Wednesday, June 6, 2012


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Subject: The Surprising Truth About Senate Obstructionism ----The real cause of the current gridlock is the majority's desire to avoid difficult votes. (ITS NOT REPUBLICANS)


There's a growing chorus complaining that the Senate is broken, that Republicans are to blame, and that the rules of procedure need to be changed. This argument has any number of flaws, but at its core it relies on a general misrepresentation of how the Senate, and the filibuster in particular, works.
For example, here's how Politico's congressional reporter Scott Wong characterized the situation as part of a recent story on a lawsuit brought against the Senate by Common Cause to declare the filibuster unconstitutional:

"From 1981 to 2006, both parties used the filibuster when they were in the minority. During that period, the majority party in each Congress filed fewer than 90 cloture motions to overcome a filibuster by the minority.
"But since Democrats seized power in fall 2006, Republicans have turned to the filibuster far more frequently. The majority has averaged about 140 cloture motions in both the 110th and 111th Congress. And Democrats are on pace to repeat that feat again this Congress."
So Republicans are to blame for all those cloture petitions to end filibusters, right? Wrong. 
The fact that the majority has filed so many cloture petitions is as much a symptom of its own efforts to block the Senate from working its will as anything the minority has done. 
Consider this example.
On March 19, Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) introduced legislation (S. 2204) to promote renewable energy with the cost offset by a tax hike on large oil producers. The normal process would have been for this legislation to be referred to committee for action.
Majority Leader Harry Reid bypassed the committee process, however, and using something called Rule 14 had the bill placed directly on the Senate calendar. Two days later, he started the process to call up the bill by moving to "proceed to it" and immediately filed a cloture petition to end debate on that motion.
The following Monday, the Senate then voted 92-4 to curtail debate on the motion to proceed to the bill. The next day, as soon as the bill was before the Senate, Mr. Reid offered five consecutive amendments and one motion in order to effectively block the consideration of any competing amendments or motions.
He then filed a cloture motion to close out debate on the bill. Two days later, the Senate rejected cloture on a party-line vote and moved on to other business, leaving the Menendez bill adrift.
Now go back to the Politico story and ask yourself how exactly Republicans filibustered this bill? They didn't have time to filibuster anything, it was over so quickly. Moreover, their ability to take meaningful action was effectively nullified by four specific parliamentary maneuvers taken by Mr. Reid.
Why does the majority (Democrats) go to all this trouble? The simple answer is to protect its members from tough votes.
The Senate is a wide open forum where almost any issue can be raised and voted on at almost any time. This environment is a function of the Senate's tradition of unlimited debate, but it does leave members vulnerable to having to vote on difficult issues at inconvenient times, like when they are up for re-election.
In response, Majority Leader Reid has adopted the practice of blocking amendments from being offered. No amendments, no surprises, and no tough votes.
Taken alone, Sen. Reid's actions on S. 2204 are not historically unique. Every recent majority leader has used them on occasion. But what used to be relatively rare has been repeated dozens of times in recent years.
The very first bill considered by the Senate after the election of President Obama and a filibuster-proof Democratic majority was adopted under exactly the same truncated process used for S. 2204—Rule 14, cloture, block out any competing amendments, cloture. Since that time, the Senate has voted on cloture repeatedly, yet has very little to show for it: By some measures, 2011 was the least productive session in modern congressional history.
So where does that leave us?
Lawsuits like the one filed by Common Cause are frivolous public-relations efforts and will be rejected by the courts—the Constitution grants the Senate the right to craft its own rules, after all. But the possibility that the Democratic majority, threatened at the polls and frustrated by the current legislative stalemate, will move to change long-standing Senate rules to further limit debate and make it harder for senators to offer amendments on behalf of their beliefs is very real and must be strenuously opposed.
As we have seen, any systematic effort to block amendments, short-circuit debate, and force a preordained outcome turns the Senate into a legislative dead end. The salutary news is that on bills where the Democratic majority actually worked with the Republican minority to respect their rights to help craft bills and to debate and propose amendments, the Senate has been able to work its will and pass legislation—for example, the recent reauthorization of the Food and Drug Administration's user-fee program.
The Senate is the most uniquely American of all our federal institutions. It is a powerful and proud body that has protected us and our freedoms for more than 200 years. In order to work properly, however, senators must have their freedom too—the freedom to debate and offer amendments and, ultimately, vote. That is what they were elected to do, and that is how the Senate should work.
Mr. Reardon is a principal at Venn Strategies, and served on the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush. Mr. Ueland is vice president of the Duberstein Group and was chief of staff to former Senate Majority leader Bill Frist.
A version of this article appeared June 4, 2012, on page A17 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The Surprising Truth About Senate Obstructionism.
Posted By Woody Pendleton



