Tuesday, August 14, 2012

WHITE HOUSE FUNNY CIG'S

Posted by HS
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

It seems the entire Obama administration has been doing roof hits from all the choom smoke swirling around in the White House. The unemployment numbers for July came out, going up from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent, and the White House (along with the media) is actually celebrating.
laughing“While there is more work that remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression,” wrote Alan Krueger, Obama’s economic adviser. Choom is apparently some powerful stuff.
They justify their glee by informing us that July’s unemployment numbers are actually only 8.254 percent, as opposed to June’s 8.217.
And really, isn’t that the kind of optimism we all want in the White House? People to tell us that the pain we’re feeling isn’t really all that painful? People to sugarcoat bad news for us? I know I don’t want to be told that what I’m eating came from a dog’s back end. All I need to know is whether or not there’s frosting and sprinkles on it. Spare me the nasty details, please. Oh, Iran is pursuing nukes? Well, the more nukes in Iran’s possession, the fewer nukes in North Korea’s. You should be grateful we’re allowing Iran to acquire nukes, you serfs.
How desperate are these people? Who has ever heard of a president or his advisers telling us that, sure, the official unemployment may be 10 percent, but the actual number is 9.859, so quit whining? Is that how poorly this administration thinks of the American people? That we’ll take whatever they feed us and say “thank you, may I have another?”
Well I will take another. Another president, that is.


.

Tea Party, NRA Throw 5 RINOS Out Of Tennessee Legislature

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

IS RINO OR DONKEY HUNTING COMMING TO YOUR STATE ?  YOU BETTER BET IT IS !

Tea Party SC Tea Party, NRA throw 5 RINOS out of Tennessee Legislature
On August 2nd, 5 GOP candidates seeking re-election to the Tennessee State legislature discovered just how dangerous it can be to disdain the wishes of those conservatives who helped put them in office.
In 2010, members of various Tea Party groups in Tennessee donated the necessary time and money to put Republicans in charge of both the legislature and the governor’s mansion for the first time in 150 years. But after 2 years, not one of the top 10 Tea Party priorities placed before the Republican–controlled legislature had been implemented. Those priorities were based upon “…re-asserting state sovereignty over unconstitutional Federal abuses,” writes Tea Party steering committee member Van Irion. Yet rather than assist the Tea Party groups that had both drafted legislation and lobbied members of both legislative houses, “…the Tennessee Republican Party treated the Tea Party with contempt.”
In 2012, Tea Party officials decided the only way to gain the respect and attention of Republican politicians was to “…PROVE to the [GOP] that the Tea Party had power at the ballot box.” And the best way to do that was to initiate a “RINO Hunt!”
Four-term incumbent and Chairwoman of the Republican Caucus Debbie Maggart was selected as the RINO upon whom the sights of these Tea Party hunters would be trained. A ranking member of GOP leadership, Maggart had a bunch of campaign cash to spend and enjoyed the endorsement of both the Party and its leaders.
BUT she had also “actively fought” against the wishes of state Tea Partiers, incurring the wrath of voters and the National Rifle Association for her stance against NRA backed legislation.
As a result, not only did Maggart lose to Tea Party endorsed candidate, retired Lt. Col Courtney Rogers, she lost BIG! Money poured into Rogers’ campaign from Tea Party groups and conservative PACs all over the state. The NRA paid for ads and billboards linking Maggart to Barack Obama. And when the smoke cleared on election night, the stunned incumbent had been defeated by 12 percentage points, truly an old-time drubbing.
Along with this principle target of conservative efforts, 4 other Republicans legislators with less than acceptable voting records were removed from office, and 2 more are involved in recounts. As Irion puts it, “every Republican in the Tennessee Legislature knows what just happened. They were aware that the Tea Party had targeted Maggart. They were aware that the other RINOs were being targeted. Now they’ve seen the result.”
Though Republicans may continue to ignore the legislative demands of Tea Parties and other conservative groups, they now know that a price will have to be paid on Election Day. For the focused energy of conservative voters can put at risk the political career of even the most powerful of Republican politicians.
In 2 years, South Carolina RINO Senator Lindsey Graham will be the principle political target of conservatives throughout the nation. Look for him to join Lugar, Bennett, and other “Republicans in Name Only” in the growing ranks of unemployed sellouts.

DEMOCRAT CONVENTION SCHEDULE COPY

Posted by HS
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

UNYET PUBLISHED SENT BY AN INSIDER AT DNC
Just released internally, but here's a copy.
 

From a friend in Charlotte

As a Charlotte insider, I was able to obtain a copy of the itinerary in advance.
 
