Congrats President Nobel: Obama Allies Behead Catholic Priest In Syria

By: John Ransom/ Townhall Finance Editor

 Video can be viewed by clicking link...http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/07/01/congrats-president-nobel-obama-allies-behead-catholic-priest-in-syria-n1631285/page/full

Obama’s war on the Christian religion, particularly the Catholic variety, has claimed another casualty in the Middle East. The Vatican confirmed that “Syrian priest François Murad was killed in Gassanieh, in northern Syria, in the convent of the Custody of the Holy Land where he had taken refuge.… According to local sources, the monastery where Fr. Murad was staying was attacked by militants linked to the jihadi group Jabhat al-Nusra.”

A graphic video of unknown origin- linked below- shows a crowd of Islamic militants gathered in a circle around three men kneeling on the ground. Many of the onlookers were shooting video of the scene from cell phones and other devices.

Each of the kneeling men, in turn, is forced to the ground and their head is sawed off with a butcher knife.

It’s scene that has become too familiar across the globe.

According to sources familiar with Jabhat al-Nusra, they are one of the most violent of the rebel Syrian factions, with roots in the Iraqi civil war, where they fought American soldiers. They are also very successful, controlling large portion of Syria.

And, oh yeah, they are part of the Al Qaida network taking orders from Iraq.

"Let us pray," writes the Custos of the Holy Land Pierbattista Pizzaballa OFM according to Catholic Online "so that this absurd and shameful war ends soon and that the people of Syria can go back to living a normal life." Archbishop Jacques Behnan Hindo, titular head of the Syrian Catholic church said: "The whole story of Christians in the Middle East is marked and made fruitful by the blood of the martyrs of many persecutions. Lately, father Murad sent me some messages that clearly showed how conscious he was of living in a dangerous situation, and offered his life for peace in Syria and around the world."

Thanks President Nobel for helping him out, although, I’m not sure Father Murad really needed your assistance.

So why exactly are we arming Islamic extremists across the Middle East?

Explain to me just how spreading arms and radical ideas even further into the region are in the best interest of the United States and its allies.

I’m not a big fan of Syrian president Assad, but it seems to me that there is little to choose from in Syria. Actually, this is a great opportunity to get Syria to behave better.

Make no mistake either: This war won’t be a pushover like Libya was.

Syria isn’t an isolated Libya. The current Syrian government will get the weapons it needs from Russia to fight the insurgents, because Russia has the means to keep the supply lines open.

One reason why Russia has the means is because as the West pushed harsher terms to Cyprus during their banking crisis this year, Cyprus sought relief from disaster by striking a deal with Moscow.

Those discussions are ongoing.

“On Monday Defence Minister Fotis Fotiou confirmed that recent defence talks with Moscow had centred on a request by Moscow for the use of sea and air facilities on the island,” reported the Cyprus Mail on June 30th. “Russia has been using Limassol port for refueling and supplies its naval vessels for over a year.”

Cyprus has long been subject to divisions between Greek Christianity and Middle East Islam.

In 1974, Turkey, an Islamic country, invaded Cyprus and continues to occupy a large slice of the island. It’s a bone of contention for Greece and Greek Cypriots still.

As a counterpoise, it would appear that Russia is attempting, with some success, to set itself up as a guarantor of the Christian population in the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

“If Cyprus proves to be better off with Russia's financial, political and strategic backing than Greece with the assistance of the European Union,” predicted Gatestone Online last year, “the close relations between the Greeks and the Cypriots might convince Greece that it, too, should turn to Moscow rather than to Brussels for financial and economic help. A strategic realignment in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East might then be in the offing. If the EU and NATO keep regarding the pro-Islamic government in Turkey as their preferred ally, before they know it they might be confronted with an alliance of Russia, Cyprus and Greece – a strong Christian-Orthodox axis against the Turks. And whom would this alliance target after that? “

Who indeed? Almost anyone, since Obama has made a mess of things.

U.S. foreign policy is a disaster and Syria is just the latest symptom.

