Saturday, March 30, 2013

Totally unfair...

Carson Willing to Step Down as Commencement Speaker After Protests

By Greg Richter /
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

5 Groups Of Obama Voters That Are Being Crushed By Democrats
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.


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


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) 

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.
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 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'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.”