Cue the Semi-Educated, Liberal Attacks on Easter as Pagan

By: John Ransom / Townhall Finance Editor

 
CabinBoy388 wrote: An Easter egg roll without Jesus or religion. Horror upon horrors! How on earth can we ever celebrate the resurrection of Christ without linking it to a Pagan fairy tale?

Dear Comrade Cabin Boy,

Cue the semi-educated liberal who tries to denigrate Christianity by tying it to paganism without any context at all. As usual, your comments make you sound like you have some sort of a thought disorder.

Of course you do, but since you’re an unmedicated liberal, it’s to be expected.

At issue isn’t “How on earth can we ever celebrate the resurrection of Christ without linking it to a Pagan fairy tale,” but rather the exact opposite. That is, to celebrate Easter eggs without including the reason why the Easter egg exists, which is, of course, the celebration of the death and resurrection of Christ.
Only a liberal like you would think it appropriate to have an “Easter” egg hunt while trying to suppress the central idea of Easter.

If you were better educated you would know that eggs were forbidden during Lent. On Easter Sunday, eggs came back to the table.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Because the use of eggs was forbidden during Lent, they were brought to the table on Easter Day, coloured red to symbolize the Easter joy. This custom is found not only in the Latin but also in the Oriental Churches. The symbolic meaning of a new creation of mankind by Jesus risen from the dead was probably an invention of later times. The custom may have its origin in paganism, for a great many pagan customs, celebrating the return of spring, gravitated to Easter. The egg is the emblem of the germinating life of early spring. Easter eggs, the children are told, come from Rome with the bells which on Thursday go to Rome and return Saturday morning. The sponsors in some countries give Easter eggs to their god-children. Coloured eggs are used by children at Easter in a sort of game which consists in testing the strength of the shells (Kraus, Real-Encyklopædie, s.v. Ei). Both coloured and uncoloured eggs are used in some parts of the United States for this game, known as "egg-picking". Another practice is the "egg-rolling" by children on Easter Monday on the lawn of the White House in Washington.

Of course, as it says above, Christians weren’t the first to dye eggs. Dyed eggs go way back in history to antiquity. But to pretend that the Easter egg has its only origins in pagan traditions would be like saying that Gregorian chants solely owe their creation to pagan singing.

That Jesus lived is an accepted historical fact. That Jesus died is also accepted as an historical fact.

Easter eggs would not exist were it not for his resurrection. You may deny it, but then you're stuck having to roll "Ostara" eggs at the White House.  I'm not saying you won't do it- that is, roll "Ostara eggs"- I'm just saying I'd like to see the White House try it. It would be a nice break from their normal hypocrisy.

Wishing my blog followers of all the Christian faiths 

a joyous and beautiful Easter Sunday.

I wrote this piece last year and it ran on Easter Sunday. 

I was asked by many to run it again this Easter Sunday.

 

Op-ed:
My thoughts this Easter Sunday
What is a Christian…it sure isn’t Barack Hussein Obama

By: Diane Sori

Today being Easter Sunday, and because of the turbulent times in which we live, I thought it quite proper on this most holy of days to offer my opinion on what is a Christian, especially since we have a man occupying the White House who is anything but the Christian he professes himself to be.

We all know many claim to be Christian, those that love nothing better than to say that their church is the one true church, that their way and their church’s way is the ONLY true way to God.  I believe nothing could be further from the truth. 

I believe one is a true Christian if they believe deep within their heart that they are a Christian, and if they profess a belief in and love for Jesus Christ, and try to live their lives according to his teachings.  On this, one might fail at times but God does not expect us to be perfect just to try our best, for if we falter He will forgive us because He knows we are not perfect.

I believe a true Christian is a person who has put their faith and trust in Jesus, including His death on the cross as payment for our sins, and His resurrection on the third day.   

I believe a Christian has love for others, a compassion for those hurting, and is one who knows the meaning of the word, ‘friend’ as well as knowing and accepting the word ‘enemy.’ 

I believe a true Christian never willingly hurts or betrays another, and never uses God as an excuse or as a front for their personal or perceived shortcomings, and with that I believe a true Christian can question his faith, because even Jesus asked ‘why’ on the cross.

I believe a true Christian can keep his humanity even while giving his heart and soul over to God, for that personal humanity, unique unto to each of us, is what separates each of us from all others. 

I believe there is nothing wrong with being of this world while at the same time being of His world, as long as one keeps God in their hearts at all times and His love in their souls, while still keeping their humanness intact.  God does not demand that we all be the same but only that we love Him unconditionally.

I believe being a true Christian is not about obey, obey, obey nor is about subjugation to any church’s specific doctrine as God gave us free will to make our own choices, and that includes how we choose or not choose to worship and honor Him, for we will all answer to Him and Him alone on our judgment day.

I believe church indoctrination can sometimes be counterproductive, and can actually turn some away from His word.  Blind obedience, subjugation, and lack of original thought is not the true Christian way, and casts a shadow of cultism akin to islam over what is supposed to be the antithesis of those very things.

I believe a true Christian comes willingly and lovingly to His word, in their own time, in their own way, thus becoming part of God’s family because they alone want to be not because they have been conditioned to be, are expected to be, or because someone wants them to be. 

I believe one does not have to wear religion on their sleeve for one to be a true Christian.  I believe faith can be solely a one-on-one relationship with God with no intrusions needed.  I believe that that personal relationship with God is stronger than any human relationship can ever be.

I believe a true Christian does not have to be only an Evangelical or a Fundamentalist, but can also be a Roman Catholic, a follower of Orthodoxy, a Protestant, a Mormon, and even a Jew.  I believe that all it really takes to be a true Christian is the heartfelt belief in God’s word and an acceptance of Jesus, his only begotten Son, as the Messiah.  There is nothing magical nor complicated about this, however, I believe Obama believes none of this.

And lastly, I believe that united together Christians of ALL denominations can be a powerful force to be reckoned with come November, while divided becoming nothing more than fodder for those who do not believe, and especially for those like Barack Hussein Obama, a muslim down to his very core. 

So instead of division and divisiveness amongst all those who call themselves Christians, and this is something Obama and his minions play upon, I wish all true Christians would unite as one behind their common belief in God and His Son, for we all know that together the whole is stronger than the sum of its parts. 

As the saying by Marcus Tullius Cicero goes (from a speech he gave on the Roman Senate floor in 58 BC), “A nation can survive fools, and even the ambitious but it cannot survive treason from within.” And I for one believe that this one man is trying to destroy Christian values and beliefs from within by deliberately and calculatingly turning Christian against Christian in all he says and does, for more liberal thinking Christians still side with him against the more conservative Christians, and this Obama is counting on.