If I told you 30 years ago that the United States in 30 years would be arming Islamic rebels against Christian populations with Russia acting as benefactors to Christianity, you would have called me crazy.

And crazy is the only way to describe it.

We live in a political world where Chinese communists lecture our country about the virtues of capitalism and the limits of socialism and Russia warns our government about spying on U.S. citizens- while Russian warnings that we are harboring Islamic terrorists go ignored.

In this country Obama has all but declared war on Christians, especially Catholics. Many Catholics have allied with Obama in the mistaken belief that the government's war on capitalism won't spread to a war on religion.

Obama doesn't just want government to replace the banks, however, but the church as well. He can't have another alms-giver out there competing with the government, like Catholic Health Services, competes with Obamacare.   

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square,” said Chicago Cardinal Francis George. “His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."
And Obama’s giving it a Russian face.

Oh, how Nobel of him.

CAUTION: THIS LINK CONTAINS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC MATERIAL NOT SUITABLE FOR EVERYONE.  IF YOU ARE OVER 18 AND AGREE, YOU CAN CLICK HERE. 

5 Immigration Questions for Members of Congress

 

It’s July 4 week, which means Members of Congress are at home in their districts. As you head to your nearest town hall meeting, take these questions for your Representative. Below, we also provide the real answers you should be listening for.

1. Since the Senate-passed bill doesn’t require the flow of illegal immigrants to stop, how can you say this approach secures the border?

No one can make that promise. The Senate bill, S.744, throws tens of billions of dollars at the problem and calls for meeting arbitrary security standards, but it doesn’t guarantee that illegal immigration will stop.

Also, many of the bill’s “requirements,” such as 700 miles of border fencing and new border patrol agents, would not commence immediately but over time. As with current immigration laws, some provisions would end up being ignored or waived.

S.744 contains no guarantee that the government would keep its promises of more security and enforcement. Even if it did, it wouldn’t even come close to stopping illegal immigration. We’d revisit this debate again within 20 years.

2. The Senate-passed bill requires the U.S. government to manage many more visas, even though it doesn’t do a good job with today’s smaller work load. So how does this “fix” our legal immigration system?

It doesn’t. The bill makes some changes to various types of visas but does little to fix the broken bureaucracy in charge of the legal immigration system. Without significant changes, new requirements and more responsibilities would only make the system worse.

S.744 does away with some flawed visa programs, such as the “diversity” lottery. It creates a merit-based program and adds work-based visas. Although these are steps in the right direction, the devil is in the details. For example, the bill would make the H-1B visa program unworkable by creating expensive restrictions and costs.

In short, S.744 fails to make the legal immigration system better.

3. The Senate-passed bill puts the federal government in charge of enforcing immigration laws, even though state and local governments want to help and would be good partners. Is this federal focus the right approach?

No, giving the federal government all the responsibility is the wrong approach. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has fewer than 6,000 agents, and S.744 does little to augment that. Putting all the authority in federal hands is a surefire way to hamstring enforcement, simply because the federal government can’t do it all.

A million local and state law enforcement officers are ready and willing to help enforce federal immigration law. These officers know their communities best and are already in place. By partnering through programs such as 287(g), state and local authorities can help. Sadly, S.744 ignores them.

4. Since the Senate-passed bill would add huge costs and likely depress wages for many current Americans, is it really good for the citizens you’re supposed to represent?

The fact is, this approach costs too much, and hurts current citizens. The bill is loaded with wasteful pork and kickbacks, such as $1.5 billion for a mini-stimulus “jobs for youth” program. What’s more, the bill would harm the nation’s long-term fiscal health. After amnesty, illegal immigrants on average would receive more in government benefits, such as welfare and entitlements, than they pay in taxes. The total cost of amnesty to taxpayers could be $6.3 trillion or more.

Finally, the bill would lower the wages of current citizens as they compete for jobs with illegal immigrants who get amnesty. By introducing millions of newly legalized workers to the market, the bill would drive down wages.

