Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Obama Exaggerates ObamaCrapCare Benefits


Editor’s Note: The following is a fact check written by the Associated Press entitled, “Fact Check: Obama Spins Health Insurance Rebates.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Another year, another round of exaggeration from President Barack Obama and his administration about health insurance rebates.
In his speech defending his health care law Thursday, Obama said rebates averaging $100 are coming from insurance companies to 8.5 million Americans. In fact, most of the money is going straight to employers who provide health insurance, not to their workers, who benefit indirectly.
Obama danced around that reality in remarks that also blamed problems in establishing affordable insurance markets on political opponents, glossing over complex obstacles also faced in states that support the law.
AP Fact Check: Obama Spins, Exaggerates Benefits of Health Care Law
President Barack Obama stands with families who benefitted from the health care law provision that provides consumers with a refund if their insurance company doesn t spend the majority of premium dollars on medical care as he speaks about health care reform and the Affordable Care Act in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 18, 2013. Credit: AP
A look at some of his claims and how they compare with the facts:
-”Last year, millions of Americans opened letters from their insurance companies. But instead of the usual dread that comes from getting a bill, they were pleasantly surprised with a check. In 2012, 13 million rebates went out, in all 50 states. Another 8.5 (million) rebates are being sent out this summer, averaging around 100 bucks each.”
- After introducing several people who got rebate checks last year: “And this is happening all across the country. And it’s happening because of the Affordable Care Act. Hasn’t been reported on a lot. I bet if you took a poll, most folks wouldn’t know when that check comes in that this was because of Obamacare that they got this extra money in their pockets. But that’s what’s happening.”
-”If they’re (insurers) not spending your premium dollars on your health care – at least 80 percent of it – they’ve got to give you some money back.”
THE FACTS: Just as he did a year ago, Obama made a splashy announcement about rebates that incorporates misleading advertising.
The health care law requires insurance companies that spend too much on administrative expenses to issue rebates to customers. But those customers are often employers that in turn offer insurance to workers and bear the bulk of the costs. In workplace plans, the rebate goes to the employer, which must use it for the company health plan but does not have to pass all or part of it on to the worker. People who buy their own insurance and qualify for a rebate get it directly.
Obama was on solid ground in saying “millions of Americans” got rebate checks last year, but the number was not close to 13 million as he implied.
Of the 12.8 million rebates announced last year, health policy experts estimated 3 million would go directly to the insured. The government didn’t know how many.
AP Fact Check: Obama Spins, Exaggerates Benefits of Health Care Law
President Barack Obama stands with families who benefited from the health care law provision that provides consumers with a refund if their insurance company doesn t spend the majority of premium dollars on medical care as he speaks about health care reform and the Affordable Care Act in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 18, 2013. Credit: AP
Nearly two-thirds of the 12.8 million were only entitled to pro-rated and decidedly modest rebates, because they were covered by employers that pay most of their premiums. Workers typically pay about 20 percent of the premium for single coverage, 30 percent for a family plan. Employers pay the rest.
And employers can use all the rebate money, including the workers’ share, to benefit the company health plan, perhaps restraining premiums a bit or otherwise improving the bottom line. The law requires insurers to spend at least 80 percent of premiums they collect on medical care and quality improvement, or return the difference to consumers and employers.
Altogether, this year’s rebates are worth $500 million, down from $1.1 billion returned last year. The government says the lower rebates mean insurance companies are becoming more efficient.
CLAIM: “I’m curious, what do opponents of this law think the folks here today should do with the money they were reimbursed? Should they send it back to the insurance companies?”
THE FACTS: Even in that unlikely event, most people could not send it back to insurance companies because the money doesn’t go “in their pockets” and they have no control over what their employers do with it.
CLAIM: “In states that are working hard to make sure this law delivers for their people, what we’re seeing is that consumers are getting a hint of how much money they’re potentially going to save because of this law. In states like California, Oregon, Washington, new competition, new choices, market forces are pushing costs down.”
THE FACTS: It is simply not known whether health insurance will become less expensive in those states — or nationally — than it is now, or than it would have been absent the law. And hitches in setting up the new insurance marketplaces called exchanges are not limited to Republican-led states where leaders object to the law, although that political pushback is certainly part of what’s going on.
AP Fact Check: Obama Spins, Exaggerates Benefits of Health Care Law
President Barack Obama applauds before he speaks about health care reform and the Affordable Care Act in the East Room at the White House in Washington, Thursday, July 18, 2013. Credit: AP
In California, for example, where there is plenty of competition by health insurers wanting to get into the exchange, an actuarial report commissioned by Covered California, the state agency running the insurance marketplace, found that middle-income residents could see individual health premiums increase by an average of 30 percent while costs go down for lower income people.
In West Virginia, Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin — also a cooperative partner in expanding Medicaid and setting up an exchange — complained to federal officials this week about delays in rules and guidelines from Washington as the state struggles to meet deadlines under the law.
“Many West Virginia families have expressed frustration” trying to find out how much policies from the exchange will cost them and whether they will get a subsidy, he said, and the state is “dangerously close” to falling short of requirements under the law.