I hope and pray that true Christians everywhere, while not having to share my personal beliefs, can at least see some truth in what I have said because our nation’s very survival and return to God’s laws and to the Judeo-Christian beliefs upon which this country was founded, depends on us removing from office the very man who says he is a Christian but who in reality is not now nor has he ever been for his words, actions, and deeds are those against everything a true Christian believes.

Totally unfair...

Carson Willing to Step Down as Commencement Speaker After Protests

By Greg Richter /

 Newsmax

 

• 1
  inShare

A pediatric neurosurgeon who has become the darling of conservatives since speaking against nationalized healthcare is now under fire for comments he made about same-sex marriage.

Dr. Benjamin Carson told MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports” on Friday that he would be willing to step down as commencement speaker at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine after faculty and students signed petitions asking that he not speak.

“I would say this is their day, and the last thing I would want to do is rain on their parade,” Carson told Mitchell.

Carson said in the interview that he has not notified the university he won’t be speaking. “I am waiting for appropriate channels,” he said. “I don’t think television is the appropriate channel.”

The petitions began after Carson told Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, “My thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It’s a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are — they don’t get to change the definition.”

One of the petitions, quoted by The Hill newspaper, reads: “We retain the highest respect for Dr. Carson’s achievements and value his right to publicly voice political views. Nevertheless, we feel that these expressed values are incongruous with the values of Johns Hopkins and deeply offensive to a large proportion of our student body.”

MSNBC’s web report on the story says Carson equating same-sex marriage with pedophilia and bestiality has caused him to lose some of his star power within the GOP. Carson has said he would consider a run for president if the public was still interested in him a year-and-a-half from now.

Carson apologized for his choice of words in a Baltimore Sun story on Friday, but not for his position.

“First of all, I certainly believe gay people should have all the rights that anybody else has,” Carson told the Sun. “What I was basically saying is that as far as marriage is concerned, that has traditionally been between a man and a woman and nobody should be able to change that.”

Carson came into the national spotlight in February after criticizing healthcare and other policies of President Barack Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast while Obama was sitting just a few feet away on the same dais. He also drew applause when he spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this month.

Budget Problems Continue in Washington

By: Tad DeHaven / Townhall Columnist

The President on Tuesday signed the continuing resolution that funds the government through September and (gasp) keeps the sequester cuts intact. Now that it appears sequestration isn't going away (and yet the earth continues to spin merrily on its axis), the focus should be on how this small step might be extended.

Unfortunately, the reaction to Paul Ryan's relatively modest budget indicates the fight for smaller government will continue to be an uphill battle in the current political climate. The Ryan budget has brought predictable condemnation from the political left. Sen. Harry Reid called it "extreme," and the New York Times called it "the worst of the Ryan budgets." The plan's sin: restraining the growth of federal spending to 3.4 percent instead of 5 percent.

While there are some of us that don't feel the Ryan budget goes nearly far enough, it was never going to become law as is with a Democratic White House and Senate. But here's the important question: does sequestration and Ryan's follow-up give proponents of limited government a reason to be optimistic?
Currently, the answer is no.

Sequestration has yet to cause a public revolt and the markets have treated it with indifference throughout. Although the cuts that happened under sequestration are hardly an occasion for a victory lap, they are a small and welcome bit of evidence that government can spend less without society as we know it coming to an end.

Sequestration reduces federal spending by $44 billion this year, which is a relatively small sum considering that total spending will be around $3.5 trillion. The budget deficit alone is projected to be around $850 billion. That means to balance the budget this year, the spending cuts would have to be almost 20 times larger. However, sequestration barely scratches entitlement programs, which dominate the federal budget and are the source of our long-term fiscal problems. And because it doesn't actually terminate any agencies or programs, spending can be restored in the future.

So in the big picture, sequestration hasn't changed all that much. Federal spending is still on a dangerous upward trajectory. Unfortunately, while there is much talk about the need to reform the welfare state in order to make it more affordable, the underlying desirability of our centralized system of cradle-to-grave entitlement programs remains virtually unchallenged on Capitol Hill. And while the Pentagon's bloated budget is being challenged, only a handful of policymakers are questioning the underlying desirability of the United State's global military footprint.

The size and scope of the federal government needs to be dramatically reduced. Republicans are commonly understood to be in favor of limited government, but their track record suggests otherwise. Federal spending went through the roof under Republican rule in the previous decade. After reclaiming the House in 2010, Republicans positioned themselves as the frugal alternative to the debt-happy Obama administration. Unfortunately, the manner in which Republicans handled sequestration indicates that they are still unwilling or incapable of making a principled argument for smaller government.

Ever the defenders of the warfare state, Republicans bemoaned the sequestration cuts made to the Pentagon's budget. Mirroring the administration's orchestrated hysteria over cuts to domestic programs, some Republicans even claimed that the cuts would "gut" the military - a specious assertion considering that military spending under sequestration would be higher in real dollars than peak Cold War spending.

So if sequestration doesn't do a whole lot to shrink the size and scope of government, what about Mr. Ryan's proposal? In his budget, Ryan calls for ending Obamacare, but that wouldn't end the federal government's involvement in health care. Ryan says that higher education subsidies should be capped, but that wouldn't end the federal government's involvement in education. How the federal government delivers the goods might change, but a more efficient government isn't the same as limited government. And if the goal is limited government, as Republicans often claim, then there has to be actual limits on what the government is involved in.

The tough reality is that the average voter is content to spend other people's money on programs that they benefit from. And every government program is backed by a special interest that will fight tooth-and-nail to protect their share of Uncle Sam's loot.

That's an obviously difficult dynamic to overcome. But if progress is to be made, serious policymakers need to start explaining to the American people how the federal government doing less will do more to enhance their personal and economic well-being. That means making the case for limited government.
Until that happens, the question of whether or not proponents of limited government should be optimistic will remain no.

5 Groups Of Obama Voters That Are Being Crushed By Democrats

By: John Hawkins / Townhall Columnist who runs Right Wing News
 

Hollywood, the mainstream media and the public school system are all almost entirely controlled by people and groups friendly to the Democrat Party. Yet and still, even with that almost overwhelming advantage, Democrats can't do any better than a rough parity with the Republicans. If the tables were turned and the GOP controlled what you see on TV, in the news and what your kids are taught at school the same way the Democrats do, the Republican Party would win every presidential election and would permanently maintain unassailable majorities in Congress.

So, why aren't the Democrats running away with every election? Because selling Democrat policies is like Coca-Cola's marketing team trying to sell the public on rat spit in a bottle. Since they can't sell their product, they spend all their time convincing the public that the little Republican girls down the street selling lemonade probably spit in it when their mothers aren't looking. Sadly, this tactic works pretty well and a lot of Democrats end up voting for people who are ruining their lives.

