Obama Visit To Israel

President Obama's Visit to Israel: U.S. Policy Priorities

JINSA Report #1141 - JINSA,  March 14th, 2013

Next week, President Obama will make his first visit to Israel as president. The bonds that exist between Jerusalem and Washington are built upon mutual strategic interests and a solid foundation of shared cultural and political values. At the same time, both countries face common threats where cooperation and sharing in defense technologies have clearly been of great benefit to both.

Israel is the only ally in the region whose interests are closely aligned with those of the United States. A strong and secure Israel is an essential element of national security strategy upon which American military planners can rely. Israel is a great resource for the United States in its own right and can help America to better understand regional trends as well as influence outcomes that would support U.S. regional interests.

Given the high levels of instability and uncertainty in the region at this time, we urge President Obama to make it clear to both our allies and adversaries that:

American policy is to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons capability and not to depend on containing it if it does so. Only with the heaviest possible pressure and with a united American-Israeli front can there be a reasonable chance to slow Iran's march toward developing a nuclear weapon. All strategies, such as engagement, sanctions, covert operations, regime change, and the credible threat of military attack must be implemented simultaneously. Taking military action off the table undermines all other options short of war.

• If President Obama must encourage resumption of talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, the two parties should meet without preconditions. He must reject the notion that the burden for reaching any agreement should fall disproportionately on Israel. As long as Israel's neighbors continue to believe that the Jewish presence in the Middle East is only temporary and that time is on their side, they will continue to condone violence and terror to achieve their goals.

• Israel is rightly concerned about the possible transfer of advanced or nonconventional weapons to Islamist militant groups in the region. Failure to prevent such weapons transfers today is likely to have serious negative consequences in the future for our own country, for Israel, and for our friends in the Middle East. As a measure supportive of both American and Israeli interests, President Obama must voice support for Israeli preemptive operations that deny our mutual enemies lethal capabilities.

• The United States will continue ensuring that Israel has the defensive and offensive capabilities needed to deter and fight its enemies. Preserving Israel's Qualitative Military Edge (QME) is of utmost importance to the fulfillment of our shared goals.

• The United States will continue to work with Israel and our regional friends to identify and support new strategic partnerships, while continuing to buttress traditional friends in need of our backing. Jordan remains a key ally for both the United States and Israel. In light of the challenges now facing the monarchy, Jordan's stability should be a priority objective.

• President Obama should make clear that the United States regards Egyptian fulfillment of the terms of the peace treaty with Israel, preservation of unfettered passage of international shipping through the Suez Canal, prevention of smuggling across Egyptian borders, securement of the Sinai Peninsula, and zero tolerance for the presence of terrorist organizations on Egyptian soil to be necessary and would view violations with grave concern.

American leadership is critical for the stability of the Middle East. Withdrawal from the region will undermine U.S. interests in regional stability, interests that are currently being threatened by the ongoing upheavals in the Middle East and Africa. We urge President Obama to make it clear that the United States will remain firmly connected to the region and its closest ally, Israel.

President and Gen X Not Good For America

It is rare that a President is an example of an entire generation, however, that is Obama. He is a selfish, self indulgent, spoiled individual not unlike the Gen X generation. American baby boomers have created a very irresponsible generation and they are no different from   those who continue to vote for him. Will they lead to the end of the United States?

A country declines when its citizens substitute individual responsibility for the benefits that its government can provide. Initially, the role reversal is hardly felt however, over time it erodes the spirit that built the nation until the time that only a few are taking care of the rest. Such is the case since 1950. The number of people who are on some sort of welfare has grown significantly over this period for example. Should we expect that it will decrease anytime soon, doubtful.

What are we do to? We would like you to tell us what your prescription is.

Conservative Tom

Obama Is Spoiled Rotten

March 13, 2013 by John Myers 

OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA

“Spare the rod, spoil the child.” – Samuel Butler

Last week, Vanity Fair published an adaptation of Zev Chafets’ biography of FOX News President Roger Ailes, in which Ailes described President Barack Obama as “lazy.”

Ailes may be correct in saying that Obama “never worked a day in his life.” Yet I do not believe that the President is lazy. I think Obama was spoiled rotten by his mother and her parents and that he has continued to be spoiled rotten by overly adoring liberals.

The real Obama clearly expressed himself in 2008 when he became exasperated by reporters after a news conference: “Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions.”

Sorry, Obama, for thinking it was anyone’s job to ask you questions.

Obama is the last person in the room to be sorry about anything. (There is plenty to be learned about Obama in Richard Minter’s recent book Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him.)