Friday, July 19, 2013

The Footsteps Lead To The White House--Could They Also Lead To The Oval Office?

Anyone who has followed the IRS scandal in which they held up and asked un-Constitutional questions has suspected that the instructions probably came from the White House. Now we have confirmation that the West Wing was involved. Will it now lead to the Oval Office?  We think so.

Will this be an impeachable event, probably. Will Obama be convicted, never. He is immune to being held to any standard of behavior that previous President's have.  He is the "super-Teflon" President. Nothing sticks. All the crimes fall away without damaging him.

However, even Teflon can be damaged, so we must keep up the pressure, continuing to investigate Benghazi, The IRS, the reporter's phone records, the Justice Department fomenting protests using taxpayer dollars, the NSA scandal, and all of the other scandals that continue to be revealed. There will come a point in time when even this President will have to be called to pay for his actions.  Are we there yet? Hardly.

The time is coming and all bad deeds need to be paid for. Will we see it this year or in three? We would hope sooner rather than later. This latest revelation lowers the sword of Damocles over Obama's head, a tad more. The time is getting closer, can we survive until then?

Conservative Tom

IRS Official: Political Appointee's Office Involved in Tea Party Screening

Thursday, 18 Jul 2013 05:21 PM
By Tom Topousis
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
An IRS official at the center of the agency's scandal over screening applications for conservative groups told Congress Thursday for the first time that a political appointee in Washington was behind delays in approving requests to set up tax-exempt status for the political advocacy groups, Fox News reported.

Carter Hull, a recently retired tax specialist for the IRS in Washington, said delays in processing the applications from conservative groups were caused by demands that documents be sent for review to the Office for Chief Counsel led by political appointee William Wilkins, Fox reported.

During testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Hull said the extra level of scrutiny was "unusual."

He blamed delays in processing the applications from the Cincinnati office — one of five regional offices assigned to review the applications — on the delay in receiving guidance from the chief counsel’s office. "I was waiting for word from chief counsel as to how to proceed," said Hull.

Hull, a veteran of the IRS, had earlier been fingered by workers in the Cincinnatti office who told congressional investigators he micromanaged the applications from tea party groups and other conservative organizations.

But Hull said he was taking orders from higher up in the chain of command.

Hull said he was initially told to forward documents to IRS official Lois Lerner. But was later told to send the documents to her boss, the chief counsel.

Hull said that he was never told to hold up applications, but that after meeting with the chief counsel’s office in Aug., 2011, the applications were taken out of his control and forwarded on for "further review," which he said was "rare," according to Fox News.

Also testifying Thursday was Elizabeth Hofacre, an official in the IRS Cincinnati office who was processing the tea party applications under Hull’s direction. She told lawmakers that she was "deeply offended" when government officials tried to blame the delays on a handful of rogue employees at her office.

"Personally, I felt like it was a nuclear strike. I felt they were blaming us," she said.
Committee chairman Darrel Issa, (R-Cali), said yesterday they are going to call Lerner to testify. She has so far refused, invoking her Fifth Amendment rights. But Republicans insist she waived those rights by earlier delivering a prepared statement to the committee.
"We intend to have her back," Issa told Fox News on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Democrats on the committee continued to suggest that IRS Inspector General J. Russell George was suppressing details about other groups, including liberal activist organizations, whose tax exempt applications had also been delayed.

George on Thursday testified that his office had not received documents on the other groups as he prepared his May report raising questions about the potential targeting of tea party and other conservative organizations.