1) Black Americans: Over the last few decades, no group has been more fiercely loyal to the Democrats than black Americans. Typically, the Democrats capture 90% of the black vote nationwide. However, it's worth asking what black Americans actually get out of that deal. Sure, if you're Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Touré, it's a pretty good gig, but how does the average black American benefit from voting for the Democrats? Affirmative Action? That program helps very few people and it also leads to many black Americans getting into a college that they wouldn't normally qualify for with their academic record. Some people might call that a plus, but as a practical matter, it causes an inordinate number of the brightest, most promising young black Americans to flunk out of college when they could have graduated had they gone to less challenging schools.

In return for that dubious bit of "help," the Democrats fight voucher programs that could get black students out of failing schools, laugh at black Americans who are Christian, pro-life and believe in God's definition of marriage and they do nothing of consequence to tackle the crime and drug problems that makes life so unbearable for many black Americans. The worst places in our country for black Americans to live are inevitably run by Democrats who've long since given up on improving the lives of their constituents.

Economically, black Americans are still suffering under the Democrats as well. The numbers are so bad that they're almost hard to believe. "In 2009, the average net worth for white households was $113,149 and $5,700 for black households” while the unemployment rate for black Americans is double the rate for whites. Black Americans deserve a lot better than that from the people who serve them in government.

2) Single Women: Did you know that Mitt Romney actually won married women 53-47 over Obama? However, Obama won single women in a landslide and that's not unusual. Single women tend to go heavily for the Democrats. The sad thing about that is Democrats pull it off by baiting a trap. They promise free birth control and abortion. They offer up welfare, food stamps and other programs that are designed to shoulder the financial load that a husband would in normal circumstances. Then they proceed to denigrate, demean and slime any conservative woman who opposes those things in the most vicious, nasty and grotesque manner possible.

Why?

Because a single woman struggling to survive is likely to take any help she can get from the Democrats and will return the favor by voting for them. On the other hand, a woman who's successful, financially secure and married is much more likely to vote Republican. This is true across every race, religion and demographic group. This is why, for example, Democrats have engineered a system where in many cases, "the single mom is better off earning gross income of $29,000 with $57,327 in net income and benefits than to earn gross income of $69,000 with net income and benefits of $57,045.” They don't WANT single women to be independent and financially secure because that would make them more likely to vote Republican.

No woman grows up wanting to stay permanently poor, single and dependent on the government for her survival, but for the Democrats to succeed, they need as many women as possible stuck in exactly that position.

3) Unions: Even though the union membership is a little more split, the union bosses have thrown their lot in with the Democrat Party. This has paid some dividends for them because undeniably, the Democrats are bending over backwards to appease the unions. However, there is a heavy price to be paid for being totally tied to one political party.

For one thing, union membership is death spiraling into oblivion. At one point, 34% of Americans were in a union, but now that number is down to "11.9 percent, the lowest rate in more than 70 years."
 
Furthermore, because of the staggering cost of some of the pension deals that unions have previously negotiated for their members, there are cities and states facing a choice between honoring their previous agreements with unions or going bankrupt. What that means is that like it or not, union members are about to start taking haircuts all across the country.

Since unions have allied themselves entirely with the Democrats, Republicans have every incentive to hurt the unions when they can, thwart any rule changes that would allow unions to grow and to try to cut as deeply as possible from the unions in any sort of bankruptcy deals. Sure, siding with the Democrats might maximize any gains that unions have already made, but it also almost guarantees their coming descent into oblivion.

4) Young Americans: One of the best things about being young is that feeling of invulnerability that comes with it. You hear about all the terrible things that happen to other people, but you'll be the one that gets by with it, right?

Unfortunately, it's not working out like that for a lot of young Americans who made the mistake of trusting Barack Obama. It's bad enough that they have a jobless rate under Obama that's nearly double the national average, but he's running up the national credit card with an unsustainable level of debt that younger Americans are going to be asked to pay off.

If you're under 25, by the time you hit your prime earning years, you're likely to face bleak long term economic prospects because of our massive debt load along with the crushing taxes that will be required to pay for it. Worse yet, the entitlement programs so many Americans rely on are now in terrible danger because of the reckless spending the Democrats are insisting on. As Ann Coulter has frequently noted,

“I don’t know why Republicans keep saying we have to cut spending to save these entitlements for our grandchildren. We have to cut spending to save these entitlement programs for 45 year-olds. On our current spending rate, 45 year-olds will not receive any Medicare.”

Does that sound appealing? Struggling under a high tax burden to pay off debts that you didn't run up with much less of a safety net than the last few generations of Americans? That's what young Americans are heading towards and the saddest thing is, they're voting for it. It's not even a case where young Americans are going to be partying and then paying the price later. It's even worse because the Democrats are partying with their money and plan to stick them with the bill.

5) Hispanic Americans Although there are a few exceptions, Hispanic Americans have voted for the Democrats by a roughly 3-to-1 margin over the past few decades. What have Hispanic Americans gotten in return for that? Democrats block school choice initiatives that would allow Hispanic Americans to send their kids to better schools. They also create massive amounts of red tape that make it much harder for Hispanic small business owners to become successful. In fact, if you're a Hispanic American who wants a piece of the American Dream, you'd be hard pressed to come up with anything that the Democrats do for you other than their one supposed "trump card" -- they're in favor of illegal immigration.

The great irony of illegal immigration is that Hispanic Americans are economically hurt by illegal immigration much more than the average American because they're more likely to be going head-to-head in the same professions with people who often don't pay taxes, don't pay for health care and don't pay for car insurance. There are undoubtedly millions of Hispanic Americans who've followed every rule and done everything right who don't have jobs today because of illegal aliens. There are also millions of other Hispanic Americans who are taking home $3 or $4 less per hour than they otherwise would without illegal aliens driving down the cost of labor.

Furthermore, for all the complaints about illegal immigration, the dirty little secret is that some sort of compromise that allows illegal aliens to stay in the country as guest workers, but not citizens, would probably be very passable in Congress. The real reason that isn't happening is because it would allow Hispanic Americans to see how badly they're being hurt by people who aren't in the country legally.

When you want to work, but can't feed your family because you don't have a job and you see a "guest worker" from a foreign country holding a position you desperately need, your attitude starts to change in a hurry. The Democrats understand that and secretly like the idea that illegal aliens make it harder on Hispanic Americans. After all, the more successful you become, the less you want the Democrats to do anything other than get out of your way.

"Cynical travesty": Army denies Purple Hearts to victims of Fort Hood jihad massacre

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

"This is a cynical travesty. The only thing the government has done is guarantee that anything done to help the victims will effectively impair and prevent Hasan's prosecution. These victims have been given the back of the hand by their government."