According to White House records, the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on Aug. 4, 1961. That makes him a member of Generation X, those born between 1960 and 1984.

What makes many of that generation so special is that they are born to baby boomers, who rejected raising their children the way generations of Americans had raised theirs. The baby boom went bust when they overindulged and spoiled their kids.

Raised by a single mother who was taking college classes, our 44^th President had zero contact with his father. Instead, he found himself with his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who was “finding herself” while traveling the world and continually going to college. When he was 10, Obama’s mother left him with his doting maternal grandparents.

Obama was not spoiled by money but by attention and adulation. One of only a handful of black kids at his high school in Hawaii, he was given extra merit for his intelligence. It seems clear that his grandparents, teachers and fellow students fawned over him, giving him an exaggerated sense of self.

Social scientists say that our basic personality is shaped at an early age. I have found that to be true. If we turn out to be kindhearted, industrious or insolent at 50, our behavior is cemented at a young age. In this regard Obama exhibits the personality of the peevish boy that he was while growing up.

On Jan. 27, New Republic published an interview with Obama.

One question asked was:

It seems as if you’re relying more on executive orders to get around these problems. You’ve done it for gun control, for immigration. Has your view on executive authority changed now that you’ve been president for four years?

Obama responded:

… [T]here are certain issues where a judicious use of executive power can move the argument forward or solve problems that are of immediate-enough import that we can’t afford not to do it. And today, just to take an example, the notion that we wouldn’t be collecting information on gun violence just to understand how it happens, why it happens, what might reduce it–that makes no sense. …

Clearly, Obama sees things his way: the way a 5-year-old sees a Tonka truck.

The Telegraph summed up Obama’s leadership qualities:

President Obama sees his re-election as a mandate to continue the very policies that will eventually bankrupt the country unless they are reversed, regardless of huge opposition on Capitol Hill. It chimes closely with the president’s second inaugural address…, which offered absolutely no olive branches to the nearly 61 million Americans who voted for his opponent in November.

It wouldn’t be hard to fill a book on Obama’s self-centeredness. When Neil Armstrong died in August, the President posted a picture of himself looking up at the moon. What should have been a President talking about the greatness of an American hero became another self-aggrandizing moment by Obama.

How Dr. Spock Ruined America

I will wager that Obama never got a spanking. His upbringing is the kind that is on constant display; the baby boomers of my age were bound and determined to never use discipline on their children. Instead, they praised their children as being “special.” When those kids acted up, they begged and pleaded with them to be good.

I was hardly “Father Knows Best.” Most of the credit for the way our children turned out goes to their mother. But I won’t shy away from the fact that I did administer spankings to our kids on rare occasions, just as my parents did with me and my siblings.

Today, our children are 25, 28 and 30 years old. They all have good jobs, live independently and, in their adult years, have thanked me for the discipline they got.

What earned a spanking? A clear example was our eldest. When he was 4 we took him to the Seattle Zoo. As we got to our car, he got this strange look on his face and immediately bolted into traffic. I yelled, “Stop!” He kept going and reached a lane where there was an oncoming car approaching at 30 mph. The fact that I was then young saved his life.

When pregnant with that child my wife read what millions of baby boomers read: Baby and Child Care by Benjamin Spock, M.D.

If you ever thought Spock was a plethora of knowledge, think again. In 1989, while revising that book, he wrote: “I visited a small private school… with the idea of asking children… what advice to parents they’d like me to incorporate in the forthcoming revision of Baby and Child Care. … In a thoughtful mood, the class was unanimous that parents should not hit their children.”

I am shocked! What is next: recruits in the Marine Corp will say they don’t like PT?

Look around and you can see bratty behavior on display. (Shopping malls come to mind.) And kids don’t grow out of it. I have a friend that consults for a college football team. He tells me that sometimes parents call up the head coach at the university and question him as to why their son isn’t playing more.

There was a CBC TV documentary two years ago about post-baby boomers. It included a segment where parents phoned bosses of their 20-something children to complain that Johnny and Sally were not being treated fairly at work. The program concluded that spoiling children took off with Generation X.

Obama is not the only one in government who was spoiled. The ranks of Congress are also becoming filled with the overindulged and pampered prodigy of the baby boomer generation.

In today’s Congress, there are 115 members who belong to Generation X. While the average age of Congress is high by historical standards, its ranks are being filled by people who did not suffer events like the Great Depression and World War II. I don’t doubt that most of these members are intelligent and capable. I doubt many of them faced much hardship or discipline. They continue to demonstrate that they simply can’t “play nice” with others.

