"God put me on Earth to eradicate cancer and liberalism.
I'm starting with liberalism."

50 Years Later, Reagan Still Has It Right

3637557774_2871e1e5e4_b

3637557774_2871e1e5e4_b

Fifty years ago today, Ronald Reagan delivered one of his most important and foresighted speeches, the “A Time for Choosing” speech, delivered October 27th 1964.  It was just before the election of 1964 and the concerns he had then are the same as we have today, except democrats are long gone and only the refuse from the American Communist Party is left to carry on.  As you read his speech, think about how relevant his words are today:

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government”—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85 percent of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21 percent increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming—that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how—who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer—and they’ve had almost 30 years of it—shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now—so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have—and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs—do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things—we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now—we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due—that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees—federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died—because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the—or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men—that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy—and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer—not an easy answer—but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace—and you can have it in the next second—surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face—that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand—the ultimatum. And what then—when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin—just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this—this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits—not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

Harry Reid Receives Obamacare Verdict: Gets $4,500 Increase in Cos

the-democrats-honest-leadership1

the-democrats-honest-leadership1

Harry Reid liked the insurance he had but he couldn’t keep it and now he has to pay $4,500 a year for less coverage.  True, he and his wife now have now get free contraceptives and baby care and prenatal care but Reid is older than air and twice as polluted.

“Under Obamacare, my insurance costs me about $4,500 more than it did before.  Yes, because it is age-related and it wasn’t like that before.”

Reid was defending his giving of special consideration to his staff.  But if Harry and his staff truly believe Obamacare is great, why do they fight so hard to be exempted from it?  Because now that it’s passed, they know what’s in it.

“I followed the Affordable Care Act.  It is the law. The law says that if you have committee staff, leadership staff, they stay where they are. If you have other staff, which is most everyone, they go to the exchanges.”

So far, Reid is the only congressional leader to exempt his staff.  Both Boehner and McConnell have said they will not exempt their staffs and their staffs weren’t for the bill.

Forbes prepared a study which shows that tens of millions will see a huge rate hike…just like Harry.

California County Suspends the Constitution and Bill of Rights

santa c lara

santa c lara

Santa Clara County, the heart of the Silicon Valley has revoked the Constitution along with the Bill of Rights.  Norina Mooney, who has spent the last 20 years of her life working for Santa Clara County, made a comment to a fellow employee at the water fountain about the millions who has had their insurance cancelled by Obamacare.  Just a short while later, she found herself in her supervisor’s office, being ragged on about her derogatory statement about Obamacare.

The commissar told her that in the future, if she felt mthe need to criticize “The One” or any of his policies, she would have to leave government property to do it.  The commissar explained that politics has no place in the office.  Mooney finds this very strange, since the office is filled with Obama memorabilia.  And at election time, the employees wear Obama clothing.  This seems to indicate that politics in the office is perfectly acceptable as long as they are the “right” politics.

Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus noted:

“Just when we thought the disastrous ObamaCare  roll out couldn’t get much worse, the county of Santa Clara is compounding those problems by claiming that criticism is off-limits,” Dacus said. “Liberals and conservatives alike should be able to agree that this type of censorship is chilling and unconstitutional.”

Pacific Justice sent a letter to the county commissars, who blew it off.  They are looking to file  lawsuit

EXPLOSIVE New Development in Washington Naval Yard Shooting

Navy Yard Shooting

Navy Yard Shooting

Bipartisan outrage swept through the in the Senate as  Elaine Kaplan, of the Office of Personnel Management, testified that the company that ran the background check on Washington Naval Yard Shooter, Aaron Alexis, did not even attempt to get a copy of his arrest record from the Seattle police, but rather relied on the state record, which is very generic and did not include Alexis’ history of anger management problems.  That would have sent red flags into the air.

Both Republicans and Democrats were shocked by the disclosure.  The Democrats are in a precarious position here, as it is their party who have dropped background checks on illegal aliens,  Navigators in the Obamacare program, and whose president’s administration has warned companies, through the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)not to run criminal background checks on prospective new employees.  They can feign outrage at the USIS for this oversight, but what happens when we begin seeing crimes committed by those whose backgrounds were intentionally not checked as a matter of policy by their party?

