millions of uninsured is its implication that insurance coverage equals access to care. No matter how many net millions more, if any, end up with coverage, what about their access to care, the quality of care they will receive, their ability to choose their doctors and type of care, and the cost of it all -- to individuals and to the government?

People are discovering the inevitable with Obamacare -- that with their newly acquired insurance, many doctors will not accept them for treatment. This is forcing people to drive long distances to get physician and hospital care. People are being forced to switch doctors they like. Their premiums are being jacked up.

On top of all this, Obama's economy continues to tank, and he is demonstrating himself to be a foreign policy buffoon, dragging down America's image after promising to rebuild it.

Obama can declare the debate over all he wants to, but if the debate is now over, Republicans will win in November -- big-time -- which means, with a little hope and prayer, that we're moving that much closer to repealing his "signature achievement," restoring America's military, addressing the debt, reinvigorating the market and reinstituting policies of economic growth.
When you allow unlawful acts to go unpunished, you're moving toward a government of men rather than a government of law; you're moving toward anarchy. And that's exactly what we're doing. -- John Wayne
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. -- George Orwell
Tell me why any American should respect the law?

Because it's moral? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in a nation like America, it's not unusual for laws to be unfair, unjust, and even immoral. 

Is it because laws represent the will of the people? Not anymore. Today, the "law" is often summarily created from murky statutes by unelected bureaucrats who face no consequences for destroying people's lives.

Well, is the law at least equally applied? Absolutely not. Your political affiliation and how well connected you are to the regime in charge can have a direct bearing on whether you're prosecuted for breaking the law and how serious the penalty will be.

So, what's left?

Respect for the law? Why should anyone respect arbitrary, immoral laws that aren't equally applied and don't reflect the will of the people? Under Barack Obama, the "law" in this country has become nothing more than whatever you can get away with and we're likely to feel the consequences of that for decades to come.

1) Obamacare is whatever Barack Obama says it is: Barack Obama has no more legal right to change Obamacare all by his lonesome than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, or for that matter, Justin Bieber does. He simply doesn't have the legal authority to delay the employer mandate, delay taxes that are written into law, or give subsidies through federal exchanges to places where no state exchange was set up. Yet, Obama has delayed or changed the meaning of the law 19 times as if he were Kim Jong- un, as opposed to the President of a republic.

2) There are different laws for Tea Parties and the Occupy Movement: In city after city, the Occupy Movement was allowed to protest without expensive permits, participants were allowed to illegally camp and in some places they were allowed to break the law with impunity, which is why it's so staggering that there were still almost 8,000 arrests by the time all the dirty hippies abandoned their tents and rape-free zones to go home and take showers. Meanwhile, Tea Party groups across the country weren't given any similar breaks.
Tea party activists...accused officials in at least four cities of giving preferential treatment to anti-Wall Street protesters, and one group in Richmond is asking the city to repay $8,000 spent for permits and other needs. ...The Richmond Tea Party said Mayor Dwight C. Jones' administration sought permit fees, portable toilets and other demands for their events, but has given Occupy Richmond a free pass. The occupation has grown to a tent city, with a makeshift library, a volleyball net and a row of portable toilets. Jones has said that because he is a product of the civil rights movement he has allowed the Occupy protesters to remain since Oct. 17. "He's sympathizing with them," said Colleen Owens, a spokeswoman for the Richmond Tea Party. "We would never, as a tea party, have gotten away with not complying with the law." Tea party organizers had to buy liability insurance, hire police and emergency personnel and even keep a defibrillator on site, Owens said.
When groups all across the country are charged thousands of dollars for permits and liability insurance solely because of their political beliefs while other groups are given a free pass, there is no equality under the law.

3) Illegal immigration becomes legal: Admittedly, George W. Bush did a mediocre job of securing the border and enforcing immigration law. However, as a practical matter, illegal immigration isn't "illegal" anymore. Obama has illegally passed his own version of the DREAM Act, illegally handed out work permits to people who are breaking the law, and for all intents and purposes, has stopped detaining illegal immigrants who haven't been charged with other crimes. According to Senator Jeff Sessions , "at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal."
 
This is despite the fact that being here illegally is a crime and the people who broke that law did so knowing that the penalty was deportation. Tens of millions of immigrants have been welcomed to this country because as EVERYONE is well aware, we already have a "path to citizenship" for non- Americans and it's called following the law.

4) The IRS illegally targeted Tea Partiers: If the IRS ever comes after you, try refusing to hand over documentation for years and pleading the 5th Amendment and see what happens to you. If you're lucky, maybe you'll end up in the same minimum security prison that Wesley Snipes went to after some advisors convinced him he didn't have to pay taxes. Yet, after the IRS targeted Tea Partiers because they were conservative, tried to refer them for prosecution to the DOJ, and illegally released some of their information to outside parties, the IRS officials have been refusing to cooperate with the investigation. If the IRS wasn’t guiltier than Wesley Snipes, it would be cooperating just like the rest of us are forced to do when we face an audit. 
 