"I am disturbed that these documents were not provided to our auditors at the outset, and we are currently reviewing the issue," George said in his prepared opening statement at a House Oversight hearing.

Democrats are anxious to show that any added scrutiny by the IRS wasn’t solely directed at the tea party.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

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

This Is What 50 Years Of Mismanagement (Democratic) Looks Like

For the past 50 plus years the City of Detroit has been run by Democratic mayors. It is now bankrupt.  Most of the larger cities in the country are run by Democrats or in the case of New York City, Democrat leaning. You would think that the public would wake up to the threat posed by Democrats.

However, the public, at least the 50% plus that gets benefits from the Uncle Sugar will never give up on their money habit.  It is no different from a dope habit, the druggie never wants to stop its habit until he/she hits rock bottom. 

Detroit has hit bottom and it is time to reset the clock.  It is time for responsible leadership to make decisions that will let the city come out of bankruptcy and regain its past leadership.

If one wants to look at how bad management can effect a city, a state or a country, Detroit is a great case study. Democrats and RINO Republicans spend money like drunk sailors and so it has been in Motor City. 

We wrote a few years ago--if you want to see how the US will look in a few years, look at Detroit. It is not a pretty picture.

Conservative Tom

Detroit Files for Bankruptcy
Detroit, the cradle of America’s automobile industry and once the nation’s fourth-most-populous city, has filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy, an official said on Thursday. It is the largest American city ever to take such a course.
The decision to turn to the federal courts, which required approval from both the emergency manager assigned to oversee the troubled city and from Gov. Rick Snyder, is also the largest municipal bankruptcy filing in the nation’s history in terms of debt.


Race Baiting Media--Did It Win In The Zimmerman Trial

The media so far has failed in its attempt to convict Zimmerman by lies, mis-statements, and outright selective reporting. They will not give up until the former neighborhood watchman is convicted. They will support the Justice Department even though the money  spent to create the protests a year ago came directly from our taxes. Those who speak up against the witch hunt, like Alveda King, will not get news coverage as it does not meet their goals.

Should the media not return to its Constitutionally guaranteed mandate of reporting the news, it will find that someday soon they will be looking at a government that takes away their rights. Oh, wait a minute, the Obama Administration already has started doing that by seizing reporters notes. Kinda reminds me of an old saying "when you lie down with dogs, you pick up fleas."  It's time for the media to shake off their old habits and return to what news is really about. Reporting the facts and leaving the opinions on the Editorial Pages.