2012 Democratic National Convention Schedule -- Charlotte, N.C.

4:00 PM - Opening Flag Burning Ceremony - sponsored by CNN
4:05 PM - Singing of "God Damn America " led by Rev. Jeremiah Wright
4:10 PM - Pledge of Allegiance to Obama

4:15 PM - Ceremonial 'I hate America' led by Michelle Obama
4:30 PM - Tips on "How to keep your man trustworthy & true to you while you
travel the world" - Hillary Clinton
4:45 PM - Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson seminar "How to have a successful
career without having a job."

5:00 PM - "Great Vacations I've Taken on the Taxpayer's Dime Travel Log" -
Michelle Obama
5:30 PM - Eliot Spitzer Speaks on "Family Values" via Satellite
5:45 PM - Tribute to All 57 States - Nancy Pelosi

6:00 PM - Sen. Harry Reid - 90-minute speech expressing the Democrat's
appreciation of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and George Soros for
sparing no expense, for all that they have accomplished to unify the
country, improve employment and to boost the economy.

8:30 PM - Airing of Grievances by the Clintons
9:00 PM - "Bias in Media - How we can make it work for you" Tutorial -
sponsored by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times

9:15 PM - Tribute Film to Brave Freedom Fighters incarcerated at GITMO -
Michael Moore
9:30 PM - Anthony Weiner entertains audience with his personal slide presentation
9:45 PM - Personal Finance Seminar - Charlie Rangle
10:00 PM - Denunciation of Bitter Gun Owners and Bible readers 

10:30 PM - Ceremonial Waving of White Flag for IRAQ , & Afghanistan
11:00 PM - Obama Energy Plan Symposium / Tire Gauge Demonstration / You too can get rich with Green Investment bankruptcies

11:15 PM - Free Gov. Blagovich rally
11:30 PM - Obama Accepts Oscar, Tony and Latin Grammy Awards
11:45 PM - Feeding of the Delegates with 5 Loaves and 2 Fish - Obama
presiding
12:00 AM - Official Nomination of Obama by Bill Maher and Chris "He sends a
thrill up my leg" Matthews
12:01 AM - Obama Accepts Nomination as Lord and Savior by waving his fake birth Certificate
12:05 AM - Celestial Choirs Sing .
3:00 AM - Joe Biden wakes up and delivers acceptance speech to an empty room -
(The convention was over at 12:30 AM).

OBAMA'S FIGHTING MILITARY VOTING RIGHTS

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

HE KNOWS THEY WONT VOTE FOR HIM !



BUSTED: CNN's Soledad O'Brien Caught Using Liberal Blog To Attack Ryan Plan

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Joe Schoffstall's picture
BY; Joe Schoffstall
Monday, August 13, 2012 - 9:41pm 
In yet another classic display of the liberal media, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien has been caught red-handed using left-wing blog  Talking Points Memo to counter Virginia House of Delegates member Barbara Comstock on the House GOP budget.
As Ali A. Akbar of Viral Read discovered:
Tonight, she was the substitute host for Anderson Cooper, a program that boasts of its reputation for “keeping [politicians] honest.” During her interview with Virginia House of Delegates Republican member Barbara Comstock, O’Brien became visibly flustered and was actually caught doing finger stress exercises as she attempt to insert editorial commentary while her guest, a former skilled Republican operative, defended the House GOP budget, designed by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan.
Accidentally, a cameraman captured O’Brien furiously flipping through notes, only to cut out seconds later. What was she viewing?
Footage proves it was a printed email, talking points and opposition research.
Here is a picture of her flipping through her 'notes'.
If you take a closer look, she's reading a blog post titled, The Myth of Paul Ryan The Bipartisan Leader. Once again, TPM is a liberal blog.
Here's a zoomed in shot:

The contents? There was a blog post from Talking Points Memo, the popular liberal blog. She was reading The Myth of Paul Ryan The Bipartisan Leader. She never cited it, but used its contents. In fact, she claimed to be reading a direct statement from Senator Wyden’s (D-OR) office, but was in fact reading this excerpt from the blog:
The Romney campaign’s lone evidence that Ryan is a bipartisan leader amounts to a vague blueprint he co-wrote with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) late last year that mirrors key elements of his Medicare plan. Wyden voted against Ryan’s budget and said Romney’s characterization of their work was dishonest.
“Governor Romney is talking nonsense. Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts,” Wyden’s office said in a statement. “I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.”
In the very same segment where she then interviewed Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, she used no notes, no research, and what are generally accepted as softball questions.


.

