Desert showdown blows lid off long-standing plans with the Chinese
Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D. is a WND senior staff reporter.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Posted on hislightshining.com on April 23, 2014
NEW YORK – When Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refused to take his cattle off land the federal government demanded for the habitat of an endangered desert tortoise, it focused the nation’s attention on an arena Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., may have preferred to be kept quiet.
An investigative report published last week by Infowars.com drew a connection between Senate Majority Leader Reid’s involvement with Chinese energy giant ENN, Chinese efforts to build massive solar facilities in the Nevada desert and the showdown between Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or BLM.
It wasn’t the first report to notice curious dealings involving the Chinese and America’s top Democrats.
On Jan. 20, 2013, WND warned Chinese government-backed economists were proposing a plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up “development zones” in the United States as part of a plan proposed by the Chinese government to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt owned by the Chinese government.
The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.
China grabs oil interests in USA
The first major intrusion of China in the U.S. oil and natural gas market can be traced to the Obama administration decision in October 2009 to allow state-owned Chinese energy giant China Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC, to purchase a multi-million dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields.
By allowing China to have equity interests in U.S. oil and natural gas production, the Obama administration reversed a policy of the Bush administration that in 2005 blocked China on grounds of national security concerns from a $18.4-billion dollar deal in which China planned to purchase California-based Unocal Corp.
China’s two, giant, state-owned oil companies acquiring oil and natural gas interests in the USA are CNOOC, 100-percent owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, and Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopac Corporation, an investment company owned by the government of the People’s Republic of China, incorporated in China in 1998, largely to acquire and operate oil and natural gas interests worldwide.
On March 6, 2012, the Wall Street Journal compiled a state-by-state list of the $17 billion in oil and natural gas equity interests CNOOC and Sinopec have acquired in the United States since 2010.
- Colorado: CNOOC gained a one-third stake in 800,000 acres in northeast Colorado and southwest Wyoming in a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy Corporation.
- Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
- Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
- Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5-billion deal.
- Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.
- Texas: CNOOC acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal.
- Wyoming: CNOOC has a one-third stake in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming after a $1.27-billion pact with Chesapeake Energy. Sinopec gained a one-third interest in Devon Energy’s 320,000 acres as part of a larger $2.5-billion deal.
On March 6, 2012, in a separate story, the Wall Street Journal described that China’s strategy implemented since 2010 by Fu Chengyu, who has served as chairman of both CNOOC and Sinopec, involved the following components: “Seek minority states, play a passive role, and, in a nod to U.S. regulators, keep Chinese personnel at arm’s length from advanced U.S. technology.”
Harry Reid and Chinese solar investments in Nevada
On April 3, 3012, Bloomberg reported Chinese billionaire Wang Yusuo, one of China’s richest citizens and the founder of Chinese energy giant ENN Group, had teamed up with Senate Majority Leader Reid to win incentives including land 113 miles southeast of Las Vegas that ENN sought to buy for $4.5 million, less than one-eighth of the land’s $38.6 million assessed value.
Bloomberg reported ENN intended to create solar energy farms on the Nevada land, despite the nearly 50 percent plunge in solar panel prices globally in the previous 15 months that led to the bankruptcy of solar equipment maker Solyndra LLC, which had received approximately $535 million in U.S. government loan guarantees.
Bloomberg further documented ENN had contributed $40,650 individually and through its political action committee to Sen. Reid over the previous three election cycles.
Subsequently, on Sept. 4, 2012, Breitbart.com reported lawyer Rory Reid, the son of Sen. Reid, had been appointed the primary representative for ENN Energy Group, fronting the bid by the Chinese company to build a $5-billion solar panel plant on a 9,000-acre Clark County desert plot in Laughton, Nevada.
A Reuters report published on Aug. 31, 2012, documented that Reid was recruited by ENN during a 2011 trip he took to China with nine other U.S. senators, supposedly to invite Chinese investment in the United States.
The Senate group accompanying Reid on his 2011 trip to China included six other Democrats and three Republicans: Richard Shelby, R-Ala.; Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.; Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.; Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; and Michael Bennet, D-Colo.
“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67-year-old rancher,” blogger Dana Loesch wrote last week. “They want his land.”
Loesch pointed out that Reid has been accused by ranchers in Nevada of using the BLM to control Nevada land, over 84 percent of which is already owned by the federal government, and to pay back special interests, including his top donor, Harry Whittemore, who first urged Reid to have the habitat of the desert tortoise moved before he was convicted of violating federal election laws by illegally funneling $150,000 to Reid’s 2007 reelection campaign.