Conservative Tom

The Media Fail To Start A Race War

July 19, 2013 by  
The Media Fail To Start A Race War
Defense counsel Mark O'Mara showed a printed message on reasonable doubt to the jury during closing arguments of George Zimmerman's trial.
You have to wonder: Does the mainstream media really want blacks in this country to riot because a jury of his peers found George Zimmerman “not guilty” of the charges against him?
That’s certainly the impression I get from the coverage of the trial and its aftermath.
Correction: The incredibly biased and often incendiary reporting began long before the first day of the trial. It started, in fact, shortly after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 26, 2012. And it skyrocketed when authorities in Sanford, Fla., said there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with murder.
That was all the professional race-baiters needed to launch a national crusade for “justice.” Virtually overnight, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NAACP officials and numerous other crusaders had an issue that would get them in front of the cameras again. They grabbed their megaphones and put on their marching shoes. And the mainstream media promptly gave them all of the publicity they could want.
The pressure for the authorities to bring charges was impossible to resist. The Sanford police chief was fired for refusing to arrest Zimmerman. Angela Corey, the State Attorney in Florida, led a prosecution that was so biased and dishonest that Alan Dershowitz, the liberal Harvard Law professor, says she should be the one to be put on trial.
“I think there were violations of civil rights and civil liberties — by the prosecutor,” Dershowitz said. “The prosecutor sent this case to a judge and willfully, deliberately and, in my view, criminally withheld exculpatory evidence.”
The famous criminal-law expert added specifics: “They denied the judge the right to see pictures that showed Zimmerman with his nose broken and his head bashed in. The prosecution should be investigated for civil rights violations and civil liberty violations.”
Fat chance that will happen.
As just one example of how viciously the media distorted things before the jury rendered its verdict, consider Zimmerman’s telephone call to 911 on the night of the shooting. Here’s what the “Today” show played for its audience a month later: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
Sure makes it sounds as though Zimmerman based his concern on Martin’s skin color, doesn’t it? That’s what the media wanted you to think. But as we subsequently learned, the “Today” editors deliberately omitted an important part of that telephone call. Here’s a transcript of the actual conversation:
Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy – is he black, white, or Hispanic?”
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”
You’ll be pleased to learn that Steve Capus, who at the time was president of NBC News, said that the edited phone call was most emphatically “not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call.” Sure thing, Steve. And thanks for assuring us that the people guilty of this flagrant distortion were “disciplined,” whatever that means.
As it happens, a lengthy investigation by the FBI could find absolutely no evidence that Zimmerman has ever expressed any racist sentiments. And you can bet the liberal media tried desperately to find some.
Zimmerman’s attorneys say that now that his trial is over, they plan to proceed with a defamation lawsuit against NBC News. I wish them well. In fact, I hope Zimmerman collects a ton of money. He’s going to need it, since it looks like he will be put on trial again.
That’s right. The NAACP is leading an effort to have Zimmerman face Federal charges of violating Martin’s civil rights. Some even want him charged with a hate crime. The NAACP has collected more than 450,000 signatures for a petition campaign with this appeal: “A jury has acquitted George Zimmerman, but we are not done demanding justice for Trayvon Martin. Sign our petition to the Department of Justice today.”
If the race-baiters have their way, Zimmerman will once more be on trial — this time in a Federal court. So we’ll once again hear the media go through distortions to make everything about race. That’s why we got such absurdities as the media description of him as “a white Hispanic.”
Meanwhile, the Orlando Sentinel reported that the Justice Department is asking for the public to assist in its investigation: “The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday afternoon appealed to civil rights groups and community leaders, nationally and in Sanford, for help investigating whether a federal criminal case might be brought against George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, one advocate said.”
Apparently, if you know anything that could lead the Feds to press charges, they want you to send them an email about it. Can you imagine the kind of “tips” they’re going to receive? And probably not just about Zimmerman. I’ll bet they receive all sorts of rumors and accusations about his defense attorneys. Heck, they’ll probably even get a ton of scuttlebutt about some of the jurors.
Much was made of the fact that, of the six women on the jury that acquitted Zimmerman, not one of them was black. There were five whites and one Hispanic. But here’s something you may not have known: There was a black male in the jury pool, but he was rejected by the prosecution. Why? Because he admitted that he watched FOX News. That was all the prosecution needed to hear.
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, more blacks think other blacks are racists than whites. Yes, you read that correctly. The Rasmussen pollsters say that 31 percent of blacks believe most blacks are racist, while only 24 percent of blacks believe that most whites are. Interesting, isn’t it?
Thankfully, some black leaders are speaking out in opposition to more criminal prosecution of Zimmerman. Alveda King, the niece of civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr., had this to say about the efforts of the NAACP and other organizations: “We need to wonder why they’re doing that, what kind of checks and money they’re getting behind the scenes to stir us up into racial anarchy. We should be speaking non-violence, justice, peace and love as Trayvon’s parents are doing, by the way. So we need to ask why they’re race baiting, because they are.”
After what was probably the most highly publicized trial of this century, Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges against him. That’s not good enough for Sharpton and the other professional race baiters. Nor is it good enough for the liberal-dominated media. They love to feature any criticism of this country, no matter how distorted or exaggerated.
Thankfully, so far at least, all we’ve seen are what the media refer to as “mostly peaceful” demonstrations against the verdict. It could have been a lot worse. And if the race baiters get their way and Zimmerman goes on trial again, I’m afraid it will be.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

ObamaCrapCare Will Charge More For Certain Health Issues

Already, we are seeing changes in the worst legislation ever passed by Congress-that being ObamaCrapCare.  In late May the Obama Administration passed new regs that allowed the plan to charge more those with high cholesterol or who were obese. In other words, most Americans over the age of 40 are going to be charged more premiums! So how long will it be until the "bright ones" in Washington decide that the cost of those with heart disease, kidney disease, alzheimers, etc etc are "not paying their fair share?" The regulations against pre-existing conditions will go out the window faster than your Aunt Millie's curtains in a tornado!Anyone who thinks that will not happen are either drinking the ObamaCrapCare propaganda or does not have their feet firmly grounded. This only will get worse. You can count on it.

