Categories
Archives
Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

Archive for the ‘THE GOOD DUDES’ Category

Dinesh D’Souza SLAMS Pres Obama’s ➡ Obama Sees America As An Evil Child Molester Or Serial Killer

POST OFFICE REFORM IS REAL and IT’S FROM DARRELL ISSA

post_office-300x240
Darrell Issa has been waging an under-the-radar campaign to save the Postal Service for years now. The most recent iteration of his plan, the Postal Reform Act, would save $17 billion over the next ten years for the USPS. The major changes would be giving the USPS the ability to eliminate Saturday delivery and encouraging curbside rather than doorstep drop-offs.

Additionally, it would eliminate what the postal workers’ union has claimed is the major deficit on the USPS budget: a requirement that the USPS pre-fund retirement benefits to the tune of over $6 billion per year.

In both eliminating the pre-funding requirement and giving the USPS the ability to be more flexible with their mandates, Darrell Issa’s reform should hit all the right buttons. And the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget wrote up the CBO score for Issa’s bill favorably:

The bulk of the savings would come from two changes in mail delivery. The first would authorize the Postal Service to eliminate Saturday mail delivery, which CBO expects it would do, saving $11 billion over ten years. The second would require the USPS to increase the use of curbside and centralized delivery, rather than delivering directly to people’s doors. This change would save $8 billion. In addition, the bill would save smaller amounts from eliminating annual appropriations to reimburse USPS for free and reduced-rate mail ($800 million) and from increasing rates on bypass mail delivered to Alaska ($170 million).

The Postal Reform Act represents a responsible approach to fixing the Postal Service’s finances. Congress should not hesitate to act, especially given the trouble the USPS is having in meeting its contribution obligations for future health benefits.

I’ve written more about the Post Office and the prospects for reform here.

Rubio: There’s No ‘Responsible Way’ to Smoke Pot

RubioSen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said asking whether a politician has ever tried marijuana is a “worthless question” in American politics.

Rubio, a potential 2016 candidate for president, has consistently dodged the question about if he experimented with the drug as a younger man. In an interview that aired Monday from ABC News-Yahoo News, Rubio reiterated that answering the question honestly is a lose-lose.

“Here is the problem with that question in American politics,” he said. “If you say that you did, suddenly there are people out there saying it is not a big deal, look at all these successful people who did it. And I don’t want my kids to smoke marijuana. And I don’t want other people’s kids to smoke marijuana. I don’t think there is a responsible way to recreationally use marijuana. On the other side of it, if you tell people that you didn’t, they won’t believe you. So it is just a worthless question.”
He added: “I understand it is a question today that people think they need to ask, but the bottom line is, I don’t think people should smoke marijuana.”

The Florida senator said he decided against answering the question after a conversation he had following the publication of his book, An American Son, in which he wrote about his mediocre grades in high school.

“Someone came up to me and said, ‘You know, I enjoyed your book, but I want you to know, my son came up to me and said he doesn’t have to get good grades in high school, because look at Marco Rubio, he didn’t do well in high school and look how successful he’s been,’ ” he said.

Rubio, an opponent of legalization, made similar comments earlier this year.

The drug has been decriminalized in a number of states and legalized in Colorado and Washington. Rubio said federal law drug laws should be enforced there.

“And the bottom line is, I believe that adding yet another mind-altering substance to something that’s legal is not good for the country,” he said. “I understand there are people that have different views on it, but I feel strongly about that.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/206479-rubio-pot-question-worthless-in-politics#ixzz32Yqp61x1
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Rubio Successfully Blocks Nomination Of Gay Black Judge

by:javier-manjarresRubio-DC
Senator Marco Rubio (R) has successfully blocked the appointment of what would have been the first openly gay black man to wear a federal judge’s robe.

The White House confirmed that President Obama would not be reintroducing Judge William Thomas’ nomination to the U.S. Senate, because the initial nomination was “returned by the Senate and Senator Rubio”

Back in July 2013, the Shark Tank reported that the reasons why Rubio was blocking a judge he first recommended to the President, was because of his “past record on the bench.”