CALIF POLITICIANS AND LAW OFFICERS SUPPORT SHARIAH LAW

Posted byWP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

California Politicians and Law Enforcement Support Sharia Law

tumblr_m4i283Gqnj1qzozj1Earlier this year, a town hall meeting was held to determine the effects of Sharia law and to see whether or not it is something to be feared or embraced. In typical California fashion, the meeting was held on at a neutral location – the Islamic Society of Orange County.
To no one’s surprise, everyone at the meeting was told that Sharia law poses no threat to U.S. law. They were also told that there is absolutely no conflict between Sharia law and the U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
As I’ve often said, California is the land of nuts, fruits and flakes and the results of the town hall meeting only helps to reinforce that notion. U.S. Rep Maxine Waters (D-CA) urged the people and officials to support and embrace Sharia law. Note, this is the same Maxine Waters known for her outrageous statements and extreme liberalism. Waters’ district includes the Westchester are of Los Angeles along with Inglewood, Gardena, Florence-Graham and Hawthorne.
Another California politician that came out in support of Sharia Law was U.S. Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) whose district lies in central Orange County. Not only is Sanchez known as a flaming liberal who like other Dems votes for same-sex marriage and abortion, also is a ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee and Armed Services Committee. Her support of Sharia law should be alarming considering the important committees she serves on.
In addition to Waters and Sanchez, I was surprised to see Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and Deputy Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department Michael Downing also come out and urge support of Sharia law. Radical Truth founder Joe Carey commented to OneNewsNow on something that Downing said at the town hall meeting:
“Michael Downing made this particular statement — he said, ‘The influence of natural laws described by Cicero are the foundational building blocks of Jewish law, Christian law, and sharia law or Islamic law. That is just outlandish. Sharia law does not recognize natural law and does not recognize human rights. These statements by our officials are just reprehensible, and they ought to be held to account for them.”
I have to agree with Carey on his assessment of what Downing said. Sharia law allows for women and girls to be treated as property and not as a person. It allows their father, husbands and brothers to beat them and even kill them if they do anything to possibly bring shame to the family. This flies in the face of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and everything America stands for.
Worse yet, Sharia law allows for the beatings and killings of anyone that says or does anything against Allah, Mohammed or the Quran. Anyone that converts from Islam to any other religion automatically is condemned to death under Sharia law.
Muslims are gaining more and more support for Sharia law among the liberal Democrats of our nation. These liberals only want to destroy the biblically based foundation that America was built upon so they can openly enjoy their lustful sins like the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah did and like the citizens of ancient Rome. And look what happened to them. If America continues to embrace sexual depravity, lusts and biblically offensive ways of life including Sharia law, we will, without fail, suffer the same fate as Sodom, Gomorrah and Rome.


RUSSIAN'S IN OUR BACK YARD ? WHOSE WHATCHING THE POND MUCH LESS THE BORDER ?

Posted by BH
FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER WFZR FZTV

Report: Russian Nuclear Attack Subs Patrolled Gulf of Mexico Undetected
A file picture taken in Brest harbor, western France, on September 21, 2004, shows the Vepr Russian nuclear submarine of the Project 971 Shchuka-B type, or Akula-class (Shark) by NATO classification , the same type as the Nerpa Russian nuclear submarine. Russia has handed over the nuclear-powered attack submarine Nerpa to India at a ceremony that followed more than two years of delays, a source in the naval chief of staff told ITAR-TASS today. Credit: AFP/Getty Images
A Russian, nuclear-powered attack sub patrolled the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, off the U.S. coast, undetected for a month, a new startling report from the Washington Free Beacon says.
The sub, the Free Beacon says, is an Akula vessel loaded with cruise missiles and is one of the quietest in the Russian fleet.
From the report:
The stealth underwater incursion in the Gulf took place at the same time Russian strategic bombers made incursions into restricted U.S. airspace near Alaska and California in June and July, and highlights a growing military assertiveness by Moscow.
The submarine patrol also exposed what U.S. officials said were deficiencies in U.S. anti-submarine warfare capabilities—forces that are facing cuts under the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending by $487 billion over the next 10 years.
The Navy is in charge of detecting submarines, especially those that sail near U.S. nuclear missile submarines, and uses undersea sensors and satellites to locate and track them.
The fact that the Akula was not detected in the Gulf is cause for concern, U.S. officials said.
“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.
“It’s a very stealthy boat so it can sneak around and avoid detection and hope to get past any protective screen a boomer might have in place,” the official said, referring to the Navy nickname for strategic missile submarines.
If confirmed, this isn’t the first time the Russians have made such a bold move recently. In 2009, the New York Times reported two other nuclear-powered attack subs were found to have patrolled the eastern seaboard, about 200 miles off the coast.
“It’s a confounding situation arising from a lack of leadership in our dealings with Moscow,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) told the Free Beacon. “While the president is touting our supposed ‘reset’ in relations with Russia, Vladimir Putin is actively working against American interests, whether it’s in Syria or here in our own backyard.”