5. In 1986, when Congress last passed amnesty, the sponsors said it was a “one-time” thing. The Senate-passed bill follows the same “amnesty first, security and enforcement later” approach. Why are we doing that again?

There is no reason to make the same mistake twice. The U.S. government gave out amnesty and legal permanent residency to at least 2.7 million illegal immigrants as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. That amnesty didn’t stop illegal immigration, because the government didn’t (and still doesn’t) want to tackle border security or enforcement of immigration laws. In fact, amnesty only encourages more illegal immigration by sending the message that once enough illegal residents are here, the government will hand out amnesty again.

Some have argued that S.744 is not amnesty, but this is simply double-talk. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), when running for office in 2010, said “an earned path to citizenship is basically code for amnesty.” He was right.

S.744 allows illegal immigrants, including many criminal aliens, to remain here legally and even become citizens. It rewards those who broke the law, even as millions legally wait in line. This is amnesty, and this is unfair.

Small Town Subjected to The False Idol of Atheism

By: Julia Sieben /  http://www.lady-patriots.com/small-town-subjected-to-the-false-idol-of-atheism/

 

The town of Starke, Florida with a population of only 5800 (estimate) came under attack by the followers of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, founder of the American Atheists, who in 1964 Life magazine referred to as “the most hated woman in America“. 

In 1954, O’Hair and her two illegitimate children traveled by ship to Europe, planning on defecting to the Soviet embassy in Paris and residing in the Soviet Union, however, the USSR denied them entry. Murray and her sons returned to Baltimore, Maryland in 1960. O’Hair’s notoriety is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending prayer in public schools in 1963.  Following the lawsuit O’Hair fled to Austin, Texas where she founded the American Atheists group, and acted as the group’s chief executive officer.  In 1995 she was kidnapped, murdered, and her body mutilated, along with her son Jon Murray and granddaughter Robin Murray O’Hair, by former American Atheist office manager David Roland Waters.  Along with the kidnapping/murders, Waters extorted $500,000 worth of the $600,000. gold coins that the Atheist organization was holding in a bank.

Since the death of O’Hair, leadership of the American Atheist organization has changed numerous hands.  The current president David Silverman was elected in 2010.  Silverman has been with the organization since 1996 in a variety of roles. Prior to being president, Silverman was New Jersey State Director, Communications Director, and Vice President. Silverman has over the past three years been more of an attention seeking media and protest provocateur.  Silverman’s time is spent mostly cohosting the Atheist Viewpoint television program, writing for the NoGodBlog, and attending protests.

Silverman made a national spectacle of himself in two recent challenges attacking Christianity.

An atheist-awareness billboard campaign launched in the winter of 2010 sparked controversy and increased media exposure for the organization.  In American Atheists v. Port Authority (2013) under Silverman’s direction the American Atheists group sought to block the preservation of a cross-beam section of the World Trade Center skeleton that resembled a cross. Silverman stated: “The World Trade Center cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their God, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being, killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross.”  On March 28, 2013, United States District Court Judge Deborah Batts granted a motion of judgment in favor of the defendant. American Atheists stated at the time that they would appeal this decision.

In 2012, Silverman attempted to have the traditional Christmas tree removed.  David Silverman’s group put up an ad in New York City reading, “keep it merry, dump the myth,” the latter being a reference to Jesus. Silverman seemingly wants to keep the “Christ” out of Christmas and insists the ad is meant as a way of targeting atheists who go to church every Christmas because they believe its tradition or their families pressure them into it.  However, Silverman has gone public against Christmas arguing that his agenda is simply to make sure the government does not promote one religion over another.  Silverman states that Christmas being a Federal Holiday is preferential to Christians and should remove the holiday and replace it with celebration of Winter Solstice.  Silverman said that the “Winter Solstice has been celebrated since the dawn of time”

I hate to inform Mr. Silverman; yes winter solstice has been celebrated since ancient times, not the dawn of time.  The holiday timing of the winter solstice is rooted in ancient mostly pagan religions.