"Army formally declines Purple Hearts for Fort Hood shooting victims," by Jim Forsyth for Reuters, March 29 (thanks to Kenneth):

SAN ANTONIO (Reuters) - The U.S. Army on Friday formally declined to award Purple Heart medals to the victims of Major Nidal Hasan's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, saying the move would damage his ability to receive a fair trial. 

The Army in a position paper said that awarding the medal to those wounded and posthumously to those killed in the November 2009 attack would 'set the stage for a formal declaration that Major Hasan is a terrorist' because the medal is presented to military members who are 'wounded or killed in any action against an enemy of the United States.'

Hasan, 42, an Army psychiatrist, opened fire on a group of soldiers who were preparing for deployment to Afghanistan, killing 13 and wounding 32 before he was shot and permanently paralyzed by two civilian Fort Hood police officers.

He faces the death penalty if he convicted by a military jury on 13 specifications of premeditated murder. His court martial is set to begin in July.

The Army formalized its ongoing opposition to awarding the Purple Hearts in a position paper responding to language inserted in the Defense Authorization Bill, which would require the Secretary of the Army to award the medal.

Some of Hasan's wounded victims and families of the deceased have filed a federal lawsuit and among the demands is that each of the victims be awarded financial compensation and a Purple Heart.

"U.S. military personnel are organized, trained and equipped to combat foreign, not domestic, forces or threats," the Army wrote. "To expand the Purple Heart award criteria to include domestic criminal acts or domestic terror attacks would be a dramatic departure from the traditional Purple Heart award criteria."

A spokesman for the Secretary of the Army did not return a phone call seeking further comment.

Neal Sher, the New York-based lawyer for the Fort Hood victims, called the Army's claims 'rubbish.'

"This is a cynical travesty," Sher said. "The only thing the government has done is guarantee that anything done to help the victims will effectively impair and prevent Hasan's prosecution. These victims have been given the back of the hand by their government."...

Yep.

LIGNET: North Korea’s Threats Raise the Risk of War

Newsmax

Two U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers like this one conducted a practice bombing run March 28 over South Korea, dropping dummy bombs about 50 miles from the North Korean border. (Getty Images) 

• 1
  inShare

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is threatening "to settle accounts with the U.S. imperialists" after two American B-2 bomber jets flew over South Korea, dropping dummy bombs 50 miles from the DMZ. It’s likely just bluster. But North Korea may very well launch small-scale attacks on South Korean targets, as it did in 2010. This time, new South Korean President Park Geun-hye probably will  respond, raising the risk of a war on the Korean Peninsula.

 

Op-ed:
Cluster bombs, Syria, and Barack Obama
By: Diane Sori

Well folks it was just a matter of time before something like this was exposed...and to be exposed by a civilian is amazing.

Elliot Higgins, a British citizen with absolutely NO military experience or any background in weapons analysis whatsoever has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Syrian army, Bashar al-Assad's army, has used cluster bombs on their own people. Assad continues denying he's ever used or ordered them used saying he knows cluster bombs are an internationally banned weapon.

Yeah right...

Some background...Cluster bombs were banned (because their 'bomblets' spread over a wide area and makes NO distinction between civilian and military targets) by The Convention on Cluster Munitions on August 1, 2010 as a binding international law with 107 countries signing the treaty and 7 countries having ratified it.  But Syria, like all Middle East countries except Lebanon, did NOT sign and did NOT take part in the 2007-2008 Oslo Process, which led to creation of said treaty, and as such does NOT legally have to abide by it...and they're NOT.

When interviewed by CNN Higgins said, "With the cluster bombs the Syrian government still seems to have the official policy of refusing to state that they are using them. And I've collected a vast amount of evidence of cluster bombs in Syria. There is video of cluster bombs dispersing from helicopters. That's something that can't really be faked."

NO it can't, and now the New York based international human rights group, Human Rights Watch, has proven through field investigations and preliminary analysis of over 450 videos posted to the internet, that at 119 or more locations across Syria at least 156 cluster bombs have been used in the past six months...used on populated areas in Assad's effort to push back rebel advances along Syria's main north-south highway, causing massive civilian casualties...and that he's expanding their use.

And when pressed for a response to these charges, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was NOT 'authorized' to make official statements to the media, a senior Syrian government official denied that Assad's forces use cluster bombs and said, "Many amateur videos are doubtful." 

Oh sure they are...over 450 videos are all 'doubtful'...and pigs fly (good analogy for muslims, huh, but I digress...)

Assad can bloviate all he wants that his forces are NOT using them but 450 videos don't lie. And if he's lying about using banned cluster bombs you can also bet he's lying about using chemical weapons against his own people as well.

Cluster bombs are banned because besides the initial death and maim toll, that's only the beginning of the carnage they cause. Cluster bombs are impossible to use with precision because they're ejected in dense bunches from free-falling dispensers dropped from aircraft in flight causing them to scatter and descend nose-down to land and explode almost at once over a wide area, often hundreds of yards across. And the 'bomblets' that don't explode immediately kill and maim long after the initial explosion, because while appearing like landmine 'duds' that are anything but. 

And here's a bit more of NOT happy news...these bombs that Assad is using against rebel-supporting civilian populations were made in the former Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. These PTAB-2.5Ms were designed by Communist engineers to destroy battlefield formations of Western armored vehicles and tanks. But the question is when were these weapons delivered to Syria as Russia continues to be their main arms supplier even with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Did Syria acquire them long ago from the old Soviet Union...did they recently get them from Russia...or were they gotten through a third party deal...or, and this is scary...in a weapons smuggling operation (can you say Benghazi).

To date there is no reliable information on how or when Syria acquired these weapons, and that's very disturbing for a number of reasons, the first and foremost being that Obama isn't pressing the issue. And why isn't he...it's because he considers Syria to be at the center of most every alliance and agreement with Russia that keeps the Middle East from falling into complete and total chaos, and as such he doesn't want to step on Russia's toes. Second, Obama has been the most adamant of all NATO leaders in denying the Syrian people a 'NO FLY ZONE' or giving the Syrian opposition any outright military support. And third, in defended his reluctance to use US military force to halt the Syrian civil war with its slaughter of innocents, Obama claims experience has shown him that slow coalition-building and outside pressure will yield better results. 

Oh yeah, we all know how well Obama's experience at coalition-building has worked out...his coalition-building with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and all things anti-Israel. And like he said in an interview with The New Republic Magazine, "In a situation like Syria, I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation?"

To answer that I say to Barack HUSSEIN Obama, “let our military experts decide what's best in regards to Syria, because you, your inexperience, and your phony Arab Spring have turned the entire Middle East into one hell of a fire keg that's ready to explode.”

Honor them, thank them, respect their service always.