Confirmed by a 71-28 Senate vote on April 9, BLM chief Neil Kornze served as a former senior adviser to Reid before he joined BLM in 2011, serving for the past year as the agency’s principal deputy director, according to a CBS local television news report broadcast in Carson City, Nevada.
In 2012, BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published a “Final Pragmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” that Inforwars.com charged established the basis for allowing the endangered desert tortoise to migrate habitats, paving the way to put solar energy development projects on acreage that includes public land at dispute in the Bundy standoff over grazing rights.
Loesch’s analysis of the BLM’s actions was echoed at the Moapa Valley Town board meeting last Wednesday when one of the local citizens rose to give a stirring defense of Cliven Bundy and issue a warning to the BLM.
“They can throw an army of men around there … with sniper rifles on people just like you are, men, women and children … out there, who believe they have a right to be there,” he said.
“Maybe you believe in some other place that you believe you can be. Someday they’re gonna throw that army of men around you. And then somehow they feel like they got the right … they can drop a damn tripod in the ground and set a sniper rifle on it, so if you cross a line, they can put a bullet in you. Who the hell is the man behind that trigger? I wanna know … which one of you guys gives that guy the authority to throw that rifle down? And when he does, which one of us is he going to shoot?”
“Good God, didn’t he grow up in this country? Are we gonna give it up? This is a helluva lot bigger than Clive Bundy.”
The audience erupted in applause as the man concluded his speech.
“And when Clive decides to go back in there after his cows, and they’ve got orders to shoot anyone who goes in there, I’m gonna be with him.”
Someone in the crowd piped up, “Carrying a gun I hope.”
“No, no,” he said, “because them SOBs will fire the next shot heard around the world … and we will fire the rest!”
The Patriot Post
Tuesday's Daily Digest
Apr. 22, 2014
“It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, 1785
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
GAO Uncovers More HHS Begging
Outgoing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius pushed corporate CEOs to give big donations to Enroll America, an “outside” group started by former White House staffer Anne Filipic. That much was known already, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO) brings more insight into the Most Transparent Administration Ever™, and that is Sebelius wasn’t alone. Jeanne Lambrew, although not named in the GAO report, is the Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy who the report says likewise solicited “significant financial contributions” for Enroll America. The administration was obviously trying to circumvent Congress’s decision to limit the money available to HHS for enrollment propaganda, and Congress should dig further to uncover any other lawless activity by this administration. It’s a full-time job, we know.
ObamaCare Will ‘Hit the Fan’
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) actually voted against ObamaCare in 2010, and now he’s warning that the law’s delayed provisions mean the health care system’s troubles are “going to hit the fan.” In fact, he says, “There are parts of ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, that were postponed because they are unpalatable.” For example, he points to the tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans that goes into effect in a few years, noting that it will be “the first time in this country’s history that we have actually taxed health care.” All of it spells disaster for Democrats this fall, he predicts: “We will lose seats in the House. I am fairly certain of that based on the poll numbers that are coming out from the more experienced pollsters down there, and I think we may lose the Senate.” Here’s hoping he’s right.
States Consider Federal Land
Legislators from several Western states met Friday in Salt Lake City to discuss gaining state control of federal lands. They say that timing the meeting just after the standoff at Cliven Bundy’s ranch1 was a coincidence, but that such a problem was waiting to happen. “What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” said Republican Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart. The federal government owns 84% of Nevada, and similar outsized portions of most other Western states. The debate isn’t new, either. In fact, it’s ebbed and flowed for decades. The Constitution grants the federal government authority over land “purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be,” provided it has a purpose, such as “the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” This hasn’t been interpreted very strictly over the last century, and if the states are serious now, don’t expect the feds to leave quietly.
Court on Drone Strikes
When you kill American citizens in a drone strike, you should at least disclose the legal basis for doing so. That’s essentially what the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday, slapping the Obama administration for its use of drone strikes to kill terrorists, even if they are U.S. citizens. Though the administration argues that the targeting should remain secret, the Court ruled, “After senior Government officials have assured the public that targeted killings are ‘lawful’ and that OLC advice ‘establishes the legal boundaries within which we can operate,’ waiver of secrecy and privilege as to the legal analysis in the Memorandum has occurred.” The fundamental problem is that we have a commander in chief who can’t be trusted to uphold Rule of Law or maintain national security.