Claire McCaskill, D-Mo, took aim at Kaplan.

 “Well, if a police department won’t give us a report, we’ve checked the box.”

“Now, I get it that we can’t go out and do one-on-one on every application for clearance.  But the notion that you’re calling what you’re doing quality control, Ms. Kaplan, is probably, I think, offensive.”

Kaplan replied:

“Yes, we all missed something, to be sure, but we did what was required.  We conducted the investigation that was required by the investigative standards. … Should we be required to get police reports, for example? Should we be required to get mental health information even from someone who has a secret as opposed to a top secret clearance? All these things need to be looked at. But it was not, in our view, a case of malfeasance … We believe the contractor did what they were supposed to do.”

Certainly, if you look at the EEOC directive, they did all that was required of them.  That directive said that you cannot use someone’s previous criminal record against them and if you are required to ignore background checks and hire a sexual deviant to work in your high school, or have a Navigator for Obamacare, with a history of identity theft, why not hire a mentally imbalanced man buying guns and ammo for the federal government?

In the USIS report to the Office of Personnel Management, the incident from three years ago,  was mentioned but instead of being described as Alexis shooting out the tires of the car, the report read, “deflated tires”, which may be technically correct but it’s like saying Bonnie and Clyde died of natural causes, because when you get shot that many times, naturally you die.

The USIS, who vetted Alexis, also vetted Edward Snowden.  I wonder if they also vetted Obama.  The USIS have now replaced their CEO and revised their rules as they apply to background checks.  For the families of the 12 victims gunned down by Aaron Alexis, that will be of little comfort.

Tom Coburn Calls Reid an A-hole..Share if You Agree

DADT-aholemeter2

DADT-aholemeter2

According to the New York Daily News, Sen Tom Coburn, who was attending a fundraiser in New York, sponsored by the New York Young Republicans called Harry Reid, an absolute asshole.  A thing like that can get you sued for definition of character.

Coburn named other democratic senators with whom he has a good relationship, including New York’s Chuck Schumer.

In 2012, speaking of Harry Reid, Coburn said, “If you want to ask why the Senate isn’t working, there’s one reason; it’s called Harry Reid.  Incompetent and incapable of carrying on the leadership in the Senate.”  He later apologized for his choice of words.

Reid is known for being rude and crude himself.  He has many times expressed his disdain for overweight people.  He complains of “smelly tourists” and once told a cameraman his breath stunk.

Coburn’s exact words were, “There’s no comity with Harry Reid. I think he’s an absolute a–hole.”

Georgia Business to Dump Employees into Exchanges and Pay Fine

boutique6

boutique6

Debbie and Larry Underkoffler, opened a boutique staffing agency in the middle of the Obama recession and have always taken good care of their employees, but thanks to Obamacare, they are forced into throwing them to the wolves.   They have 400 temporary workers and want to add another 200 this year, but buying them all an Obamacare policy is too expensive and they have decided to pay the $2,000 apiece fine for not providing coverage.

Although they only have 18 fulltime employees, under Obamacare rules, temporaries who work over 30 hours a week are eligible for coverage.  That would take them to about 200 employees and put them over the top and into mandatory coverage.

The Onderkofflers worked hard to build up their business.  “I would bake sourdough bread, and I made homemade strawberry jam, and deliver it to my prospects.  I would also deliver homemade cookies.”   And their 18 full time employees get generous healthcare benefits, which they will now lose since Obamacare does not allow a company to have different policies between full time workers and part timers.

It looks like we will have to just pay the penalties.”

By paying the penalties, it will cost their business $400,000 a year which greatly diminish their profit margin, but not as badly as the 2 million it would cost to insure them.  Some call this an unintended consequence of the law, but I submit that this is exactly what the law was designed to do and once everyone is in the government exchange, they will convert it to a single payer system, like the ones that work so well in Canada and Great Britain.

With a year’s delay in the employer mandate, they are hoping for some relief with the current rules but neither is optimistic.

“I haven’t seen any thus far. And certainly with the situation in Washington right now, they seem to be kicking the can down the road.”