5) Eric Holder encouraged state attorney generals to refuse to defend traditional marriage in court: In other words, if your stat
e passes a ban on gay marriage, Holder wants state attorney generals to undercut the will of the people in order to further his political agenda. So according to Eric Holder, whether the people of a state get to have a representative in court depends on whether or not liberal attorney generals agree with their opinion or not. As John Suthers, the attorney general of Colorado, said:

I have been attorney general of Colorado for nine years, during which time the state has enacted laws that span the philosophical and political spectrum. I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs. But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all — and will continue to.
...Depending on one’s view of the laws in question, such a “litigation veto” may, in the short term, be a terrific thing; an unpopular law is defanged and the attorney general can take credit — indeed, he can be the hero to his political base and keep his political ambitions intact. But in the longer term, this practice corrodes our system of checks and balances, public belief in the power of democracy and ultimately the moral and legal authority on which attorneys general must depend.
....I fear that refusing to defend unpopular or politically distasteful laws will ultimately weaken the legal and moral authority that attorneys general have earned and depend on. We will become viewed as simply one more player in a political system rather than as legal authorities in a legal system. The courts, the governments we represent and, most important, the people we serve will treat our pronouncements and arguments with skepticism and cynicism.
When the "law" becomes little more than politics by other means, it deserves to be treated with the same rich contempt that we hold for politicians in this country. That has already started to happen, it's not good for the country, and much to the chagrin of the liberals who love this lawlessness as long as they're in charge, it's not going to end with Obama.

Sharia in America: Democrats and Muslim Legislators seek to criminalize free speech
Pamela Geller / Atlas Shrugs

There is very dangerous legislation making its way through both the House of Representatives and Senate that will finish the United States. The sharia bill calls for Islamic blasphemy laws — the criminalization of speech that offends or insults — who, exactly? Well, that is up to the enforcer, is it not?

On Wednesday, Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced “The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014″ (S.2219), which seeks “to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes.” Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) introduced a companion bill in the House – H.R. 3878.

Yes, we see, Hakeem. The first amendment protects all speech, not just speech that we like. Or else who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? Hakeem? When I was a young girl, the Nazis were given permission to march in a predominately Jewish neighborhood. In those days, Nazi mean something. Morality was still very much in the American DNA. Good and evil was understood — unlike today, where the left has banished such terms. Despite the horror of a Nazi march, they were given permission, and those of us who were repelled by such a monstrous action understood why permission was granted  because of the underlying premise — free speech. I didn’t worry that their Nazi ideas would take hold, as long as I could speak and others could speak in the free exchange of ideas. I knew I would win because my ideas were better. Individual rights was the greatest achievement of the enlightened.

Now we are here. Our free speech is threatened by islamic supremacists and their Democrat lapdogs under the guise of “hate speech.” The old “hate speech” canard. They will package this revolution against freedom in a pretty package — and will use the Max Blumenthal-inspired racist murderer,  Glenn Miller. But do not be fooled.

It’s bad enough they have all but blacklisted the voices of freedom from media, political and national discourse. Shouting into the wilderness is not freedom of speech.

What next? Burning books? Perhaps just as long as it’s not the quran. And yet there is more hate speech in the quran than in Mein Kampf.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) is sharia. Start calling your congressmen (click here). Now. Put down everything. Do this. This is the line in the sand. If we lose this, it’s over.
Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Introduce Legislation To Examine and Prevent the Promotion of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech in Media, April 16, 2014
Sen. Markey is author of original provision calling for examination of telecommunications influence on hate crimes.
Boston (April 16, 2014) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, introduced legislation to examine the prevalence of hate crime and hate speech on the Internet, television, and radio to better address such crimes. The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes.
In 1992, then-Rep. Markey, through the Telecommunications Authorization Act, directed the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to examine the role of telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes. Senator Markey’s legislation will provide a comprehensive updated report on the current prevalence of hate crimes and hate speech in telecommunications, as the last report was conducted and submitted to Congress over two decades ago, in December 1993. Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 3878.
“We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel in the United States, which is why it is critical to ensure the Internet, television and radio are not encouraging hate crimes or hate speech that is not outside the protection of the First Amendment,” said Senator Markey. “Over 20 years have passed since I first directed the NTIA to review the role that telecommunications play in encouraging hate crimes. My legislation would require the agency to update this critical report for the 21st century.”
A copy of the legislation can be found HERE.
“The Internet has proven to be a tremendous platform for innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship. However, at times it has also been used as a place where vulnerable persons or groups can be targeted,” said Rep. Jeffries. “I commend Senator Markey for his longstanding leadership with respect to combating Hate Crimes in America. He understands that in the digital era it is important to comprehensively evaluate the scope of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of First Amendment protection. With the introduction of Senator Markey’s bill, we have taken a substantial step toward addressing this issue.”
“I thank Senator Markey for his career-long commitment to ensuring that we have the data necessary to confront and combat hate speech in the media that targets our most vulnerable communities,” said President & CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition Alex Nogales. “NHMC has long-recognized that an update to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s 1993 report, ‘The Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes’, is long overdue and desperately needed given the incredible evolution of our communications systems over the past 21 years as well as the ever-increasing numbers of hate crimes targeting Latinos and others. As the author of the original piece of legislation directing the 1993 report, there is nobody better than Senator Markey to join Congressman Hakeem Jeffries and others in calling on the NTIA to study this pressing issue once again.”
###
The post Sharia in America: Democrats and Muslim Legislators seek to criminalize free speech appeared first on Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs.