Tensions Increase in Ukraine
Well that was fast. Just last week, diplomats from Ukraine, Russia, the EU and the U.S. reached a deal2 on resolving tensions in the former Soviet Republic. But after gunfire erupted early Easter morning leaving three dead, the deal is tenuous at best. Russia blames Ukraine, saying the latter can’t maintain order. But clearly it’s Russia that has instigated the whole affair as part of Vladimir Putin’s broader power grab. Ukraine even offered photos of Russian special forces3 operating in eastern Ukraine. Sunday’s events left even some Democrats calling on the Obama administration to ratchet up sanctions. But the problem is deeper than that. As one anonymous Democrat strategist put it, Obama “can’t handle Putin. He can’t handle Republicans. He just is not a natural leader.” We’ll second that.
Earth Day, Ethanol and Keystone
Today is Earth Day7, a day that envirofascists have used annually since 1970 to draw attention to their activist agenda. The celebration, which includes events in over 140 countries, has taken on larger significance in recent years as organizations more actively push their global warming fantasy on the American people. Never mind that in the last 17 years, the average temperature of the world hasn’t gone up, but let’s not get tripped up by data here. There’s an agenda to be driven.
The impact of environmentalists on the American economy has also taken on a larger role. For proof, you need look no further than the multi-billion-dollar ethanol industry. The so-called biofuels industry, which came into being as an alternative to traditional fossil fuels, has been mandated and heavily subsidized by taxpayers ostensibly in hopes that it would soon become a self-sustaining economic sector. Not only have biofuels never really cranked up the engine, but a recent study now claims that corn-based ethanol actually creates 7% more greenhouse gases than conventional gasoline. There’s a finger in your eye.
The $500,000 study, which came out Sunday in the Natural Climate Change journal, concludes that corn-based fuels won’t meet the renewable fuel standard mandated by law in 2007. The EPA’s analysis claims otherwise, and the agency immediately attacked the study as flawed because, according to spokeswoman Liz Purchia, it “does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol.”
The EPA has reduced the proposed amount of biofuels mandated for public use five times. The 2014 production target is now 17 million gallons; when the law was written the agency predicted 1.75 billion gallons. The inability of the fuel to reach commercial viability has not stopped politicians from continuing to push the issue if for no other reason than fat government checks to keep the boondoggle going.
In other energy news, money also appears to be motivating the latest decision to stall the Keystone XL pipeline. Late Friday afternoon before the Easter holiday, the State Department announced that it was indefinitely postponing a decision on whether to build the pipeline, citing a pending court case over land use issues. The pipeline is popular with the public, will create thousand of jobs, and make America less dependent on foreign oil, but all that pales in comparison to political considerations for the Obama administration. Even Terry O'Sullivan, general president of the Laborers International Union of America (LIUNA), called Obama’s delay “gutless” and a “low blow to the working men and women of our country.”
The State Department has found that the pipeline poses no significant environmental risk8. But never mind that – it’s all about the campaign cash. Billionaire investor and rabid environmentalist Tom Steyer has offered to throw $100 million into key congressional races for Democrats this year – if Barack Obama stops the Keystone project from taking place. The Canadian oil that would be pumped through the Keystone pipeline will be extracted no matter what quid pro quo exists between the president and his leftist sponsors.
It’s interesting that there is no mention of Steyer when the news media reports on how money is corrupting politics. He spent $11 million on Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s run for Virginia governor in 2013, and now he has essentially paid to shelve the Keystone pipeline proposal in order to deindustrialize America. He is just further proof, like Al Gore before him, that the only green that these activists care about is cash.
A Black Conservative Takes on the ‘Poverty Pentagon’
Robert L. Woodson Sr., a “no-nonsense black conservative who heads the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise,” says, “Low-income people haven’t been on President Obama’s agenda for five years.” On the other hand, Obama and the Left exploit poor blacks. He says, “We’ve created a poverty industry, turned poor people into a commodity.” And he’s doing something about it.
OPINION IN BRIEF
American political economist Henry George (1839-1897): “He who sees the truth, let him proclaim it, without asking who is for it or who is against it."
Columnist Mona Charen: "Lately, [Democrats] added contraception to the mix to weave their haunting tale of a Republican ‘war on women.’ … Republican candidates who are accused of being against birth control because they oppose Obamacare should enjoy explaining that declining to subsidize something is not equivalent to opposing it. I decline to subsidize gun purchases by all American males. Does that make me anti-man? Anti-gun? I decline to subsidize gym memberships for all teenagers. Does that make me pro-obesity? I decline to subsidize farmers – oh wait, we already do that, but I wish I could refuse. And the same goes for our subsidies of green energy companies, the NFL, big banks, transportation and thousands of other things. Women voters are not an army of Sandra Flukes, flocking to the polls for their free diaphragms and limitless abortions, but they do flinch from extremists. It’s up to Republican candidates to illustrate who the real extremists are.”