 

Al Gore Snookers US Taxpayers

al-gore-speaks-1-29

al-gore-speaks-1-29

In 2009, the Obama administration decided to repay Al Gore for his help in the campaign by loaning Fisker  529 million dollars to build cars in Finland.  Al Gore owns a large stake in that company.  It’s like playing poker with borrowed money you don’t have to repay if you lose.  Even after it became obvious that Fisker was a bust, the money kept flowing and their line of credit was continued after they had used up 192 million of it.

Now, the federal government is planning to auction or outright sell the 192 million debt to a private company for possibly 15 cents on the dollar, leaving taxpayers 163.2 million dollars poorer.  Fisker built 239 cars, which sell for $109,000 dollars each.  That’s only 26.05 million dollars worth of cars.  And to add insult to injury, they had to recall all 239 of them because their A123 ion batteries created a fire hazard.

Coincidentally, A123 received 133 million of a 249 million dollar grant before they declared bankruptcy and were sold to a Chinese company, Wanxiang.  And the best part (except for taxpayers of course) is that Wanxiang gets to keep the equipment purchased with the grant money, without returning one red cent.  A123 also made the batteries for the Chevy Volt that had a tendency to burn.

And since the program was so successful, the Obama administration has decided to restart it.  Sen Thune, R-SD has decided to fight the administration and keep the program closed.  And although the program will do nothing for manufacturing or the economy, it could answer an age old question, man has been curious for years about.  Exactly how much money will a rat hole hold?

The beauty of the deal for Gore and his partners is, if Fisker became a huge success, the would only have to pay back what they borrowed and if it flops, the taxpayers pick up the tab.

 

Cheating With Ease in Colorado Recall Elections

morse giron

 

morse gironJohn Morse and Angela Giron are being recalled, tomorrow and they may survive based on new rules that allow cheating in Colorado.  You can live in one county and vote in another one.  How?  Easily.  You just notify the county’s voting board that you are planning to move to that county soon.  No proof is needed and no one will ever check up on you later.  Coincidentally, or not, the bill was sponsored by Sen Angela Giron.

To prove his point Jon Caldera, did just that and was able to vote in another county, although he has no intention of actually moving anywhere.  Some democrats are calling for his arrest, even though, just last month, they called for the Secretary of State to resign, when he announced he was kicking 155 illegal immigrants from the voting registration, when he discovered they had all gotten out of jury duty, by declaring that they weren’t American citizens. Caldera said he was  proving how easy cheating in tomorrow’s contests will be.

Morse and Giron were recalled, after their constituents got angry over their support for new draconian gun laws.  Caldera observed that the new law allows anyone who has lived in Colorado to vote, if they’ve lived in Colorado for at least 22 days, in the two affected counties.  Nice trick if you can pull it off.  Didn’t you see that Eric Holder?

 

The Obama Recovery is Worse Than Bush Recession

blog_economy_word_cloud_q4_2011

 

When you consider the fact that the recession had more to do with Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barney Frank, than it did George Bush, the fact that the Bush recession was much better than the Obama recovery is a stark look at the incompetence of the current administration.

OBAMA’blog_economy_word_cloud_q4_2011S AMERICA

The Bush recession ended in June of 2009 At that time the labor participation rate was   65.7%.  During the “recovery” the participation rate dropped to 63.4%.  That’s a huge nosedive and represents a 34 year low.  That would have been at a time when women weren’t fully in the workforce yet.  Historically, after a recession, the economy adds jobs and the participation rate climbs.  That has not happened with the Obama administration.  Instead of concentrating on jobs and the economy, Obama and the democrats were busy working on what now is obviously, a deeply flawed and overly expensive Obamacare bill, that could very well leave more people without insurance that we had before the bill passed.

They concentrated on gays and illegal aliens, while leaving black America in ruins.  On the food chain it’s liberal elites, illegal aliens, gays, unions, campaign donors, then American citizens, 50 feet of cow manure, then blacks.  But come next election, who will they vote for?

Income levels have dropped also.  During the recession incomes dropped an average of $1,002 dollars.  During the Obama “recovery” wages dropped $2,380 dollars.  ($2380 is more than $1002 for you NEA educated liberals out there.)  Remind liberals of these facts next time they tell you that Obama saved the country.

Bush added 5 trillion to the debt in 8 years and Obama has added over 7 trillion in less than 5 years.  Unemployment averaged 5.2% under Bush and 8.2% under Obama.  We can’t take any more recovery.