Newsmax                                                        Zuhdi Jasser: White House Lacks 'Courage' to Use the Word 'Muslims'                                          

By Wanda Carruthers


Lisa Monaco, President Barack Obama's assistant for homeland security and counterterrorism, delivered an address titled "Countering Violent Extremism and the Power of Community." She urged American parents, religious leaders, and friends to watch children for tendencies toward terrorism.

Monaco's speech did not mention radical Islam, but stressed the agency's efforts in "stemming domestic radicalization to violence." A number of domestic attacks have had ties to radical Islam, including the bombings at the Boston Marathon and the 2009 massacre at Fort Hood, Texas.

"Violent extremism is not unique to any one faith. And, as Americans, we reject violence, regardless of our faith," Monaco told the Harvard Kennedy School Forum.

Jasser said it was "obvious and glaring" that Monaco didn't mention the "issue of [the] radicalization of jihadism, the ideology of radical Islam."

The politically correct culture that downplayed the role of Islamic extremists in violent attacks made the cause of moderate Muslims more difficult, Jasser said.

"Those of us who are doing reform work, that realize that it's Muslims that can fix this, are left in the margins, while the apologists who are in denial and want to put obstacles in our counterterrorism work in this country are working with the White House preventing the work that needs to be done," he said.


Peace in our time: U.S. releases another $1 billion to Iran; $2.55 billion since February

  / Jihad Watch
 
IrantimenotonsideWhile frenzied crowds shout “Death to America” on a regular basis in Tehran, the U.S. is essentially now financing Iran’s nuclear program. There couldn’t possibly be a downside, now, could there?

The Iranians wouldn’t dare nuke Tel Aviv now, because Israel is an ally of the U.S., and the U.S. is their friend, right? (This is how they really think in Washington. To say it bodes ill for the future would be tantamount to saying that Hitler’s ascent to power in Germany might be bad for Jews.)

“U.S. Releases Another $1 Billion to Iran,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, April 21:
The United States has released $1 billion in cash assets to Iran in April alone under the interim nuclear deal aimed at ratcheting back Iran’s nuclear program, according to the White House.
The Obama administration unfroze Iranian assets totaling $550 million on April 10 and another $450 million on April 15. The United States has now released $2.55 billion to Iran since February, when the scheduled cash infusions first began.
The cash releases were contingent upon Iran halting some aspects of its nuclear program and scaling back its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.
In return, Iran was promised these monthly cash infusions from Washington.
While the White House maintains that Iran will receive about $7 billion in economic relief under the interim accord, outside experts calculate that with oil revenues and other business deals Iran could pocket at least $20 billion over the next several months.
Lawmakers remain concerned that the White House continues to release funds as Iran maintains its support for terrorism.
“It’s an outrage that the administration continues to provide massive sanctions relief to Iran, even as the Iranian government maintains its brazen support for terrorism and continues to develop advanced missile and nuclear warhead technologies,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.), the House’s chief deputy whip, told the Washington Free Beacon.
“Iran’s economy is gradually recovering thanks to the White House’s latest move to unfreeze billions of dollars as a part of the nuclear agreement signed last year, yet we’re no closer to ending Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program.”
“How can this White House justify bolstering Iran’s economy by giving them the one thing they desperately need, while the mullahs continue to violate international obligations and pursue an incredibly dangerous nuclear weapons capability?” Roskam asked.
Japan has paid Iran some $1 billion for crude oil deliveries, adding to concerns that Iran is profiting much more than the White House anticipated.
“Iran is on pace to receive at least three times the amount of sanctions relief than the White House originally predicted,” according to Matan Shamir, research director for the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI)….

Bowe Tuesday

Bowe is still left behind...hey Obama...get him home NOW!


LTC Allen West on RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS

LTC ALLEN WEST will be our guest on RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...http://cprworldwidemedia.com/live-radio/

Tomorrow, Wednesday April 23rd, on this blog The Patriot Factor (thepatriotfactor.blogspot.com), in Craig Andresen's The National Patriot (thenationalpatriot.com), and on our RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS radio program, Craig and I will be dropping two bombshells on further malfeasance connected to ObamaCare and the liberal agenda behind these federal land grabs. And this is in addition to our very special guest LTC ALLEN WEST.

Hope you'll join us for this very special Wednesday edition of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on the CPR Worldwide Media Network on Wednesday, April 23rd, at 2pm.
http://cprworldwidemedia.com/live-radio/