Cause and Effect

Some could label this post as, “An example of unintended consequences.” I chose the one above because it’s shorter and I really don’t believe the ‘Effect’ is unintended. What am I talking about? Baltimore…and by extension, all the large, liberal controlled cities.

There is a story out today about Baltimore. One headline laments the rising murder rate in Baltimore after the riots. The other headline for the same story reports the reluctness of the police to enter the riot areas.

Alarming Surge In Murders And Shootings In Baltimore

BALTIMORE (WJZ) — City crime spike. A dramatic increase in violence in Baltimore. Dozens of shooting and murders in the last few weeks following the riots last month.

Christie Ileto reports some are concerned police are hesitant to crack down after six officers were charged in the death of Freddie Gray.

“People have said its because morale is down, or it’s because the officers were charged. We don’t know that,” said Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

While city leaders are working to curb the rash of bloodshed.

A Baltimore police officer who chose to remain anonymous says the Freddie Gray case impacted policing.

“If you want them to be proactive in patrolling and trying to catch people, I could see them not being interested in doing that,” the officer said.

William Scipio heads Sandtown’s Resident Action Committee–an area once at the heart of April’s unrest.

Ileto: “When was the last time you’ve personally seen an officer in Sandtown?”

Scipio: “Since the riots.”

Is anyone really surprised? Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has tied the hands of the police. The residents know they can prevent arrest and charges by filing a complaint. Why should the street cops risk jobs and their lives when they know the city administration will not back them and will, instead, file criminal charges against them doing their jobs?

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake should not be surprised. Cause. Effect.

***

Have you heard the term, “Wookie suiter.” The term started as a joke a number of years ago. It was intended to ridicule some self-serving, fringe “patriots” who saw conspiracies at every term.

It was a joke a decade ago. It isn’t today. Now, there are so-called conservative websites whose sole purpose is to promote conspiracy theories—and a growing number of people are buying their claims hook-line-and-sinker.

The current conspiracy du jour is the Army’s Jade Helm training exercise. Every year the Army conducts training in various states among the citizenry. The Army has done so for decades, at least since the 1970s.

On occasion, the Army has asked veterans and military retirees to help with the training; in some cases acting as the OpFor, or the Opposing Force. I remember one occasion when I was a member of Air Force MARS, some MARS members were asked to use their amateur radio HF mobile stations to simulate insurgent radio stations.

Idiots, like Alex Jones and his InfoWars website, has been stoking the coals since the Army announced Jade Helm. I see photos claiming to find Army vehicles hidden in the woods along with train-loads of trucks, MRAPs and Humvees on railroad sidings. Strangely, most of these photos are a decade or more old, some since the build-up for the first Gulf War. But, the conspiracy websites aren’t interested in the truth. It’s all about web hits and revenue from advertisers created by those web hits.

The conspiracy theorists overlook one thing. Jade Helm doesn’t start until August 15. the Army doesn’t have the resources to hide all those vehicles now. Their budget has been cut. Leaving the vehicles exposed for a couple of months is a guarantee they won’t start come August.

Another item these conspiracy theorists overlook is their belief the Army would obey orders to start rounding up American citizens without cause. Even today, with the politicized Army command structure, few officers would obey such orders.

Obama, Distrust, and the Armed Forces

By Russ Vaughn, May 19, 2015

I recently wrote a piece here about the Jade Helm military operations scheduled to be conducted across large areas of the U.S. this summer. A few irresponsible conservative web sites are using these routine military training activities to frighten citizens in the selected areas into believing the federal government is planning an armed takeover of their locales. I warned in that previous article that neither the training operations nor the alarmed citizenry are anything new; the U.S. Army has conducted such training for decades and there has always been some civil protest. I made jumps into civilian areas and ran ops back in the 1960’s. But this time, through the wide reach of the Internet, the fear factor among the citizenry has been driven through the roof.

I’m a conservative, registered Republican who has been a contributor of conservative themed articles here at American Thinker for a decade. I’m also a ground combat veteran of Vietnam who spent much of his post-college career marketing to the military, a job that took me to Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine installations all across the country and overseas. I have shared many meals and happy hours with enlisted personnel and officers, during which many frank, forthright discussions were held regarding politics and the political leadership of the times.

Not once in almost five decades of my association with the military have I heard any serving member or veteran agree that he would take up arms against fellow Americans to impose the political will of a sitting president. Conversely, I’ve heard many times that an order to do so would be considered unlawful and refusable. When the Jade Helm article was cross-posted at my favorite soldiers’ blog, This Ain’t Hell, I was gratified to see that the majority of comments there, almost all from still-serving service members or veterans, validated that belief.

That was in stark contrast to the reaction here at American Thinker. Comments here were almost universally negative with my denial that the operation was a federal takeover of Texas and Utah by Obama being heavily ridiculed. Even readers who normally post supportive comments on my writings, sometimes even thanking me for stating their views, called me a naïve fool and a dupe of the Obama administration. It was a bit of a downer until those military comments began coming in later at the soldier’s blog, reaffirming my faith in my fellow warriors. Clearly, distrust of Obama is very strong on both sites; the difference being the troops trust our troops. 