 

Common Core Schools or Reeducation Centers?

CommonCoreRottenCorer

CommonCoreRottenCorer

In China, they are called reeducation camps.  In Gaza, they are called Camp Jihad.  In Nazi Germany, it was the Hitler Youth.  In Obama’s America, it is called Common Core.  But as the bard, William Shakespeare once wrote, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet“.  Likewise, indoctrination by any other name is propaganda.

Common Core would not only allow the government and the elitists to rewrite history and our moral code, it would also deprive our children of innovation and the freedom of thought.  I remember many years ago, when I was living in the New York City Metro area, New York City schools began teaching that homosexuality is normal and healthy.  Opponents criticized the reading of such books as, “Heather Has Two Mommies” and “Daddy’s Roommate”, as teaching that homosexuality is normal and should be embraced.  Now, nearly 30 years later, that thought is embedded into our national discussions.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that four years ago, I myself, came out of the closet and today I proudly hail that I am a flaming heterosexual.  I think I knew it from an early age, but tried to hide it from my peers, to save myself embarrassment and ridicule.  It took me a long time to get over the stigma of actually desiring the company of beautiful young women.  I fought the urge but there was nothing I could do.  The prejudice I have felt because of my heterosexuality has only served to make me stronger.

Common Core opens the door to the indoctrination of our youth.  When I was young (I must have a really fantastic memory) I learned about the structure of our government and the Declaration of Independence, and of course the Constitution.  We were taught to be proud of our country and who we were and what we stood for.  Today, the elite being unable to raise their own status have decided the only course of action is to destroy the status of what made us Americans.

In those days, an education was meant to broaden our minds and give us the tools to succeed.  Today the successful are derided and called greedy and callous.  How did we get here?  We allowed ourselves to be hijacked by the liberal academia.  As the Nazis, Soviets, and the Chinese knew, the best time to shape a person’s beliefs is when they are young and impressionable.  And after many years of stealth indoctrination, the liberal elites are ready to come out of the shadows and indoctrinate our youth before our very eyes.  They understand that children, especially teenagers are rebellious by nature, and that good or even great parenting is not enough to counteract their teachings.

If you check out the Common Core website, it proudly hails that CC was not the product of the federal government, but was rather the culmination of common educational goals.  Diane Ravitch, who was appointed as the Assistant Secretary of Education by both Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush, disagrees.  It is her contention that the standards for CC were very much a federal program, emanating from Achieve and the  National Governors Association, both of whom were funded by the Gates Foundation.  CC was neither grassroots or a states plan but was very firmly entrenched in Washington D. C.

And although CC is called a voluntary program, any state which does not participate in CC, is deemed ineligible for “Race to the Top” educational grants from the Department of Education.  Breathing is voluntary also, but if you don’t participate, the outcome could be dire.  States who reject CC also reject billions of dollars for their schools.  It can hardly be considered voluntary when you have a gun pressed against your temple.

Under CC, reading of the classics is deemphasized, and in it’s place, are informational texts, including court rulings, and government documents.  And who interprets the court decisions and government documents?  The NEA does.  If a student wishes a passing grade, they have to give the answer their teacher wants.  We are trading the Catcher in the Rye for Roe V Wade.

(BTW….I was just wondering.  Could we save the lives of millions of innocent babies if we began referring to them as “guest children” or “undocumented babies”?)

The math curriculum is a mess.  The committee setting up standards, only had one mathematician,  Professor R. James Milgram of Stanford University, and he refused to sign off on the standards, and I might know why.  In CC, the answer is not important.  If you multiply 3 times 4 and your answer is 11, you could get the answer right.  It seems under CC, the answer is not as important as knowing how and why you got the wrong answer.  (This explains why so many people still like Obama.  He hasn’t had a correct answer yet but he knows how and why we got in this mess.  So do I.  It’s called an election)

Watch the instructor explain the reasoning.  Some assembly and duct tape required.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/19/rumor-check-4-x-3-11-did-school-official-really-say-it-doesnt-matter-if-students-get-simple-math-wrong-under-common-core/

There is some good news and some bad news.  The good news is the students will sing the national anthem every morning before class.  The bad news is the new anthem is Barack Obama mmm mmm mmm.

 


Hit Counter provided by Los Angeles Windows