Conservative Tom

Smoke? Overweight? New regulations could raise your insurance rates

If you smoke or you're overweight, have high cholesterol or high blood pressure, you could be forced to pay a lot more for health insurance, according to new regulations just issued by the Obama administration.
"For smoking, for being overweight, for being obese and basically, for generally not meeting the health guidelines, the employer can charge 30 percent more - for smoking, 50 percent more," explains John Goodman, President of the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas.
ObamaCare does prevent insurers from charging more for pre-existing conditions, or from charging as much as they currently do for older people who use more health care.
But when it comes to smoking and being overweight as well as other health problems, if employees don't participate in wellness programs, they could pay more.
Ed Haislmeier of the Heritage Foundation says "on the one hand they're trying to ban discrimination based on health status, but on the other hand they're trying to say that some discrimination based on health status is good discrimination."
Goodman adds that "it is definitely the nanny state trying to tell us what we're going to do, and unleashing the employers to be the agent of the government in telling us what we're going to do."
Smokers, of course, run up more health care bills than non-smokers. But that habit and some other unhealthy conditions are associated with lower incomes, so higher rates would hit those the administration was aiming to help.
"Allowing premium differentials based on these factors will push premiums higher primarily on people that will be struggling to pay the premiums in the first place," says Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Many employers already offer wellness programs, but the new 123-page regulation tells them exactly how they must operate.
"This is just one more massive regulation on top of the thousands and thousands of pages that have already been issued that employers have to deal with," says Capretta. "I think the whole system is starting to choke on so many rules."
Ironically, on the day officials released the new regulations, a Rand Corporation study about wellness programs was released – and not with good news.
Goodman noted it was "a Rand Corporation study, which was paid for by the Obama administration, and called for in the affordable care act.
"And the Rand Corporation has studied wellness programs all over the country, and basically says they don't work."
In fact, the study found that those trying to lose weight in these programs lost an average of a pound a year. And although some employers offer gym memberships, those who take them are the ones using the gym already -- not those who need it most.

Read more:

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Should Government Be More Important Than A Citizen's Rights?

Brandon Smith does a really great job discussing the challenge of protecting individual rights while still preserving secrets of the nation.  This is not an easily solved conundrum. However, it is the one facing the US today.

Whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero is  the essence of the question. Until  the facts behind the data release, we will not know which he is. However, when the politicians from both parties demand his trial as a criminal, we have second thoughts.  What are they protecting?

What are your thoughts?

Conservative Tom

Is The Safety Of The State Really Worth More Than The Truth?

July 16, 2013 by  
Is The Safety Of The State Really Worth More Than The Truth?
It’s a strange and terrible tragedy when a culture forgets its own history and identity. It is even more tragic when that culture becomes deluded enough to think it can replace its heritage from scratch, that it can conjure political and social reformations out of thin air and abandon the centuries upon centuries of accomplishment and failures of generations past. To think that one can live without the lessons and principles of one’s ancestors is a disease — a mental disorder of the highest caliber. It is an insanity that leads to terrifying catastrophe.
There is no such thing as “starting over” or “rising anew.” There is no such thing as pure and unadulterated “change.” All shifts in human civilization are a product of that which has come before; and, therefore, each of these shifts retains the ideas, accomplishments and dreams of our forefathers. No matter how ingenious we think we are today, most grand schemes and wondrous plans for the world have already been discovered, rediscovered and applied over and over again by industrious men, great men and even nefarious men century after century.
Unique ideas are very rare. The American republic, as a sociopolitical structure, is such an idea.
The concept of citizen self governance is extremely uncommon in the annals of humanity, namely because there has always been an establishment of elitists within any given epoch that has sought to destroy it. There have always been organizations of the power hungry who make it their mission to suppress free thought and free peoples, and these organizations certainly exist today.
Though we have been given an astonishing guide map in the form of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the establishment attempts to sell us on a very different value system. In their world, true self governance is impossible, because only the elect will ever receive the political and monetary support needed just to join the ranks of those who might be elected. The common man has no place within the halls of the Federal oligarchy, and the elite like it that way.
In their world, leaders do not owe allegiance to the citizenry. They do not answer to the public. They do as they wish, whenever they wish. And as long as they can wrap their tyranny in the costumes of so-called patriotism, justice or safety of the masses, they can continue uninterrupted. The system is their playground, not ours.
Those people allowed to operate as government employees are treated as indentured servants of the state. Their first loyalties, the government claims, are not to Americans, but to the corporate apparatus that America has become. That is to say, they are supposed to protect the integrity of the system before they protect the lives and liberties of the people.
CIA Director John Brennan’s “Honor the Oath” campaign makes this position clear. InBrennan’s words, the oath government employees take is not to the Constitution, but to the “corporate culture of secrecy.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s response to the Snowden leaks on National Security Agency mass surveillance is also rather revealing in regard to how the establishment views the exposure of truths, especially when those truths involve the government’s systematic targeting of innocent Americans. The Hill reported:
“I don’t look at this as being a whistleblower. I think it’s an act of treason,” the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told reporters.
The California lawmaker went on to say that Snowden had violated his oath to defend the Constitution.
“He violated the oath, he violated the law. It’s treason.”
I would also point out that this same twisted viewpoint has been expressed by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Top Democrats and top Republicans want Snowden’s head on a platter.
Now I can see a certain (but very selective) logic to the belief that defending the government structure from attack is the same as defending the American public from attack. Undoubtedly, an outside force seeking to undermine our safety and our freedoms should be stopped; and some people believe we need watchmen to ensure this is done. However, what happens when the greatest threat to our way of life is coming from the watchmen themselves?
The Federal government was created by the Founding Fathers, begrudgingly, to serve one primary purpose: The defense of individual liberty. But what happens when the Federal government no longer pursues this function? What happens when the government becomes the very enemy it was designed to defend us against? Has it not then violated the charter that made it legal in the first place? And if so, should it not then be exposed and disbanded as a broken tool, a useless piece of hardware that no longer does any good for the people overall?
The problem is that the “watchmen” were institutionalized and bureaucratized. We were supposed to be the watchers and defenders, each and every one of us, but we handed over that power to elitist interests and secretive entities. We have handed over our eyes and our hands to men who care only for their own private societies and not American society. We have fallen asleep on the job and dark-minded doppelgängers have taken our place.
Even so, this does not mean our responsibilities have disappeared. As the actions of a handful of government whistle-blowers (including Snowden and Bradley Manning) have shown, the requirements of honor and conscience are not void simply because you now receive a government paycheck. In fact, for any government employee who considers himself honest and principled, whistle-blowing is not “treason,” as the White House would have us believe. Rather, it is a duty.
There are two kinds of law. The first is natural law; those laws follow the dictates of our hearts and our inborn moral compass. The Constitution upon which our nation was built is a perfect written representation of natural law. The second is self-serving law; those are the laws that one group of people in power use to control another group of people without power. Most legal structures that exist in writing today are sadly a product of self-serving law.
Legitimate treason is essentially the abandonment of the true well-being of one’s culture in order to gain something for oneself. Maybe the enticement is monetary, or maybe the enticement is to aid a foreign interest. Or maybe it is to satisfy a dangerously selfish ideological ego. In any case, the end result is severe harm to one’s homeland.
The question is: Is it “treason” to tell the truth to the American people? Is the truth harmful to our culture, or is it just harmful to the establishment? Is the survival of the establishment irreconcilably intertwined with the survival of our society, or is that only what they want us to think? If the establishment dies because it is revealed as corrupt, do we all die with it; or could we carry on without it?
As I pointed out before, without our heritage and our history, America fails to be. Without the lessons of the past, we are nothing. Our Federal government today has separated itself from the people and elevated itself to a godlike position in our personal lives, as many despotic governments throughout history have done. Our leadership has formed alliances with private elitist interests and forsaken their responsibilities  in an effort to cement their political dominance rather than protect the common good, the kind of action that has invariably led to the totalitarian monstrosities of the past. And our government has deemed a matter of national security, and thus sacrosanct, that which is moral “unimportant” or “dangerous” and that which is immoral. We are now expected to maintain “faith” in the benevolence and good graces of government and damn to hell the very voice within our souls. We are expected to pray for the continued longevity of the machine and rage against anyone who might enlighten us to the evil within it.
Many people who now work for the machine are not necessarily like the machine. They are not bent on the destruction of free civilization. They are not the enemy of life or the deeper good of man. But under the long-cast shadow of tyranny, the path they have chosen eventually ends; and it will end with an incalculably difficult decision: to do what is right or to do what is safe. To remember what it is our government is supposed to stand for or to forget all that came before.
Loyalty is not and never has been unconditional: loyalty to government most of all. Loyalty to the system is dependent upon the nature of the system and the people who sit at its apex. The system must reflect the higher aspirations of the society it seeks to manage or protect. It must be held to the highest possible standard and totally transparent in its nature. It is the job of government whistle-blowers to make this possible. If they do not, then criminality will remain painfully felt but officially unconfirmed. Our country will continue to crumble into fascist oblivion, and all that will be left for the citizenry is revolution.
We must remember what we believe in and allow that to be enough. Our fears, our biases and our superficial desires are all irrelevant. In the end, the only thing that matters is what we leave behind. For those within government today, this could mean a legacy of desperation and sadness or a legacy of strength, truth and enduring peace. Time is running out.