Here is what we wrote:

Rubio’s office is quiet about the nomination, but a source very close to the nomination pointed to the Shark Tank via text mail, the probably reasons why Rubio is holding up Thomas’ nomination. The text points to the judge’s past record on the bench, a DUI case, as well as a link to a high profile murder case, as being the reasons why Rubio is most likely holding up the nomination.

The Tampa Bay times reported that Rubio was concerned about “his involvement in a controversial case in which a man was given a sentence of just 364 days in jail for the hit-and-run death of a cyclist.” Thomas light sentence came down because he was concerned about the driver’s blood disorder that would put the offender at risk of further suffering and possibly death, were he to be jailed any longer.

The murder case in question is about the 2006 murder of a 18-year-old girl that was kidnapped, raped, and executed by 5 thugs, who confessed to the crime, but whose confessions were thrown out by Judge Thomas.-Shark Tank
Senator Marco Rubio (R) has successfully blocked the appointment of what would have been the first openly gay black man to wear a federal judge’s robe.

The White House confirmed that President Obama would not be reintroducing Judge William Thomas’ nomination to the U.S. Senate, because the initial nomination was “returned by the Senate and Senator Rubio”

Back in July 2013, the Shark Tank reported that the reasons why Rubio was blocking a judge he first recommended to the President, was because of his “past record on the bench.”

Here is what we wrote:

Rubio’s office is quiet about the nomination, but a source very close to the nomination pointed to the Shark Tank via text mail, the probably reasons why Rubio is holding up Thomas’ nomination. The text points to the judge’s past record on the bench, a DUI case, as well as a link to a high profile murder case, as being the reasons why Rubio is most likely holding up the nomination.

The Tampa Bay times reported that Rubio was concerned about “his involvement in a controversial case in which a man was given a sentence of just 364 days in jail for the hit-and-run death of a cyclist.” Thomas light sentence came down because he was concerned about the driver’s blood disorder that would put the offender at risk of further suffering and possibly death, were he to be jailed any longer.

The murder case in question is about the 2006 murder of a 18-year-old girl that was kidnapped, raped, and executed by 5 thugs, who confessed to the crime, but whose confessions were thrown out by Judge Thomas.-Shark Tank

Rubio’s office, ala Brooke Sammon, stuck to script and pointed to Rubio’s past comments as to why he was hell-bent on blocking Thomas.

“The nomination of Judge Thomas has also been thoroughly reviewed, and Senator Rubio has determined that Thomas’s record on the state court raises serious concerns about his fitness for a lifetime federal appointment. Those concerns include questions about his judicial temperament and his willingness to impose appropriate criminal sentences, particularly in the two high-profile cases of Michele Traverso and Joel Lebron last year. After reviewing Thomas’s record, Senator Rubio cannot support moving forward with the nomination,” Sammon said. -HuffPo
And then there is the affirmative action we-need-more-black-jurists-in-the-courts outcry, which you knew was coming.

“Judge Thomas is a well-qualified jurist,” Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) told HuffPost in the fall. “There is a serious underrepresentation of minorities on the bench and partisan obstructionism isn’t making it any better.”

Hastings is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has railed against Rubio for blocking black judicial nominees at a time when the group says black judges make up about 8.3 percent of the federal judicial bench. In addition to Thomas, Rubio had been withholding his blue slip for another black judicial nominee, Brian Davis. But Rubio ultimately agreed to move forward with Davis, who has since been confirmed.

“I am upset and concerned. Senator Marco Rubio himself said that Judge Thomas had passed all the tests, and then all of sudden for Senator Rubio to say Judge Thomas is not suitable is just not right,” Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) said Tuesday. “I don’t know what more I can do to make Senator Rubio understand that what he is doing is wrong.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if groups like GLAAD, or even the New Black Panther Party, Jesse Jackson, or even Sharpton, put in their two cents worth of racially divisive rhetoric to oppose Rubio.