Silverman with his group of Merry Fascists from the north flocked down to a small town in north Florida for their most recent attack.  Starke, the county seat in Bradford County, Florida, has been dragged into court by Silverman’s group due to an area designated by the local government which was set aside for free speech.  The Community Men’s Fellowship erected a stone slab monument of the Ten Commandments in what’s described as a free speech zone on the courthouse lawn.  American Atheists sued to try to have the stone slab with the Ten Commandments taken away. During mediation on the case, the atheist group was told it could have its own monument, too.

“We’re not going to let them do it without a counterpoint,” Silverman said. “If we do it without a counterpoint, it’s going to appear very strongly that the government actually endorses one religion over another, or – I should say – religion in general over non-religion.”

 Silverman’s slip of tongue which he rapidly corrected was self-defining, atheism is in fact a practice/religion to preach and minister against recognized Faiths. American Atheist Group president David Silverman represents what has become called New Atheists (and the nontheistic movement as a whole). Silverman has formed this organization with social groups with their own guiding documents, gathering places including the Web, and a quasi-religious sense of community. The tacit ring of ‘come join us’ is apparent on their Web pages and in their public lectures. To me, these organizations of nonbelief can start to sound a lot like the ones they vilify.”

The opposite of theism is not atheism, everyone worships.   Everyone sees value in something, they give themselves wholeheartedly to it, they make sacrifices for it, and it then receives the bulk of their affection. At this point, we get into the concept of idolatry.  This Idolatry is apparent with newly erected monument Starke.  They came to erect it, celebrate it, posed with it, and upon it adored with their symbol of worship.

Atheism has been used as a tool for centuries by tyrannical leaders to separate those of Faith, who recognize something greater than themselves, and answers above all to their creator and not a government.  Atheism is the tool used by Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and Marxists to control the citizens to do their bidding uncontested.  Removal of Faith, removes Hope, removes Consequence, and removes Morality.

“We reject outsiders coming to Florida, especially from outside what we refer to as the Bible Belt, and trying to remake us in their own image,” said Michael Tubbs, state chairman of the Florida League of the South. “We do feel like it’s a stick in the eye to the Christian people of Florida to have these outsiders come down here with their money and their leadership and promote their outside values here.”

After a cover was taken off the 1,500-pound granite bench Saturday, people rushed to have their pictures taken on it. The bench has quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the founder of American Atheists. It also has a list of Old Testament punishments for violating the Ten Commandments, including death and stoning.

Countering Silverman’s act of standing on the Ten Commandment Monument to make his speech, Eric Hovind, Pensacola jumped atop the peak of the Atheist’s monument and shouted his thanks to the atheists for giving him a platform to declare Jesus is real. Atheists shouted at him with one man yelling that religion is a fairy tale.

“The problem is it’s not a fairy tale,” Hovind said. “We definitely have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

Wild Bill on Atheism Video: Click link to see and hear video: http://www.lady-patriots.com/small-town-subjected-to-the-false-idol-of-atheism/

 
 

Op-ed:
They all lied...and this one picture* is the proof
By: Diane Sori

As new information is finally starting to leak out about what really happened in Benghazi on that fateful night of September 11, 2012, NOTHING is more telling than this one single photograph…for this photograph proves that Ambassador Christopher Stevens did NOT die of smoke inhalation in the embassy compound as was claimed by the Obama administration, but was taken alive, raped, sodomized, and God only knows what else…and Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all those in their vile orbit knew this from day one and all bold-faced lied.

They all willfully, deliberately, and with malice LIED to Ambassador Stevens’ family and to ‘We the People’. And while we all know that some claim that Stevens was the middle-man in Obama’s gun and weapons running operation to the Syrian rebels, or that he was actually kidnapped to trade for the Blind Sheik and mistakenly killed, I believe that what I will tell you about this picture coupled with Obama’s cover-up and LIES, gives credence to my belief (one that I’ve had since day one) that Ambassador Steven’s found out Obama was running guns and weapons under the table to the al-Qaeda supported Syrian rebels, and was silenced before he could expose what Obama was doing.