Whistle-blowers Get Punished, Liars Keep Their Jobs

Ben Kruidbos, the Florida state employee turned whistleblower, who revealed that material necessary for Zimmerman's defense was not turned over to the defense until immediately before the trial which is required by law, should win his  suit.  If the justice system is to work as it was designed, it needs to ensure that defense has the same evidence as the prosecution.  This is the bedrock of our system.

When a State Attorney keeps information from the opposition, we believe that should be grounds for dismissal. Had Zimmerman been convicted, it could have overturned that verdict.  

Whether it is Snowden revealing that the NSA was monitoring all Americans or a prosecutor who hides the facts from the defense attorneys, it appears as if the government seems to be going against those who are trying to do good.  As far as we have heard, Snowden has not personally profited from his disclosures and neither has Kruidbos. 

 Isn't it time we thank those who know the facts and reveal them to the rest of us?
We think so.

Conservative Tom

Fired Employee to File Suit Against Zimmerman Prosecutors

Wednesday, 17 Jul 2013 01:53 PM

More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |

A former employee of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey's office plans to file a whistleblower lawsuit against George Zimmerman's prosecutors, his attorney told Reuters on Tuesday.

The action will put pressure on Corey, who already faces criticism from some legal experts for the unsuccessful prosecution of the case, which led to the acquittal of Zimmerman for shooting unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman's defense has also called for sanctions against her and her prosecution team.

Ben Kruidbos, Corey's former director of information technology, was fired after testifying at a pre-trial hearing on June 6 that prosecutors failed to turn over potentially embarrassing evidence extracted from Martin's cell phone to the defense, as required by evidence-sharing laws.

"We will be filing a whistleblower action in (Florida's Fourth Judicial District) Circuit Court," said Kruidbos' attorney Wesley White, himself a former prosecutor who was hired by Corey but resigned in December because he disagreed with her prosecutorial priorities. He said the suit will be filed within the next 30 days.

Corey and lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda declined to comment. A spokeswoman for Corey referred Reuters to Kruidbos' termination letter, previously made public, in which Corey's office accused him of hacking confidential information from state computers.

The six-page letter, dated July 11, charges Kruidbos with "deliberate, willful and unscrupulous actions" that make him untrustworthy and calls his questioning of de la Rionda's actions regarding the cell phone evidence "a shallow, but obvious, attempt to cloak yourself in the protection of the whistleblower law."


Zimmerman was acquitted on Saturday following a five-week trial that riveted America and relaunched debates on race and guns. The verdict sparked demonstrations in some cities by those angered by the decision.

On Monday, Corey told Reuters, "Our office adhered to the highest standards of ethical behavior."

Trial law requires prosecutors to share evidence with defense attorneys, especially if it helps exonerate defendants. The requirement is known as the Brady disclosure.

Kruidbos testified last month in a pre-trial hearing that he found photos on Martin's phone that included pictures of a pile of jewelry on a bed, underage nude females, marijuana plants and a hand holding a semi-automatic pistol.

The Martin family lawyer, Benjamin Crump, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Kruidbos had emailed de la Rionda in late January and attached a report containing the text messages and images he had retrieved from Martin's cell phone, his lawyer said.

Zimmerman's chief defense attorney Mark O'Mara has said he didn't receive the material until June, shortly before the murder trial began.

Judge Debra Nelson ruled that pictures and texts from Martin's cell phone were inadmissible, after prosecutors argued that it couldn't be proven Martin actually took the pictures and wrote the texts on his phone.