Senator Mike Lee Critiques the War on Poverty

by StreiffMike_Lee
If you haven’t read Utah Senator Mike Lee’s remarks [Bring Them In] at the Heritage Foundation’s Anti-Poverty Forum you really owe it to yourself to do so. It is probably the most succinct conservative critique of modern government anti-poverty programs in recent decades.

When President Lyndon Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty” in his 1964 State of the Union address it represented, arguably, the high water mark for the acceptance on liberal ideology in America. The essence of the speech was a singleminded devotion to the “the perfectability of man”: the notion that perfection can be achieved on Earth through the efforts of man, or in the case, the federal government. Never mind that some famous guy, his name escapes me at the moment, warned us all that the poor will always be with us.

As is so often the case, federal intervention becomes a self-licking ice cream cone where the resources earmarked for the eradication of poverty do little more than sustain the bureaucracy dedicated to eradicating poverty. And for good reason, if poverty ends so do the jobs associated with its eradication.

The outcomes have been dramatic and had they not been visited upon those at the margins of society would have resulted in long prison sentences for all involved. Instead of declaring a war on poverty, by Johnson’s actions he actually began the institutionalization of poverty and hopelessness as a lifestyle.

In his speech he contrasts how Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson addressed the problem of poverty:

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln told Congress that the “leading object” of American government was:

“to elevate the condition of men – to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life.”

In a single sentence, Lincoln explains precisely what poverty is, and what government ought to do about it. As Lincoln knew first hand, true poverty was not for most people an absence of money, but an absence of opportunity – a lack of access to those social and economic networks where human opportunities are created. Then, as now, people were not isolated because they were poor – they were poor mostly because they were isolated.

And so, in America’s original war on poverty, government did not give the poor other people’s money. It gave them access to other people.

In Lincoln’s era – even during a cataclysmic war that was itself a struggle for human freedom and opportunity – that meant dredging rivers, building canals and cutting roads. It meant the Homestead Act and land-grant universities. These public goods weren’t designed to make poverty more tolerable – but to make it more temporary. They reduced the time it took to get products to market, increased access to banks and land, and increased the speed at which knowledge could be developed and shared.

Programs designed to provide cash subsistence and housing for the poor have created a series of perverse incentives that encourages poor mothers to not marry and to have children. The neighborhoods with high densities of subsidized housing are known by the technical term of “slum.”

Patients participating in Medicaid, the medical program for the poor, are 93% more likely to die of an ailment than patients with private insurance. Uninsured people are only 74% more likely to die.

Headstart is nothing more than a jobs program for mothers, mostly unwed, of the children participating. It has been studied for decades and is known to be, under a best case scenario, a null set. Any of the meager academic benefits of the program vanish within a year or two.

The casualty list goes on and on:

Today, many of those obstructions are themselves government policies. These policies unintentionally discourage almost every positive step underprivileged families can take toward social mobility and economic security.

Today’s government-centric system penalizes marriage, which a mountain of evidence now shows is the single most empowering social and economic opportunity there is. It also penalizes low-income workers for making more money by drastically reducing benefits at arbitrary points along the income-scale. Because of these poverty traps, single mothers near the poverty line, for instance, can face effective marginal tax rates of 80 or even 90 percent.

Thus, in poor communities, government dependence often atrophies community interdependence, fraying the bonds between moms and dads and neighbors and friends and pastors and teachers, old and young, native and immigrant.

Meanwhile, education policies leave low-income parents and children trapped in failing schools. Policies ranging from welfare to health care to criminal justice are only exacerbating the explosion of fatherlessness plaguing lower-income communities.

His critique of the direction the government has taken under Barack Obama is, if anything, understated:

Now, progressive ideologues reject all this. They do not trust individuals to join together voluntarily and organically to improve each other’s lives and meet common challenges. As President Obama said in his second inaugural:

“No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.”

But by “together,” of course, he meant only “government.”

This discredited mindset – which insists collective action can only mean state action – is itself a kind of poverty. It rejects social solidarity in favor of political coercion, and voluntary communities for professional community organizers. It distrusts and denies the bonds of cooperation and service that represent the highest expression of our dignity.