Before I get to the photograph we must let the lead-up facts speak for themselves.

First, we all know there was NO spontaneous mob protest outside the consulate as Obama claimed for the first two weeks after the attack. Mob violence that got out of control because of an anti-islamic YouTube video he said, but a video that few had actually seen, that is until he went on Pakistani TV bloviating and apologizing for it after the fact. And with both former CIA Director David H. Petreaus and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that NO video was involved, they both bold-faced lied to Congress when first questioned, claiming that it was the video and the video alone that caused the attack. But I hate to tell them …NO I’m happy to tell them…lying under oath is a felony…an arrestable offense.

Second, Obama and crew still continue to claim there was NO warning of an impending attack issued by our Benghazi consulate. LIARS…there were many calls fearing an attack was imminent sent out by NOT only the Benghazi consulate and Ambassador Stevens himself, but also by our Tripoli embassy. Stevens sent out numerous pleas for help in the days and hours before the attack, because he knew of and feared the significant number of well-armed militias, all with ties to al-Qaeda, that were roaming the area around Benghazi. Also, remember that just a few months before, in June of the same year, a terrorist attack on the British Ambassador to Libya was attempted (thankfully it failed) causing both Britain and the International Red Cross to close their Benghazi offices…and the Red Cross just does NOT pick up and run without justification.

Those events in June alone should have served as a warning to Washington that our consulate and our people were in danger.
 
Third, fast forward to September 10th, when al-Qaeda head honcho Ayman al-Zawahrin publicly called on Libyans to seek revenge for the killing of a Libyan al-Qaeda leader, and that the next morning, September 11th, Libyan so-called ‘police officers’ who were supposed to be helping guard the compound were seen taking pictures of the inside of the compound. In fact, Ambassador Stevens sent an e-mail to DC that morning stating that he found this picture taking “troubling” and received NO reply. Now add in that on the afternoon of September 11th, the Blue Mountain Security manager, whose company also provided some of the guards for the Benghazi compound, sensed something was wrong and put out an alert via radio and cellphone, and according to media reports, there were roadblocks and check points set up well in advance of the attack because of his alert.

Fourth, our response to all this was to send up an unarmed surveillance drone over the consulate compound about 90 minutes AFTER the attack started…the very drone through which Barack HUSSEIN Obama watched our people being slaughtered…which of course he claimed he NEVER did. And if you believe that I’ve got some swamp land to sell you, because (and this is my belief alone) this man had to make sure Stevens was killed one way or the other so his ‘secret’ would be safe…so rest assured he saw it all.

And now remember all the conflicting reports of orders being issued or orders NOT being issued to ‘stand down’. I say ordering forces that were prepared to assist during an on-going attack to ‘stand down’ or NOT giving go orders at all to units ready, willing, and able to assist is NOT an act of negligence as some are trying to claim, but borders on…if NOT is…an act of treason.

And so, General Carter Ham, then commander of AFRICOM whose jurisdiction took in Benghazi, testified last week about that fateful night during a closed door hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, but isn’t it odd that NO reports of his testimony have been reported on…NONE whatsoever by any of the news media…just reports on the testimony of underlings…hmmm…

What we do know at this point is that two Marine anti-terrorist teams based in Rota, Spain, were ready to go assist in Benghazi, but reports claimed that it would have taken the first team 23 hours to get to Tripoli (which is an out and out LIE for while the two locations are 1,553 miles apart they’re only 3 hours 5 minutes apart in flight time), and that the second team was NEVER deployed because they were told that US personnel had been evacuated from Benghazi…another LIE because NO one had been evacuated and NO one was sent in to evacuate anyone. And isn’t it also odd that NOT one of these supposed ‘evacuees’… survivors actually…eye witnesses to the day’s events…has been seen or talked to by any media outlet…convenient huh. Also, there was a 130-man, fully armed Marine Force-Recon unit on the ground in Sigonella, Sicily, that could have been in Benghazi in 1 hour and 14 minutes, for the two locations are only 610 miles apart, but was NEVER called to do so.

