Tuesday, December 10, 2013

To honor those lost by helping their children...                                                                                                       Posted by: Diane Sori 

Please patriots...help in anyway you can.


Operation 300 - In Honor of SOC Aaron Vaughn


31 Heroes Memory Quilt - Open for bids. Bidding ends at midnight, Dec. 19th (est). Will ship in time for Christmas. Place your bid below in the comment section.

100% of proceeds will benefit Operation 300 - an extreme adventure camp for children of the fallen. Plus...your purchase is 100% tax deductible.


Obama Abandons Friends Abroad in Hopes of Appeasing Foes

Michael Barone  / Townhall Columnist

Watching the twists and turns of American foreign policy while reading Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914" is an unnerving experience.

Clark's history, unlike many on the outbreak of World War I, starts not with the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914, but a dozen or so years earlier. He examines the muddled internal politics behind the foreign policies of major and minor powers -- and how often they were incomprehensible to each other.

He also shows how different powers formed shifting and sometimes unlikely alliances, with fateful consequences. Britain ended her longtime enmity with France in the 1904 entente cordiale and broke with the Ottoman Empire to join her "Great Game" rival, Russia.

Have we been watching something similar in our own time? Barack Obama brought to the presidency a different approach than the post-Cold War stances of his two predecessors.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, in different ways, maintained support for America's longstanding allies while gingerly seeking rapprochement with former enemies Russia and China.

With China they established strong trade and financial ties, while discouraging Chinese military aggressiveness. When China shelled the waters off Taiwan in 1996, Clinton sent in the 6th Fleet.

Clinton cooperated with Boris Yeltsin until he flamed out in 1999. Bush found that his initial faith in Vladimir Putin was ill-founded.

Barack Obama has put a radically different stamp on American foreign policy. Conservative critics perhaps exaggerate, but are on to something, when they characterize him as disrespecting America's traditional friends and truckling to longtime enemies.

The pattern has become more pronounced in Obama's second term. He is making good on his promise to Putin to have "more flexibility."

In his first term, he blindsided allies by canceling missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to appease Putin. In this term, he didn't lift a finger when Putin successfully blocked Ukraine from establishing closer economic ties with the European Union.

In his first term, he one-upped the Palestinians by demanding that Israel stop building settlements (including additions on houses) in East Jerusalem. More recently, he supported the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt as a step toward democracy until it was toppled by the military.

In his first term, he called for the ouster of Syria's Assad regime and said that its use of chemical weapons would be crossing a "red line." In his second term, he let the red line be crossed and allowed Putin to stage-manage Syria's agreement to relinquish the weapons.

In the process, the United States has abandoned attempts to depose Assad and now depends on his good faith to locate the weapons -- a victory for Putin and Assad's allies in Iran.

Obama's sharp reversals on Syria have been echoed by contradictory responses to China's declaration of an expanded Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea, covering the Senkaku Islands owned by Japan but claimed by China.

Obama promptly ordered B-52s to fly through the ADIZ without notifying China. But the Federal Aviation Administration also told U.S. airlines to inform China when flying through this airspace. Japan and South Korea took a contrary stance.

Vice President Joe Biden, visiting China last week, expressed deep concern about the ADIZ and warned against armed clashes that could result. But he did not demand it be scrapped.

The November agreement with Iran, concluded after months of undisclosed U.S.-Iran negotiations, suspended sanctions for six months, but did not require the dismemberment of centrifuges demanded in previous United Nations resolutions.

America's traditional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, have made no secret of their opposition to this agreement. They fear a nuclear Iran dominating their region.

The American Interest's Walter Russell Mead sees the emergence of an unlikely Israeli-Saudi alliance against Iran, Russia and China, which he calls the "Central Powers" -- the term used for Germany's allies in World War I.

Today's Central Powers, he writes, are seeking to diminish U.S. power in the Middle East and East Asia, with some success. The U.S. is abandoning friends in the hope of reducing hostility from enemies. 

Sudden reversals of policy, shifting alliances, secret negotiations -- these are reminiscent of Christopher Clark's statesmen who sleepwalked into World War I. Let's hope that clashes over Asian islets or Iranian centrifuges don't have the kind of consequences as that terrorist murder in Sarajevo did 99 years ago.
Fifteen dollars an hour to say, "Would you like fries with that?" or "Welcome to Wal-Mart?"


My very first position out of college in a terrible job market was as a Wal-Mart portrait studio photographer. Around the holidays, we'd have long lines; trying to get kids to smile after they've been waiting in Wal-Mart for two hours is no picnic. On my off days, I didn't dare pick up the phone because my district manager regularly called people and demanded that they fill in for employees who were sick in other locations. There was no chance of advancement because that same district manager was sleeping with one of his employees and she was being groomed for a promotion. It was a crummy job and to top it all off, my hours were curtailed so much for reasons I never understood that I was in essence laid off.