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR UNIONS HARMING BUSINESS

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Not Just Public Unions: Private Sector Unions Hurting Business

Not Just Public Unions: Private Sector Unions Hurting Business

Once again, big labor has shown that it can’t play nice. On Wednesday, American Airlines’ Allied Pilots Association (ALPA) rejected a concessionary contract offered by management. The contract included pay raises and a 13.5 percent stake in the company, but that apparently was not enough. Companies across the country have been forced to tighten their belts as profit margins disappeared during the recession, yet union workers have largely escaped any impact on their pay or benefits – even if that meant the company they worked for was put at a competitive disadvantage or even forced into bankruptcy. This is nothing new—routinely, across all industries we have seen unions fight tooth and nail for implausible contracts, while scoffing at those deemed reasonable by most everyone but themselves. In Chicago, for example, Hyatt employees refused to accept the same terms as their counterparts at Hilton and Starwood, staging a weeklong strike in order to strong-arm their employer into making a deal that, frankly, didn’t make economic sense. Because of the significant amount of power union bosses have obtained, if Hyatt’s employees can’t compete, then Hyatt will be forced to disappear – and their employees will wish they had their jobs back. It is no wonder why America’s support for unions is dissolving. According to a September 2011 survey by Gallup, 42 percent of Americans – an all-time high – want unions to have less influence. Moreover, most Americans believe union bosses look out for their own, but think labor unions do damage to the U.S. economy and actually hurt other workers who are not union members. Currently, American Airline’s labor cost represents 28 percent of its revenue—the highest of any major carrier, and consequently American pays approximately $600 million more in wages than its competitors do. These figures capture the extreme competitive disadvantage American’s current labor contracts are responsible for. Other carriers have gone bankrupt and renegotiated contracts that are mutually beneficial to both labor and management. Having never gone bankrupt, American has held out as long as it could, and the carrier cannot move forward with its present labor cost structure. The day after ALPA rejected the deal, the group’s president David Bates, considered by many to be an agreeable and pragmatic leader, was forced to resign because he had supported the deal that 61 percent of his pilots opposed. Bates felt that American Airline’s offer was the best possible option, and he appears to be right. After the vote, American requested that a federal bankruptcy judge allow it to revert to the contract terms of an April offer, which included smaller pay raises and no stake in the company. Over the last three years, thousands of companies have been forced to freeze wages or reduce benefits – not because they wanted to, but because the economy dictated that they had to. Those companies with union employees have not been allowed that flexibility and it’s bankrupting America. It’s time for the ALPA and big labor to face America’s economic reality and make the concessions (i.e., smaller pay increases) that are necessary to keep America running. 
 
 by wp:  Mr. DeMaura should take a closer look at the American Airlines debacle before making comments.  He obviously has not researched the many years prior to now that the Unions  involved with American Airlines have reduced pay scales and benefits to keep AA alive while AMR/AA have paid upper management many millions of dollars in " bonus's" .  It may seem fair to Mr. DeMaura but I find it sad that someone can support that kind of hypocrisy and then blame it all on the employees.  Check out the many years AA employees worked without contracts because AA management would not co-operate and talk.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

WILL WEAK AMERICANS DEFEAT PAUL RYAN??

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Will a Weakened American Character Defeat Paul Ryan?

Will a Weakened American Character Defeat Paul Ryan?

The Republican vice-presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, is the Democrats' political version of the Anti-Christ. He believes in self-reliance; the left believes in reliance on the state. His moral values are shaped by religion (Catholicism); the left is frightened by religious Christian politicians (and athletes, and members of the armed forces, and talk show hosts, and, for that matter, clergy). He believes in individualism; the left believes in collectivism. He believes in small government and powerful citizens; the left believes in large government and dependent citizens.
Nevertheless, the Democratic Party claims to be overjoyed at his selection as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.
The Democrats' glee -- even if exaggerated -- emanates from their belief that Americans will reject Ryan's economic and social plans to reduce the American debt, unleash private economic growth (the only type there is), and reform unsustainable government programs such as Medicare.
Democrats believe that if Americans perceive that their entitlements may be affected -- even if only beginning a decade from now, and even if the American debt is thereby cut by one third, and even if they, as well as the country, will ultimately benefit -- so many Americans have become so used to government benefits, the Republicans stand little chance of winning the upcoming elections.
In other words, and tragically, the left and Democrats are relying on the decline of the American character that left-wing policies have produced (not only here but in Latin America, Europe, and everywhere else). The Democrats are hoping that older Americans are (irrationally) frightened by Medicare reform even though these reforms will not affect them, and that younger Americans will likewise reject these reforms because they are counting on receiving Medicare as it now exists.
Left-wing social policies are predicated on giving more and more Americans more and more benefits and demanding less and less from them.
The left's party, the Democratic Party, seeks to have the state pay for Americans' health care, give record numbers of Americans food stamps (now in a form similar to ATM and credit cards so that no stigma be involved), provide their children with school meals and provide women with child care and contraceptives, while enabling more and more Americans to pay no federal taxes to pay for any of these benefits.
The negative impact these policies have had on the character of Americans is indisputable. Every parent -- and probably most adults who are not parents -- knows what giving things they have not earned and demanding nothing from them in return produces: spoiled children.
Left-wing, Democratic Party policies have negatively impacted the American character in another way. Whenever possible, the left and the Democrats have de-stigmatized irresponsible behavior.
One example is women who give birth to and raise children without fathers in their children's lives. This past Sunday's New York Times opinion section featured another attack on those who stigmatize out of wedlock birth and single motherhood.
Another example is the cultural left's glorification of graffiti -- once regarded as vandalism of public and private property -- as "street art."
A third example is how difficult the Democratic Party and the left-wing education establishment have made it for teachers and principals to discipline disruptive and foul-mouthed students. The Department of Education has just declared education the "civil rights" issue of our generation" because black students are disproportionately suspended and otherwise punished by school officials. The effect? Black young people who abuse their teachers and schools feel empowered to continue their anti-social behavior.
At the same time, the left works to weaken the single most effective device for character building in American history: Judeo-Christian religions. Increasingly, the American motto "In God We Trust" has been replaced by "In Government We Trust" and "In Experts We Trust."
Since the Democrats could not win any national election with the votes of liberals alone -- according to Gallup, self-described liberals constitute just 21 percent of the electorate -- the great question of the 2012 American presidential election is this: Have the left and Democratic Party sufficiently weakened the character of enough Americans to enable the demonization of Paul Ryan to lead Barack Obama to victory?
I don't believe so. But given the enormity of the national debt incurred by this administration, its spectacular failure to improve the nation's economy, and its commitment to weakening American defense, if there were a better explanation for a Democratic victory, I would welcome it.