Look at any thriving marriage, friendship, church, charity, Little League, historical society, theater company, PTA, neighborhood or business. What makes America exceptional – and life worth living – is not simply individual freedom, but the heroic, empowering communities that free individuals form.

Free enterprise and civil society operate in the natural human space – between the isolated individual and the impersonal state – where we live, and love, and flourish… where everyone can earn a good living and build a good life… where the strong and the vulnerable alike can pursue their happiness, and find it… together.

There is a valid conservative critique to be made of social spending. It is demonstrated that it keeps the poor impoverished, it deters hard work, it encourages irresponsibility, and it passes poverty on from generation to generation. It is a condition that cannot be remedied by throwing ever increasing sums of money at a bureaucracy that relies upon poverty for its continued existence. It is not held to measurable and observable performance objectives because its chief product is making the liberal elite feel good about their beneficence… using your money.

We should not be afraid to address the shortcomings of the welfare state but we must acknowledge that those caught in this system aren’t the enemy, they are, as that famous guy said, the least of our brothers.

Allen West: Congress must probe military firings

Sees trend of relieving hundreds of senior officers as orchestrated from Oval Office
Former Florida Congressman Allen West is calling for congressional oversight hearings into what he describes as an “alarming trend” of dismissals and firings of high-ranking military officers by the Obama administration, firings that in a number of cases appear to be political.

While he wouldn’t assign a particular reason for the high rate of dismissals – and he declined to label them a “purge” – West in an exclusive WND interview said oversight hearings need to be convened to determine why so many officers are being removed.

allen-west in UniformWest, who as congressman served on the House Armed Services Committee, said he recently had been in contact with Committee Chairman Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon – calling for hearings “to determine exactly why” so many officers, especially senior officers, are being given the boot.

“McKeon needs to look at this problem,” West told WND. “There needs to be transparency. It is important to get the truth.”

There is also concern, he noted, that military officers still on active duty may be reluctant to testify against their commander-in-chief should the trail of trouble lead back to the Oval Office.

West said congressional hearings also need to determine whether a political cover-up was related to the dismissal of three high-ranking officers to deflect political criticism over the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens as well as Sean Smith, a State Department information officer, and Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, both ex-Navy SEALs.

Major concerns arose over whether Stevens and the other Americans could have been rescued by available U.S. forces.

As WND reported, three of the nine top-level firings of flag officers by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Benghazi disaster.

In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and the four Americans killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send reinforcements.

Obama insisted there were no reinforcements available that night. But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and said he never was given a stand-down order. Others contend he was given the order, but defied it, and he ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

Now, new information in the Washington Times reveals Delta Force personnel were in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound, contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department.

Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette, who commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

After Gaouette contended aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire, he was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa. Baker said attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

West acknowledges the rate of dismissals at the higher ranks is having an adverse impact on mid-level officers and enlisted personnel.

A retired Army Lt. Colonel, West said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel “doesn’t have a good handle on this and that the trend of dismissals is being directed from the Oval Office.”

In a recent interview with WND, Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who was the deputy commanding general of the Pacific Command, similarly accused Obama’s close adviser, Valerie Jarrett, of orchestrating the imposition of “political correctness” throughout the military, affecting everyone from top generals to the ranks of the enlisted.

Valerie Jarrett
West referred to recent reports of some 197 high-ranking officers who have been dismissed during the Obama administration. While acknowledging some had “zipper issues” leading to their being relieved of duty for personal misconduct, West says the most troubling and pervasive issue at play is the radical “social egalitarianism” being forced on the military – rather than the traditional focus on maximizing readiness – which, he says, is bringing the world’s greatest military to the point that “we can’t fight a war.”

He referred specifically to the dismissal of Senior Master Sgt. Philip Monk, who was relieved of his position for refusing to agree with the homosexual worldview of his commanding officer, a lesbian.

Monk had objected to the plans of his commander at Lackland Air Force Base to severely punish a supervised staff sergeant who had expressed his religious opinions regarding the issue of homosexuality.