Of course, even that job was better than working at Burger King, where I did two stints. The first was as a teenager, where I had a feminist boss who deliberately assigned the men the lousy chores the women didn't want to do in between yelling at us. If there was mopping to be done or taking out the trash, she made sure a man was doing it. Combine that with the fact that I was an immature 16 year old who didn't like the job and it's no surprise that I quit the moment I had enough money in my pocket to get by for awhile.

In retrospect, even that was better than being an assistant manager there, which I did for the better part of a year after my job at Wal-Mart. The manager would do things like assign you a breakfast shift, mid-day shift and night shift over three consecutive days. My feet hurt incessantly from standing around in dress shoes for 12 hours a day. There were managers stealing money and you always had to stay on top of your game to make sure you didn't get blamed for it. Although we were paid a salary, when you factored in all the overtime hours we worked for free, we made less per hour than most of the employees.

Both jobs were low paying, difficult and generally unpleasant. There was never a time when I said, "Oh boy, I get to make Whoppers today," or "I can't wait to wake up a two month old baby and try to get decent pictures of him before he starts screaming his head off!" However, those were both starter jobs for people with minimal experience. The whole idea is supposed to be that you gain some basic skills and either move on or start working your way up. You're not supposed to try to support a family flipping burgers or stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart. You're also not supposed to make $15 an hour at a job where you work side by side with unreliable high school kids.

There are all sorts of economic arguments against paying $15 an hour wages to people who aren't worth the money. It certainly causes companies to hire fewer people. High labor costs can even hurt the bottom line so badly that it threatens the survival of the business. Chrysler and General Motors could tell you all about that. Is putting even more people out of work when so many Americans are already unemployed something we should be doing?

Furthermore, the unhappy truth is that some employees aren't worth the minimum wage, much less $15 an hour. There's one guy I still remember to this day from my assistant manager days at Burger King, primarily because I could never understand why it took him so long to make a hamburger.

Other employees who were generally more competent wouldn't show up for work if they could score tickets for a concert or basketball game. If you tell a fast food restaurant to pay these people $15, they're just going to fire them and replace them with robots. You may laugh at that, but it has already happened in banking, farming, and the movie rental industry. It's a matter of time until it happens in restaurants as well.

All of that aside, as conservatives, we have a fundamentally different vision for people in starter jobs than the Left does. Liberals look at poor Americans, think they're hapless losers who don't deserve any better and see decades of food stamps, welfare and the minimum wage in their futures. However, nobody should want that for themselves, their children or their neighbors.

As a conservative who has worked those jobs and now works for myself, I think we should be encouraging people to aspire to be more than a minimally-educated, minimally-working, minimally-skilled minimum wage employee. There's nothing wrong with any honest job, but there is something wrong with people squandering their potential. As Abraham Maslow once said, "If you plan on being anything less than you are capable of being, you will probably be unhappy all the days of your life." Ninety nine percent of Americans are capable of doing more with their lives than settling for a job most 16 year olds can be trained to do in a week. Instead of asking the government to force businesses to pay people more than they're worth, we should encourage these employees to build up their skills so that they'll genuinely be worth more. We should want all Americans to be all they can be so that they can have what they deserve out of life instead of encouraging them to settle for lives they would have never intentionally chosen for themselves.

Iran foreign minister says nuclear deal dead if US passes new sanctions

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Zarif.jpgZarif: Don't you dare, kuffar

Please pass new sanctions. "Iran foreign minister says nuclear deal dead if US passes new sanctions," by Arshad Mohammed for Reuters, December 9 (thanks to Kenneth):
WASHINGTON — Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said the Iranian nuclear deal would be dead if the U.S. Congress imposes new sanctions, even if they do not take effect for six months, Time Magazine said on Monday. 
In a transcript of the interview, which was conducted on Saturday and posted online on Monday, Time said it asked Zarif what happens if Congress imposes new sanctions, even if they do not go into effect for six months.
According to the magazine, he replied: "The entire deal is dead." Zarif was referring to a Nov. 24 agreement with six world powers under which Tehran would curb its nuclear program in exchange for limited relief from economic sanctions.
"We do not like to negotiate under duress," Zarif added. "If Congress adopts sanctions, it shows lack of seriousness and lack of a desire to achieve a resolution on the part of the United States.
"I know the domestic complications and various issues inside the United States, but for me that is no justification. I have a parliament. My parliament can also adopt various legislation that can go into effect if negotiations fail," he added. "But if we start doing that, I don't think that we will be getting anywhere."...
Medicaid Expansion Takes Over The States
Published on DickMorris.com

The growth of Medicaid under ObamaCare effectively takes over all of state spending for the next few years.  Forget improvements in education, state universities, or other programs.  All the money is going to go for Medicaid.