Another Round Goes to Bernanke

By: Larry Kudlow / Townhall Columnist

Apropos of my column of a week ago -- “Has Bernanke Gotten the Story Right?” -- this week’s paltry GDP revision again backs up the actions of the Federal Reserve chairman and his market-monetarist supporters.

Real GDP was a miniscule 0.4 percent at an annual rate for last year’s fourth quarter, up from an earlier estimate of 0.1 percent. Perhaps more to the point, the year-on-year GDP change is only 1.7 percent, less than the 2 percent average growth of the Obama recovery, which is still the weakest in modern times going back to 1947.

Inside the report, there was good strength in housing investment (17.6 percent), business equipment (11.8 percent), and business structures like factories and warehouses (16.7 percent), all in annual rates for last year’s fourth quarter. Consumer spending, however, was a rather soft 1.8 percent.

But get this: While government spending fell 7 percent, private sector GDP rose at a decent clip. This still suggests that budget cuts lead to government austerity, and are not a negative for private-sector prosperity. That’s a key lesson in this whole sequester debate.

Incidentally, corporate profits after-tax rose 13 percent year on year in the new GDP report. This shows how resilient business is, despite regulatory obstacles like Obamacare and all the various tax hikes that come with it.

But back to Bernanke. Nominal GDP, which is what the market monetarists want the Fed to target, has increased only 3.5 percent over the past year, which is below the 4 percent trend line of recent years. I believe my monetarist friends want a 5 percent target for national income. And that is why they want the Federal Reserve to continue its policy of pushing bank reserves into the system.

The problem is, much of the Fed’s $3 trillion balance sheet remains on deposit as excess bank reserves, getting a quarter percent interest rate from the central bank. The actual money supply -- M2 -- does not reflect the printing-press mythology that has grown up around the Fed’s story.

To wit, M2 over the past year has grown by less than 7 percent. But the turnover of money, called velocity, has fallen by 3.5 percent. Therefore, despite the Fed’s stimulus, overall nominal GDP (real growth plus inflation) is still a sluggish 3.5 percent.

What’s more, Bernanke’s boast that he has held inflation down remains true, at least through fourth-quarter revised GDP. Both the GDP deflator and the chain price index have increased only 1.8 percent, and show no signs of acceleration.

And the gold price is hovering around $1,600. It really hasn’t moved over the past year. Nor has it budged since the Fed instituted its latest quantitative-easing, bond-buying policy last September. Even more interesting, King Dollar continues to strengthen. In fact, the greenback has gained ground since the Fed’s September QE announcement.

As I’ve said before, the gigantic increase in the Fed’s balance sheet, which will run close to $4 trillion later this year, makes me very uneasy. And if the velocity turnover of money does pick up in the future, there will be an inflation problem that will be very difficult for the Fed to unwind. Can it sell its massive bond portfolio in a timely fashion? No one can say.

But at the moment, looking at the numbers, I’m going to give this round to Mr. Bernanke and his market-monetarist supporters. There is no massive printing-press money, no huge inflation jump, and certainly no overheated economy. With the U.S. economy rising at perhaps 2 to 3 percent in the first quarter, which is much better than the economies of Europe and Japan, and with the U.S. stock market hovering near record highs, I would have to characterize my stance as relatively optimistic, but certainly not irrationally exuberant.

However, I continue to disagree with the Fed chair on fiscal policy. We need more government spending cuts coupled with serious tax reduction for large and small companies in order to boost this economy without injecting more and more money. This supply-side policy would deliver a much more predictable and reliable path to prosperity.

But on monetary matters, it may just be that the Bernanke Fed is right where it should be.

Obamacare: An Alarming Check-Up

By: Ed Feulner / Townhall Columnist

Three years old, eh? Well, with any luck, you’ll leave here with a clean bill of … uh-oh. I can see one problem already. Have you seen these tax hikes?

Let’s see … five, 10, 15 … 18 tax hikes in all. Hardly seems wise, considering the fragile health of the economy, but there they are.
There’s the tax on individuals who don’t purchase health insurance. That’ll cost $55 billion over the next decade. I also see a 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. It’ll be $111 billion for that between 2018 and 2022. And several smaller ones, such as limiting the amount people can set aside in their flexible spending accounts. $4.5 billion there from 2011 to 2022.

It all adds up, Obamacare. And it’s not healthy.

Hate to tell you this, but it gets worse. See this? That’s the number of people who are going to lose their current health insurance because of you. Not thousands, but millions. Seven million, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And this isn’t guesswork; it’s already happening.

Take Universal Orlando, which recently announced that it won’t continue to cover its part-time workers.

Why? Not because they’re mean-hearted. Because they can’t afford it. Your prohibition of annual benefit limits beginning next year is making Universal’s health plans too expensive. Word is, this will affect about 500 Universal employees.

Or consider the American Veterinary Medical Association in Illinois. “[M]edical coverage will end for some 17,500 Association members and thousands of their dependents at year’s end,” the group says in a news release. And there are many more to come, from other employers. Ouch.

Wait. Obamacare, didn’t you say that nobody who liked his current plan would lose it? Yes. You promised it, in fact. Repeatedly. I’d better note that in your chart here.

You may be getting uncomfortable, but we’re not done yet. Over here, there’s another serious problem:

You’re hurting hiring -- and right at a time when the economy could use all the help it can get to reduce unemployment.

You don’t believe it? Look at the “Beige Book,” a report that the Federal Reserve publishes eight times a year detailing the economic activity in the Reserve’s 12 different regions. According to its most recent report: “Employers in several Districts cited the unknown effects of the Affordable Care Act as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.”

“Affordable Care Act.” That’s you.

There’s more. Good thing you’re sitting down. Turns out you’re making it more difficult to access Medicare services.

You can be as skeptical as you want, but this is right from the CBO and Medicare’s own trustees.

They’ve shown what you don’t want to admit: You’re raiding Medicare to pay for other new programs.

Payment rates for Medicare Advantage: down $156 billion over the next decade. Home health services: down $66 billion. Hospice services: down $17 billion. The biggest one is hospital services, which you cut by $260 billion. What’s that? No, the cuts do not target medical institutions or organizations suspected of waste, fraud, or abuse. Nice try.

Finally, I see that insurance premiums are going to skyrocket under you. It’s those coverage mandates you put in place -- they’re the culprit. According to a congressional report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, some premiums are set to rise in every state. Yes, every state. And not by small amounts. In many states, they’re primed to go up by more than 50 percent; in others, by more than 100 percent. And it’s all due to changes you’ve introduced.

This despite your claim that your law would “cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year.” That sure isn’t working out, is it?

You can pay the receptionist on your way out. No, I’m afraid we don’t accept that insurance plan anymore.