Yours in good times and bad,

Benghazi Survivors Get No Assistance

Once again the Obama Administration proves that it is the most self absorbed, uncaring group ever to govern the US.  When a country abandons its citizens while under attack and then lies about it, the only conclusion is that is does not care for them.  Even though Lindsey Graham is quickly losing our respect, he as it right on this issue. 

Conservative Tom

BENGHAZI SURVIVORS ‘TOLD TO BE QUIET’ BY OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, CLAIMS GOP SENATOR (UPDATED WITH FULL INTERVIEW)

Mar. 15, 2013 4:56pm Jason Howerton

• 661
• 14.5K
• 29
• 13
• 143

US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) listens during a press conference on Capitol Hill March 7, 2013 in Washington, DC. The lawmakers spoke about the reported arrest of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, the son-in-law of Osama Bin Laden, who was taken into custody in the Middle East and is now allegedly being held in New York. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

The Obama administration has told the injured survivors of the Benghazi terror attack “to be quiet,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) alleges in an exclusive interview with Fox News.

While Congress presses for more information surrounding the infamous Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack, Graham says the survivors feel as if they can’t reach out and tell their stories. Critics of the White House’s handling of Benghazi say survivors have been completely inaccessible to Congress and the media.

When asked about Benghazi survivors, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, “I’m sure that the White  House is not preventing anyone from speaking.”

Graham told Fox News he isn’t buying it. He said, “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”

“We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and Congress, people who were there in real time to tell the story,” the senator from South Carolina added.

More from Fox News:

Graham continued to voice concern about the inaccurate or incomplete accounts that came from the Obama administration in the days following the attack. He is among a handful of Republican lawmakers pressing for access to and more information about the survivors.

A congressional source tells Fox News that Hill staffers investigating the attack believe about 37 personnel were in Benghazi on behalf of the State Department and CIA on Sept. 11. With the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, about 33 people were evacuated. Of them, a State Department official confirmed there were three diplomatic security agents and one contractor who were injured in the assault – one seriously.

A diplomatic security source told Fox News the State Department diplomatic security agent who was in the most serious condition suffered a severe head injury during the second wave of the attack at the annex.

This agent was described as the likely State Department employee visited at Walter Reed Medical Center by Secretary of State John Kerry in January.

An official with the State Department did not deny the account of the diplomatic security source and did not comment on the agent’s injuries or whether the agent was visited by Kerry or Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state.

Other GOP congressman, like Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), argue the Obama White House has offered “zero” documents on the survivors, much less provided names of the people attacked in Libya.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) on Friday said the Obama administration is “covering up something” in regards to the Benghazi attack, which left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department employee Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

More information regarding this story, including the full interview with Sen. Graham, will air on Fox News’ “Special Report With Bret Baier” Friday at 6 p.m. ET

Patriotism --Is It Still Positive

The Patriot Movement

March 11, 2013 by Bob Livingston 

PHOTOS.COM

There is and has been for some time a propaganda war designed to marginalize and demonize the liberty movement and those who advocate for a government that is limited by the Constitution and rule of law. Last week, that war hit high gear, as it became apparent that rational discussion about the role of government is no longer possible — in Washington or elsewhere.

The hate group I call the Southern Preposterous Lie Center (read about it here,here and here) fired its salvo with its spring non-Intelligence Report, “The Year in Hate & Extremism.” The magazine is yet another regurgitation of the SPLC’s regular quarterly vomit used to divest widows, simpletons and progressives of their wealth so Morris Dees and his socialist partners can live the high life and work from swanky office space in downtown Montgomery, Ala.

In the report, the lie center equates liberty-minded, pro-Constitution conservative and libertarian Americans with the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi skinheads, but it draws no real nexus beyond the bogies inside Mark Potok’s collectivist brain. Potok and the lie center have created a “hate group” designation for these people: Patriots.

He begins one section, under the heading “Once Again, Gun Control Spurs the ‘Patriots,’” with this screed:

Twenty years ago, the passage of the Brady gun control bill helped ignite the first wave of the “Patriot” movement, a combustible mix of gun-toting militias and baseless conspiracy theories about government perfidy that culminated in the 1995 mass murder of 168 people in an Oklahoma City federal building.

One may recall that these “baseless conspiracy theories about government perfidy” include the Federal government’s murder by gunfire and incineration of 83 people — including women and children — living by their own choice in a compound in Waco, Texas; the cold-blooded murder of 14-year-old Sammy Weaver (who was shot in the back by U.S. Marshal Bill Degan and/or other Federal agents) and Vicki Weaver as she held her 10-month-old baby (shot in the head by the criminal FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi, who received a commendation rather than a deserved murder charge); the passage by Congress of the 2^nd Amendment-shredding Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994,  which outlawed semi-automatic weapons based on cosmetic features alone; and the 1993 attempt to force Americans into a socialist healthcare (deathcare) system dubbed Hillarycare.