One of the evidentiary cudgels that was used on me here at AT was the militarization of local and state level police departments in recent years and how those forces, using military weapons would join with the military forces of Jade Helm to suppress, oppress, even imprison dissenters in Texas and Utah. I found that ironic in that I have written articles here in the past critical of this heavy arming of civilian law enforcement. On that topic, the primarily civilian readership here at AT and the military followers of TAH were in agreement that this practice needs to be curtailed. It was only some law enforcement officers at both sites who accused me of ignorance or treachery and even among that cohort, some LEO’s agreed with my premise.

Today the Obama administration, in a move no doubt attributable to the increasing level of conflict between law enforcement and the black community, announced it will cease supplying certain surplus military weaponry, such as tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and grenade launchers among numerous other items including, for suspect reasons, bayonets. Some surplus weaponry already distributed may be recalled and future use of military weaponry may be restricted by federal guidelines. Of course, the administration is hiding behind the skirts of a federal commission that recommended these changes in federal policy after a lengthy study that was initiated after the Ferguson incident.

The column continues on the American Thinker website. It thoroughly debunks the conspiracy theorists. But there will always be that segment who would rather believe in myths than realities. I call them the Tin-Foil Hat Brigade.

Firearms in the local news

Jackson County, MO, has been in the news this week. The first was the result of unintended, for some, consequences. The second was grandstanding by Kansas City Sly James.

Back in December, the Jackson County legislature added  sub-section (c) to an existing ordinance, 5534.2. That addition said:

c. Discharge a firearm or projectile weapon:

(1) Anywhere within the area described as the “Urban Development Tier” in the Jackson County Master Plan “Strategy for the Future,” dated January 1994, as amended; or

(2) In a manner so as to allow a projectile to travel beyond the boundaries of the tract of real property from which it was fired onto another tract not under common ownership.

This subsection 5534.2.c shall not apply to any otherwise lawful activity taking place on the grounds of a firing range or gun club as permitted under section 24005.9 of this code or under the duly enacted ordinances of any competent municipal authority within Jackson County. (Ord. 2106, Eff. 6/16/92; Ord. 4595, Eff. 12/02/1

Before this section was added, the boundaries of this ordinance was 1-mile beyond existing city limits. After the change most of rural Jackson County was within the new boundaries making shooting firearms illegal in almost all of Jackson County. The Independence Examiner was present and published this article yesterday.

Dozens of people attended a meeting Tuesday night at Bass Pro Shops in Independence largely focused on Jackson County's weapons offenses ordinance.  Zach McNulty | The ExaminerTuesday night, the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance hosted a meeting between 120 or more Jackson County residents and officials from the county and nearby state districts. The officials were MO State Senator Will Kraus (Lee Summit), State Representative Sheila Solon (Blue Springs), Jackson County Legislator Greg Grounds (Blue Springs), Jackson County Mike Sharp and his deputy Col. Hugh Mills. Jackson County Legislator Greg Grounds and Jackson County Mike Sharp took the brunt of the questions and comments from the residents.

At the end of the meeting, Legislator Grounds vowed to repeal the new section. Sheriff Shark stated he was assist as he could to do the same. State Senator Will Kraus and State Representative Sheila Solon said that if the county didn’t act, the state would.

The flaw in the ordinance was using a map, drawn for economic development and planning, to determine areas of high density population. The map was never intended for that purpose and is frequently updated, expanded, to show future plans for expansion into the county. Greg Grounds reported he was one of three county legislators who would vote to repeal the section added to the ordinance. Five of the nine county legislators must agree.

There has been a meeting to repeal this new section. That meeting was continued. The followup meeting is scheduled for July 28th.

“The hearing was continued to 28 July, 2014 at 2:30 in the Jackson County Independence courthouse, in the basement,” said Kevin Jamison, President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance.

The second instance of firearms in the news was Kansas City Mayor Sly James pushing for an ordinance to prohibit open carry within Kansas City. The city’s Public Safety committee rubber-stamped an endorsement of the proposal.

“’Our community is not a battleground,’ James told the committee,” in an article posted on the Kansas City Star’s website. That statement would be a surprise to anyone who peruses the Star and it’s continuing causality lists that appear almost daily in the Star. It’s unclear what James meant by the statement since there are been no instance of open carry in Kansas City leading to an exchange of gunfire. 

Likely, James is using the old “blood in the streets!” screed that the left has yet, after decades of use, proven. Everywhere citizens are allow to carry, openly or concealed, crime has decreased, not increased.

We really should not be surprised by James faulty logic and fear-mongering. After all, James is a democrat, and Kansas City is a democrat enclave in conservative Missouri. James is following the democrat reflex to continue democrat policies of ensuring Americans are defenseless against the growing criminal element.

James admitted that the city’s ordinance is likely to be an effort in futility. Missouri SB 656 had a provision to prohibit local governments, like Kansas City, from writing ordinances banning open carry. Democrat governor Jay Nixon vetoed the bill earlier this month. However, SB 656 had enough votes in the legislature to override Nixon’s veto. The legislature has already used their veto override once this year.

State Senator Will Kraus (Lees Summit), speaking before the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance Tuesday night, said he was confident the state legislature would override the veto of SB 656 during its veto session on September 10th.