Already Medicaid accounts for 15% of all state spending totaling $450 billion a year.  But, under ObamaCare, it is exploding.
In the state of Washington, where the enrollment process is the furthest advanced, 90% of the enrollments in the state exchanges has been in Medicaid -- 52% among those newly eligible under the expansion contained in the ACA and 38% who were previously eligible but hadn't enrolled.

While the feds will pay the full costs for those who are newly eligible for three years, 90% for another three years, and who knows how much after, the states will only get their normal federal reimbursement for those who have always been eligible but only now applied.  Caught up in the hoopla about getting insurance, they are logging onto their state and federal sites only to be told that they are eligible for Medicaid and always have been.  But now they are signing up.  And the states will only, on average, be able to look to Uncle Sam for about 60% of the cost.

This dragnet is transforming Medicaid from a large program into an enormous one and, with the states on the hook for almost half of the costs for those already eligible, it is a program that the states themselves must finance.

Preliminary estimates suggest that the state share of the new Medicaid expansion could exceed $5 trillion -- about 15% of all state revenues.  And this sum will come due all at once in the next fiscal year.

Forget any other program.  Forget education.  Forget about better schools.  Forget better roads or mass transit or policing or mental health or local aid.  Medicaid is going to suck up all the oxygen in the room.

Indeed, de facto, Medicaid is becoming the single payer that Obama and the liberals have always dreamed of.  It stems from the failure of ObamaCare to truly appeal to the middle income middle class.  But Medicaid is the de facto order of the day and its expansion is dooming states to a high tax, low services future.

Is War With China Inevitable?

by / Personal Liberty Digest

Is War With China Inevitable?
As a general rule, extreme economic decline is almost always followed by extreme international conflict. Sometimes, these disasters can be attributed to the human survival imperative and the desire to accumulate resources during crisis. But most often, war amid fiscal distress is usually a means for the political and financial elite to distract the masses away from their empty wallets and empty stomachs.

War galvanizes societies, usually under false pretenses. I’m not talking about superficial “police actions” or absurd crusades to “spread democracy” to Third World enclaves that don’t want it. No, I’m talking about real war: war that threatens the fabric of a culture, war that tumbles violently across people’s doorsteps. The reality of near-total annihilation is what oligarchs use to avoid blame for economic distress while molding nations and populations.

Because of the very predictable correlation between financial catastrophe and military conflagration, it makes quite a bit of sense for Americans today to be concerned. Never before in history has our country been so close to full-spectrum economic collapse, the kind that kills currencies and simultaneously plunges hundreds of millions of people into poverty. It is a collapse that has progressed thanks to the deliberate efforts of international financiers and central banks. It only follows that the mind-boggling scale of the situation would “require” a grand distraction to match.

It is difficult to predict what form this distraction will take and where it will begin, primarily because the elites have so many options. The Mideast is certainly an ever-looming possibility. Iran is a viable catalyst. Syria is not entirely off the table. Saudi Arabia and Israel are now essentially working together, forming a strange alliance that could promise considerable turmoil — even without the aid of the United States. Plenty of Americans still fear the al-Qaida bogeyman, and a terrorist attack is not hard to fabricate. However, when I look at the shift of economic power and military deployment, the potential danger areas appear to be growing not only in the dry deserts of Syria and Iran, but also in the politically volatile waters of the East China Sea.

China is the key to any outright implosion of the U.S. monetary system. Other countries, like Saudi Arabia, may play a part; but ultimately it will be China that deals the decisive blow against the dollar’s world reserve status. China’s dollar and Treasury bond holdings could be used as a weapon to trigger a global sell-off of dollar-denominated assets. Oil-producing nations are likely to shift alliances to China because China is now the world’s largest consumer of petroleum. And China has clearly been preparing for this eventuality for years. So how can the U.S. government conceive of confrontation with the East? Challenging one’s creditors to a duel does not usually end well. At the very least, it would be economic suicide. But perhaps that is the point. Perhaps America is meant to make this seemingly idiotic leap.

Here are just some of the signs of a buildup to conflict.

Currency Wars And Shooting Wars

In March 2009, U.S. military and intelligence officials gathered to participate in a simulated war game, a hypothetical economic struggle between the United States and China.

