Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Friday, July 12, 2013

ObamaCrapCare Headed Again For The Supreme Court

Yesterday, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals  said that religion cannot be used as a shield against ObamaCrapCare, that a religious organization must be forced to provide insurance for services for which that body does not support.  They as well as the Supreme Court keep relying on the Commerce Clause to force all employers to purchase a product, in this case health insurance.  We disagree strongly, however, do not feel that we will win as Roberts has been turned into a stool pigeon or even worse, a sell out to his supposedly conservative beliefs.

This is a continuation of a sad story in American history. The law is being twisted into something that the Founders would not recognize. On top of it being a terribly written and conceived law, it is patently illegal to force someone to purchase anything. What is next-- you must own a car from Government Motors or you must have solar panels on your house or you must employ illegal aliens or you must ... (you fill in the blank)?

Once you require that a free man must purchase a product, he no longer is free. He is a subject to whomever sells that product. Prices can be raised arbitrarily and you must pay the fare. 

In the case of ObamaCrapCare, supposedly prices can only go up so far each year, however, who says that "waivers" would not be granted for larger increases due to a health crisis or as a favor for a company that provided money to a campaign--but that would not happen, right?

On the price topic, we heard today (from one of our companies for which we sell health insurance) that prices for insurance in Ohio were going up a tiny 98% effective January 1st.  So much for the argument that rates would be stable!!

We must end ObamaCrapCare, it is a disaster and it will only get worse.

Conservative Tom

Federal Court Rejects Christian University’s Request To Overturn Obamacare, Opens Possibility Of New SCOTUS Consideration

July 12, 2013 by  
On Thursday, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Commerce Clause of the Constitution’s gives Congress the authority to demand that employers purchase private health insurance for their employees or pay government fines.
By rejecting the Liberty University lawsuit that was a bid to overturn the healthcare law on grounds of religious freedom, the court opened up the possibility that the Supreme Court could once again hear arguments about Obamacare, as the university plans to appeal.
“Plaintiffs present no plausible claim that the act substantially burdens their free exercise of religion, by forcing them to facilitate or support abortion or otherwise,” Judge James A. Wynn Jr. wrote in the opinion. He wrote the law “allows an individual to obtain, and an employer to offer, a plan that covers no abortion services at all.”
Liberty attorney Mat Staver said the fight isn’t over.
“At least the court reached the merits and did not try to dodge the issues on procedural or standing grounds,” he said. “This clears the way to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will be the final stop anyway.”

Sarah Palin Goes After Opponent

Sarah Palin is right, when they start calling you names, they have lost the argument and cannot do anything else. So goes it for Mark Begich, the current Senator from Alaska who will be running against the former governor should she decide to throw her bonnet into the arena.  

Begich is a Democratic flake, who votes with the leadership nearly all the time and does not have a creative legislative bone in his body.  He should be allowed to go back and hunt caribou or whatever else he does.

We are a fan of Palin and we hope that she wins the race for Senate. She definitely will shake things up in the upper house.

Conservative Tom

Palin Blasts Begich For 'Where Does She Live' Quip

Thursday, 11 Jul 2013 03:06 PM
By Lisa Barron

The war of words between former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich continued on Thursday when Palin  took to her Facebook page, writing, "Really, Mark? Really?" in response to comments he made about her fitness to run against him.
"Margaret Thatcher used to say, 'I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.'" the former vice -residential candidate added.

"So, thank you, Mark Begich, for making me and others exceptionally cheery today!"

Begich reacted to Palin's announcement that she was considering challenging him in next year's election by saying, "I don't know if she's a resident. She's been away from Alaska a lot and has probably lost touch with what's going on." Under the U.S. Constitution, senators have to live in the state they represent at the time of election.

"She should go to my webpage. Most Alaskans I see on a pretty regular basis, but I haven't seen her for a long time," Begich said.

Palin's response took aim at Begich's voting record, saying, "I can see why you are looking for a distraction. You have voted FOR Obamacare, FOR massive tax increases, FOR carbon taxes which could cost Alaskans 21,000 jobs, AGAINST pro-life legislation, and there’s so much more. You even flip-flopped to oppose the nation’s balanced budget amendment."

Palin continued, "You agree with, and vote with, ultra-liberal Senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid approximately 90 percent of the time."

Begich, a former mayor of Anchorage, was elected to the Senate in 2008 when he defeated longtime GOP Sen. Ted. Stevens.

Speaking to radio host Sean Hannity on Tuesday, Palin criticized Begich as a Democratic pawn who doesn't listen to the voters back home.

She continued the charge online, writing, "Mark, you recently said, 'Alaskans pick who they want based on what’s good for Alaska.' Couldn’t agree more, Mark, which is why many hope to see great changes for our great state following the upcoming 2014 election."

Alaska's Republican Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell and Joe Miller, the official GOP candidate in the 2010 Senate race, have already announced their candidacies for the 2014 race.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Are Americans Really Anti-Abortion

According to a recent Huffington Post/YouGov poll, Americans overwhelmingly do not agree with abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Why are our leaders (??) not hearing us? Our leaders so wedded to money for their next election that sadly, it is the pro-abortion crowd that gives them the bucks so they vote against any limitation on abortions.

This is just another one of those issues that the money makes the decision not the morality of the question or the effect it will have on the country or what is in the best interests of the nation.  Our leaders are whores who prostitute themselves, and any principles they have, in order to win the next election.  This is not leadership.

When will we find leaders again? Or is this nation doomed as other great civilizations of the past? We hope that a crisis arises and leaders rise up otherwise, we are lost.

Conservative Tom


Huffington Post Abortion Poll Shows Wide Support for Ban After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy
Credit: AP
Americans overwhelmingly support a national law banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, according to a new poll by the left-leaning Huffington Post/YouGov.
By a margin of 59 to 30 percent, Americans said they would favor a “federal law that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.”
Further, “on a 20-week abortion ban, 70 percent of conflicted respondents said they were in favor of the measure, along with 30 percent of respondents who gave pro-abortion rights responses to both questions and 89 percent of those who gave anti-abortion responses to both,” according to the Huffington Post.
The new poll from the Huffington Post, which goes out of its way to make sure readers know where it stands on abortion, seems to prove that banning abortions after five months of pregnancy is certainly not an “extreme” position in America.
However, that’s exactly how HuffPost has repeatedly described the proposed abortion legislation in Texas that would do exactly that. Here’s the site’s headline from Thursday:
Huffington Post Abortion Poll Shows Wide Support for Ban After 20 Weeks of Pregnancy
(Huffington Post)
Headlines on the website have routinely praised pro-abortion lawmakers like Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, while blasting Texas Republicans as “extreme” for supporting the contentious pro-life bill in the Lone Star State. Many other states currently have similar restrictions.
The Texas Senate was poised to cast a final vote on tough new abortion restrictions after a committee approved the measure Thursday, and top Republicans and Democrats acknowledged there is little to stop it from becoming law this time.
The bill would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, require that the procedure be performed at ambulatory surgical centers, and mandate that doctors who perform abortions obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst scheduled the vote for Friday afternoon, less than two weeks after the GOP-led Senate failed to finish work on the bill during a chaotic end to the first special session. Senators were expected to offer amendments and debate the virtues and dangers of imposing some of the toughest abortion restrictions in the country.
It could be Saturday morning before senators actually cast their votes if debate lingers through the night.
If passed Friday, the bill immediately goes to Gov. Rick Perry for his signature. Perry has made the bill a priority, calling two special legislative sessions to pass it.

Editor’s note“The HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted June 27-28 among 1,000 adults using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Zimmerman Show Trial

Limbaugh: Zimmerman Case Reduced to 'Show Trial'

Thursday, 11 Jul 2013 09:02 PM
By Wanda Carruthers

Prosecutors are so anxious to find George Zimmerman guilty of something, they have turned the case into a "show trial," Rush Limbaugh charged on his radio show.

"The fix was in on this thing from the very first moment," he said Thursday."I just think it's outrageous," he added.

"The only important thing in a show trial is pleasing the people in power and giving the unwashed masses a lesson. Show trials have nothing to do with dispensing justice — they're all about dispensing social justice, which is usually the polar opposite."

Limbaugh was particularly incensed that the prosecution is now asking that the jury be allowed to consider verdicts of manslaughter or third degree murder based on child abuse as victim Trayvon Martin was only 17 when he was killed.

Judge Debra Nelson has agreed to allow a manslaughter verdict but has yet to make a decision on the third-degree murder charge.

Defense attorney Don West has already called the maneuver "outrageous" and Limbaugh agreed.

"We're in a show trial. This isn't about justice," said Limbaugh. "Eric Holder goes down there and ratchets up public opinion with Reverend Al. The president says, 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon,' thereby injecting race into a story that may not have been about race at all.

"The only reason this trial is taking place is because the media is invested in a guilty verdict, and the race hustler industry, including the attorney general, flew down there the minute this case happened, when Zimmerman wasn't charged.

"The regime saw an opportunity to turn something into a profoundly racial case for the express purpose of ripping the country apart. "

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

This Is The Way To Play The System!!

When government gets so big that it does not know what benefits it is providing for its employees, you get stories like the following. Is this problem only related to the BART system in San Francisco, we sincerely doubt it. In fact, it is probably more the rule than the exception.

Conservative Tom

Here is the Huffington Post take on the same issue:

An Expert Games The System

July 12, 2013 by  
An Expert Games The System
You’ve got to hand it to Dorothy Dugger. The lady is an absolute genius when it comes to squeezing every possible penny from her former employer and from the taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill.
For more than 20 years, Dugger was employed by the Bay Area Rapid Transit system in San Francisco. And even though she didn’t do a lick of work for BART last year, she still managed to earn more than any of the other 3,340 BART employees — including the person who replaced her as general manager.
Although it sounds impossible, she earned a gross salary of more than $333,000 in 2012 without putting in a single hour on the job. Hers was the top wage at BART. I’ll tell you in a moment how she did it.
But that’s not all. Check out the other ways the longtime government employee found to game the system. Her ultimate payoff could be in the millions of dollars.
The sad charade began in the spring of 2011, when BART’s board tried to fire her as general manager. However, in the process, the board failed to follow some of the State’s public-meeting laws. Rather than face a messy lawsuit over their mistake, the board agreed to pay Dugger $920,000 if she’d just go away.
Dugger agreed and tendered her resignation in May 2011. But that was far from the end of the story. She then said she wanted to start collecting for all of the vacation time she had earned but not used in the 20 years she worked for BART. Believe it or not, that came to nearly 3,100 hours of unused vacation time.
Unlike most businesses, which have a “use it or lose it” policy when it comes to vacations, BART allows its employees to bank the value of those unused vacation days. And get this: The “value” is calculated not at what the employee was earning at the time, but at whatever salary was being paid when the employee decides to collect on it. Because Dugger got a raise of nearly $100,000 a year when she became general manager of BART in 2007, her unused vacation time took a considerable jump in value. It was now worth a small fortune.
As a result, she was able to sit at home, not doing a lick of work, and still collect a full salary, for more than 19 months. Impressive, huh?
Dugger got a paycheck and full benefits from May 2011 until December 2012. That came to another half-a-million bucks the lady collected. But there’s more. For “working” those extra 19 months, Dugger also collected an additional $138,000 in vacation time and bonuses.
That’s right. Because of the screwy way BART calculates employee benefits, Dugger earned two more months of vacation time while she was, in effect, on a paid vacation. And she got “management bonuses” even though she didn’t manage a single employee. How’s that for a sweetheart deal?
Oh, and now that she is finally off of BART’s payroll, the goodies won’t stop. She’s now collecting a pension of $181,000 a year. That figure would have been lower, but those 80 weeks of unused vacation time also boosted her pension by more than $1,000 a month.
The San Jose Mercury News reported on the grand total of Dugger’s post-resignation payday. Here’s what it found:
Settlement payment to avert lawsuit, May, 2011: $920,000
Unused vacation time as of May 2011: About 3,100 hours
Gross pay, June 2011 to December 2012: $558,000
Cost to BART for benefits, June 2011 to December 2012: $138,000
Monthly pension payments, beginning January 2013: $15,083
I hope you’re as outraged as I am by this incredible abuse of what is clearly a very lax and overly generous system.
If you are, here’s something that should make you even more upset: There are literally millions of Americans who are counting on you to provide them with a cushy, comfortable retirement. And many of them will also game the system to make their retirement pensions as high as possible. (Putting in lots of expensive overtime the last year or two on the job is just one way many of them can jack up their retirement pay.)
And unlike private companies which can go bankrupt, taking many employees’ pension plans down with them, government employees can be confident the goodies will never end. They know that governments can raise taxes (and in the case of the Feds, simply print more money) to keep those pension checks coming.
But present and future government pensioners aren’t the only ones who are counting on taxpayers to make life better for them. Consider: The U.S. Department of Agriculture now reports that 101 million Americans now participate in at least one of the 15 food assistance programs that the agency offers. The total cost for those 15 programs in fiscal 2012 was a staggering $114 billion.
At the same time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says the number of full-time employees in the private sector came to 97,180,000 in 2012. In other words, there are more people getting food assistance in this country than there are people working full-time outside of government to pay for it.
If you think your share of the price tag has gotten bigger, you are absolutely right. Here’s how former Senator Phil Gramm summarized the situation in a column in The Wall Street Journal:
In 1980, the top 1% and 5% of income earners in America paid 19.1% and 36.9% of total federal income taxes. Today, the top 1% and 5% pay 37.4% and 59.1%. Meanwhile, 41.6% of American earners now pay no federal income taxes.
The bottom line is that there are fewer and fewer of us picking up the tab for more and more freeloaders. No wonder our share of the bill is getting higher.
It’s a battle between the taxpayers and the tax receivers. And right now, the tax receivers are winning.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Has Zimmerman Been Hung Yet?

The White House through its Justice Department has set up George Zimmerman to be the next "high tech lynching" victim.  Today the jury started deliberations and if they do what the government wants them to do, the neighborhood watchman will be convicted and sent to jail. We would hope that the jury can see through smoke and render a not guilty verdict.

If not and Zimmerman does go to jail, he will have to be kept segregated from the general population for we are sure there will be those who will want to become famous for offing the man who killed Trayvon Martin. Those threats were made clear before he was arrested and charged with the crime.

Zimmerman is a sacrificial lamb on the alter of racism. Even though he is not white, many view him as the "man" who needs to be punished for slavery and Jim Crowe. If this is the new standard in justice, we no longer have equality under the law. Anyone who is not a "favored" class will be punished for the crimes of their forefathers. 

 This is a terrible trend and it accelerated by the Justice Department organizing the protests for Zimmerman's arrest.  Someone should pay for this but it will not happen for those who were in charge are part of the "favored" class and as we have learned they cannot discriminate nor can they be held responsible for their actions.

Conservative Tom

More Blood On Obama’s Hands

July 12, 2013 by  
More Blood On Obama’s Hands
Very soon, a six-member jury will decide George Zimmerman's fate.
The overhyped and superfluous George Zimmerman trial is winding down, and Florida’s law enforcers are growing antsy. That’s because they’re seeing in social media and hearing from the streets that if Zimmerman is acquitted in a trial that never should have been held to begin with, blacks will riot and kill whites.
If there are riots and people are injured and property is damaged, President Barack Obama and his Department of Justice will be to blame. The blood will be on their hands.
In the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, Obama claimed that if he had a son, Trayvon Martin is what he’d look like. Then the DOJ dispatched its Community Relations Service (CRS) team to Florida to hold “marches, demonstrations, and rallies” on Martin’s behalf. According to documents obtained byJudicial Watch, the DOJ spent more than $3,800 to incite racial tensions in Sanford, Fla., and oust the police chief because Zimmerman was not charged immediately in Martin’s death. One of the rallies sponsored by CSR was headlined by the notorious race-baiter Al Sharpton. CSR-sponsored rallies went on for a couple of weeks; and if sparking unrest was the goal, the money was well-spent.
Recall that Sanford police investigators believed Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Former State Prosecutor Norman Wolfinger said he would take the case to a grand jury. But he recused himself after Obama’s and the race baiters’ work, aided by the mainstream media propaganda machine, began to bear fruit and the demonstrations began to intensify.
Special prosecutor Angela B. Corey, appointed to replace Wolfinger, initially indicated she would take the case to a grand jury but changed her mind. Conventional wisdom holds that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Her decision to avoid the grand jury indicated she knew she had no case. And that’s exactly what the prosecution has presented.
Guessing what a jury will do — especially a jury made up entirely of women — is a fool’s errand. But based on the case presented by the prosecution, it’s evident that Zimmerman acted in self-defense and should be acquitted.
If that happens and Rodney King-style riots or attacks on whites begin, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder will be to blame. But maybe that’s what they wanted all along.

Big Government--Bigger Waste

Anyone who believes that the government can run things well should read the following article. We especially like the following quote:

"It bothers me the [National Security Agency] can tell me how many times Aunt Margaret called Aunt Matilda, but I can't get an audit from the Defense Department," said Rep. Stephen Lynch, the Massachusetts Democrat, according to The Times.

We believe in a strong defense, however, that department should not be immune to an audit as should all other parts of the government including the White House! We suspect that if a real audit was done of the entire government the estimate would be wrong by a factor of ten, meaning that at least one trillion dollars is wasted every year. Just wait until ObamaCrapCare becomes fully functional and our estimate will be significantly low!

Conservative Tom

GAO: $100 Billion Wasted on Bogus Federal Payouts Annually

Thursday, 11 Jul 2013 01:15 PM
By Melanie Batley
 . .

The Government Accountability Office says the federal bureaucracy wasted more than $100 billion on bogus payments last year, partially because it doesn't keep track of its spending programs.

Testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday, Comptroller General Gene Dodaro said the only way to get government spending under control would be to have the Obama administration show more leadership and for Congress to do more oversight, The Washington Times reported

"Imagine beginning every month not knowing what money you have and not being able to track how much you've spent," said committee Chairman Darrell Issa, a California Republican, according to The Times. "Yet year after year, that's where the federal government operates."

Dodaro pointed in particular to the Defense Department which receives more than half of the government's discretionary spending. The GAO says the military is so disorganized it does not know how many people it's paying or whether soldiers and other personnel are getting the correct salaries.

Nevertheless, the Defense Department has not been audited for 20 years, and was not included in the estimated $100 billion of government waste.

"It bothers me the [National Security Agency] can tell me how many times Aunt Margaret called Aunt Matilda, but I can't get an audit from the Defense Department," said Rep. Stephen Lynch, the Massachusetts Democrat, according to The Times.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Janet "Everything Is Fine On The Border" Napolitano Resigns

With her announcement that she is leaving the Cabinet, Janet Napolitano is leaving  a department that many believe is consistently involved in denying rights of the average citizen. Whether it is the TSA screeners who grope young children and old women or the ordering of billions of bullets, AR-15s or armored vehicles, all seem to those of us who oppose such actions as very anti-American.

Whether her successor is better or worse, the damage that she has done is immense. As we travel we have less rights, the border is still not secured and millions of immigrants are headed our way. These were her responsibilities and she has failed tremendously.  We are glad she will be leaving. At least we have a chance, however slim, to reverse the trend. Can you imagine if she had become Attorney General as many had speculated?

Good bye Janet.

Conservative Tom

Janet Napolitano to Resign as Secretary of Homeland Security, Official Says
Janet Napolitano, who has served as President Obama’s secretary of homeland security since the beginning of his administration, is stepping down to become president of the University of California university system, administration officials said Friday.
Ms. Napolitano, a former governor of Arizona, has overseen the administration’s handling of homegrown terrorist incidents, major disasters and immigration, one of the most expansive portfolios of anyone in the cabinet. She had her eye on becoming the next attorney general, but with this move is taking herself out of the Washington political arena.


Thursday, July 11, 2013

Great Point--Obama Delay Of ObamaCrapCare Is Un-Constitutional


GOP resolution: Obama delay of employer mandate violated Constitution

By Pete Kasperowicz 07/11/13 08:27 AM ET
A new resolution from Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) charges President Obama with violating the Constitution by delaying enforcement of ObamaCare's employer health insurance mandate.
Garrett's resolution, H.Con.Res. 45, says Obama violated Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution by postponing the provision requiring all companies with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance or face a fine. 
While delaying any provision of ObamaCare might be seen as acceptable by Republicans who despise the law, Garrett said this delay raises serious questions about whether the executive branch can simply ignore laws passed by Congress.
"Our government depends upon the rule of law," he said Wednesday. "President Obama is in violation of Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution by refusing to enforce the employer mandate provisions of ObamaCare.
"The executive branch, which has no constitutional authority to write or rewrite law at whim, has usurped the exclusive legislative power of Congress," said Garrett.
The text of the resolution reminds Obama that the Constitution says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States," and that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
It says laws passed by Congress are not merely suggestions that the president may or may not enforce.
"[T]he executive branch's unilateral decision to delay the implementation of a law sets a dangerous precedent under which legislation that is enacted through the passage of that legislation by the democratically elected Members of Congress and the signing of that legislation into law by the President will no longer have the force of law and will instead be relegated to having the status of a mere recommendation, which the President may choose to ignore," it reads.
The White House announced on July 2 that it would delay enforcement of the key employer mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act until 2015.
The White House defended the move, saying it was necessary to allow businesses time to comply with the new law and that other provisions will be implemented as scheduled.
But Republicans seized on the decision, saying the move highlighted that the president’s signature domestic legislation was unworkable and should be blocked in its entirety.
“Many have predicted the problems that your Administration now acknowledges, and each provision you delay continues to demonstrate that the entire law is unworkable,” wrote the House GOP leadership in a letter to Obama on Tuesday.
Republican lawmakers have also called for a new cost estimate for ObamaCare in light of the delayed mandate and have vowed to hold another series of votes this summer on repealing the law and its key provisions.

Read more: 
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Zimmerman Protests Organized By Justice Department?

 The shooting death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy, no one can argue that. However, when the US Justice Department imposes itself on one side, that is wrong. It challenges the long time held idea that justice is blind and that everyone should get a fair hearing by a jury of their peers.

One can only wonder how balanced and fair the trial of George Zimmerman will be if the Justice Department has already imposed itself by organizing protests against this "white man" who actually is not.  Is the Department also going to arrange the riots that will occur whether or not the community watchman is convicted or found not guilty?

Last night it was reported that the Judge in the trial made a rather extraordinary request of Mr. Zimmerman. She asked him how much longer the trial was going to go? When his attorney spoke up, the Judge told him she was asking the defendant and his lawyers should be mute.  Obviously, how is Mr. Zimmerman supposed to know this answer as he is represented and he is not defending himself as an attorney.  This was a very weird question and one which might give us an insight into the frame of mind of the Judge.

Could this trial be a show trial and could the verdict already been determined? Has the Justice Department worked the jury to get the decision they want? Did the Justice Department put pressure on the prosecutors to bring the charges? Were there threats of Justice Department investigations if charges were not brought? We sure do hope not. 

However, we are very concerned that the Justice Department would organize the protests prior to the arrest of Mr. Zimmerman. If they will do that, what else have they done and will they do in the future? This is tampering with the justice system and someone should pay and pay dearly.

This whole situation stinks to high heaven and we believe a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate not only this but other events like the white voter intimidation by the Black Panthers that were not investigated by the Justice Department.

Conservative Tom

Here is what Rush Limbaugh had to say on the subject:

Did Justice Department support anti-Zimmerman protests after Martin shooting?

  • trayvon miami rally.jpg
    On the far right Nigel Lloyd from Los Angeles, Calif., shouts as thousands gathered in downtown Miami, Sunday, April 1, 2012, demanding justice for Trayvon Martin, 17, during a rally that featured national civil rights leaders. The rally comes a day after thousands marched through Sanford, the Florida town where Martin was shot and killed in February. Protesters say they will continue holding marches and rallies until an arrest is made. (AP Photo/The Miami Herald, Carl Juste) MAGS OUT (AP2012)
A conservative watchdog group accused the Justice Department of helping manage the "pressure campaign" last year against George Zimmerman in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, citing documents that show an obscure agency spent thousands assisting local demonstrations. 
The little-known agency, the Community Relations Service, is described by the Justice Department as their "peacemaker" for community conflicts over race. 
The protests last spring over Martin's death certainly qualified as such a conflict. But while the department claims its "peacemaker" agency does not "take sides" in such disputes, Judicial Watch said the documents and public accounts show otherwise. 
"These documents detail the extraordinary intervention by the Justice Department in the pressure campaign leading to the prosecution of George Zimmerman," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. 
The documents the group received -- and has since published online -- show the CRS agency filing a series of expenses incurred during the late March and early April demonstrations. 
One filing from late March recorded $674 in expenses for their deployment to Sanford, Fla., to "work marches, demonstrations and rallies related to the shooting and death of an African-American teen by a neighborhood watch captain." 
That description could only apply to the Trayvon Martin killing, for which Zimmerman is currently on trial. The heated protests and national media attention helped build the pressure last year for Zimmeran's arrest -- he was not initially charged after claiming self-defense. 
When reached for comment, DOJ spokesperson Dena Iverson said, "The Community Relations Service was in Sanford, Florida fulfilling their mandated mission." 
A DOJ official also told Fox News that the unit was only in Sanford to support local efforts aimed at "reducing tensions and the potential for violence." 
"For more than 49 years CRS has done significant work in a variety of conflicts, disputes, demonstrations and protests in communities across the country," the official said. 
The filings by the Justice Department agency detailing their involvement are all similar. They mostly cite work on "support" and "technical assistance" for organizers and law enforcement agencies, as well as "onsite mediation." 
Judicial Watch, in claiming the agency crossed a line by aiding the anti-Zimmerman events, points to an April 2012 article in the Orlando Sentinel
That article detailed the role the CRS unit played during the protests. In one case, the Sentinel said they helped "set up a meeting between the local NAACP and elected officials that led to the temporary resignation of police Chief Bill Lee." 
In another, the article said they arranged an escort for college students for a 40-mile march to "demand justice." One church leader was quoted as saying, "They were there for us." 
But it's not clear from the article whether the unit's involvement crossed the line from mediation to advocacy. The article generally described their role as teaching civil-rights organizers how to manage crowds and easing tensions. An agency official said their goal was to "build local capacity to deal with these issues." 
The Justice Department did not respond Wednesday to requests from Fox News for comment on the Judicial Watch documents. 
The CRS unit was established under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
"For more than 45 years, CRS has been asked to provide its experienced mediators to help local communities resolve conflicts and disturbances relating to race, color, or national origin," the department says on its website.

Read more:

Another Viewpoint On Aid To Egypt

There is a debate going on in Washington as to whether the aid to Egypt should be terminated due to the military takeover of the country. Many Republicans have called for a cutoff of aid and Obama wants to keep the aid flowing.

We have not made our decision, but present the following article as information as to the reason that we should continue the aid. It is an  interesting view of the situation.

What is your opinion?

Conservative Tom

Aid to Egypt Is a Small Price to Pay to Prevent War

Evelyn Gordon - Commentary Magazine,  July 10th, 2013

The Republican foreign policy establishment, headed by luminaries such as Senator John McCain and former White House official Elliott Abrams, is urging an immediate cutoff of U.S. military aid to Egypt in response to the country’s revolution-cum-coup. The Obama administration has demurred, saying “it would not be wise to abruptly change our assistance program,” and vowed to take its time in deciding whether what happened legally mandates an aid cutoff, given the “significant consequences that go along with this determination.”
For once, official Israel is wholeheartedly on Obama’s side. Senior Israeli officials from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on down spent hours on the phone with their American counterparts this weekend to argue against an aid cutoff, and Israeli diplomats in Washington have been ordered to make this case to Congress as well. Israel’s reasoning is simple: An aid cutoff will make the volatile situation on its southern border even worse–and that is bad not only for Israel, but for one of America’s major interests in the region: upholding the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.
To understand why, it’s important to realize that most Egyptians view the U.S. aid as “a kind of payment” for keeping the peace. Though the aid isn’t part of the treaty, it began immediately after the treaty was signed, and for 34 years, the only condition on its continuance has been continuation of the treaty. Thus Israel fears that ending the aid would erode Egyptian support for the treaty–and especially that of the army, which would be the main victim of the cutoff. Since the army is not only Egypt’s de facto ruler, but also the treaty’s main supporter in a country where most people would rather scrap it, that would clearly be undesirable.           
What makes it downright dangerous, however, is the situation in Sinai. The army recently beefed up its forces in Sinai in an effort to suppress Islamist terror there, a move Israel obviously welcomed. Nevertheless, Sinai is low priority for the military compared to cities like Cairo and Alexandria. Thus given the perceived linkage between the aid and the treaty, an aid cutoff would likely make the army feel perfectly justified in removing those troops and ceasing its efforts to uphold its main treaty obligation: keeping peace along the border. And having already halted the aid, Washington would have no leverage to prevent this.
That would almost certainly lead to increased terror along Israel’s border. But the real danger, as I’ve explained before, is that cross-border attacks could easily spark an Israeli-Egyptian war that nobody wants–including the U.S. Since the Israeli army will naturally try to stop such attacks, there’s always a risk of Egyptians being accidentally killed in the cross-fire, which in turn would spur angry mobs in Egypt to demand revenge–exactly as happened in August 2011. That attack was an isolated incident, so sanity prevailed. But the more cross-border attacks there are, the more likely it is that one will inadvertently trigger a war.
This is especially true because, as Lee Smith argued last week, a war against Israel would be the one sure way to unite a dangerously divided Egyptian nation: The only thing most Egyptians agree on is that Israel is an “enemy” and a “threat.”           
Continuing the aid is thus a small price to pay for preventing another Mideast war. And that’s something all Americans should be able to understand.