Obamacare: "Driving Up Unemployment and Insurance Costs Since 2010™"

By: John Ransom / Townhall Finance Editor
 

Jobless claims stopped their record-breaking, fearsome, FOUR-WEEK job-creation rampage today as the BLS reported that initial claim rose- again- by more than economists expected.

“First-time jobless claims rose by 16,000 to 357,000 in the week ended March 23,” reports Reuters, “the highest level in more than a month, Labor Department data showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 48 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for an increase to 340,000. The four-week average climbed from the lowest level in five years.”

Economists, says Reuters, were expecting claims to come in between 330,000 at the low end and 355,000 at the high end.

“We’re not making progress the way we’d like to,” said Robert Brusca, president of Fact & Opinion Economics in New York, who projected claims would climb to 350,000. “It’s still a very disappointing picture for jobs.”

Disappointing for people too.

But not so bad for Obama, who is making a pitch today that we should…ban guns? Oh, wait…no this week it’s…the boondoggle on a study related to snail sex. No? Oh, yes…it’s gay marriage. Or wait, how about this one: an Easter egg roll that avoids using Jesus’ name or any talk of religion.

Never fear: I think they’ll make up for it later with a Socratic seminar on “Jesus Stompin’.”

But who really cares? The recovery just keeps getting better and better, for people who live in DC.

Outside the Beltway, it’s a bit tougher.

Despite all the “great news” manufactured by the media about how “great” the economy is, average people aren’t so sure.

“The Conference Board, a private research group, said its index of consumer confidence declined about 8 points to 59.7 in March from a revised 68.0 in February,” reports theWall Street Journal, “the first reported as 69.6. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had expected the index to fall, but only to 67.1.”

What the heck is wrong with these people?

Don’t they know we are in the greatest economic recovery in the history of the universe brought to us by the record-setting healthcare premiums charged by insurance companies as a result of Obamacare?

Obamacare: Driving Up Unemployment and Insurance Costs Since 2010.

The Obama administration seems to be scratching its collective talking-head about that one, with health Czarista Lady Sebelius finally admitting what those of us who bitterly cling to math have known all along: Yes, Obamacare will raise costs, not lower them.

“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” said Lady Sebelius. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”

As the folks over at Human Events explained, that’s fancy talk for you get to pay twice:  “Don’t worry, folks, ObamaCare is blowing premiums through the roof,” writes John Hayward, “but there will be subsidies available for lower-income Americans!  That means the rest of us will get screwed twice - once when we pay our higher insurance premiums, then again when we pay for all those lovely subsidies [provided by the federal government].”

And, look, when you finally give up and no longer wish to work to pay the freight for everyone else, you can be sure there’s some sort of Obama subsidy out there for you too.

357,000 people found out about that last week.

Bet they all love Obama now.

No?

Obama blocking "ethical alternative to importing oil from regimes such as Saudi Arabia"

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Obama's trip to Israel was a disaster, as he strong-armed Netanyahu into apologizing for Israel's defensive action against the Mavi Marmara jihad flotilla (which apology Al Jazeera -- as noted below -- happily characterized as "normalizing" ties between Israel and Turkey). And comparison of Israeli/"Palestinian" relations to those between the U.S. and Canada was simply bizarre. However, it looks as if Obama may have been on to something: he is standing in the way of a Canadian/U.S. oil pipeline that could end U.S. dependence on oil from Islamic supremacist states.

"Canada, Keystone, and the Palestinians," by Christine Williams at the Gatestone Institute, March 27:

As Obama wrapped up his Middle East tour, applauded by AIPAC for reaffirming "unbreakable bonds" and "deep affection" between two key allies; and by Al Jazeera for "normalizing" Israel Turkey ties, Obama's neighbors to the north are left scratching their heads about what he meant by his off-the-cuff statementthat compared Israeli-Palestinian relations to Canada-U.S. relations. 

After acknowledging in his speech the horror of an Israeli sleeping in his bed and having a rocket come through the roof, Obama went on to say: "Even though both sides have areas of strong disagreement, may be engaging in activities that the other side considers to be a breach of good faith, we have to push through those things…. There will be a sovereign Palestinian state, a sovereign Jewish State of Israel and those two states will be able to deal with each other the same way all states do. The United States and Canada have arguments once in a while."

The outlandish comparison – as Canadians do not lob rockets and missiles into Rochester or Detroit or claim the U.S. as "Occupied Canada" -- could have been an Obama gaffe to add to an open-mic one he made during his welcome ceremony after he landed in Israel and declared that this trip allowed him to "get away from Congress." Obama has become quite noted for minor and major gaffes, such as when he insulted Netanyahu and conspired with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Both incidents raised questions about his character, his policies and potentially hidden agendas.

Although one could not decipher any meaning behind Obama's odd comparison of American-Canadian relations with Israeli-Palestinian relations, one can note some important "arguments" the U.S. now faces with Canada: primarily the Keystone XL pipeline project, designed to carry oil from Canada to Texas oil refineries.

To address further these "once in a while arguments," a Forbes article illustrated how -- with policies similar to what are being promoted by Republicans -- Canada is outperforming the U.S. economically on every level. Entitled "What President Obama Doesn't Want You To Know About Canada", it cited senior sources in the Canadian government who met with Obama administration officials and said their impression was that the White House is jealous of the Canadian government's power to have its way. Even the notoriously liberal Canadian Broadcaster CBC featured in its community blog: "Republicans threaten move to Canada after Obama win"

The Obama administration's energy policy is starkly divergent from the Harper government's. Canada obtains oil from places such as the Athabasca oil sands region in northeastern Alberta, while the Obama administration has reduced drilling permits on public lands and has stalled the go-ahead of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. The Keystone pipeline not only provides an ethical alternative to importing oil from regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela; it is also an "essential part of the North American energy marketplace" and of U.S.-Canada relations, according to former Conservative cabinet minister Jim Prentice, who is now a senior executive with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

When Obama rejected Keystone in early 2012, he pinned the blame for the decision on Republicans, accusing them for trying to push the administration to an earlier deadline. But Obama's dilemma about the Keystone project reveals underlying issues that could have long-term implications for Obama's credibility in his ongoing commitment to promote an agenda affecting "climate change," as well as to his liberal economic policies. For example, during a speech on China and India as emerging economies, Obama's assistant on economic policy, Lawrence Summers, raised the idea that India's political-economic model, which he referred to as the "Mumbai Consensus," may in the end win the day. According to Summers the Mumbai Consensus is "not based on ideas of laissez-faire capitalism that have proven obsolete or ideas of authoritarian capitalism that ultimately will prove not to be enduringly successful…." Recall that George Bush was the whipping boy for laissez-faire capitalism in certain camps after the Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae fiasco that led to the 2008 economic meltdown, even though it is no secret that the Democrats bore guilt.