Potok then makes a leap to tie displeasure over these instances of true “government perfidy” to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Okla., with strings that have not been proven and that likely do not exist. However, while it is certain that the “government perfidy” did lead to a growth in the number of people who realized that government was getting out of control, it is more than likely that the Oklahoma City bombing was a false flag attack designed to bolster Bill Clinton’s failing Presidency, which was at its lowest point of his two terms. I explained that here. (And there is much more evidence available for those who wish to see it.)

This explanation, which I wrote in 2010, came after Clinton joined a chorus of Democrat progressives and statists and media talking heads (apologies for the redundancy) in comparing supporters of the then-burgeoning Tea Party movement with convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh (and Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver). So you see that Potok is just reviving a tired — but somewhat successful, thanks to the mainstream media government propaganda agents, many of whom turn to the lie center for “news” — message.

And just who does Potok and the lie center name as leaders of this “radical” right “Patriot” movement made up of “racists” and “extremists?” Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.); Representative Trey Radel (R-Fla.), who has said Obama could be impeached for executive actions on gun control; Sheriff Richard Mack; The Oath Keepers (current and former military and law enforcement who have vowed to uphold the oath they swore to the Constitution); former Constitution Party Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin; Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel Action; Tony Adkins of Conservative-daily.com; Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and FreedomWatch; the Family Research Council; Joseph Farah of WND.com; Donald Trump; and unnamed lawmakers (but you know who you are) in Arizona, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee who proposed laws that sought to prevent Federal gun control from applying to their States.

On Thursday, Senator John McCain (Senile old fool and supporter of perpetual war-Ariz.) and his trained monkey, Senator Lindsey Graham (Fascist and Liar-S.C.), denigrated Paul and also some of Paul’s allies — with fallacious and specious arguments  — over his almost 13-hour filibuster in which he sought a straight answer from President Barack Obama and/or Attorney General Eric Holder about the use of drones to kill Americans. But McCain didn’t stop there. He also took to the Senate floor to take swipes at libertarians and the liberty movement with yet more logical fallacies.

But McCain and Graham are not the first of the establishment Republicans to attempt to marginalize supporters of the Constitution and small government with ad hominems and logical fallacies. Nor is it just the establishment elected class and its propagandists who casually throw around the term “extremist” when talking about the honest, hardworking American business owners; blue- and white-collar workers; veterans; retirees and students who are linked to the liberty movement through the original grassroots local Tea Party groups and libertarian-oriented “Ron Paulites.” Notice that in the comments below articles on this site and others there are those who attempt to smear the Tea Party with baseless ad hominems and comparisons to the Taliban.

Recall that during the 2000 election, then-candidate George W. Bush ran on a platform of “compassionate conservatism.” Compassionate conservatism was, as I said at the time, doublespeak for national socialism or fascism. It was used to imply that conservative principles were somehow not compassionate and that Bush was somehow more high-minded, thinking and compassionate than those who opposed him in the primary.

That Bush was more high-minded, thinking and compassionate was not borne out by history. Bush policies are what accelerated the journey to where we now find ourselves: living in a police state engaged in perpetual war with a bloated, deficit-riddled, ever-growing government and in a time where Senators and Americans who oppose those policies are branded as extremists or potential terrorists. It was opposition to Bush policies at the end of his term that sparked the growth of the Tea Party in the first place.

It’s a sad day indeed when there is a necessity to ask whether our government feels it can label us as terrorists and disregard the Constitution and kill us without due process and when just asking the question gets you branded as an extremist or, worse, a libertarian, a  terrorist or a Patriot.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Payne, John Hancock, John Adams, James Madison, James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton and a host of others were our first patriots. If their idea of government is extreme in the eyes of the SPLC, McCain and Graham, then I’m a part of the “Patriot” movement, too.

I suppose that makes the lie center, McCain, Graham and others of their ilk enemies of freedom and, therefore, extremist enemies of America. Maybe they’ll be featured in the SPLC’s next issue.

Wonder Why Unions Are In Favor Of Immigration

Beware The Unions’ Idea Of Immigration Reform

March 1, 2013 by Chip Wood 

PHOTOS.COM

Barack Obama and his union buddies have made it clear what they mean by “immigration reform.” That is, a clear path to citizenship for the 11 million people who are in this country illegally.