7 THINGS TO EXPECT IF OBAMA RE-ELECTED

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

7 Things to Expect If Obama Is Elected to a Second Term

7 Things to Expect If Obama Is Elected to a Second Term

"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." -- Barack Obama
So far, the message of the Obama campaign essentially seems to be, "I'm unable to effectively govern because Republicans won't do everything I want. Re-elect me so I can deliver more of the same. Oh, also Paul Ryan wants to push old people off a cliff while Mitt Romney will give you cancer." That doesn't tell you much about what Obama would try to do in his second term, but given that he appears to be largely indifferent to the law and the wishes of the American people, there's no reason to be hopeful. Furthermore, given how deferential the Supreme Court has been to Obama and the fact that the GOP would undoubtedly be more willing to go along to get along if it’s defeated this year, the damage Obama could do in a second term would be incalculable.
1) America's credit rating slides further: Under Barack Obama's leadership, America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time since 1917. That means our country is now more of a gamble to loan money to than Microsoft. Given that Barack Obama has shown zero inclination to get spending under control or seriously tackle entitlement reform, our rating would be practically guaranteed to drop at least another notch. In other words, this country would soon have the same S&P rating as Qatar and the Czech Republic.
2) The middle class will see massive tax increases: Congress has been at an impasse because Republicans want to cut spending and Democrats want to raise taxes. Despite all the talk you hear about the "Buffet Rule," it would produce a comparatively small amount of actual revenue because the rich are close to tapped out. The real money is in the middle class. If we're not going to cut our escalating spending, then taxes on the middle class will have to soar like an eagle fired out of a cannon.
3) Gas and energy prices will be dramatically higher: Obama once said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." His Energy Secretary Steven Chu added, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Is it any wonder that Obama won't drill ANWR, has blocked the Keystone Pipeline, and has slow-walked offshore drilling? Obama views sky high energy prices as a feature, not a bug and if he doesn't have to face the voters again, expect to see energy prices lift off like the manned space shuttles Obama permanently grounded.
4) Obamacare goes into effect: If the GOP controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, it should be able to gut Obamacare and keep it from ever going into effect. On the other hand if Obama is reelected, there's a better chance of the NAACP endorsing Mitt Romney than there is that health care reform will ever be repealed.
5) The Supreme Court moves to the left: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79, Antonin Scalia is 76, Anthony Kennedy is 75, and Stephen Breyer is 73. Replacing Ginsburg or Breyer with 50 year old liberals would be bad enough, but imagine Obama selecting a replacement for Scalia or Kennedy. If that happens, Obama would have five guaranteed votes on the Supreme Court for anything he wants to do. Once we get to that point, the Constitution might as well not even exist.
6) Get ready for open borders: Barack Obama has already bypassed Congress to implement the DREAM ACT by fiat, he's planning to break the law to hand out work permits to illegal aliens, he's openly proclaimed that ICE won't pick up many of the illegals detained by Arizona, and illegals are now being released by the border patrol sans proof if they claim they went to high school here. We're very close to having an open border policy right now for any illegal alien who hasn't committed a felony here and in an Obama second term, it's fair to assume that the primary qualification for citizenship would be the ability to sneak into the country.
7) Gun control will be a priority: Barack Obama filled out a "questionnaire in which he called for banning 'the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns'" and he let everyone know what he thought about gun owners even before he was elected with his notorious "bitter clingers" quip. His campaign website doesn't even have a section addressing 2nd Amendment issues, perhaps because Obama would have to admit that he's already calling for a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban. Without an election to keep him in check, expect Barack Obama to "evolve" on gun control the same way he did on gay marriage.

UNION GREED AND POLITICAL APATHY. THE DEATH KNELL OF OUR CITIES

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Union Greed and Politician Apathy are Killing Cities


p>If you follow the rule in life to follow the money, the money trail increasingly is leading to a union pension, a union wage or a union contract. And it’s putting America’s cities out of business.
As more municipalities begin to eye bankruptcy proceedings as a way out of their financial mess, many believe that one great advantage of bankruptcy proceedings is that it will allow the nullification of fat union wages, pensions and other benefits that taxpayers in the private sector don’t get.
But if the example of Stockton, California serves as a guide, city officials would rather screw taxpayers and bondholders than take the union-led public employees off the state-sponsored tit.
And of course they would.
Public employee unions make public campaign contributions to politicians precisely for the exigency when taxpayers’ interest conflict with the interests of public employees.
Follow the money.


“The debate centers on Stockton, California, the largest city in the nation to declare bankruptcy,” reports Bloomberg. “In its initial proposal to creditors, the city would fully fund its pension system while walking away from $124 million in debt from pension-obligation bonds [Editor’s emphasis] it floated in 2007.”
So they are defaulting on the money they borrowed last time to get out the pension mess that they didn’t fix when they had the chance the first time.
Now they are contemplating a kind of municipal bankruptcy with none of the messy benefits of long-term financial relief.
Continues Bloomberg:
Stockton couldn’t meet its financial obligations to pay for enhanced pension benefits five years ago, so it borrowed the money [Editor’s emphasis]. Rather than cut unsustainable benefit levels while it has the chance to do so now, officials there would rather default on the $103 million it owes Assured (AGO) Guaranty.
Stockton and other Californian cities have slashed public services, thus putting the demands of public employees above the concerns of taxpayers and residents who rely on public services. Now we see that even bondholders don’t stand a chance when their interests collide with those of public-sector unions.
It’s easier to take on an offshore firm than confront CalPers [California Public Employees’ Retirement System], which had threatened to wage a protracted court battle against another Californian city, Vallejo, if it decided to reduce pension promises after its 2008 bankruptcy. Stockton officials no doubt are aware of that threat.
Why not screw the bondholders?
Isn’t this the precedent established by our president when he gifted $25 billion to the UAW pension plan- which killed the automakers to begin with- while giving the in GM bondholders the shaft in extra-legal bankruptcy proceedings?
The taxpayers will now pick up the tab.
Let me repeat: The taxpayers WILL pick up the tab.
“If municipalities begin to view bankruptcy as a ‘palatable solution’ for financial troubles that would be a ‘major negative paradigm shift for the municipal sector to the detriment of bondholders,’ Moody's [credit rating service warned] according to Reuters.
And for taxpayers too.
Because it has generally been assumed that the general obligations of municipalities would be honored with tax revenues, come hell or high-water.
It’s known as a moral obligation.
But don’t let a little thing like morality get in the way of the unions and public employees.
"It may signal a diminution in the traditional stigma attached to bankruptcy,” Moody’s concluded, “and a shift in how cities regard the sanctity of debt service obligations."
So if municipalities see bankruptcy as a viable option to get out of paying general obligation bonds, interest rates will go up for all municipalities to reflect the greater risk.
Interest rates will be “enhanced,” in other words, in order to finance the “enhanced pension benefits” of public employees.
Morgan Stanley is already advising clients to avoid state and local bond issues and be much more selective about municipal bonds in general.
"We are averse to state and local credit, and we advocate increased selectivity in GOs (general obligation bonds)," the [Morgan Stanley] researchers said according to Reuters.
"Structural challenges persist, even under optimistic growth scenarios," they said. "For states, tax growth is unlikely to overcome rising costs from long-term liability burdens and spending mandates while locals face constraints of state aid cuts and weaker tax bases from lower home values."
And to add to that, municipalities across the country will face higher interest rates for things like schools, roads and infrastructure.
So if you see your local public employee union reps, go up and thank them so much for the higher cost to finance government at time of record low interest rates.
Just tell them you have a moral obligation to thank them.
But break no laws in doing so.

10 REASONS NOT TO RE-ELECT OBAMA PART 1

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Top 10 Reasons Not To Re-elect Obama (Part 1 of 3)

Top 10 Reasons Not To Re-elect Obama (Part 1 of 3)

On Feb. 2, 2009, President Barack Obama explained his chance to fix the economy to host Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today": "I will be held accountable. I've got four years. ... If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."
Here are the top 10 reasons I believe President Obama shouldn't sit a single day beyond his one term in the Oval Office:
10) Obama's economic actions have failed to lower the unemployment rate in the U.S. to less than 8 percent for the past 42 months, which is a record.
Nearly four years into his presidency, Obama's economic progress was reported on Aug. 3 by Reuters: "Details of the household survey, from which the unemployment rate is drawn, gave a downbeat assessment of the labor market, with the share of the population that has a job falling to near cycle lows. In addition, the labor force participation rate, or the percentage of Americans who either have a job or are looking for one, fell to 63.7 percent last month from 63.8 percent. That is a sign of low confidence in the labor market. Data last week showed the economy grew at an annual pace of 1.5 percent in the second quarter, also far short of the 2.5 percent rate needed to keep the unemployment rate stable."
9) The Obama administration's out-of-control spending has led America to the economic brink and destroyed our country's credit rating.
In 2009, Obama spoke out of one side of his mouth when giving financial advice to the people in New Hampshire: "When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash (in) Vegas when you're trying to save for college."
But he then spoke out of the other side of his mouth when he informed the American public that he was proposing a record-breaking $3.8 trillion budget for 2011, which equates to spending $7.3 million a minute. (The federal budget was only $1.9 trillion in 2001.)
Tragically, the president expects Americans to live one way financially (fiscally prudently) and the federal government to live another (extravagantly wildly). Not so surprisingly, the day after the president proposed his 2011 budget, Moody's Investors Service announced that his fiscal policies "test the AAA boundaries" and pushed the U.S. government's credit rating below those of Canada, Germany and even France.
8) Obama's reckless spending and fiscal policies have added more to the national debt than most U.S. presidents combined -- roughly $6 trillion in his first term in office (making the total debt nearly $16 trillion and, by White House projections alone, $21.3 trillion by the end of fiscal 2017, $25 trillion in 2021 and $25.9 trillion in 2022).
In 2007, when I began writing my New York Times best-seller "Black Belt Patriotism," unemployment was less than 5 percent; the annual federal budget was about $2.9 trillion; the federal deficit was $161 billion; and the national debt was $9 trillion.
Today unemployment is stuck at 8.3 percent; the federal budget is $3.8 trillion; the national deficit is $1.3 trillion; and the national debt quickly is approaching a staggering $16 trillion.
And to add insult to injury, our vassalage to other countries deepens as they bankroll increasing amounts of U.S. debt. More than one-half of our public debt is held by private investors in foreign lands.
The International Business Times reported recently: "China overtook Japan as the largest holder of U.S. national debt in 2009. As of December (the most recent data available), it held about 23.1 percent, or $1.15 trillion, of all foreign investment in U.S. privately held federal debt, according to a newly released report by the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO. ... Without monetary policy change, the CBO warned in its 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook on June 5, the U.S. federal debt could be twice the size of the U.S. gross domestic product by 2037."
America, is that really the burden you want to place upon yourselves and your children?
7) Obama has detrimentally increased not only the costs of entitlements but also the dependency of citizens upon government subsidies rather than empower the people's autonomy, responsibility and freedom.
Obama has been called the "food stamp president" because more federal grocery subsidies have been given out under his presidency than under most others combined. A record 44.7 million people, or 1 in 7 Americans, were on food stamps last year, up 33 percent from fiscal 2009. But far more than that, this president has radically increased government entitlement expansions.
The Heritage Foundation documented that Obama's 2011 budget increased total welfare spending to $953 billion, a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in 2008. And over the next decade, welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion.
The Congressional Budget Office recently released updated figures that reveal how Obamacare will cost twice as much as the price tag first soft-lobbed at the American public, from $900 billion to $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.
6) Obama demeans private enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit -- the very heart of America.
In 2009, right after taking office, President Obama emphatically stated that "only government" is our savior, and then he supported his socialistic platform through multiple company and corporate bailouts.
Recently, Obama reiterated his anti-individual and -capitalistic beliefs when he defined the "somebody" who's responsible for the success of your business as being the federal government: "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
The Wall Street Journal even confessed that the president is "subordinating to government the individual enterprise and risk-taking that underlies prosperity."
(Next week, I will continue my list of the top 10 reasons not to re-elect President Obama.)