So, if Sly James knows this new city ordinance will be revoked by the legislature, why do it? Anyone knowing the antics of Sly James would immediately say, “It’s to get more face time before the TV cameras!” That would be true, but he already has near-constant coverage by virtue of his office as Mayor. What other motive could he have? Perhaps, so say some, James is looking towards the future and thinking about challenging Roy Blunt for Senator. James knows he can get more political creds from democrats by making the exercise of Kansas Citians right to bear arms more difficult.

Am I an open carry advocate? No, I am not. But there is the occasional circumstance where I would like to remove a cover garment, like a jacket, exposing a weapon and not be penalized for momentarily carrying openly.

Mississippi Primary just won’t go away

The NRSC, Haley Barbour, Thad Cochran and Karl Rove wish they’d been more…clandestine in their behind-the-scenes maneuvering in this past primary election. In fact, I’ll bet they hope to survive their fiasco without spending time in the gray-bar hotel.

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/06/28/140628_thad_cochran_gty_605.jpgYesterday, a black minister accused the Cochran campaign of vote buying. That is illegal at both the state and federal level.

Democrat Pastor Accuses Thad Cochran Campaign of Vote-for-Pay Scheme

 

 

A black Mississippi pastor has emerged to claim Sen. Thad Cochran’s (R-MS) campaign paid “thousands” of Democrats $15 each to vote in the June 24 GOP runoff – and that he was Rev. Stevie Fielder, an associate pastor at First Union Missionary Baptist Church in Meridian, Mississippi, says Cochran’s campaign “told me to offer blacks $15 each and to vote for Thad.”

Fielder, who was paid by freelance journalist Charles C. Johnson for the story, provided a new outlet launched by Johnson—GotNews.com—with four text messages from a person purporting to be Cochran campaign staffer Saleem Baird.

The messages cite an official Cochran campaign email address—Saleem@ThadForMs.com—and include detailed discussions of the campaign providing envelopes of money to distribute to people who vote.

“Send me individual names and amounts along with home address to saleem@thadforms.com and I’ll have money separated in envelopes at the office waiting for you,” one message, sent three days before the runoff, says.

Fielder said he helped distribute the Cochran cash for votes on a promise of eventually getting paid $16,000—and because a key Cochran campaign staffer convinced him that Cochran’s conservative challenger state Sen. Chris McDaniel was racist.

“They sold me on the fact that he was a racist and that the right thing to do was to keep him out of office,” Fielder said.

But Cochran’s campaign never paid, Fielder said.

Today, it has been disclosed that Haley Barbour was behind the racial robot calls against McDaniel.

On the Tuesday broadcast of his FOX News show, host Sean Hannity played a radio ad that aired in Mississippi during the Republican primary which clearly pitted State Sen. Chris McDaniel (R-Miss.) as a racist that wants to take away government benefits. The group responsible for that ad, Citizens for Progress, is reportedly backed by Haley Barbour, the former governor of Mississippi and former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

“He’s got some answering to do on that,” Hannity said. — Real Clear Politics.

Neither story bodes well for Cochran, Barbour, et. al. There appears to be concrete proof supporting the accusation. It does not bode well for the NRSC, either, nor the GOP Washington establishment. More reports from Mississippi by McDaniel supporters say they will not vote for Cochran if he is still on the ballot come November. It could well be that a democrat is elected to the Senate this year in Mississippi.

It’s Monday!

Urg!

That was my usual response before I retired. I was fortunate during my last working years to be able to work from home. I told people my morning commute was thirty steps downstairs to my home office. After I retired, I continued most of those habits…writing this blog being one.

Last Friday, I wrote a post about the apparent downward spiral to war in Eastern Europe. It is arguable whether the Ukraine is European. My definition is that all of the territory west of the Ural and the ‘stans, are European, if only by religion and heritage. The major religions are the Catholic varieties—Roman, Greek and Russ ion Orthodox. Those areas mark the furthest extent of the Turkish/Islamic advance of the 16th and 17th Century.

But Eastern Europe is not the only area where war warnings exist. WesPac is a potential point of conflict as well. Finally, someone in the Pentagon and Washington is looking westward instead of eastward.

Amid Chinese Aggression, Obama Affirms U.S. Defense of Japan’s Senkaku Islands

April 24, 2014 at 3:49 pm

During his trip to Japan, President Obama publicly affirmed long-standing U.S. policy that the bilateral security treaty applies to the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands. China claims sovereignty over the islands and, in recent years, has tried to intimidate Japan—much as Beijing has bullied the Philippines in pursuit of its extralegal territorial claims in the South China Sea.

President Obama’s statement was a welcome and proper confirmation of U.S. support for a critical Pacific ally.

During a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Obama declared, “let me reiterate that our treaty commitment to Japan’s security is absolute, and Article 5 [of the bilateral security treaty] covers all territories under Japan’s administration, including the Senkaku Islands.”

While this was the first time Obama publicly affirmed the parameters of the U.S. defense commitment to Japan, it is consistent with the long-standing policies of his predecessors. As Obama pointed out, “this isn’t a ‘red line’ that I’m drawing; it is the standard interpretation over multiple administrations of the terms of the alliance…There’s no shift in position. There’s no “red line” that’s been drawn. We’re simply applying the treaty.”

In 2004, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage stated that the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty “would require any attack on Japan, or the administrative territories under Japanese control, to be seen as an attack on the United States.”

During a 2010 flare-up of tensions between China and Japan over the Senkakus, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, “we have made it very clear that the [Senkaku] islands are part of our mutual treaty obligations, and the obligation to defend Japan

The Obama administration’s public reassurance to Japan is meant to deter China from behaving aggressively. In recent years, Beijing has used military and economic threats, bombastic language, and enforcement through military bullying to extend its extra-legal claims of sovereignty in the East and South China Seas.

In November 2013, China declared an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea, including the Senkaku Islands. Beijing threatened to use its military to enforce the ADIZ. Washington condemned this declaration as a provocative act that exacerbated tensions in the region and increased the risks of a military clash.

Beijing is also attempting to divert attention from its own actions by mischaracterizing Japan as a threat to regional security. China’s bellicose actions have fueled regional concern and triggered a greater Japanese willingness confront Chinese expansionism and strengthen its military. This willingness to defend its territory has been mischaracterized as a resurgence of Japan’s 1930s imperial militarism.

One of Japan’s problems isn’t with Chinese aggression. Their problem is toothless assurances from the United States when a significant portion of the US Naval Fleet…is along dockside, awaiting repairs, upgrades, or lacking the funding to return to the fleet.

According to sources, there are 430 ships believed to be in active service. That includes ships under construction and in reserve. The majority of these ships were built in the late 20th Century, some dating as far back as the 1960s. The Fleet is aging.

USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) — Norfolk Naval Yard, December 2012.

During the Bush years, we had twelve carriers afloat, each carrier being the center of a battlegroup. That number has been reduced to ten. The photo to the left, taken over the Christmas and New Years holidays in 2012. Reduced those battlegroups on the high seas, from ten to five for a short period.

With those ship’s crews on leave for the holidays, how quickly could they have responded if the Chinese chose to ignore the treaty between Japan and the US? My guess would be a month to retrieve the crews, top off consumables and sail to the trouble area.

Does Obama’s, Kerry’s and Hillery’s statements affirming that US/Japanese alliance hold water? I don’t know. The question really is, does the Chinese believe it does.

***

Clive Bundy is in the news again. He stepped in it, big time. He had an interview with a reporter from the New York Times. The NYT did it’s usual hatchet-job, taking Bundy’s words out of context, changing the order, doing their usual job putting Bundy in the worse light possible. The MSM took it an ran with it.

In the end, Bundy did say those things. However his statements does not change the facts about the BLM’s aggression and overt attempts of land grabbing.

In response to the NYT interview, this column appeared in The American Thinker.

Why It’s Okay to Hate Cliven Bundy

By J.R. Dunn, April 28, 2014

It has become clear that Cliven Bundy was transgressed by the New York Times, his words taken out of context and retailed in such a way as to mean something they were not. Bundy is no racist, and the attempt to make him look like one is another step downward in the collapse of American national media.

But conservatives still have a right — in fact, a responsibility — to be annoyed with Bundy.

To wit: Bundy did not walk, not stumble, did not swerve into the trap set by the New York Times.  He was not ambushed, he was not taken by surprise. He instead ran full tilt and threw himself into that trap, exactly like the kid at the end of Million Dollar Hotel.

Bundy sat across from a reporter for the NYT, the most vicious, calculating, untrustworthy, and dishonest nest of vipers in the entire U.S. media network, and talked straight to him about matters of import and controversy, under the impression that he would understand and transmit his thoughts the way that he actually expressed them.

Nobody, a full century into the progressive era, seventy years into the epoch of big government, and fifty years after the mass media turned anti-American as a matter of course, has any right to do this. Nobody has a right to be that stupid, to be that ill-informed, or to be that self-centered.

Granted that Bundy, a lifetime Nevada rancher, is not the epitome of sophistication. He is not the typical Times reader, even for Nevada. He may well have never held a copy of the paper in his hands, much less read it. But that’s no excuse, because the status and nature of the New York Times has become a truism of American political culture. It is the bastion of left-wing thought in the media, the source from which everyone else takes their cue. In conservative circles, it’s what amounts to a punchline.

Bundy must have heard of this, at least vaguely. And yet he went out, and kindly loaded up Adam Nagourney’s pistol for him, then turned around, took his hat off, and waited for the bullet. The living portrait of middle-American conservatism in the 21st century.

How many times does this have to happen? How many Todd Akins do we need giving bizarre lectures on female biology exactly as if he knew what he was talking about? How many O’Donnells do we need providing ammunition to Bill Maher? How many Mourdocks? Even Sarah Palin, one of smartest political figures we’ve got, fell for this her first time out. (Granted, she was given plenty of help by McCain’s staff.)

I have been interviewed by newspaper reporters several dozen times in my various careers in business, writing, and conservative politics. How many times was I quoted correctly? Not once. Not a single time. Reporters typically mangle quotes, misunderstand what you’re saying, shift contexts, or deliberately rearrange statements to make them work the way they want. (And there’s nothing you can do about this. Once you speak to a reporter, what you have said is the newspaper’s property.  That’s right. Your words no longer belong to you — according to their interpretation. Your statement is theirs, to do with as they see fit, with no input from you, the schmuck who merely spoke the words. Of course, there’s no legal backing for this whatsoever. But there’s no legal backing for airline baggage handlers destroying expensive musical instruments. Yet they still get away with it.) The first time you see this it’s annoying. The second time it’s infuriating. The third time it’s expected.

Why do they do this? Not necessarily out of maliciousness or stupidity. (Though  that’s true often enough.) It’s the culture. The idea that newspapers are there to print “facts,” Who-what-where -when-and-why, is mythology gone with Jimmy Olsen and His Gal Friday. Today, reporters work with certain formats, to which they are expected to fit any related story.  One such concept is “every conservative is a hate-filled, fanatic Neanderthal.”  A corollary of this is “All Nevada ranchers are demented racists.”

Papers higher on the food chain, along with magazines and broadcast and cable networks, have agendas which these stereotypical patterns are used to support. I doubt I need to detail the nature of these agendas.

From these realities certain rules can be derived.

1) These people are not on your side.

2) Anything you say can and will be used against you.

3) Nothing you say will ever be used to support your position (or any conservative position at all.)

So what can we do in this situation? A friend of mine long experienced in public relations puts it very simply: you tell them exactly what you want them to say in the exact words that you want them to say it with. No ambiguity, no complications, no diversions. Then you stop. You don’t say any more. You add nothing. You don’t answer their questions. Their questions are not intended to shed light on your ideas or to develop detail. They are meant to trip you up and that is all. Anybody who acts as if they are truly interested in what you think about them there Negroes or legitimate rape is speaking as the enemy. You don’t feed them. You don’t hand them the weapon to strike you down with. You say “good afternoon” and turn on your heel.

The article continues at the website. It is a lesson to be learned. The media are not our friends, regardless of the medium and the reputation of the reporter. You are always on record and the media, like rapacious piranha, are waiting to feed upon you.

Politicians and candidates take note. Be careful what you say. If you are a conservative, the bottom-feeders are waiting for you to make a mistake or to misspeak.

Wake-up Call!

Remember Obama’s tax on tanning salons? It includes some gym memberships, too. A Falls Church, VA gym posted this notice to their members. Some membership fees were going up. Why? Because those memberships included access to tanning machines.

“Some people who are members of the health club Planet Fitness are finding their membership costs have gone up because of [ObamaCare]…A sign posted at a Falls Church, Va. location says ‘Holders of Black Card memberships will be required to pay a tax on these memberships Starting January 1, 2014 as required by the implementation of provisions of [ObamaCare]…This is not a change in your membership fee but rather a tax required by the government. The reason these accounts are forced to charge the new tax is because they include the option for members to tan at the clubs.  Obamacare has a tax on tanning salons.  It doesn’t matter if the member uses or does not use the tanning facilities.” — FOXNews.

Obamacare taxes, oh, excuse me, user fees, are everywhere and are insidious.

***

Remember Obama, yesterday, declaring another one-year delay on employer mandates for Obamacare? Well, there is a hitch. Businesses can only receive the delay if they declare to the IRS, on pain of perjury, that Obamacare had nothing to do with any layoffs or changes in employment.

Obama’s unlawful declaration forces businesses to lie and committee perjury if Obamacare’s costs forces them to layoff or change working conditions and still receive the mandate delay.

FIRMS MUST SWEAR OBAMACARE NOT A FACTOR IN FIRINGS
Is the latest delay of ObamaCare regulations politically motivated? Consider what administration officials announcing the new exemption for medium-sized employers had to say about firms that might fire workers to get under the threshold and avoid hugely expensive new requirements of the law. Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so. — FOXNews.

The Wall Street Journal added this to Obama’s offer.

“Changing an unambiguous statutory mandate requires the approval of Congress, but then this President has often decided the law is whatever he says it is. His Administration’s cavalier notions about law enforcement are especially notable here for their bias for corporations over people. The White House has refused to suspend the individual insurance mandate, despite the harm caused to millions who are losing their previous coverage. Liberals say the law isn’t harming jobs or economic growth, but everything this White House does screams the opposite.” — WSJ.

Pure lawlessness.

***

Boehner and Cantor are giving away the farm again. They say they will hold hostage the Debt Limit Increase if it doesn’t include a delay in the implementation of Obamacare and approval of the Keystone pipeline. They refuse to consider that Obama just declared a delay (with strings attached, see above,) and the Canadians are now shipping their oil to China. The impact of Keystone to the US economy is much less now than when it was proposed—and killed by Obama.

What will happen is that any provision added by the House will be removed by Reid when the bill arrives in the Senate. Then, Boehner and the House RINOs will rubber stamp the change. The debt limit will go up, no cuts in spending, no Keystone approval, and Obama agrees to delay Obamacare employer mandates for a year. Oh, yes, toss out that last one, Obama says he did that yesterday.

But the RINO leadership in the House should take heed of other House ‘Pubs. Some are fomenting revolt.

Conservatives revolt over lack of cuts

 

By Pete Kasperowicz, February 11, 2014, 09:09 am

Rank and file House Republicans opposed to their leadership’s debt limit plan are brainstorming new ways to limit federal spending.

Even as GOP leaders seem intent on pushing through a debt ceilng bill this week that doesn’t demand any new spending curbs, several conservative lawmakers are pressing for new ideas.

A few Republicans are hoping to to tie a debt ceiling increase to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Late Monday, Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) proposed legislation that would require both the House and Senate to vote on a balanced budget amendment.

Crawford’s bill is an attempt to put limits on congressional spending habits that have pumped up the national debt to more than $17.2 trillion.

On the House floor Monday, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he could support tying a balanced budget amendment to the debt ceiling, but that it would have to cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product. King also said he wants a supermajority requirement for any new tax increases.

“This would get me to vote for a limited debt ceiling increase… a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution,” he said.

Another proposal would link Congressional pay to spending cuts…Congressmen’s pay would be cut whenever promised spending cuts fail to happen. Another Congressmen quipped that the provision wouldn’t last the ten-year period of the proposal.

UPDATE: Just now, Boehner admitted he couldn’t make a deal with House ‘Pubs so he is now caving to democrats on a ‘clean’ debt limit increase with no strings by leveraging democrat votes to force passage of the bill.

***

The American Thinker posted a column today on their website titled, “Dead Souls in the Republican Leadership.” It’s too long to post here. Go to the website and read the column there. It’s accuracy is amazing.

Dead Souls In the Republican Leadership

By John T. Bennett, February 11, 2014

“America cannot become the world and still be America.”

So warned the late Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington in his 2004 article “America’s Dead Souls.” Huntington’s article was prophetic, and it explains why some GOP pols have taken the side of big business and illegal immigrants over the interests of our nation.

“In a variety of ways, the American establishment, governmental and private, has become increasingly divorced from the American people,” Huntington wrote.

Huntington’s core point was that the American elite has grown extremely distant — socially, economically, morally, and politically — from the public. This trend, he warned, undermines our democracy and harms the interests of the majority.

Huntington wrote that the American majority is concerned with “societal security,” meaning sustaining “existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity.” Elites, however, placed societal security behind “supporting international trade and migration” and “encouraging minority identities and cultures at home.”

The framework laid out in “America’s Dead Souls” is crucial to understanding how to respond to the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

You can finish the column at the website.
 

***

A parting note. Shirley Temple died today at age 85. Too many today have never seen any of the movies she made as a child star between 1934 through 1938. Shirley continued to act for a few years more but ‘retired’ at age 22. She married, raised a family and later in life became the U.S. Ambassador to Ghana and Czechoslovakia.

She was one of a few child stars who wasn’t ruined by their popularity.

Montage

It has become a liberal tactic to release potentially damaging information late on Friday or Saturday when the MSM’s attention is elsewhere…or purposely redirected. This last weekend was no different.

On today’s Drudge Report is the headline: The Hilliary Papers: Ruthless First Lady. Diane Blair, a political science professor whom Hillary Clinton once described as her “closest friend”, died in 2000. She and others collected documents during the Clinton’s campaign before Bill Clinton’s run for the Presidency in 1992. More documents were added until Blair’s death.

Jim Blair, a former chief counsel at Tyson Foods Inc. who was at the center of “Cattlegate,” a 1994 controversy involving the unusually large returns Hillary Clinton made while trading cattle futures contracts in the 1970s, donated his wife’s papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville after her death. — The Washington Free Beacon.

A memo from those archives, under the title of, “Research on Hillary Clinton,” noted that Bill, according to pollsters, was viewed as ‘slick,’ while Hillary was viewed as ruthless. The picture the documents paint of Bill and Hillary Clinton is not complementary. Bill comes across as bungling and stupid while Hillary is portrayed as one who’d cut a throat to maintain political power.

***

A bit of bad news for Obamacare came to light over the weekend. It is another ‘unintended consequence’ that the libs are now claiming to be a feature. (Systems Designers, development and project managers are very familiar with the tactic.)

Obamacare will induce people to drop out of the work force, a recent congressional study reported.

The Congressional Budget Office report, examining Obamacare’s effects on the economy, predicted that the U.S. workforce would shrink by 2.5 million people. The cause: Low-income people get subsidies when shopping on Obamacare’s health-insurance exchanges. This makes it easier for people to afford health care without a job or by working part-time. — The Washington Examiner.

The column may be a bit difficult to understand. The bottom line is the amount of subsidies granted to ‘qualified’ applicants may influence people to maintain low incomes or drop out of the work-force completely. An income difference of $1 can mean the loss of those subsidies and increased healthcare costs of thousands of dollars per year.  That—is a disincentive to work. Why work when more money means the loss of the subsidy and higher costs of the now-required healthcare coverage.

The ‘unintended consequence’ came to light in another venue, a discussion between the head of the Congressional Budget Office and Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney. The gist? Americans now have a choice whether or not to work!

My, oh, my, how times have changed. America now has a government that views work as a trap and celebrates those who escape it.

That is the upshot of last week’s remarkable exchange over ObamaCare. It began when the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the interplay of taxes and subsidies in the law “creates a disincentive for people to work.” The report predicted the mix would lead to fewer hours worked, costing the equivalent of nearly 2.5 million jobs.

In response, President Obama’s spokesman pleaded guilty — with pride and pleasure.

“Opportunity created by affordable, quality health insurance allows families in America to make a decision about how they will work, or if they will work,” Jay Carney said. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi applauded the law for freeing people from “job-lock.”

They never mentioned the implications of this distinctly Obamaish New Deal. The subsidies that enable some Americans to decide “if they will work” mean higher taxes from those who must or want to work. — The New York Post.

Job-lock. The democrats have created a new term. When I looked at the definition of the term in Wiki, I noticed the page was last updated February 9, 2014. Yes, the libs must keep ‘job-lock’ up to date.

***

When I was in the Air Force, one of the first things I read as it became available was the Air Force Times. Like the Air Force, each branch of the military had its paper, the Army Times, the Navy Times, and the Marine Corps Times. There may have been a Coast Guard Times, too, although I never saw one.

One reason why the ‘Times was so popular was that it was published by an independent, semi-private company. The current ‘Times are now owned by Gannet.

By semi-private, I mean the military branches tried, often, to control the content of the ‘Times. They failed each time. Many retired and active military members were contributors to the ‘Times. Military retirees often held paid and advisory positions to the various ‘Times editions. They knew where the bodies were buried and used that knowledge…frequently to the embarrassment of the particular branch.

The success of the ‘Times is its support of the lowest members of the military, not its highest. Those supporters insure truth and accuracy in the stories and reporting. The various ‘Times papers have credibility—more credibility than the military hierarchy and that difference in credibility is leading to conflict again.

Once again, the military hierarchy is attempting to control the content of the ‘Times…the Marine Corps Times in this particular case. I predict this effort will eventually fail, too. The last time a service branch tried to control the ‘Times, the paper was smuggled onto military bases around the world. Like Prohibition, banning the ‘Times will fail.

Marine Corps Times first casualty in headquarters’ war to ‘professionalize’

Independent newspaper does not conform to new Marine Corps message, brass says

Feb. 9, 2014 – 05:05PM, By Lance M. Bacon Staff writer

Marines leaf through a copy of Marine Corps Times during some downtime at a patrol base in Afghanistan's Helmand province. The newspaper, which throughout the last year has investigated allegations of wrongdoing involving the service's top general, has been targeted by Marine Corps headquarters as part of a new initiative to 'professionalize' areas where the publication is sold.

Marines leaf through a copy of Marine Corps Times during some downtime at a patrol base in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. The newspaper, which throughout the last year has investigated allegations of wrongdoing involving the service’s top general, has been targeted by Marine Corps headquarters as part of a new initiative to ‘professionalize’ areas where the publication is sold. (Brennan Linsley / The Associated Press)

Marine Corps leaders have ordered the independent Marine Corps Times newspaper removed from its prominent newsstand location at base exchange stores worldwide and placed instead in areas away from checkout lines, where it is harder to find and fewer copies are available.

The move raises troubling questions about motive and closely follows a directive prohibiting commanders from using budget funds to buy Marine Corps Times and a number of other publications.

Marine Corps Times is widely recognized for its comprehensive coverage of the Corps, focusing on everything from career tracks, to pay and benefits, family and spouse issues, and employment after leaving the military.

Throughout much of the past year, the paper has published dozens of articles as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations the service’s commandant, Gen. Jim Amos, abused his authority to ensure Marines were punished for an embarrassing war-zone scandal. Numerous reports have captured the attention of mainstream media outlets, including NPR, CNN and Time magazine, among several others.

Spokesmen for the commandant’s office would not answer questions about whether Amos or his staff were aware of or involved in the decision to relocate the newspaper, but a source with knowledge of the new directive said it was approved with the commandant’s knowledge.

“It is no secret [in the Pentagon] that the commandant does not like Marine Corps Times,” the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The commandant’s office punted all questions, including whether Amos was involved in the decision to move Marine Corps Times from prominent display in the exchanges,to Manpower & Reserve Affairs, which has oversight of the exchange. A spokeswoman for Manpower & Reserve Affairs said the paper was moved as part of a plan to “professionalize” the front of the exchanges.

As every serviceman and veteran knows, weasels exist at all levels. In this case, it is the Commandant.

***

One last bit. The ‘conservative’ rankings of Congress was released this weekend. Claire McCaskill was ranked 50 out of the 100 Senators. It’s well known that McCaskill voted with the ‘Pubs on issues that had no chance to pass, hence her rating. Missouri’s other Senator, Roy Blunt, supposedly a ‘Pub, was ranked 42, not far above liberal McCaskill. The difference is that McCaskill manipulated her votes to appear more conservative. Blunt didn’t.

I understand that primary opponents to Blunt are forming all across Missouri. It couldn’t happen to be better Senator—and that’s a point. We don’t need two liberal voting Senators and that is exactly what we have had. Time for Blunt to go back to obscurity.

Emboldened Tea Party

Today’s title is taken from a headline that appeared in the Washington Times. The dems and leftists think the Tea Party was heavily damaged in the debacle that just occurred in Washington. Boehner’s and McConnell’s surrender was evidence of that, thought the dems.

They were wrong.

If anything, the antics of Boehner, McConnell and Reid helped clear the decks for 2014. We, the Tea Party and conservatives, now know who is committed to conservative principles and who are only committed to themselves.

Boehner thinks he is in a ‘safe’ district. The dems keep him in office just as much as the GOP establishment clique that prevents any strong opposition to Boehner. That could easily change if a strong independent or GOP candidate could get on the ticket—preferable a GOP opponent who could remove Boehner in a primary election. Boehner is blessed with not one, not two, but, now, three opponents seeking to oust him, two in the upcoming GOP primary election.

One such opponent, J.D. Winteregg, is a school teacher from Troy, Ohio. Winteregg has received a number of endorsements from local Tea Party organizations.

Boehner to face Tea Party challenger in Republican primary

Staff Reporter- Dayton Business Journal

A third local person has thrown a hat in the ring to challenge John Boehner, R-West Chester, for Congress in 2014.

J.D. Winteregg, a school teacher from Troy, Ohio, announced his campaign against Boehner this month.

Active in local tea party groups and having received the endorsement of board members of several north Cincinnati Tea Party groups, Winteregg says his limited political experience means “his ideas truly represent the people in (Ohio’s eighth Congressional district).”

Among his political positions, Winteregg advocates for defunding Obamacare, a limited free market Capitalist system approach to the economy, and says the government should focus on forming public-private partnerships to shift dollars supporting economic growth from tax money to private investment.

Winteregg is the third local person who has announced his plans to challenge Boehner in the May 2014 primary. Matthew Trisler, a truck driver from Tipp City, is running on a constitutional conservative platform, while Butler County businessman Eric Gurr also announced he would challenge Boehner in the Republican primary.

McConnell has opposition, too.

Senate Conservatives Fund endorses Matt Bevin over Mitch McConnell

Oct. 18, 2013 11:22 AM

The Senate Conservatives Fund said Friday it has endorsed Republican Matt Bevin over U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky’s 2014 U.S. Senate race.

The group has been toying with the endorsement for some time. It has aired television commercials critical of McConnell as not conservative enough and it recently polled its members asking if it should officially back Bevin, a tea party-favored Louisville businessman.

“We have interviewed a lot of candidates this year and Matt Bevin is one of the very best. He’s principled, passionate, and has Ted Cruz-like courage,” said Matt Hoskins, the group’s executive director, referring to Cruz, the U.S. senator from Texas, who led the fight to shut down government in an effort to defund the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The endorsement comes just days after McConnell, the Senate minority leader, brokered a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, to reopen government and raise the debt ceiling before the U.S. defaulted on its debt.

In response to the McConnell-Reid deal, Bevin said Wednesday: “When the stakes are highest, Mitch McConnell can always be counted on to sell out conservatives.”

The group lambasted McConnell the same night as the shutdown-ending vote, accusing him of receiving a “Kentucky kickback” because the bill contained a higher $2.9 billion spending limit for the controversial Olmsted Dam and locks on the Ohio River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Congressional leaders later rebutted that accusation.

Boehner and McConnell are not the only two RINOs who are receiving opposition in the coming primaries. All of those who voted to support Obama, Reid, and Obamacare, like our MO Senator, Roy Blunt, have marked themselves. Blunt still has a number of years left to his term. Others, however, do not.

A call to arms: Emboldened tea party moves to finish off weak Republicans

Mississippi senator first to face challenge

By Seth McLaughlin, The Washington Times, Thursday, October 17, 2013

Far from chastened by the debt debate, tea partyers and conservative groups signaled Thursday they’ve concluded they didn’t lose, but rather were sabotaged from within by weak Republicans — and they took the first steps to oust one of them.

Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel announced he would challenge U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran in the Republican primary next year, a day after the GOP’s senior senator voted to end the 16-day government shutdown and grant President Obama more borrowing authority.

Mr. McDaniel immediately saw a flood of support from the outside groups that had rallied against this week’s debt and spending agreement.

“Our country can’t afford any more bad votes that stem from old friends and back-room deals,” said Daniel Horowitz, deputy political director of the Madison Project. “And as witnessed from the recent budget battle against Obamacare, we cannot win against Democrats if we don’t grow our conservative bench in the Senate.”

For the past two weeks, the deep divisions within the GOP have been on very public display.

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and their allies pushed to withhold all government spending unless Mr. Obama agreed to cancel Obamacare, while party leaders called that a losing strategy and tried to come up with alternatives.

On Thursday, the GOP accepted defeat, passing a bill that gives Mr. Obama a “clean” bill to reopen government through January, and to raise debt through at least February.

A majority of Republicans supported the deal in the Senate, but the situation was reversed in the House, where Cruz allies refused to sign off on a series of plans put forward by GOP leaders to end the stalemate.

The article continues on a second page noting Sarah Palin’s support for change in the “permanent political class” in Washington.

The result of the acts in Washington this month, while a setback for conservatives, is not capitulation. Instead, it is just the beginning. The Tea Party was fundamental is winning the House in 2010. Now, our goal is to widen that control in the House, eliminating the establishment stalwarts, replacing them with strong conservatives and to take the Senate from dem control,  dumping Harry Reid into the waste-bin of history.