If they get their way, guess how many of those new citizens will become Democratic voters?

And guess how many will be targets for union membership?

So it should come as no surprise that when the President gave a major speech on immigration reform in Las Vegas earlier this year, AFL-CIO head Richard Trumka was invited to sit in the front row. Afterward, Trumka said it was clear what the top priority of any such program must be: citizenship and all of its privileges for anyone who is in this country illegally.

For “privileges,” read “voting Democratic.” Oh, and “paying union dues.”

The Services Employees International Union says that it will spend millions of dollars to rally support for such legislation. Top officials of the SEIU have made it clear that passage of such a bill is their top priority this year.

No wonder. In recent years, Hispanics have comprised the fastest-growing segment of union membership. According to the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, their numbers jumped by 21 percent over the past decade and now make up one-quarter of SEIU membership. Meanwhile, over the same 10-year period, white union membership declined by 13 percent.

One of the biggest problems the unions are facing is that when workers aren’t forced to join a union, many won’t. After Indiana passed a right-to-work law last year, union membership in the State declined by 18 percent. In Wisconsin, passage of a right-to-work law in 2011 led to a huge and bitter battle to rescind the legislation and force Governor Scott Walker out of office. When that effort failed, union membership in the State declined by more than 13 percent.

No wonder the unions are licking their chops at the thought of organizing a substantial chunk of the 11 million immigrants who are in this country illegally. They will be satisfied with nothing less than a quick and easy path to citizenship. Hopefully, Republicans in Congress will stand fast and make sure they don’t get it.

By the way, one thing the unions definitely don’t want included in any immigration reform is an effective guest worker program. While Big Labor likes to claim that temporary workers would “steal American jobs,” that’s a bunch of hooey. Granting citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens would enable them to “steal” a lot more jobs than guest workers could ever dream of filling.

No, the reality is that temporary workers don’t join unions or pay union dues. Is it any surprise that the unions don’t want them here? No wonder Barack Obama omitted any mention of a guest worker program in his immigration speech. Nor did it appear in the White House’s paper on immigration principles.

Senator Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who has emerged as a leading Republican spokesman for a compromise solution, has said: “The bottom line is that if we can’t convince people of all backgrounds, including Americans of Hispanic descent, that limited government and free enterprise is a better way, not just for them, but for the country, not only is the conservative movement doomed, but ultimately I think America is doomed, in terms of us continuing being an exceptional nation.”

That’s pretty optimistic, don’t you think?

Another Battle Big Labor Wants To Win

Remember the brouhaha that erupted a year ago, when Obama appointed three new members to the National Labor Relations Board without allowing the Senate to “advise and consent”? The President said he could do so because they were “recess” appointments when the Senate was not in session.

The problem was that the Senate said it was in session. The chamber met every day, even if just for a few moments, precisely to stop the President from doing what he did. The dispute soon moved to the courts.

Last month, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled unanimously that Obama violated the Constitution by making the appointments. As a result, the NLRB lacked a legal quorum since January 2012, which means that every decision it issued in the past 13 months could be thrown out.

Two weeks ago, the President re-nominated two of the people he appointed: former Labor Department official Sharon Block and former union lawyer Richard F. Griffin Jr., both pro-union stalwarts. (Obama’s third nominee had previously resigned and did not seek reappointment.)

This time around, Obama did submit the nominations to the Senate, so the upper chamber can fulfill its traditional role to “advise and consent.” Look for a lively battle over their confirmations.

But you can expect even more fireworks — and lawsuits — over the activities of the NLRB. Chairman Mark Pearce has announced that he disagrees with the Federal court ruling and is going to carry on as though nothing happened.

As a result, one critic (Home Depot co-founder and former chairman Bernie Marcus) declared in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal: “After making hundreds of decisions that killed jobs and increased economic uncertainty, the board is set up to decide a hundred more.”

Marcus issued his statement in his new role as head of a new nonprofit organization he helped found, the Job Creators Alliance. He explained: “Today, many job creators are being punished for doing business. Confiscatory taxes. Suffocating regulations. Stifling energy costs. Businesses that have joined the Job Creators Alliance face these challenges every day. Now they must also endure a rogue agency thumbing its nose at an unambiguous and unanimous court ruling. How are they supposed to have the confidence to invest and create jobs?”

How indeed?

Legislation has been introduced in Congress that will bar the NLRB from enforcing any decisions until it has a quorum that has been approved by the Senate. But don’t expect it to be passed anytime soon, and don’t expect the NLRB chairman to pay attention if it is passed.

Marcus got it right when he wrote: “Worried business owners don’t invest, expand and create jobs. They hunker down and try to survive.”

That’s a pretty good description of what all of us will have to do as long as Obama sits in the White House and Democrats control the Senate. The next two years will require every Constitutionalist to “hunker down and try to survive.”

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

The Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight

The Obama Administration must be trying to be the winner of the worst administration in US history. They ignore calls from an Ambassador as his compound is being overrun and get four American citizens killed;they force gun dealers to sell guns to Mexican gun lords without any tracking devices and get a Border Agent killed; they release thousands of illegal immigrants many of which are very dangerous, and  all the while continue to blame their  problems on President Bush and the Republicans even though they have been in office over four years.  This is some record and we have hardly scratched the surface!

This latest fiasco with the illegal immigrants is an example of how poorly this group works with each other. No one takes responsibility and from the President on down it is the same Sgt. Schultz answer "I know nothing!"  Everyone claims it was someone else's decision.  What ever happened to the "buck stops here" of the Truman Administration?

All the while no one is holding Obama's feet to the fire. Everyone just shrugs their shoulders and says, "I guess that is the way it goes, the government is just too big."  So if it is, lets slim it down to the essentials and let private businesses take up the slack!

Hopefully no one will be killed by the illegal immigrants that have been set free, however, even if someone does, Obama will go blameless as he will place the responsibility on one of his underlings.  He is such a leader!!

This Administration is a fiasco, a farce and a disgrace to this country.  They are able to get away with this incompetency due to the fawning puppy dog media who refuses to point out the problems and until recently a weak Republican opposition. If things do not change, and change quickly, we will not have a country.

Is it time to retake the country? It sure is getting close however, the Department of Homeland Security is ready for this. Their purchases of arms, ammo and tanks says so. Are you ready? We will have a fight on our hands as this Administration will use all weapons at their disposal to put down any "disobedience" including but not limited to drones and foreign troops. Kinda sounds like Syria and Libya doesn't it?

America is a gift to the world but Obama is quickly taking it away from us. We need to prepare.

Conservative Tom

FEDS RECAPTURE 4 IMMIGRANTS RELEASED DURING SEQUESTER TERROR DUMP

By: John Hayward  
3/15/2013 12:39 PM

RESIZE:AAA

PRINT

1

We’ve officially reached the point where every single thing the Obama Administration said about its move to release illegal aliens from detention centers has been revealed as an absolute lie.  It was thousands of prisoners, not just a tiny handful, and some of them were indeed dangerous.

Fortunately, the Washington Times reports that the Administration managed to recapture four of the “most dangerous immigrants it released from detention.”  Yay!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director John Morton testified to Congress that his agency released 10 “level one” offenders, and has gone out and apprehended four of them. He said the other six are nonviolent.

Mr. Morton also acknowledged that overall, 2,228 immigrants were released — far more than the several hundred the agency had initially acknowledged. Of those, 629 had criminal records, though Mr. Morton said they were low-level offenders.

The releases have drawn a stern rebuke from Republicans, who said it showed mismanaged priorities. They also said ICE’s concession that it released far more immigrants than it first acknowledged dents the agency’s credibility.

“Today’s ICE testimony directly contradicts repeated assurances and explanations peddled by the Obama administration in the days after the mass release of illegal aliens became public knowledge,” said Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. “The American people were initially told there were hundreds, not thousands, of individuals released. We were assured they were low-level detainees of little public risk. As we now know, neither of these claims was accurate.”

Morton is the designated fall guy who supposedly did all this on his own, without Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano or President Obama knowing about it… and, as has become typical of the Obama Administration, they advance this claim of utter incompetence as a defense.  Hey, it’s a freaking huge government – its masters don’t know what every part of it happens to be doing at any moment, even when it endangers the public, as with this prisoner release or Operation Fast and Furious.  They also can’t be expected to respond to every little request for assistance from every little ambassador trapped in a terrorist hive on the anniversary of 9/11.

But you can trust them to run your health care!  In fact, you must.  It’s mandatory, forever.

Come to think of it, not even Morton seems to know exactly what he’s done:

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican and one of those who wrote demanding answers, said Mr. Morton didn’t clear up very much.

“Why was the secretary of Homeland Security not aware of the release of convicted criminals by her own agency? Why did she tell us it was only hundreds who were released when we now learn it was thousands?” he said. “This is evidence of serious mismanagement at DHS under Secretary Napolitano.”

Mr. Morton said his choice was between maintaining 34,000 immigrants in detention or furloughing ICE agents, which he said would curb the agency’s other areas, such as investigations of drug or child pornography cases and money-laundering.

“I don’t think it would be good policy to ask us to maintain 34,000 at the expense of those kinds of investigations,” Mr. Morton said.

All of the immigrants released are still subject to deportation proceedings, and all of them are supposed to be under some sort of supervision, though not all are being electronically monitored.

Mr. Morton was unable to provide exact numbers on that breakdown to the House’s Homeland Security spending subcommittee.

Maybe releasing them on the other side of a securely maintained border would have been a better idea.

Budgeting Made Easy

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, most Americans  who look at the budget  have to agree that spending has to be reined in and the budget balanced. We cannot continue to raise taxes on the "wealthy" for in not too long, there will be none left. The golden goose can only lay so many eggs!

Additionally, we must control the "entitlement programs" of Welfare and Medicaid. If not, they will bankrupt this country. These are the biggest drivers of the deficit and without controlling them there is no America.

Only in Washington is a reduction in the increase of spending called a cut. In our little pea brains, a cut is a decrease in what we spent last year. So, we would like to see a budget that held spending level for EVERY spending category for the next five years. Zero increases. If a budget line was $5 billion last year, it would get $5 billion this year and for the next half decade.  Our government statisticians tell us that inflation is around 2%, so that would only be a 2% (real world) cut. Couldn't we absorb such a small reduction?

How many businesses have reduced their employees salaries 10 or 15% over the past five years or reduced hours or laid off people? The answer is many. How much have our Representatives, Senators, President and civil servant salaries been cut? Believe us, they have not.  Why not? Aren't they "entitled" to an increase. Heck no! 

Time to making budgeting an easy enterprise. Level the spending, no increase, no CPI increases, the same dollars. Make government live on the money they spent last year. Seems reasonable to us!  What about you?

Conservative Tom

P.S. If we used the Conservative Tom budget model,  we would not have to put up with the lies, misrepresentations, false warnings, false promises, rosy guarantees and more lies that we will hear as the budget process starts. The following is the first of many articles which will be presented to show how bad (or good) one side or the others program is. 

 

GOP Says Congressional Democrats’ New Budget Would Jack Federal Spending 62 Percent In 10 Years

March 15, 2013 by Ben Bullard 

Senate Republicans have wasted no time in dismantling the budget proposed Wednesday by the Democrat-led Senate Budget Committee. The Republican arm of the same committee released a series of graphics on its website showing what the Democrats’ proposal would do to Federal spending if projected across a 10-year span.

Of particular interest are three charts, the first of which demonstrates how the proposal would more than double Federal spending from where it stood only six years ago, from $2.7 trillion in 2007 to a projected $5.7 trillion in 2023:

More interesting is where the Democrats’ budget allocates the additional spending: entitlements. Under the plan, annual welfare entitlements would grow from their present mark of just under $800 billion to roughly $1.4 trillion in 2022, crossing the trillion-dollar threshold in a matter of only three years:

Finally, the Democrats’ proposed budget nullifies any perceived “deficit reductions” achieved through “sequestration” by means of $1.6 trillion in new taxes, just in 2013, setting a pace that would bloat entitlement-driven Federal spending by $8.6 trillion over the course of the next decade.

As of this moment, that’s more than half the standing U.S. National debt — in its entirety.

Fair play, if you can call it that: For their part, the Democrats claim their plan “only” raises$975 billion over the next decade. Whether you buy the GOP’s interpretation or the Democrats’ spin, under any scenario it means accelerated spending that, if left in place,would obliterate any hope of ever balancing the budget — to say nothing of reducing the National debt.

Can The New Republican Leadership Make A Difference

When the history of the last twenty years is written, there are going to be two glaring conclusions. They are that the Republican leadership as displayed by John Boehner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham was very weak and that weakness encouraged the Democrats to ram damaging legislation down the throats of the American people. Had the leadership been more engaged with the aspirations of the American people, more determined to resist this seriously flawed legislation and more able to effectively to communicate their point of view, the decline of America could have been slowed or reversed.

If there ever was a time when the Republican party needed principled leadership it is now. We are concerned with many in the party who talk conservative but are really big spenders not unlike their Democratic counterparts.

Will the new breed of Republicans namely Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jerry Moran, Marco Rubio, Saxby Chambliss, Pat Toomey and others be able to right this sinking ship. Time will tell. However, we do know that the current leadership is abysmal. They had their time in the sun but that time has passed and it is time for them to retire.

We had a glimpse of this new group during Rand Paul's filibuster on drones. They stood together on principle and would not yield until such time that the Administration blinked. This would never have occurred under Boehner etal.  

These gentlemen did us proud and we hope that this will not be the only time when they will stand on the side of the citizens interests. If they do, we have a chance to return America to its roots of freedom of mind, body and spirit. However, we do warn them, if they become complacent, decide they can "get along" with the other side, the dream that made the United States the example to the world will be lost. It is in their hands and we do not have much time.

Conservative Tom

Rand Paul’s Inspiring Stand

March 15, 2013 by Chip Wood 

UPI

“For the first time since the election, I actually have some hope.” That’s what one long-time conservative said to me after Senator Rand Paul’s 13-hour filibuster last week.

My friend is far from the only one to feel that way. Paul’s dramatic gesture had conservatives, libertarians and even many on the left cheering his principled stand. And no wonder. Here’s how Paul opened his lengthy marathon on the Senate floor on March 6:

I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.

Who on Earth could dispute that? Well, as it turns out, Paul’s challenge to unrestrained government power makes some Republicans very uncomfortable. Two of the more outrageous attacks came from establishment Republicans John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The day after Paul’s marathon effort, McCain pontificated, “I don’t think what happened yesterday was helpful to the American people.” Later, he inserted his foot even further into his mouth, when he told one reporter: “It’s always the wacko birds on right and left who get the media megaphone.” When asked to name names, McCain didn’t hesitate. “Rand Paul” was the first one he mentioned.

McCain’s buddy and Old Guard collaborator Graham went even further. He denounced Paul’s demand for clarification on warrantless domestic drone strikes, saying, “I do not believe that question deserves an answer.” Oh really, Senator? Sounding more like a spoiled child than a U.S. Senator, Graham added that Paul’s filibuster had convinced him to vote in favor of confirming John Brennan as CIA director.

In one of the most dramatic contrasts I’ve seen in many a month, McCain and Graham were hobnobbing with the President at a gourmet dinner while seven other Senators joined Paul on the Senate floor. Six of them were Republicans: Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Marco Rubio of Florida, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. One lonely Democrat, Ron Wyden of Oregon, was also there. Here’s a tip of the hat to all of them.

While that was happening on Capitol Hill, McCain and Graham were dining with Barack Obama at the Jefferson Hotel in downtown Washington. It seems the President decided to call a time-out in his constant campaigning against the Republicans and put on a show for some bipartisan support. Obama even agreed to pick up the tab.

It was no surprise that McCain and Graham were among the first to be invited. It’s always going to be “business as usual” with these guys.

And isn’t that the point? What happened a week ago Wednesday is that one outspoken and determined person showed the world that you don’t have to go along to get along, that you can receive enormous public support when you take a principled stand for freedom.

Kentucky’s senior Senator, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, hasn’t always been one of Paul’s more ardent admirers. But he was effusive in his praise of his colleague last week.

“I wanted to congratulate him for his tenacity, for his conviction, and for being able to rally the support of a great many people,” he declared. In a not-so-subtle reference to Graham, McConnell said that the support Paul received demonstrates that “this is a legitimate question.”

BuzzFeed spoke for many hopeful conservatives when it wrote: “Republicans rallied around Paul in a way that hasn’t been seen on the national stage in years and could provide a glimmer of hope for a listless party.”

From where I sit, it looks like a lot more than a “glimmer,” my friends. BuzzFeed seems to agree, because it went on to write, “‘There was a hell of a lot of team play tonight,’ a senior GOP leadership aide said Thursday morning, acknowledging that Paul’s filibuster had given the GOP a much needed jolt of energy.” Indeed, it has.

The next morning, the White House finally did what Paul had been demanding for months: It issued a statement confirming that the President does not have the power to use drones in this country to kill American citizens.

Attorney General Eric Holder issued the actual response, which White House Press Secretary Jay Carney read during his daily press briefing. “It has come to my attention,” the attorney general wrote, “that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

Doesn’t sound like much of a concession, does it? But it was enough for Paul to declare it “satisfactory.”  He said he would no longer oppose a vote on the nomination of Brennan to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Brennan was easily confirmed later that week by a vote of 63-34.

So was all of this much ado about nothing? Not at all. Paul spoke to the fears a growing number of Americans have of their own government. Near the end of his 13-hour marathon, he declared:

Certain things rise above partisanship. And I think your right to be secure in your person, the right to be secure in your liberty, the right to be tried by a jury of your peers — these are things that are so important and rise to such a level that we shouldn’t give up on them easily.

In fact, we shouldn’t give up on them at all. When Paul seized the moment, he drew a line in the sand that inspired a lot of us to stand up as well. Thank you, Senator.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

–Chip Wood