ILLEGAL VOTER FRAUD? SAY WHAT? SAYS THE DEMS

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

When 1,099 Felons Vote In A Race Won By 312 Ballots

When 1,099 Felons Vote In A Race Won By 312 Ballots

In the eyes of the Obama administration, most Democratic lawmakers and left-leaning editorial pages across the country, voter fraud is a problem that doesn't exist. Allegations of fraud, they say, are little more than pretexts conjured up by Republicans to justify voter ID laws designed to suppress Democratic turnout. That argument becomes much harder to make after reading a discussion of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race in "Who's Counting?", a new book by conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not only exists but can be critical to the outcome of an important race.
In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.
During the controversy, a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons -- all ineligible to vote -- who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.
Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.
Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn't require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.
And that's just the question of voting by felons. Minnesota Majority also found all sorts of other irregularities that cast further doubt on the Senate results.
The election was particularly important because Franken's victory gave Senate Democrats a 60th vote in favor of President Obama's national health care proposal -- the deciding vote to overcome a Republican filibuster. If Coleman had kept his seat, there would have been no 60th vote, and no Obamacare.
Voter fraud matters when contests are close. When an election is decided by a huge margin, no one can plausibly claim fraud made the difference. But the Minnesota race was excruciatingly close. And then, in the Obamacare debate, Democrats could not afford to lose even a single vote. So if there were any case that demonstrates that voter fraud both exists and has real consequences, it is Minnesota 2008.
Yet Democrats across the country continue to downplay the importance of the issue. Last year, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced "the gauzy accusation that voter fraud is somehow a problem, when over and over again it has been proven that you're more likely to get hit by lightning than you are to (be) a victim of voter fraud."
Wasserman Schultz and her fellow Democrats are doing everything they can to stop reasonable anti-fraud measures, like removing ineligible voters from the rolls and voter ID. Through it all, they maintain they are simply defending our most fundamental right, the right to vote.
But voter fraud involves that right, too. "When voters are disenfranchised by the counting of improperly cast ballots or outright fraud, their civil rights are violated just as surely as if they were prevented from voting," write Fund and von Spakovsky. "The integrity of the ballot box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to it."

THE PAUL RYAN CHOICE

Posted by WP

FREE ZONE MEDIA CENTER  WFZR/TV

Click here to find out more!

The Paul Ryan Choice

The Paul Ryan Choice

Governor Mitt Romney's choice of Congressman Paul Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate is one of those decisions that seem obvious -- if not inevitable -- in retrospect, even though it was by no means obvious to most of us beforehand.
Anyone who wants to get a quick sense of who Paul Ryan is should watch a short video of a February 2010 meeting in which Congressman Ryan politely, but devastatingly, "schools" Barack Obama on the utter fraudulence of the statistics that the Obama administration was using to claim that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. That video is available on the Drudge Report.
As a long-time member, and now chairman, of the Budget Committee in the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan is thoroughly familiar with both the facts and the fictions in the federal government's budget. In recent years, the fictions have grown much bigger than the facts. But, as Congressman Ryan reminded the president, hiding spending is not the same as reducing spending.
If this year's election is going to be decided on the basis of hard facts, the Obama administration is doomed. But the Obama campaign is well aware of that, which is why we are hearing so many distracting innuendoes and outright lies about such peripheral issues as what Mitt Romney is supposed to have done while running Bain Capital -- or even what is supposed to have happened at Bain Capital, years after Mitt Romney was long gone.
The Obama campaign's big smear, about how Romney is supposed to have caused a woman to die of cancer, has been exposed as a lie by CNN, hardly a Republican network. What smears like this show is that the Obama administration cannot run on its track record, so it has to run on distractions from the country's real problems.
When Senator Harry Reid claims that Mitt Romney hasn't paid his income taxes, and demands that Governor Romney disprove this unsubstantiated allegation, that raises an obvious question as to why the Internal Revenue Service has not prosecuted Romney, instead of leaving that to a partisan politician in an election year.
What makes this a farce is that Senator Reid himself has not released his own income tax records, while claiming that Romney's release of only two years of his income tax records is not enough, even though it has been enough for other candidates in other years.
If Mitt Romney releases all his tax records going back to his childhood, it will not put a stop to this fishing expedition, much less bring an apology when those records show nothing illegal. It will just provide more material for making more distracting claims to change the subject from the track record of the Obama administration.
When Ronald Reagan ran against President Jimmy Carter back in 1980, he asked the question that should be asked of the voters when any president is seeking reelection: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?"
Four years later, when Reagan ran for reelection, he implicitly asked and answered that same question in a campaign commercial titled "Morning in America," which listed the ways the country was better off than it had been four years earlier. Don't look for any "Morning in America" ads from Obama. "Mourning in America" might be more appropriate.
This election is a test, not just of the opposing candidates but of the voting public. If what they want are the hard facts about where the country is, and where it is heading, they cannot vote for more of the same for the next four years.
But, if what they want is emotionally satisfying rhetoric and a promise to give them something for nothing, to be paid for by taxing somebody else, then Obama is their man. This is not to say that the public will in fact get something for nothing or that rich people will just pay higher taxes, when it is easy for them to escape taxation by investing overseas -- creating jobs overseas.
Even if most Americans do not have their own taxes raised, that means little, if they end up paying other people's taxes in the higher prices of goods and services that pass along the higher taxes imposed on businesses.
There are no doubt voters who will vote on the basis of believing that Obama "cares" more about them. But that is a faith which passeth all understanding. The political mirage of something for nothing, from leaders who "care," has ruined many a nation.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...