So, with General Ham testifying in a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, we still CANNOT get word of what his testimony entailed, but underling Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders…and who pray tell were those commanders…told him to remain in the capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in case of additional attacks, and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi…but at that time NO one was being evacuated as the consulate was under heavy attack with NO help coming to either aid or rescue them.

And even with this testimony, even if the actual words ‘stand down’ were NOT uttered, the bottom line remains that with NO help forthcoming…with all parties involved making excuses for why help couldn’t be sent…this proves there was a total lack of military response to Ambassador Stevens’ pleas for help even with what the drone overhead was showing, and that in and of itself is an order to ‘stand down’ as far as I’m concerned.

Now to the photograph itself and remember this is NOT a newly released photograph but a photograph now seen differently, because one main point in this photograph has been overlooked by all…until now that is. Remember reports by a Libyan doctor claimed Stevens died ‘at the consulate’ of “severe asphyxia,” sometimes known as smoke inhalation, but results of an autopsy done on Stevens’ body after it was returned to the US have NOT been made public to either prove or disprove that. And then known al-Qaeda terrorist Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin piped in claiming Stevens was killed by lethal injection ‘at the consulate’, and while some do NOT discard that as a possible cause of death that too has NOT been proven or disproved, again because our government has NOT released our US done autopsy results. But no matter as neither of those scenarios is the truth because Ambassador Stevens did NOT die at the Benghazi consulate…he died…NO he was MURDERED… after being taken very much ALIVE from the consulate and at the direct hands of the enemy…an enemy aided by our president…and here’s the proof…

Notice Ambassador Stevens being carried by the barbarians…notice his right arm hanging down limp…now notice his bent left arm up by his face trying to either protect his face, cover his eyes, or even wipe tears from his eyes, but guess what…dead men do NOT wipe tears from their eyes nor do they try to cover their faces…NO…AMBASSADOR STEVENS WAS ALIVE NOT DEAD FROM SMOKE INHALATION and NO crap that he died at the hospital…and NO nonsense that maybe rigor-mortise had set in to bend his arm because that takes hours to happen and the time frame for that just isn’t here. This man was NOT being taken to a hospital after death as claimed but was dragged ALIVE through the streets, raped, sodomized, brutalized, and murdered by these muslim bast*rds, and this is why NO official US autopsy reports have been released. This fact had and still has to be hidden at all costs for Stevens being alive at this point could very well blow Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s cover-ups of why that night in Benghai happened.

Bottom line…our miserable muslim sympathizing president and his equally miserable former Secretary of State both NOT only LIED to us all about the reason for Benghazi, but also covered-up the cause of Ambassador Stevens’ death and everything relating to Benghazi. And that, I believe, is grounds for immediate arrest for treason.
_____________________________ 
* The Arabic writing on the photograph says: The Libyan Media Network... meaning this photo was actually released by the Libyan media itself and is NOT some photoshopped photo

Paul Ryan needs to back away from this issue...

Paul Ryan Leading House for 'Amnesty' Deal

Newsmax

• 2
  inShare

Paul Ryan, the Republican congressman and former vice-presidential candidate best known for his war on spending, is emerging as his party's leading champion of immigration reform in the U.S. House of Representatives.

With Senate passage of a sweeping immigration bill imminent, Ryan has been meeting with House conservatives to persuade them that reform of the immigration system, including a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, is an economic necessity and critical to fixing the nation's fiscal problems.

Ryan, a potential 2016 presidential contender, sees himself as a "bridge builder" between immigration advocacy groups and reluctant Republicans, he said in an interview with Reuters.

He argues that the immigration system is broken and must be overhauled. "It doesn't work for national security. It doesn't work for economic security," Ryan said.

While bi-partisan support is propelling comprehensive immigration reform in the Senate, the Republican-controlled House will take a piecemeal approach, with passage of any "pathway to citizenship" a longshot, at best.

Supporters believe the 43-year-old lawmaker, who hails from a moderate district in southern Wisconsin, two hours north of Chicago, can make a difference because of his stature as a leading conservative voice and a possible White House candidate.

Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said the sheer amount of time Ryan has spent talking with House Republicans about budget issues gives him the credibility to court them on immigration reform.

"I would bet you a nickel that he has had more face time with each member than anyone else in the caucus," said Norquist, an influential conservative who also believes immigration reform is vital to the economy.

Republican strategist Whit Ayres calls Ryan "one of the most effective messengers the Republican party has in the House," adding that "If Paul Ryan talks, the House Republicans will listen."

That assessment may be overly optimistic, considering the large number of House Republicans from conservative districts who see legalization of illegal immigrants and offering them a path to eventually become U.S. citizens as an "amnesty."

But Ryan said a Republican-backed amendment to the Senate bill to boost security on the U.S.-Mexico border improves the chances that the House and Senate could ultimately agree on a compromise version of the legislation.

The amendment "brings the Senate bill closer to the House's position and that gives me the belief that we have a better chance at getting this law fixed at the end," he said.

Unlike Republican Senator Marco Rubio, an architect of the Senate immigration bill and a potential rival for Ryan if both seek the presidency, Ryan is not writing legislation or participating in a congressional working group on the issue.

But both Ryan and Rubio face risks from the divisiveness of the immigration issue among Republicans.

Support for immigration reform could cost either man votes with conservatives who will nominate a 2016 Republican candidate. On the other hand, the influence of Hispanic-Americans in U.S. elections could make it harder for any candidate who opposes immigration reform to win the White House.

Mitt Romney, who chose Ryan as his running mate in 2012 to shore up his conservative credentials, won less than 30 percent of the Hispanic vote, prompting Republican leaders to re-think the party's traditional wariness of immigration reform.

Should Ryan run in 2016, his support for immigration reform will distance him from Romney's position during the campaign that illegal immigrants ought to "self-deport."

Pressure on Republicans from shifting demographics are evident in Ryan's own Wisconsin district, which has the second largest Latino population among the state's districts.

But Ryan is not a new convert to immigration reform and he says politics are not driving his embrace of it. His work on it goes back to his days as an aide to Jack Kemp, the late congressman who saw immigration as part of a free-trade agenda.

In April, Ryan teamed up with his friend, Democratic Congressman Luis Gutierrez, who is a staunch supporter of immigration reform, to tout the issue at an event in Chicago. He has also co-sponsored immigration reform bills in the past.

Like Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, Ryan talks of the work ethic of immigrants and the high proportion who start businesses. He often tells of his Irish ancestors who fled the potato famine in the 1850s and started a family farm in Wisconsin.

In the interview, he cited future budget deficits as a reason for urgency on immigration reform. With 10,000 baby boomers retiring from the workforce each day, "our economy is going to need more labor in the future," he said.

Ryan said he believes the country needs a system "designed for the economy, to bring workers in to do jobs that people won't do or to bring their high-tech intellectual capital."

The fiscal argument helped fuel momentum for the Senate immigration bill when the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would reduce deficits by $197 billion over a decade because of additional workers paying income and payroll taxes.

If Ryan is worried about a conservative backlash on immigration, he is showing no signs of it.

He has offered to debate anyone who says an "earned" path to citizenship is the equivalent of amnesty.

And the man who has sparred for years with Democrats on budget issues believes he can play a role in getting the two parties to work together. "I think when you get Democrats to listen to Republicans and Republicans to listen to Democrats you can find the common ground," he said.

Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute said Ryan could give other Republicans political cover to support immigration reform. "Nobody is going to question the conservative credentials of Paul Ryan," he said.

The Cost of War – on Coal

By: Bob Beauprez / Townhall Finance

 

War always has a cost.  The War on Coal declared last Tuesday by Barack Obama is no different.  The costs will be real, substantial, and be felt in every American household.

Barack Obama says there is no more time to wait around for Congress to act.  Seeking the once fashionable Consent-of-the- Governed would take too long.  The President ridiculed those with dissenting opinions – including a growing number within the scientific community; "We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society," he said in his speech at Georgetown University.

The "Flat Earthers" apparently include 16 of the most highly credentialed environmental scientists in the world who jointly penned an editorial in the June 28, 2013 Wall Street Journal explaining that, "There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy."

Obama justifies both his unilateral action and cost of the War on Coal with the same explanation Progressives use for virtually every item on their agenda.  We simply must "combat this threat on behalf of our kids."  It's always for the children, isn't it?

As we said in a post yesterday, "Obama's new War is a war against ourselves.  Virtually all of the coal is domestically produced supporting American jobs, families and communities, and providing a huge portion of the affordable energy necessary to support citizens and businesses throughout the nation."

A team of Heritage Foundation Scholars analyzed and quantified the cost of Obama's War on Coal for just the first years from 2015-2030.  Led by David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., Research Fellow for Energy Economics and Climate Change, the Heritage scholars confirmed our assertions from yesterday's blog post.  Obama's war "with no compelling scientific argument" to justify it, will most certainly have tangible, harmful consequences for every American citizen.

Here's a link to the entire Heritage report, and below is a key excerpt with the summary findings:

While it may not be clear exactly which policies will be used, it seems clear that zeroing-out coal-fired electric power plants is a goal of this Administration’s environmental team. This paper will analyze the economic impact of setting such a target. We look at the first 16 years of a 20-year phase-out of coal power: 2015–2030.

The analysis shows significant economic losses extend beyond the obvious areas of coal mining and power generation. In particular, we find that by 2030:

• Employment falls by more than 500,000 jobs;
• Manufacturing loses over 280,000 jobs;
• A family of four’s annual income drops more than $1,000 per year, and its total income drops by $16,500 over the period of analysis;
• Aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) decreases by $1.47 trillion;
• Electricity prices rise by 20 percent;
• Coal-mining jobs drop 43 percent; and
• Natural gas prices rise 42 percent.

Hey, Rachel: I’m Pretty Certain “Creepy Ass Cracker” is a Racial Slur

By: Doug Giles/ Townhall Columnist

After Tuesday’s testimony in the George Zimmerman trial by star witness Rachel Jeantel some of my white devil, honky, gringo, pasty skin, mackerel snatchin’, Caucasian buddies got all up in arms about Rachel Jeantel stating that “creepy ass cracker” is not a racial slur.

  First of all, Rachel, and I hate to break it to you, sister -- and I use that word “sister” in the strictest biblical sense of the word -- but “creepy ass cracker” does, historically, denote derision towards the pigmentally challenged of this world.

By pointing this out to you, I do not mean to demean or berate you. It’s just a friendly FYI I’m putting out there for you to consider, for future reference, because it does offend some of my tribe’s more genteel members.

That said, it really doesn’t offend me. Matter of fact, I prefer cheeky ass cracker to creepy ass cracker as the former borrows capital from British slang and merges it with an 18th century Floridian colloquialism, making it at least a quasi-compliment for this 21st century, brutish wordsmith; while the latter denotes a middle-aged white dude who comments way too much on a cute teenage girl’s Facebook page. Or a teenage boy’s Facebook page, for that matter. But I digress …

Another thing that got a lot of my WASPY buddies miffed by your testimony last week was the fact that the media isn’t Paula Dean-ing you for your use of an obvious racial epithet. To that I would suggest just forgiving them if they tweeted you something untoward, as some of my buddies are arriving a little late to the party and it’s just now dawning on them that the media is unsympathetic to their genome’s plight.

Thirdly, I’d watch it calling someone or something “retarded.” A lot of folks, especially those with special needs friends and family members, take umbrage to that phraseology. It’s just a suggestion to consider. Seriously.

Another thing to ponder if you happen to get called to the stand again, is to get your stories straight while you’re giving testimony or it could turn out better for the defense than the prosecution.

And finally, I know you didn’t ask for this type of spotlight to bear down on you but, if I were you, I would really, really dial down on the rude answers and the obtuse facial expressions, as it sure didn’t look great on television, and at the end of the day, we all have to get along.