During their conversation, the commander ordered Monk to reveal his personal views on homosexuality. Monk claims he then was relieved of his position because his views differed from that of the openly lesbian commander.

A similar case of social egalitarianism occurred in the dismissal of U.S. Army Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, a 1994 West Point graduate, who was relieved of duty as a military instructor after being publicly condemned by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The reason? Because Dooley allegedly portrayed Islam in a negative way in an approved course titled “Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism.”

Action was taken against him after 57 Muslim organizations in an Oct. 19 2011, letter to the Department of Defense demanded that all training materials they considered offensive to Islam be “purged” and the instructors “effectively disciplined.”

“There is a demoralization going on at the lower ranks, and they see what is happening at the higher ranks,” West said.

As an Army officer, West commanded the 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery, 4th Infantry Division and served in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and Operation Iraqi Freedom until 2004, when he retired.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, West was involved in an incident in which he had received intelligence that his unit was about to be attacked. He interrogated an Iraqi police officer whom the intelligence suggested was involved in the plot.

Because of the imminence of the potential ambush, West fired his pistol near the ear of the potential terrorist to get names and information.

“At the time, I had to base my decision on the intelligence I received,” West said during the subsequent investigation. Although he ultimately was fined $5,000, West was widely supported by the public for his actions on behalf of his men. As West put it, “If it’s about the lives of my soldiers at stake, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.”

West is the recipient of the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal and the Army Achievement Medal.

WND has recently published a series of high-profile reports on the surge of firings, suspensions and dismissals of key military commanders under Obama, including earlier this week when the commander of the U.S. Army Garrison Japan was summarily relieved of his duties.

So far, at least nine generals and flag officers have been relieved of duty under Obama just this calendar year – widely viewed as an extraordinary number.

In pinning the blame on Jarrett, reportedly Obama’s closest and most influential adviser,Vallely suggested her far-left, politically correct influence is forcing senior officers to watch everything military personnel say and do.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, says in a story by The Blaze, that Jarrett influences nearly every policy issue at the White House.Jarrett

“She seems to have her tentacles into every issue and every topic,” Chaffetz says. “Her name ultimately always comes up.”

The Washington Post has written about Jarrett as the president’s “mysterious” adviser.

And author Ed Klein, former editor-in-chief of the New York Times magazine, said in a Washington Times report that Jarrett was the secret “architect” of the Obama strategy to shut down the government and blame it on congressional Republicans.

“She convinced the president that a government shutdown and default offered a great opportunity to demonize the Republicans and help the Democrats win back a majority in the House of Representatives in 2014,” said Klein.

London’s Daily Mail newspaper notes that Jarrett’s insider nickname is “Night Stalker” because of her exclusive, late-night access to the presidential family’s private quarters.

According to Vallely, Obama is “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

In addition to Vallely, a number of prominent retired generals – from Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, a founder of the Army’s elite Delta Force, to Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. Patrick Henry Brady – have also gone on the record with WND on this issue.

They’ve described Obama’s actions as nothing less than an all-out attack on America’s armed forces.

Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, said Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he [Obama] is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

“They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” another military source told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels – those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals – are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Boykin, who was a founding member of Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

The future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, added Boykin, since colonels who would become generals are also being relieved of duty if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

As a consequence, he said, the lower grades have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” told WND, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true. I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past.”

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Likewise, retired Navy Capt. Joseph John tells WND that the “bigger picture” is that “the U.S. Armed Forces have been under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office for five years.”

“I believe there are more than 137 officers who have been forced out or given bad evaluation reports so they will never make Flag (officer), because of their failure to comply to certain views,” said John.

“The truly sad story is that many of the brightest graduates of the three major service academies witnessing what the social experiment on diversity … is doing to the U.S. military, are leaving the service after five years,” he said. “We are being left with an officer corps that can be made to be more compliant, that is, exactly what Obama needs to effect his long range goals for the U.S. military.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/allen-west-congress-must-probe-military-firings/#06VTGwkryTz3sBD1.99

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !