Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Russian Financiers Employ Environmentalist to Derail U.S. Fracking
Well, what do you know? Russian financiers have been funding
environmentalist groups in order to derail U.S. companies from fracking. Our enemies know who to employ when it comes to their interest. Here is an excerpt from the
Washington Free Beacon:
A shadowy
Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking
environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep
ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving
members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.
One of those
executives, Nicholas Hoskins, is a director at a hedge fund management firm
that has invested heavily in Russian oil and gas. He is also senior counsel at
the Bermudan law firm Wakefield Quin and the vice president of a London-based
investment firm whose president until recently chaired the board of the
state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft.
In addition to
those roles, Hoskins is a director at a company called Klein Ltd. No one knows
where that firm’s money comes from. Its only publicly documented activities
have been transfers of $23 million to U.S. environmentalist groups that push
policies that would hamstring surging American oil and gas production, which has
hurt Russia’s energy-reliant economy.
Not only do we have Russians financing
environmentalist groups, so does the EPA under the auspices of the Obama
administration. Coincidence, anyone?
Source:
The Road to Hell Passes Through Venezuela
The road to hell passes through Venezuela. Has anyone read or watched a feel good story
out of that socialist paradise in South America? Grocery stores are under military
protection. People are rioting in the
streets for want of basic necessities.
And it’s only going to get worse!
"Scarcity is
getting worse in Venezuela. Basic products are so hard to get," said
Josseline Viera, a doctor in Venezuela. "It used to be that certain
products were scarce, now it's basically everything."
Viera
says shortages have made it impossible for hospitals to find essential medical
products such as gauze and acetaminophen.
"I
basically have to send patients to other hospitals," she said. "But
patients have to go to a lot of clinics and hospitals before they find the
medical supplies they need for their care. I feel very sorry for my
country."
Experts
predict the situation in Venezuela will worsen as early as the first half of
2015.
"It
will be a year of extreme scarcity," Venezuelan economist Angel Garcia Banchs said. "What's coming to Venezuela
is chaos that will probably lead to barbarity and people looting."
The
state of the Venezuelan economy is the result of years of economic
mismanagement that the government, for years, was able to cover up by pumping
oil revenues to support its populist policies. But this was when oil was at
more than $100 per barrel, and despite declining oil production in Venezuela,
revenues were enough to keep people happy.
But
since this summer, Brent fell from above $115 per barrel to
$70, thanks in part to North America's shale boom, and oil analysts predict oil
prices will keep declining below $70 for Brent and even more for crude.
Even their capitol building is falling apart! Imagine that.
The holy temple of socialism is crumbling like the Tower of Babel. News crews had to run for their lives.
Hugo Chavez, the patron saint of Venezuelan socialism, couldn’t
have exited from the stage at a better time.
Source:
King vs. Burwell: A Precedent That Could be Venezuelan
The Supreme Court will decide the fate of Obamacare
this year when they rule on King vs. Burwell.
This should be a no brainer since the law unequivocally dictates that only
an exchange setup by a state is eligible for federal subsidies. However, the Supreme Court is just as much a
political animal as the other two branches.
No one can predict how they’ll rule, even when a law is as straight
forward as this.
Striking down Obamacare would free millions of
Americans from onerous penalties, save trillions in taxes, and relieve businesses
of ridiculous and unconstitutional mandates.
It would mean the beginning of the end of a dictatorial law forcing
citizens to buy a product that does not pertain to their needs.
We must remember that these federal exchanges are
unlawful. When 36 states refused to
setup an exchange, the Obama Administration ordered the IRS to offer subsidies
through a federal exchange.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of this
administration, the implications are dire.
Federal bureaucracies already have the power, through the Administrative
Procedures Act, to create rules and regulations that have the force of law
without going through the legislative process.
Can you imagine if they can openly defy an actual law written by
Congress and approved by the Executive?
Folks, we already have a runaway bureaucracy. A Supreme Court sanctioned ruling in favor of
this administration would be an unimaginable precedent. It would be Venezuelan.
Source:
Obama Thugs Plot Against Netanyahu
Barack
Obama and his cadre of commies are plotting a bloodless coup in Israel. Binyamin Netanyahu has embarrassed the
man-child one too many times. I guess
the Anointed One is threatened by a real leader who doesn’t wear mom jeans.
Haaretz reporter Roy (Chicky) Arad revealed in an article in the
Hebrew edition today that the foreign funded organization, “One Voice”, is
bankrolling the V-2015 campaign to defeat Binyamin Netanyahu’s national camp in
the March 2015 Knesset Elections.
One
indication of the generous financing is that it has now flown in a team of five
American campaign experts (including Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign’s national
field director) who will run the campaign out of offices taking up the ground
floor of a Tel Aviv office building.
V-2015 is
careful not to support a specific party – rather “just not Bibi”. As such, the
foreign funds pouring into the campaign are not subject to Israel’s campaign
finance laws
I don’t believe the American people would tolerate a
president of a foreign country trying to influence our elections with a bunch
of thugs knocking on our doors telling us who to vote for. Hopefully, this will backfire.
Source:
Jonathan Gruber Suspected of "Phantom Billing"
Jonathan Gruber, the acclaimed Obamacare architect
and suspect grafter, is under investigation for “phantom billing.” It just keeps getting better and better. Breitbart.com reported the following:
On Monday Darcie Johnston, head of
Vermonters for Health Care Freedom, told Breitbart News that Gruber may have a
“phantom billing” problem.
“Jonathan Gruber
has failed to provide any evidence that the $80,000 he’s been paid by the state
of Vermont for 800 hours of work he claimed was performed by unidentified
research assistants was actually performed, or that these research assistants
even exist and were paid,” Johnston told Breitbart News.
“There’s a term
in health care for the practice of billing for services not provided. It’s
called ‘phantom billing,’ and when doctors or health care providers do this,
they face criminal charges.”
Johnston’s
comment expands the potential number of legal problems which Gruber may face in
connection with his lucrative consulting business, from which he earned an
estimated $5 million over the past four years in federal
and state contracts.
On Friday, white collar criminal defense attorney Brady Toensing told Breitbart News, “if [an] investigation
uncovers sufficient evidence that Gruber padded his bills, he could be charged
by the state with contract fraud or by the feds with mail or wire fraud.”
Will an Obama crony get jail time for fraud? I doubt it.
Too bad, they don’t go after all the green energy grafters that have
raided the U.S. treasury.
Source:
Monday, January 26, 2015
Conservatives Right Again on Extended Unemployment Benefits
A day barely goes by without an example where a
conservative assertion is vindicated and a liberal idea crashes and burns. Does anyone remember the debate about extended
unemployment benefits for the recalcitrant?
Oh yeah, tea partiers and conservatives were called heartless bastards
by every newspaper editor across the country.
We were accused of stealing food out of the mouths of children and throwing
people out on the streets.
How dare we demand people get a job in an economy
like this? Well guess what? The job creation rate Barack Obama took
credit for had nothing to do with his policies.
It happened because we took away the teat. The Washington Examiner reported the
following:
Sixty percent of job creation in 2014 was caused by the
expiration of unemployment benefits, according to a new working
paper published by the
National Bureau of Economic Research.
In late 2013, a standoff between
Republicans and Democrats led to the abrupt expiration of long-term
unemployment benefits. Democrats warned that the expiration would have
disastrous ramifications, but Republicans had long argued that allowing
Americans to collect unemployment benefits for an indefinite period of time
provided a disincentive for them to work.
The new new working paper found that the
expiration of benefits was responsible for the creation of over 1.8 million
jobs. Nearly 1 million of those jobs were created by workers who would have
otherwise stayed out of the labor force if unemployment benefits had been
extended. Overall, almost 3 million jobs were created in 2014
“The negative effects of unemployment benefit extensions on
employment far outweighs the potential stimulative effects often ascribed to
this policy,” the study said.
It found that "the dominant impact
of the benefit cut on employment was not driven by a contraction in the labor
force —unemployed dropping out of the labor force because they were no longer
entitled to benefits — but instead by those previously not participating in the
labor market deciding to enter the labor force."
So 60% of job creation was caused by people getting
off the public dole and getting a job. Well,
who’d a thought that? Not the Observers
that infest the state of North Carolina.
Here is an excerpt from the News and Observer:
The unemployed searching in a still tight job market will
have less time to find a job in their field or one that suits their skills.
When their shrunken unemployment checks run out, they’ll have to take whatever
job they can find, usually at a pay level well below what they previously
earned.
This is a Dickensian level of callousness
toward North Carolinians facing an income crisis, but what makes it
particularly irksome is that Republicans are hailing it as a jobs program. In
July 2013, Republican lawmakers began punishing the jobless who were fortunate
enough to qualify for unemployment benefits. The federal government was
offering to pay for extended unemployment benefits so long as states didn’t
change their unemployment programs. North Carolina’s lawmakers changed the
program anyway, cutting off about 70,000 people from the federal benefits.
North Carolina was the only state to do so.
And this one:
Surely there are some in the tea party
movement who have at one time been unexpectedly unemployed or have known people
who were. And yet the “movement,” such as it is, continues to lead the
Republican Party down a hard-line and, yes, hard-hearted path.
Specifically, tea partyers don’t like a
federal program that extended unemployment benefits for the long-term
unemployed. The anti-attitude was that people were goofing off and not looking
for work because they could stay on the unemployment compensation dole. In
North Carolina, Republican legislators altered the benefits, lowering the time
people could receive help and cutting the maximum payment, on the misguided
logic that if people ran out of benefits, they’d be more motivated to seek
work.
It looks like they were
motivated to seek work! Is that Dickensian? I would say more like Ayn
Randian. How many strikes does it take
for a liberal to admit they are constantly wrong? Definitely, not three.
Source:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/24/3883741_ncs-unemployment-policy-get-a.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
Charlotte Observer Editorial Writer Wins Know Nothing Award
Progressives are in a state of panic. Their world view is crumbling before their
very eyes as one policy after another is being exposed as a fraud and
failure. Newspaper editors are lashing
out in ways that are sad and comical at best.
Taylor Batten, at the Charlotte Observer, inked an
editorial that is amusing and replete with ad hominem attacks on anyone who has
the audacity to question his mythical beliefs.
I am no fan of Rep. Robert Pittenger, but I will defend his assertions. Here is an excerpt from Mr. Batten’s rant:
I’m
excited to announce that this month’s winner is U.S. Rep. Robert Pittenger,
R-N.C., of Charlotte. Many of you know Robert, as he is a long-time member of
our Know Nothing caucus. He earned this month’s citation with his comments last
week on WBT radio. I quote them to you now.
“The mind of the eastern
liberals who are educated in these northeastern schools is, you know,
government is the most important element. They believe in centralized
planning.”
Shortly before that,
Pittenger told the station’s listeners: “(President Obama’s) only solution is
wealth redistribution and more government programs. He’s tried it, you know,
the last six years, the typical, you know, progressive, liberal, socialist – however
you want to define it – policies.”
Brother Pittenger sets a
fine example for us all. In just a few short sentences, he dismisses an entire
region of the country and puts the lie to the idea that those diploma mills
like Harvard, Princeton and MIT have been among the world’s leading educational
institutions for centuries. You know and I know that Ivy League schools are not
rigorous universities preparing young adults in all areas of endeavor, but
rather a thinly disguised cabal designed to push centralized planning on
America. Thank you, Brother Pittenger, for pointing that out.
This month’s honoree
also marvelously articulates for the world what we’ve long believed: That there
is no difference between progressive policies and socialist ones. Does anyone
still believe that socialism is an economic system in which the government
controls the means of production and distribution? Of course not! We encourage
all our members to use “progressive” and “socialist” interchangeably, as
Brother Pittenger does
I would say the Know Nothing
Award goes to Taylor Batten.
Administrative Studies was advocated by Woodrow Wilson, a leading
progressive of his time and president of Princeton University. Wilson wrote extensively about his contempt
for the Constitution and our founding principles. He desired an elite corps of bureaucrats to
run “the government” without interference from a “meddlesome” populace. And what better place to train these pencil
pushers than universities? Besides, don’t
most of these D.C. creatures hail from Ivy League schools?
And yes, we can use
progressive and socialism interchangeably, because progressives/socialists are
trying to control the means of production and distribution through
taxation and regulations. Maybe Mr. Batten,
the head socialist at the Charlotte Observer, should read some of his past
editorials.
And of course, what is a
libtard without global warming hysteria?
Here is a beauty. Keep in mind
the sarcastic tone in which he writes:
Some of you may have
seen the latest fiction being perpetrated by the world’s so-called scientists.
NASA scientists, based on readings from 3,000 weather stations around the
globe, reported last week that 2014 was the hottest year on record. This is
damn inconvenient for us and we must refute it immediately. Our campaign
contributors insist.
Toward that end, some of
our members have already helpfully pointed out that while 2014 may have been
hot as blazes, it was only a tiny bit hotter than 2010, an amount within the
margin of error. It’s true that the underlying scientific report made that
clear, but the NASA press release didn’t, which gives us an opening. Most
importantly, Margin-Of-Error-Gate helpfully distracts from the other
inconvenient finding by the world’s leading scientists: that the three hottest
years on record are 2005, 2010 and 2014
The hottest on record you say? And it’s based on 3,000 weather stations around the world? And when were these datasets operable? Did you say the LATE 1970’S! Of course you didn’t, Mr. Batten. That would require honesty. It would probably be helpful if you told the reader that these 3,000 weather stations aren’t distributed evenly across the planet, too.
And of course, Mr.
Batten forgot to include that an array of scientist are claiming NASA/NOAA
misled, deceived, and outright lied about 2014 being the hottest year on
record. Also, he left out the fact that
satellites have recorded an 18 year global pause in temperature.
So what are we to
believe? I know who I don’t believe:
Taylor Batten, Charlotte Observer’s editorial page editor.
Source:
Kurds Winning the Real "War on Women"
Kurds are winning the real, “War on Women.” ISIS
is getting their asses handed to them by brigades of women who refuse to become
sex slaves to the Islamic Ummah.
Beirut (AFP) - Kurdish militia have driven
Islamic State group militants from the Syrian border town of Kobane after
months of heavy fighting, a monitor and spokesman said Monday, dealing a
crucial blow to the jihadists
Across the border in Iraq meanwhile, a top army officer announced
troops had "liberated" Diyala province from IS jihadists.
In
Syria, the Kurdish advance marked the culmination of a battle lasting more than
four months in which nearly 1,800 people were killed.
The
Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitor said the Kurdish
People's Protection Units (YPG) had pushed IS militants from all of Kobane.
They
"expelled all Islamic State fighters from Kobane and have full control of
the town," Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman said.
"The
Kurds are pursuing some jihadists on the eastern outskirts of Kobane, but there
is no more fighting inside now.
'American Sniper' Befuddles Liberals
Liberals are apoplectic over the box office smash, ‘American
Sniper.’ They can’t believe this movie
is breaking records.
The usual suspects, who make their living
denigrating traditional values and American exceptionalism, couldn’t wait to throw
their weight around. Michael Moore didn’t
disappoint. Fat Bastard huffed
and puffed with the following tweet:
“My uncle killed by
sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back.
Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse.”
Howard Dean actually paid tea partiers a backhanded
compliment. The Daily Caller reported
the following:
“There’s
a lot of anger in this country, and the people who go see this movie are people
who are very angry,” Dean said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday.
“This guy basically says, ‘I’m going to
fight on your side,’” Dean said of Kyle, who was the most prolific sniper in
U.S. military history. The legendary sniper was murdered at a Texas gun range
in 2013.
“I bet you if you looked at the
cross-section of the tea party and people who see this movie there’s a lot of
intersection,” the former governor of Vermont continued.
The Clint Eastwood-directed film, which
is nominated for an Oscar for Best Picture, has earned nearly $200 million at
the box office since its release last week, making it one of the
highest-grossing films ever released during the month of January
That’s a lot of tea partiers. Maybe, Washington D.C. should start listening,
instead belittling and marginalizing us.
Source:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/michael-moore-pours-gas-on-his-american-sniper-firestorm-2015-01-26
The Nazis Were Socialists, Not Right-Wingers
I’ve had this same argument with my socialist
neighbor for years. He can’t wrap his
mind around it. I point out the
parallels between Nazi policies and today’s liberal democrats. He dismisses it. Here is one of my post outlining their similarities:
The Progressive Gospels
The 14th Amendment: A Repudiation of our Founding Principles
A majority of Americans take pride in their history
and heritage. Those principles, stated
in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, resonate to this day. However, I’m here to say Americans
unwittingly rejected those principles a long time ago.
Whatever you may think of the American Civil War,
the rejection of the Declaration of Independence was self-evident. The North invaded, defeated, and occupied the
South. Southerners who participated in
the rebellion were disenfranchised. They
were not allowed to hold public office or vote; therefore, they were at the
mercy of ravenous carpetbaggers and scalawags.
Life, liberty and property were in peril.
When in the Course
of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of
the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that
they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The 14th
Amendment facilitated the disenfranchisement of the South, even though, it didn’t
pass constitutional requirements through the ratification process; yet, was
promulgated and enforced by radicals in Washington D.C.
Was the intent by
the authors of the 14th Amendment a repudiation of a limited central
government as was dictated by our founders?
The Bill of Rights was meant to restrain the central government, and
indeed was a prerequisite for ratification by the States; yet, those moorings
have been turned on the States. They’ve
become bound by the very tools they demanded as a means to protect themselves
from an abusive central government that they instinctively knew would abrogate
States’ sovereignty and self-determination.
Not only is the 14th’s
legitimacy in question, so is its intent.
Many unscrupulous politicians employ broad language to deceive the
general population. Section One is a perfect example of ambiguity in a law. Statists
argue that the 14th Amendment dictates that the Bill of Rights applies
to all States and not just the federal government; therefore, states’ laws and
constitutions will constantly be under the purview of the federal government. This is just the opposite of what our
founding fathers intended.
I ask, did northern
states willingly agree to abdicate self-governance and determination to a distant
capitol? Did they want an unaccountable
federal judiciary declare their laws and constitution, unconstitutional? I don’t think so.
So we are left with
intent vs. construction of the First Section in the 14th Amendment
of which the principle author is Congressman John Bingham of Ohio. Detractors state Bingham was a muddled
thinker, a confused man, and Section One is a reflection of the man himself.
I contend Bingham
was a typical politician who hid behind broad language to conceal his true
intent, and that is a strong central government that would wield power over the
states. If you read the rest of the 14th
Amendment, there is no ambiguity. Here
is the 14th Amendment:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned
among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the
whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when
the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and
Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive
and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is
denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being
twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in
any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the
number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold
any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a
vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the
United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,
shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall
assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or
rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation
of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal
and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to
enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article
There is no
ambiguity in subsequent sections.
Southerners who participated in the rebellion were not allowed to vote
or hold public office. Southerners were
forced to pay Northern war debt, including pensions for their soldiers, while
at the same time having to pay their own without any recourse from the federal
government. Yet, we are left with an
ambiguous Section One and a continuous debate about intent vs. construction.
I believe we know the
intent of its authors. It was to use
broad, ambiguous language as a means to shield politicians from the wrath of their constituents. Their true
intent was to unleash a central government
that would use its arbitrary authority to exercise power over states and its citizens. Ultimately, it was a repudiation of our
founding principles.
Source:
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Gov. Scott Walker Wows Iowans
There are only a handful of politicians who I
believe have the fortitude and record to take on the entrenched self interest
and good ole boys network in Washington D.C.
Governor Scott Walker is one of them.
Not only did he defeat progressives in a blue state, he did so three
times without compromising his conservative principles. And believe me, people respect a man who
stands for what he believes in.
Here is an excerpt from the Hill.com on Governor
Scott Walker’s reception in Iowa:
The
Wisconsin governor, in rolled-up shirtsleeves, paced the stage as he blasted
big government and touted a long list of conservative reforms he's pushed
through in blue Wisconsin.
The governor also showed a rhetorical flourish
that's largely been absent from his previous campaigns, drawing the crowd to
its feet multiple times.
"There's a reason we take a day off to
celebrate the 4th of July and not the 15th of April," he said, almost
yelling as his voice grew hoarse. "Because in America we value our
independence from the government, not our dependence on it."
And then this:
When he said he won reelection as Milwaukee County Executive in an
area where President Obama won by a two-to-one margin, some in the audience
gasped.
"If you get the job done the voters will actually stand up
with you," he said before contrasting his record with Washington's
deadlock.
Yes, voters will stand with a principled,
conservative politician who practices what he preaches. It’s too bad we didn’t have one in the past
two presidential elections
H/T: Weasel Zippers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)