ATF agents point machine guns at 8-year-old

Burst into home after being told fugitive had moved out

By Jack Minor
GREELEY, Colo. – A Colorado woman has filed a lawsuit after agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the ATF, entered her home without a warrant and threatened her and her 8-year old-son while looking for a previous tenant who had left the address more than a year earlier.

According to the filing from Linda Griego, it was on June 15, 2010, when officers with the ATF – as part of the Regional Anti-Gang Enforcement Task Force – violently entered her home without a warrant, handcuffed and pointed guns at her and her son, Colby Frias.
“They had multiple machine pistols pointed at my son. I could see the laser sights on his body and he began to freak out. While I was cuffed I had to calm him down while the officers broke down his bedroom door,” she said.
Her legal action is against the Greeley Police Department and the ATF for illegally entering the home without a warrant.
David Lane, Griego’s attorney, told WND that to this day the agency still has not produced a warrant authorizing it to enter her home. He said Frias continues to suffer nightmares about the events of that day.
A couple of months ago, Frias had a friend over to the house, and the family had ordered pizza. When it arrived, the delivery driver gave a loud knock on the door.
“It scared my son so bad he jumped over the couch to hide. This was two years later, and it still bothered him,” Griego said.
In the months following the incident, Frias was so scared he had to sleep with his mother.
“Here he is an 8-year-old boy, and he is sleeping with mom again,” she said.
In the months prior to the incident, local authorities had been to Griego’s house several times looking for Angela Hernandez-Nicholson, a former resident.
Each time, Griego told authorities she was no longer living at the address and even provided them with information on how to locate Nicholson.
“I tell them to contact social services because she is getting government benefits. She is on Section 8 housing, if the state is paying her rent, they should be able to find her,” Griego said. “I have even seen her at Wal-Mart all the time. How hard can it be for authorities to track this woman down?”
Griego said when the officers arrived on the day of the incident around 6:30 a.m. she was in the shower getting ready for work with the radio on while her son was sleeping in his bedroom. She had just come out of a nasty divorce, and a restraining order was placed on her ex-husband.
“I heard the knocking and rushed out of the shower dressed only in a towel. I went to the window at the front and saw a man knocking on the door, but I could not make out who he was,” Griego said. “I then went around to the back where they were also knocking. My first concern was for the safety of my son, and what if my ex-husband and friends had come by.”
She then saw one of the officers turn, and she made out part of the word SWAT on the back of his uniform.
“At that point I realized everything would be OK, since we had done nothing wrong. I told the officers I had just come out of the shower and to give me a minute to get dressed.”
After getting dressed, Griego told them she was coming. Once she unlocked the door, the officer forced the door open, causing it to strike her.
According to Griego, she was then violently grabbed and yanked outside where she was pushed up against the house and handcuffed by authorities.
“They had weapons drawn and were pointing them at me. I begged them not to go in because my son was in there.”
When they dragged her back into the house, she saw the officers surrounding Frias with their laser sights pointed at him.
“I will never forget the fear I saw in my young son’s eyes that day. Having guns pointed at you would be terrifying enough for an adult, let alone an 8-year-old boy,” she said. “As a mother, I felt so helpless, since I was handcuffed and had guns on me as well.”
The officers kept calling her Angela, and she kept telling them she was Amanda. It was only after emptying her purse and seeing her ID they realized she was not the person they were after.
Authorities then told Griego she did not match Angela’s description anyway, noting that the woman they were after was in her 50s.
She said another concern is that because of the incident, Frias is now afraid of police officers.
“If he ever has a time where he needs a police officer, I’m afraid he may not seek help, because he is still traumatized by what happened. He is afraid of police officers,” she said.
Sgt. Susan West with the Greeley police told WND they were not able to confirm if Griego had told officers Angela did not live at the address or not.
She said the department investigated the incident, and their involvement was “minimal.” She could not elaborate further, she said, due to the ongoing litigation.
Griego said after they released her, an officer even admitted that they knew that she was living at the residence and even had a restraining order against her ex-husband.
“He said, ‘You are Amanda, and you have a restraining order against your ex-husband.” If they knew all of that, then why did they break in and threaten us?”
What is frustrating is that to this day no one from the police or the ATF has even bothered to contact her and apologize for their mistake,” Griego said.
“The last thing they told me was, ‘Well I hope you have a better day than you’ve had so far.’ And then they left,” he said.
In fact, the officer chastised Griego for not opening the door sooner.
I waited just long enough to throw some clothes on and my hair was still wet, but the officer told me I should have opened the door immediately, regardless of whether I was dressed or not and said I could face consequences for making them wait.”
Last year, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” In issuing its ruling the court said public policy disfavors such a right.
The court admitted it was overturning hundreds of years of law going back to the Magna Carta as well as U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The court dismissed the decisions, saying, “We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.”


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Subject: : How They'll Take Your Guns--Step By Step

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door....

        Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.  At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.   With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.  In the darkness, you make out two shadows.  One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.  One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.   As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.   In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.
 Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times But the next day's headline says it all:  "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."  The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters... As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media.
 The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.
 Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
 A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.  It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges The judge sentences you to life in prison.
 This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.  How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

 It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.
 This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.  The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.
 Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
 Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.
 During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that  self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."  All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.  When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.  Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.   The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.
 Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns?  The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?


  "...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."  Samuel  Adams  If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
 You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this 
 very same thing, through the U.N. over here, if he can get 
 it done. 


Posted By Woody Pendleton


--- Forwarded Message -----
From: Dave Hollenbeck <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2012 7:02 AM
Subject: Immoral Beyond Redemption-- Walter E. Williams 

Benjamin Franklin, statesman and signer of our Declaration of Independence, said: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." John Adams, another signer, echoed a similar statement: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Are today's Americans virtuous and moral, or have we become corrupt and vicious? Let's think it through with a few questions.
Suppose I saw an elderly woman painfully huddled on a heating grate in the dead of winter. She's hungry and in need of shelter and medical attention. To help the woman, I walk up to you using intimidation and threats and demand that you give me $200. Having taken your money, I then purchase food, shelter and medical assistance for the woman. Would I be guilty of a crime? A moral person would answer in the affirmative. I've committed theft by taking the property of one person to give to another.
Most Americans would agree that it would be theft regardless of what I did with the money. Now comes the hard part. Would it still be theft if I were able to get three people to agree that I should take your money? What if I got 100 people to agree -- 100,000 or 200 million people? What if instead of personally taking your money to assist the woman, I got together with other Americans and asked Congress to use Internal Revenue Service agents to take your money? In other words, does an act that's clearly immoral and illegal when done privately become moral when it is done legally and collectively? Put another way, does legality establish morality? Before you answer, keep in mind that slavery was legal; apartheid was legal; the Nazi's Nuremberg Laws were legal; and the Stalinist and Maoist purges were legal. Legality alone cannot be the guide for moral people. The moral question is whether it's right to take what belongs to one person to give to another to whom it does not belong.
Don't get me wrong. I personally believe that assisting one's fellow man in need by reaching into one's own pockets is praiseworthy and laudable. Doing the same by reaching into another's pockets is despicable, dishonest and worthy of condemnation. Some people call governmental handouts charity, but charity and legalized theft are entirely two different things. But as far as charity is concerned, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." To my knowledge, the Constitution has not been amended to include charity as a legislative duty of Congress.
Our current economic crisis, as well as that of Europe, is a direct result of immoral conduct. Roughly two-thirds to three-quarters of our federal budget can be described as Congress' taking the property of one American and giving it to another. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid account for nearly half of federal spending. Then there are corporate welfare and farm subsidies and thousands of other spending programs, such as food stamps, welfare and education. According to a 2009 Census Bureau report, nearly 139 million Americans -- 46 percent -- receive handouts from one or more federal programs, and nearly 50 percent have no federal income tax obligations.
In the face of our looming financial calamity, what are we debating about? It's not about the reduction or elimination of the immoral conduct that's delivered us to where we are. It's about how we pay for it -- namely, taxing the rich, not realizing that even if Congress imposed a 100 percent tax on earnings higher than $250,000 per year, it would keep the government running for only 141 days.
Ayn Rand, in her novel "Atlas Shrugged," reminded us that "when you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good."


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Obama Will Lose Without Race Card

Mitt Romney speech 3 SC Obama Will lose Without Race Card

Forget the rigged polls and the media happy face. Mitt Romney will win the White House in November, probably in a big way, unless he is foolish enough to repeat John McCain’s 2008 display of campaign cowardice.
The 3 ½ year reign of Barack Hussein Obama has been a disaster for taxpayers, most of the business world, and the American public in general.
He has waged war on energy producers, threatening the coal industry with destruction, shutting down the drilling of oil, and driving natural gas suppliers from the country, all the while wielding the EPA like a sword to wreak havoc on corporations and individuals alike.
He has wasted billions of tax dollars in politically motivated green energy ventures, usually for the purpose of enticing money from–or bailing out–big money contributors to the Democrat Party.
He has created virtually no jobs, except for members of public employee unions.
He has weakened the armed forces of the United States, insulted and betrayed longtime American allies, and provided our enemies with a level of support bordering on treason.
He has smuggled guns into Mexico, made deals with murderous drug cartels, and brought about the death of hundreds as a result of his criminal attempt to undermine the 2nd Amendment.
He cheered his Department of Justice as it justified the intimidation of white voters and prevented states from cleansing their voter rolls of illegals, felons, and corpses.
He has refused to enforce immigration law while encouraging the filing of lawsuits against states that have worked to protect their citizens from an endless invasion of aliens carrying disease, committing crime, and living on funds confiscated from unwilling taxpayers. The cynical claim of DOJ attorneys: enforcement of immigration law is a FEDERAL matter!
In 2008, the liberal media suckered and intimidated a gullible voting public into buying the meaningless, “hope and change” scam of a constitutionally ineligible, Manchurian Candidate. Yet it’s quite possible Obama would still be a senator from Illinois if McCain had run a campaign designed to win the election rather than applaud the media-invented genius of his opponent!
Obama will not be able to campaign on his record. “Hope and Change” were abandoned for “Forward,” a bust that has already been discarded. The public will remain solidly against ObamaCare, regardless of any ruling handed down by the Supreme Court. And as his arrogance and thuggish nature are now well known, even the concerted efforts of the media won’t allow The One to relive the glory days of the 2008 campaign.
So Obama will follow the same strategy that prompted John McCain to destroy himself—he will play the race card. Any attack by Romney will be met with the phony lament of Obama’s “blackness.” Reveal the truth about the President’s willful destruction of the economy, and it will be immediately related to a mythical study of race.  The question is, will Romney fall for it?
Democrats played the race card for months during the 2010 campaign, yet were destroyed on Election Day.  Will the Romney campaign remember the utter failure of the left to shock American voters with the fabricated, racial insensitivity of Republicans just 2 years ago?
The outcome of the election will depend on Mitt Romney’s realization that a well-played race card is Obama’s only hope of victory. If he has the guts and smarts to avoid McCain’s mistakes, he’ll be the new president.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Entitlements Gone Wild

Social Security Administration 2 SC Entitlements Gone Wild
Currently, it should not at all be difficult for any objective observer to notice that America’s entitlement mentality is at an all-time high and growing. All that anyone must do to soak in this reality is to take a trip to the nearest grocery store or social security office.
At grocery stores and supermarkets all over the country, on a daily basis, the checkout lines are filled with able-bodied people, unloading heaps of name brand sodas and choice steaks from their shopping carts. This is all made possible by state and federal food stamp programs and the ever-burdened taxpayer. If you are one of those unfortunate taxpayers, and you find yourself in line behind one of these individuals, you’d better not be in a hurry. It’s liable to be a long wait that’s made to seem even longer, as a result of mental anguish.
If you find that your investigation at the grocery store doesn’t yield any evidence, which is doubtful, you must only travel to the nearest social security office. Again, if you’re a taxpayer who has paid into the social security system for years, and you’re seeking to make arrangements at the desk for a return on some of this hard earned income, just pull up a seat and don’t hold your breath. You’ll most likely stand just inside the office door, at the end of a long line of able-bodied men and mothers of many children. They almost always at least appear to be in perfect health. Are all these people really disabled? Are we starting to see a pattern here? All these social programs, especially those for food stamps, welfare, and disability compensation, have become extremely and overwhelmingly problematic for everyone concerned.
All these social programs, some technically dating back all the way to the country’s founding, were put in place to help only those who were truly helpless: those indigent, widowed, or physically or mentally disabled individuals who would be allowed enough subsistence to survive with the help of their local almshouses or workhouses. In this former system, even those who received these benefits would do so as a last resort, in such cases where these individuals had no immediate or extended family members who were able or would agree to assist them.
This system is a far cry from the wasteful, loosely enforced, fraud-provoking system of today. But this hopeless situation didn’t develop overnight. These programs have been gradually expanded over the years, until they have become far too tempting for many to resist. We all know that there are still those who actually need some outside assistance, on a limited basis and for a limited amount of time, but they are grossly outnumbered by those who abuse this poorly protected system. As the benefits of these social programs continue to grow for those who participate in them, and as the taxpayer’s slice of the pie continues to be trimmed thinner under the weight of supporting them, the incentive to continue to work and pay taxes diminishes by the day. This is the destructive power of socialism in true form.
Let’s take a look at some current statistics about these programs, gathered from several sources (including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the CATO Institute.) As of May 2012, about 4.1% of the total U.S. population received welfare assistance. We might think that 4.1% doesn’t sound too threatening, but as applied to the current total population of the U.S. of over 313 million people, this percentage of recipients amounts to about 15 million people. We should take into account that this does not include those who receive other social benefits, such as food stamps, unemployment, and disability compensations. If we include these programs into the equation as forms of welfare, the percentage of Americans receiving this assistance rises to about 8% of the U.S. population, or about 1 in 6 Americans.
If these percentages are not negatively impressive enough, we can look at the situation in terms of dollars. Based on official government figures over the last five years, the total annual government spending on welfare (minus food stamps or unemployment) amounts to a staggering $131.9 billion. Other statistics are equally or even more alarming. First, at the most basic level of the program’s regulations, someone can make $1000 per month and still receive welfare. In 40 states, welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job. In 7 states, welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job, and in 9 states, welfare pays more than the average salary of a public school teacher in those states! Out of the top 10 hourly wage equivalent welfare states in the U.S., Hawaii is at the top at $17.50, and Virginia is at the bottom at $11.11. All these income levels probably seem to make for a good living in the eyes of many of us as working taxpayers.
So how could all this be, under the leadership of “the Great Uniter,” Mr. Obama? He was supposed to create an American society in which all shared great success together. He claimed during a speech in February 2009 that the economy would be fully repaired after the first three years of his presidency. His administration even claimed that unemployment would never rise above 8% if the stimulus plan was passed, but since then, it has risen as high as 10% and now stands at about 8.2%, according to most figures. However, if we factor in those who have given up looking for work, or who have accepted part-time employment in the absence of full-time employment, the real unemployment rate is closer to 22%.
One might at first think that the rise in the number of people receiving government benefits is directly proportional to the rising unemployment, but according to these numbers, that just isn’t so. This shows us what we already know; most working people are honest taxpayers who will do whatever it takes to regain employment in some capacity. These people are hurting, and their absence in the workforce is negatively felt in our economy. But they are not the ones to blame. Some who are to blame are those who are increasingly and continually taking advantage of an already broken system at the expense of the rest of us. Their playing of the system has become a way of life, often spanning generations in their families. They are, though, only engaging in a lifestyle made possible by the corrupt liberals in our government, who now cater to them in their strategy to gain and retain votes for their next terms of office, which brings us to the ones who are most to blame: corrupt politicians in our government and the ones who elect them.


Posted By WP


Biden Spends $1 Million Annually for Weekend Trips

Monday, 04 Jun 2012 05:04 PM
By Ronald Kessler
More ways to share...

Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — Last June, President Obama appointed Vice President Joe Biden to root out wasteful government spending. But behind the scenes, it’s a different matter.

Every Friday, Biden takes a helicopter designated as Marine Two from the vice president’s residence to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland and then hops on Air Force Two to fly back to his home in Delaware. At the end of the weekend, he returns on Air Force Two, usually a Boeing C-32.
Vice President Biden boards Air Force Two.
(AP Photo)
During warm weather, Biden regularly returns to Andrews on the airplane on Saturdays to play golf at the Air Force base with President Obama. After the golf game, he flies back to Delaware and returns to Washington on the plane on Sunday evening — all at taxpayer expense.

The cost of flying Air Force Two is $22,000 an hour, so each half-hour trip to or from Delaware costs about $10,000. Each golf game costs taxpayers $20,000. At that rate, the annual cost to taxpayers of Biden’s weekend trips is well over $1 million.

In addition, the Secret Service rents more than 20 condominiums in the Wilmington, Del. area for agents who must accompany Biden when he returns to his home state.

Biden’s press office had no immediate comment.

“Biden leaves every Friday from Joint Base Andrews, so he gets lifts from the observatory via Marine Two to Andrews Air Force Base, takes off via Air Force Two, lands in Delaware, and stays the weekend and then comes back on Sunday nights,” says a Secret Service agent familiar with the trips.
Biden has been a long-time proponent of train travel.
(AP Photo)
“Every three or four weeks when it’s warm, he gets up there on Saturday and then will fly back on Air Force Two,” the agent says. “While Air Force Two is sitting on the tarmac at Andrews, he goes and plays golf with the president at Andrews Air Force Base, gets back on the plane, and flies back to Delaware. Let me tell you something, that is egregious.”

Besides that, “The Secret Service rents condos in Wilmington because his schedule is so fluid and never concrete enough to properly prepare for his visits to Delaware,” the agent says. “So they keep a fully staffed Secret Service advance team in Delaware in condominiums that we lease so that when he does these things back and forth to D.C., they’re up there ready for him to arrive.”

The Boeing C-32 that usually flies as Air Force Two is a specially configured Boeing 757-200 commercial jet which typically requires a crew of 18.

As a U.S. senator, Biden was proud of the fact that he commuted daily by train from his home in Delaware to Washington during the week. Amtrak named the newly renovated Wilmington station the Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Railroad Station. But after taking office as vice president, a Secret Service agent says Biden began the pattern of commuting on Air Force Two on weekends, costing taxpayers close to $4 million so far.

As recently as May 12, Biden flew back to Andrews to play golf with Obama and with Biden’s second son Hunter and White House trip director Marvin Nicholson. They played 18 holes of golf for four and a half hours.

Biden also plays golf at a country club he belongs to in the Wilmington area. The Secret Service agent says that since Air Force Two parks at Andrews, Obama is obviously aware that Biden is running up a huge government tab for each game of golf he plays with him.

Asked if President Obama thinks these costs are appropriate, why he has not questioned Biden flying to play golf with him at a cost of $20,000 per game, and in view of these costs of $1 million a year for weekend trips, whether the vice president should no longer be in charge of cutting government waste, the president’s press office had no immediate comment.

In addition to his salary as vice president of $230,700, Biden has free use of the vice president’s residence at the Naval Observatory. The vice president’s residence is a handsome 9,150-square-foot, three-story mansion overlooking Massachusetts Avenue NW in Washington.

Complete with pool, pool house, and indoor gym, the white brick house was built in 1893 as the home of the superintendent of the U.S. Naval Observatory. Congress turned it into the official residence of the vice president in 1974 and gave it the address One Observatory Circle.

During the day, at least five Navy stewards attend to every personal need of the second family, including cleaning, cooking, shopping for food, and doing the laundry.

Biden has portrayed himself as a regular Joe, a product of a working class family who takes on millionaires and Republicans who are said to be out of touch with middle-class Americans.

Last June 13, Obama placed Biden in charge of a Campaign to Cut Waste, which will “hunt down and eliminate misspent tax dollars in every agency and department across the federal government,” according to the White House website.

In an email, Biden told supporters that he was the “new sheriff in town.” He said that “particularly at a time when we’re facing tough decisions about reducing our deficit, it’s a no-brainer to stop spending taxpayer dollars on things that benefit nobody.”

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of He is the New York Times bestselling author of books on the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA. Read more reports from Ronald Kessler — Click Here Now.

Read more on Biden Spends $1 Million Annually for Weekend Trips
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


Posted By WP


Hold Children Hostage, and Motorists Pay

Written by Gary North on June 5, 2012
Print Friendly
This is the accusation of critics of the budget-balancing program in a Texas town.
The town takes in $800,000 a year with this program. The police stop people driving through. They charge them with drug trafficking. They take their children and turn them over to Child Protective Services. Then, to get their kids back, the drivers must forfeit their money.
Is this creative budget-balancing, or what?
Documents reviewed by The Associated Press describe the extent to which children became pawns as authorities in Tenaha, a town near the Louisiana border, accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars through highway traffic stops that have since sparked a federal investigation.
“They basically said, ‘If you all want to leave without going to jail tonight and take your kids with you, then you’ll sign over your money right now,’” Jennifer Boatright, a Houston mother of two, said in an interview describing her encounter with local officials.
The town has been named in a class-action suit. The Justice Department is also investigating.
The involvement of children adds another element to a case that has especially troubled critics of civil asset forfeiture laws. Those laws allow authorities to seize cash or other property if they believe it’s linked to criminal activity, even in cases where defendants aren’t found guilty.
In two of the Tenaha incidents, authorities separated a small child from one couple pulled over in a traffic stop and threatened to do the same to another, according to case documents.
One man had to hand over $50,000. His 16-month-old son was taken from him. “Agostini asserts in the suit that authorities even denied his request to kiss the boy goodbye.”
He did get his money back after he filed suit.
In another incident in 2007, Boatright, her boyfriend and their two children were pulled over for what Washington’s report said was “driving in the left lane for over a half mile without passing and crossing over (the) white line.” Washington wrote that he searched the car because he smelled marijuana and found $6,000 in the console.
The couple was cited for money laundering and child endangerment. But they avoided going to jail and surrendering their children, ages 18 months and 12 years, by immediately agreeing to forfeit the cash, according to a court document spelling out the arrangement.
Asset forfeiture is a big deal, and it is getting bigger. If you have more than $100 in currency, you would be wise not to break and vehicle safety laws.
Wear a white shirt and tie. Look like a lawyer or someone who can hire a lawyer.
Continue Reading on


Posted By Woody Pendleton


"The Donald" never mixes his words, does he?
Trump Explains Dumbo Care
No one can sum it up better than Trump
Let me get this straight . . .
We're going to be "gifted" with a health care
plan we are
forced to purchase
and fined if we don't,
Which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people,
without adding
a single new doctor,
but provides for
16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman
says he
doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it butexempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be
taxed for four years before any benefits
take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is
obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!'What the hell could possibly go wrong?'


Posted By WP


East is East & West is West By Major General Jerry Curry, USA, Ret. Published: 7:12 AM 01/28/2012

The great British poet Rudyard Kipling, understanding today’s situation in Afghanistan better than our State Department wrote, “I have eaten your bread and salt. I have drunk your water and wine. The deaths ye died I have watched beside. And the lives ye led were mine.”

There are two points the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense may want to keep in mind as they evaluate future problems in the Middle East and how to successfully address them. Both are easiest illustrated by real life happenings.

Many years ago I attended the Infantry officer Advanced Course at Fort Benning, Georgia. Probably ten percent of the students attending that ten month course of instruction were from foreign countries. For about half of the course my tablemate was an Arab. We studied together, completed homework assignments together, got to know each other’s families and generally enjoyed each other’s company. Part of that time we students were immersed in reading about, researching and discussing wars and problems of the Middle East. By this time my Arab classmate and I had, I thought, become close friends. A question popped into my mind and without evaluating it I said, “I have a question to ask you, but you may find it a little impertinent … or, perhaps, offensive.”

“That’s quite alright,” he replied. “We know each other well enough to be honest with each other. So go ahead and ask your question.”

“Well,” I began. “Each time you Arabs start a war with Israel, they beat your socks off. Why don’t you learn your lesson and quit making war on them?”

The words hadn’t passed my lips before I knew that I shouldn’t have asked that particular question. But I was wrong. My Arab officer friend didn’t get angry. He didn’t even think before replying.

“My dear friend,” he said in his British accent, “You are absolutely right. Each time we attack the Israelis they whip us. But have you noticed that with each loss we get better. We get whipped not as badly as in the war before.”

Then he got a faraway look in his eyes, pounded on the table and said, “Sometime in the next thousand years … we will win!”

Up until then I had never thought in terms of a thousand years, and I don’t think I’m very good at it today. But for those formulating foreign and defense policy for the nation, it is worth making the effort. For it is difficult to think in terms of the immediate future while negotiating with a nation whose leaders are thinking in terms of hundreds or thousands of years.

Point two: During the first Gulf War U.S. and Arab forces fought side by side and some of the officers became close friends. When the war ended in victory there was a celebration in the officer’s club with everyone congratulating each other. A lot of handshaking and hugging was going on. It was a time of displaying real brotherly love.

Seeing this, one of the senior Arab generals felt the need to set the record straight. “Look,” he said to a small cluster of American generals. “We have fought together and some of us have died together. I know you feel that that makes us brothers. But that is not the way it is in my world.”

He looked around the circle making eye contact with all of them. “I don’t want to see you hurt so I need to share this with you. There will be no tomorrow for us jointly. No matter how much you have helped my country — and you came and helped us when we desperately needed your help – and no matter how friendly you feel toward us, we are still Muslims and you are still Christians. That means that in our eyes, we can never be brothers. I’m sorry but, to us, you will always be – Infidels!”

And so we Infidels have liberated Iraq and Afghanistan , but we have not made their countries nor their people depositories of freedom and liberty. No matter how hard we work to rebuild their governments, infrastructure, educational and medical institutions, and no matter how desperately they need our help — as the Arab general pointedly noted – we can never be brothers to each other.

Also, I learned what Kipling meant when he wrote, “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” He was pointing out to the western world that to Muslims, we Christians will always be infidels!


Posted By WP


To: Les Gay
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 11:26 AM
Subject: Fw: It has begun

Christopher CollinsPaulding County Republican Examiner
> Yesterday, the Paulding County Republican Examiner reported that on Friday,
> a U.S. Marine veteran was detained and arrested by police after being
> heckled and yelled at a rally hosted by former President Bill Clinton for
> Democrat Tom Barrett, by Milwaukee, Wisconsin democrats and labor union
> members in an attempt to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker.
> Today, we learn that the veteran's name is David Willoughby, the son of
> Naples, Florida Tea Party founder Barry Willoughby. Early this evening, he
> released an email statement concerning his arrest and detainment which was
> sent by his father to Jan Morgan, an Associated Press Award winning veteran
> television journalist and acquaintance of the Paulding County Republican
> Examiner.
> In relating his experience, he said, "My name is Dave Willoughby. I am the
> one in thevideo."
> "Without being told what I had done, I was handcuffed and escorted off
> premise. Placed in a squad car and taken to a police station. I asked if I
> should have my rights read to me and was told "You're not being arrested."
> My personal property was taken from me, I was fingerprinted, mug shot taken
> and locked in a dark jail cell, lights off, still handcuffed, "said Mr.
> Willoughby.
> Willoughby went to say, "I sat in that jail cell, looking out of a meshed
> wire window, at a large American flag flying in the background. Where am I?
> How can this be happening? What did I do wrong? I prayed for strength. When
> I swore the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, I never realized
> until recently, how vulnerable our precious freedoms actually are."
> "I did nothing wrong, "said Willoughby. "There were literally hundreds of
> cameras at this event. I challenge all media to find one shred of evidence,
> which would support the actions of the Milwaukee PD officers."
> "Does Mayor Barrett approve?"
> Mr. Willoughby was arrested when he attempted to state to police that he had
> a constitutional right to be there like everyone else and that he did
> nothing wrong. Police charged him for allegedly disturbing the peace.
> As Mr. Willoughby was led away by police, labor union and democrat
> protestors heckled the veteran, calling him a criminal and that he needs to
> be in jail.
> In the email, his father, Florida Tea Party founder, Barry Willoughby also
> said, "Our liberties are at stake. Individual freedom in America is exactly
> what we have been fighting to preserve over the past several years."
> Whether charges against David Willoughby will dropped is not known at this
> time.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...