With respect to Obama's credibility, right after taking office, in having vowed to promote policies that would supposedly moderate climate change, Obama committed the U.S. to the foreground of global climate change initiatives -- the centerpiece of which would entail revamping the flawed Kyoto protocol to bring include equitable commitments from countries such as China and India, which, despite being the most objectionable polluters, had been given free passes under the Kyoto accords. Now, years later and into his second term, Obama faces stumbling blocks in making good on his promises, not the least of which involves the Keystone pipeline.

Before tackling that issue, however, there are a couple other entanglements Obama is facing: now that Republicans control the House, Obama has apparently decided to move forward on his own with climate change initiatives, which include plans to engage federal agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency. National regulations will inevitably involve the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The problem is that Obama has failed to appoint a single judge to this powerful court that decides cases challenging agency regulations -- making him the first full-term president in over half a century to do so, and in effect hobbling his own agenda.

Even though Obama has twice thwarted the Keystone project, the Senate has just endorsed its construction, and House Republicans have vowed not to wait for Obama, but to sidestep the White House and vote on legislation to approve the Keystone project by Memorial Day.

Now that Obama has finished playing relationship counselor in the Middle East, he returns to the U.S. to face serious challenges coming in from Canada and from Congress.

Environmentalists have already started branding the Keystone pipeline as the "Obama Pipeline" and the "Obama Legacy on Keystone," and are asking questions such as: "What happens if it leaks?" The surrounding heat being generated from the Keystone controversy may well have had an influence upon Obama's gaffe in comparing U.S.-Canada relations with Israeli-Palestinian relations, even though in reality there is no comparison.

Vicious anti-Israel ads are going up in New York subway -- and AFDI is responding 

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer 

 

Read the New York Post story on our new AFDI ad campaign responding to these anti-Israel ads, and Pamela Geller's comments, here.

Help us keep our pro-freedom ads going: contribute here.

"Vicious, anti-Israel ads in New York subway," by Pamela Geller in WND, March 26:

In typically disrespectful and offensive fashion, Muslim Americans (for “Palestine”) have issued the latest blood libel against the Jews on the holy day of Passover. 

The Islamic supremacists announced triumphantly in a press release Friday that an “Israeli Apartheid ad” was going to begin to appear in New York train stations on Monday (Passover began Monday night). “The American Muslims for Palestine” described itself as a “national grassroots organization educating the public about Palestine and its rich cultural and historical heritage” – not an easy job to do for a made-up country and a fictional people.

They said that their new “nationwide outdoor advertising campaign” called for “an end to Israeli apartheid and to unconditional American aid for Israel.” And they said that the New York run was just the beginning, and that the ads would run elsewhere around the country as well.

And so again, with little fanfare and no outraged opposition or media firestorm or condemnation, Muslim Jew-haters are running their fourth repulsive anti-Semitic campaign in the New York City transit system. It is important to point out that it is these campaigns that were the impetus for the pro-Israel and #MyJihad campaigns of my organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, or AFDI. And I can assure you that this latest Goebbels-style demonization of the Jews will not go unanswered. We are working feverishly right now to get ads responding to these ready for submission.

Apartheid? Anne Bayefsky notes that “there were once an estimated 900,000 Jews” in the Muslim world, “but today there are less than a few thousand. They were given a choice: Die, convert or flee.” That’s apartheid. The slaughter of gays across the Muslim world: that’s apartheid. The persecution of Christians across the Muslim world: that’s apartheid. The prohibition of non-Muslims from even entering Mecca: that’s apartheid. Muslims are freer in Israel than in any Muslim country.

This anti-Israel ad is exactly the technique that Hitler’s minions used. If you read the writings of Goebbels, the Nazi narrative was that they were the victims. They were the put-upon ones. That’s how they sold annihilation. And this is the same thing. It’s not surprising that Islamic supremacists would appropriate the propaganda methods of the Third Reich, as they partnered with Hitler and shared the same goal.

This war on the Jews has nothing to do with land. That’s the evil and fallacious narrative that the annihilationists and Jew-haters have appropriated to sell this steaming pile of dung to normalize the genocidal imperative of the Islamic jihad against the Jews.

It’s the Big Lie, and it has been going on since 1948. For that matter, it has been going on for 1,400 years. Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud, jaish Muhammad sa yaoud (“Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad shall return”) is a frequently-heard war chant of genocidal jihadis, referring to Muhammad’s massacre of the remaining Jews of Arabia (the ones he hadn’t already killed, exiled or enslaved) at the oasis of Khaybar. Muhammad also suggested that Muslims could hasten the coming of the end times by murdering Jews, when he said that “the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him” (Sahih Muslim 6985).

Modern-day Muslims have taken this genocidal bloodlust to heart. One of our ads features a quote from a music video that ran on Hamas’s Al Aqsa TV: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”.

We are the only ones who are effectively countering this anti-Semitic propaganda campaign. We will be unveiling a new campaign this week to expose the lies and massive deceit about ongoing Islamic tyranny. Help us keep our pro-freedom ads going: contribute here.

The Republican Shell Game On Obamacare

by Chip Wood / Personal Liberty Digest

PHOTOS.COM

Give us a break! That’s what Congress finally did on Saturday, when after a marathon session in the Senate, Congressmen all agreed to head out of town for their two-week spring break. So we’re safe from their meddlesome efforts until April 8.

But what a show they put on before they left. After arguing most of the night, the Senate finally managed to pass its first budget in four years at 4:56 in the morning. The final vote was 50-49, with every Republican opposing it. They were joined by four Democrats: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska and Max Baucus of Montana. Not so coincidentally, all four are up for re-election next year.

I’ll have more to say about the battle of the budgets in a moment. But first I need to comment on two recent Senate votes on Obamacare and the incredible hypocrisy they demonstrated. First, Congressional Republicans declared their unwavering opposition to the badly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Then they voted to fund it for the rest of the year.

What the heck’s going on here?

Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), two tough young conservatives who defeated more establishment-type Republicans to win election, lived up to their campaign promises to try to end Obamacare. They forced a vote in the Senate on an amendment to defund the program. As expected, the measure lost on a straight party-line vote, with 55 Democrats voting against it and all 45 Republicans in the Senate voting in favor.

On March 20, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a wonderful speech on the floor of the Senate:

In my view, Obamacare is a colossal mistake for our country. There’s just no way to fix it. It needs to be pulled out by its roots and we need to start over.

This bill needs to be repealed and replaced — not with another unreadable law or another 20,000 pages of regulations – but with common-sense reforms that actually lower health care costs.

And anyone who thinks we’ve given up that fight is dead wrong.

On March 15, McConnell gave a speech denouncing Obamacare at the Conservative Political Action Conference. He stood next to a stack of papers that were taller than he was, which he said were the 20,000 pages of new regulations that have been issued so far to implement this healthcare monstrosity.
Some 828 pages of new regulations were issued in just one day, he said; and he warned that there are many more to come.

On March 11, in remarks on the Senate floor, McConnell said:

This law is a disaster waiting to happen.

Imagine the burden we’re placing on the single mom who wants to open her own store. Or the young entrepreneur who wants to sell some new idea. Or the business owners we all know from back home — the folks who employ so many of our constituents.

Instead of encouraging them to create jobs and grow the economy, we’re hitting them with a brick of regulations.

That all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? But McConnell and 19 other Republican Senators voted to fund Obamacare for the rest fiscal 2013.

What you’ve got here is a perfect example of how many Republicans can vote for “business as usual” in Washington, while at the same time making sure they can posture as staunch conservatives for the folks back home.

Here are the 20 Republican Senators who voted in favor of the Cruz amendment, knowing it would fail, but then voted in favor of a measure to make sure the healthcare monstrosity gets all of the taxpayer funds it needs to continue operations for the rest of this fiscal year:

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Dan Coats of Indiana, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Cornyn of Texas, Orrin Hatch of Utah, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Mike Johanns of Nevada, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Richard Shelby of Alabama, John Thune of South Dakota and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

By the way, you may be wondering why the vote to fund Obamacare was included in an omnibus piece of legislation called a “continuing resolution.” The reason is that our august leaders know that they can get a lot more votes for their massive spending programs if they lump enough things together in one humongous package. So rather than individual votes on various parts of the Federal budget, we get one all-inclusive continuing resolution.

It’s so much safer that way. Witness what just happened with efforts to defund Obamacare.

In the predawn hours of March 23, the Democratic majority in the Senate also did something that it has vigorously avoided for the past four years: It passed a budget.

As the kids would say, big whoop. The Democrats’ plan calls for almost $1 trillion in new revenue over the next 10 years. But thanks to 62 percent more spending over the decade, even if they get all that new revenue, the budget still won’t balance.

The Republicans, meanwhile, didn’t do much better. The Paul Ryan budget, which the House passed and the Senate rejected, also called for more spending, just not quite as much. The Republican budget would have increased Federal spending by 40 percent over the next 10 years. But thanks to increased revenue from our slowly growing economy, the budget was supposed to have balanced by year 10.

Mind you, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are actually calling for a reduction in government spending. The best we can hope for, they say, is a slight reduction in the proposed growth of government.

Until we more people in the U.S. Senate who will stick to their campaign promises on every vote and who don’t engage in the sort of shell game we just saw with funding for Obamacare, I’m afraid they are probably correct.

Of the 21 Senate seats currently held by Democrats that will be contested next year, Republicans have to win only six of them in addition to retaining the seats they hold in order to regain control of the Senate.

But it sure wouldn’t hurt if, at the same time, some of the soft-as-marshmallows Republicans in the list above could also be replaced by some people with a little more backbone.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Op-ed:

Countdown to gun control...maybe not

By: Diane Sori

 

“He (Michael Bloomberg) can’t spend enough of his $27 billion to try to impose his will on the American public,” said NRA Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre.

NO, but he can sure try as the 'bad guns kill people' bleeding heart liberals are giving a final push to put gun control laws into place that challenge our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Using the standard anti-gun propaganda of 'it's for the children,' Mayors Against Illegal Guns (a group run and financed by ubber leftist and muslim lover NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg) this week began a $12 million dollar television blitz targeting Senators (who are on Easter and Passover recess) in 13 states in an attempt to garner votes to 'fix' what they consider our broken gun laws (which by the way like our immigration laws are NOT broken...they're just NOT enforced).

And of course our ever-loving Barack HUSSEIN Obama stuck his nose into this as yesterday he had another White House 'it's all about me' photo-op event where he gave a speech accusing opponents of his gun control proposals of drumming up fear, and urged his supporters to call members of Congress and pressure them into backing his proposals. And true to form he had mothers who support tougher gun laws...mothers who were victims either directly or indirectly of gun violence...as a backdrop as he played for sympathy, and once again exploited the child victims of the Newtown Massacre for political fodder and political fodder alone.

"It is deeply unfortunate that he continues to use the tragedy at Newtown as a backdrop for pushing legislation that would have done nothing to prevent that horrible crime" said Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) after Obama finished his bloviations, which included saying, "There are some powerful voices on the other side that are interested in running out the clock, or changing the subject...They're doing everything they can to make all our progress collapse under the weight of fear and frustration."

NO...I don't think so as changing the subject on our Constitutionally given right to keep and bear arms is NOT something we're interested in letting the clock run out on.

And so those in the Obama trenches continue pushing hard for stricter gun control laws as they work their fingers to the bone in a last ditch effort to influence any Senator who is still fence sitting into embracing their point of view. Yesterday, more than 140 public events in 29 states were held in what was called a 'National Day to Demand Action'...to end gun violence. And for those who couldn't make it to events in person, an organized call campaign to pressure congressional offices to support what they claim is 'the common sense reforms' that a majority of Americans want was also held.

I hate to inform them but what the majority of Americans want is for Obama to keep his hands off our Second Amendment...but I digress...

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in conjunction with Organizing for Action, Americans for Responsible Solutions and other (leftist) groups organized these events to try and convince the populace that inanimate objects like guns are the problem while they still completely ignore the fact that guns are NOT the problem...people are the people...bad people who will always find a way to get guns NO matter how many laws are put into place.

So as we near the April 8^th start of the debate in the Senate, thankfully, Prince Harry knew they didn't have the votes to renew and expand the so-called 'assault rifle ban,' so he took that off the table (Senator Dianne 'I can have a gun but you can't' Feinstein will still try to push it through as an amendment) leaving Obama and crew to push hard for the only things they have even a chance of getting passed, including legislation that would require universal background checks for every firearm purchased in this country, strengthened punishments for illegal firearm trafficking, and more money for school security.

But Obama's hoped for required background checks for all firearms purchases is NOT being proposed for altruistic reasons but for the sole purpose of keeping a national gun registry so he and his minions can see which one of us are armed and which one of us aren't. And don't let all the bloviating 'it's all about the children' rhetoric coming out of Obama's and the gun controllers mouths fool you into believing otherwise.

And with Republicans in the Senate planning to ensure that any gun control proposal require a 60-vote threshold in order to proceed, and with four Senators (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee) ready to filibuster any gun control proposals, maybe this will NOT be a win for Obama and his gun control loons, but a win for 'We the People' and our Constitution, because as the saying goes, 'if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns' and we all know about this outlaw administration...now don't we.