The judge has yet to rule on whether the prosecution committed any Brady violations by not handing over evidence, as alleged by Zimmerman's defense team.

© 2013 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.

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

Discussion In The Republican Party--What A Marvelous Idea

Whether Liz Cheney wins or loses the Senatorial bid for Wyoming, she will have shaken up the race and scared many "RINOs" that the conservative wing of the party is on the march. If only McCain was up for re-election next year, that would please us immensely.

Conservative Tom

Liz Cheney's Senate Bid Exposes GOP Schism

Image: Liz Cheney's Senate Bid Exposes GOP Schism
Wednesday, 17 Jul 2013 10:56 AM
By Lisa Barron
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
She is threatening to bring an all out generational war within the Republican Party.

Senators are horrified that the former Second Daughter would challenge low key veteran conservative Sen. Mike Enzi, who immediately brought forward his announcement that he will seek a fourth term next year.

Enzi made it clear that he will not roll over with a stinging message to his new opponent. "I thought we were friends," he told reporters.

"She said that if I ran she wasn't going to run — obviously that wasn't correct."

Cheney, 46, says she wants to be among a new generation of conservative Republicans in the Senate, casting herself in the mold of Texas' Ted Cruz and Utah's Mike Lee. "I don't see seniority as a plus," she said in announcing her run.

But she gained no support from frequent Cruz ally, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. "When I heard Liz Cheney was running for Senate I wondered if she was running in her home state of Virginia," he said, according to Politico.

When Paul was asked about Cheney's potential run earlier this month, he told Politico, "I am a friend of Sen. Enzi and while we aren't exactly the same, I consider him a good conservative."

Opponents say that Cheney — who casts herself as a fourth-generation Wyomingite — has spent almost her whole life in Virginia, moving back to the Equality State only last year, when she bought a $1.9 million home in an exclusive Jackson Hole community, specifically so she could mount a campaign for the Senate.

She has since traveled the state giving speeches in the lead up to Tuesday's formal announcement that she would try to topple Enzi, 69, in a primary.

Enzi had already gained the backing of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which said last week it would support him if Cheney announced. "Our support will be there for Mike," said chairman, Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas.

Wyoming's other two Congressional members also declared their backing for their colleague. Sen. John Barrasso stood with Enzi when he was being asked about Cheney's run.

"Sen. Enzi is my friend, he is my mentor, he is a tremendous senator for the people of Wyoming," Barrasso said. "I am supporting him for re-election."

When asked what he thought about Cheney, he said, "She's very talented and has a bright future."

The state's sole representative, Republican Cynthia Lummis also made it clear where her sympathies lie. She told CNN she considered Cheney's move "bad form."

"I don't know that anybody can out-conservative Mike Enzi," said Lummis, who had planned to run for the Senate herself if Enzi had retired.

Lummis also attacked Cheney as an out-of-stater, moving back for political advantage.

"It's a unique strategy to live your entire life elsewhere and then come to a state a year before you're going to announce you're going to run for that state's highest office," She said. "Hillary Clinton could pull this off in New York. In my opinion, Liz Cheney cannot pull this off in Wyoming and I'm disappointed that she's decided to try. She should run from Virginia."

But despite the animosity, the Cheney name is still popular in Wyoming, which her father Dick Cheney represented for six terms in the House of Representatives.

Liz Cheney, who served as a State Department attorney in the Bush administration and now works as a political commentator on Fox News, is also likely to have a huge monetary advantage over Enzi once the primary campaign starts in earnest. Enzi, a former accountant, admits he is not good at fundraising, while the Cheney name will ensure the dollars pour in for his challenger.

"Money-raising has always been a problem for me," The New York Times quoted Enzi as saying. The Times said he has just $488,000 in the bank and has raised "a paltry $171,000" in the past three months.

But, The Times said, Cheney "with ample financial connections, is likely to be a formidable fund-raiser. Her father has been talking up her candidacy with top Republican donors in New York City, and Ms. Cheney will also have the support of some Bush donors."

However one Bush confidante immediately came out in support of the sitting senator. Ari Fleischer, who served as the 43rd president's White House press spokesman, tweeted, "I'm a big fan of Liz Cheney. But not in this race."

In a later tweet, he added, "divisive, internal GOP fights aren't helpful."

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

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