The conclusions of the war game were ominous. The participants determined that there was no way for the United States to win in an economic battle with China. The Chinese had a counterstrategy to every U.S. effort and an ace up their sleeve – namely, their U.S. dollar reserves, which they could use as a monetary neutron bomb. They also found that China has been quietly accumulating hard assets (including land and gold) around the globe, using sovereign wealth funds, government-controlled front companies and private equity funds to make the purchases. China could use these tangible assets as a hedge to protect against the eventual devaluation of its U.S. dollar and Treasury holdings, meaning the losses on its remaining U.S. financial investments was acceptable should it decide to crush the dollar.

The natural response of those skeptical of the war game and its findings is to claim that American military would be the ultimate trump card and probable response to a Chinese economic threat. Of course, China’s relationship with Russia suggests a possible alliance against such an action and would definitely negate the use of nuclear weapons (unless the elites plan nuclear Armageddon). That said, it is highly likely that the U.S. government would respond with military action to a Chinese dollar dump, not unlike Germany’s rise to militarization and totalitarianism after the hyperinflationary implosion of the mark. The idea that anyone except the internationalists could “win” such a venture, though, is foolish.

I would suggest that this may actually be the plan of globalists in the United States. China’s rise to financial prominence is not due to its economic prowess. In fact, China is ripe with poor fiscal judgment calls and infrastructure projects that have gone nowhere. But what China does have is massive capital inflows from global banks and corporations, mainly based in the United States and the European Union. And it has help in the spread of its currency from entities like JPMorgan Chase and Co. The International Monetary Fund is seeking to include China in its global basket currency, special drawing rights (SDR), which would give China even more leverage to use in breaking the dollar’s reserve status. Corporate financiers and central bankers have made it more than possible for China to kill the dollar, which they openly suggest is a “good thing.” 

Is it possible that the war game scenarios carried out by the Pentagon and elitist think tanks like the RAND Corporation were not meant to prevent a war with China, but to ensure one takes place?

Awaiting ruling...

Awaiting word .............

The judge is expected to rule shortly ......
We went to court Tuesday to argue our temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction went to court in Boston. The American Freedom Law Center represented AFDI in our lawsuit against the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA). Joining us was by our local counsel Robert Snider.
Abusive violations of our freedoms such as that perpetrated by the MBTA have become catalysts for historical resistance and actions in the defense of freedom.
Truth is hate speech in the wreckage of what is left of America in the wake of the left's decades-long war on Americanism and individual rights.
Our message is that any war on innocent civilians is savagery. 9/11 was savagery. 7/7 in London. March 11th in Madrid. The jihad against the Jews is savagery.
The Boston Marathon bombings were savagery.
"The Court Battle Over ‘Pro-Israel’ Billboards Could Be a ‘Tough Win’ For the MBTA" Boston Magazine, December 3, 2013
Screen Shot 2013-12-08 at 10.03.54 PM
Watch this FOX News video: Dr Matt Sienkiewicz of Boston College discusses the case in this news segment.

Lawyers for the MBTA railed against the demeaning nature of our ad, while poo-pooing the demeaning and disparaging content of the anti-Israel ad that it ran, which it took down after public outrage against its disparaging and demeaning nature -- only to restore it.
The AFLC's David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise argued our case masterfully before Judge Nathaniel Gorton. The judge was well-prepared, having read all the documents relating to the case. He sounded reasonable and judicious.
Judge Gorton pressed the lawyers on both sides to explain what they thought a reasonable person would understand by the word "jihad." The MBTA's lawyer argued that many Muslims believed jihad was an inner struggle, and that therefore our ad demeaned all Muslims.
But our ad is not calling those Muslims who believe that jihad is solely an inner struggle "savages." The ad specifically says, "In any war..." So clearly, we are talking about jihad as warfare. And as Robert Muise so brilliantly pointed out, how would the reasonable person on the train perceive or interpret the word "jihad," particularly in the wake of the Boston Marathon jihad bombing that murdered three people and wounded over 250?
Below is the $40,000 vicious anti-Israel ad campaign that the MBTA restored
AntiIsrael ads
It was the MBTA that invited the debate on this issue by accepting the anti-Israel ad. And then they turn and say our ad is objectionable? They accepted an ad on the same subject that was so genuinely demeaning and disparaging that it had to be taken down after numerous complaints, only to be restored later, and then they had the audacity to reject our ad? That is viewpoint restriction, and that is unconstitutional.
Jihad in our ad meant those who wage terrorist war against innocent civilians. That disparages no one.
We will win, and we will match what the Jew-haters buy. We need at least $50,000. Please contribute.
We are a 501C3. Or send us a check.
Attention Pamela Geller
1040 1st Avenue #121
N.Y.,  N.Y.  10022

It's Bowe Tuesday...