Columnist Burt Prelutsky: “A reader of mine we’ll call Ray sent me six contradictions that sum up the thinking of Progressives, or at least what passes for thinking in those bizarre quarters. It begins: ‘One, America is capitalist and greedy, and yet half the population is subsidized. Two, half the population is subsidized, yet they regard themselves as victims. Three, they think they are victims, yet their representatives run the government. Four, their representatives run the government, yet the poor keep getting poorer. Five, the poor keep getting poorer, yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about. Six, they have things that people in other countries only dream about, yet they want America to be more like those other countries.’”
Fred Thompson: “In a taunting gesture, a Russian fighter jet made 12 passes, and flew within 1,000 yards of an American warship in the Black Sea. In response, Obama instructed the ship to launch paper airplanes made from strongly-worded letters.”
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
The High Cost of Liberalism
4/22/2014 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell
Liberals advocate many wonderful things. In fact, I suspect that most conservatives would prefer to live in the kind of world envisioned by liberals, rather than in the kind of world envisioned by conservatives.
Unfortunately, the only kind of world that any of us can live in is the world that actually exists. Trying to live in the kind of world that liberals envision has costs that will not go away just because these costs are often ignored by liberals.
One of those costs appeared in an announcement of a house for sale in Palo Alto, the community adjacent to Stanford University, an institution that is as politically correct as they come.
The house is for sale at $1,498,000. It is a 1,010 square foot bungalow with two bedrooms, one bath and a garage. Although the announcement does not mention it, this bungalow is located near a commuter railroad line, with trains passing regularly throughout the day.
Lest you think this house must be some kind of designer's dream, loaded with high-tech stuff, it was built in 1942 and, even if it was larger, no one would mistake it for the Taj Mahal or San Simeon.
This house is not an aberration, and its price is not out of line with other housing prices in Palo Alto. One couple who had lived in their 1,200 square foot home in Palo Alto for 20 years decided to sell it, and posted an asking price just under $1.3 million.
Competition for that house forced the selling price up to $1.7 million.
Another Palo Alto house, this one with 1,292 square feet of space, is on the market for $2,285,000. It was built in 1895.
Even a vacant lot in Palo Alto costs more than a spacious middle-class home costs in most of the rest of the country.
How does this tie in with liberalism?
In this part of California, liberalism reigns supreme and "open space" is virtually a religion. What that lovely phrase means is that there are vast amounts of empty land where the law forbids anybody from building anything.
Anyone who has taken Economics 1 knows that preventing the supply from rising to meet the demand means that prices are going to rise. Housing is no exception.
Yet when my wife wrote in a local Palo Alto newspaper, many years ago, that preventing the building of housing would cause existing housing to become far too expensive for most people to afford it, she was deluged with more outraged letters than I get from readers of a nationally syndicated column.
What she said was treated as blasphemy against the religion of "open space" -- and open space is just one of the wonderful things about the world envisioned by liberals that is ruinously expensive in the mundane world where the rest of us live.
Much as many liberals like to put guilt trips on other people, they seldom seek out, much less acknowledge and take responsibility for, the bad consequences of their own actions.
There are people who claim that astronomical housing prices in places like Palo Alto and San Francisco are due to a scarcity of land. But there is enough vacant land ("open space") on the other side of the 280 Freeway that goes past Palo Alto to build another Palo Alto or two -- except for laws and policies that make that impossible.
As in San Francisco and other parts of the country where housing prices skyrocketed after building homes was prohibited or severely restricted, this began in Palo Alto in the 1970s.
Housing prices in Palo Alto nearly quadrupled during that decade. This was not due to expensive new houses being built, because not a single new house was built in Palo Alto in the 1970s. The same old houses simply shot up in price.
It was very much the same story in San Francisco, which was a bastion of liberalism then as now. There too, incredibly high prices are charged for small houses, often jammed close together. A local newspaper described a graduate student looking for a place to rent who was "visiting one exorbitantly priced hovel after another."
That is part of the unacknowledged cost of "open space," and just part of the high cost of liberalism.
Memo to: Republican Candidates, Answer War on Women
4/22/2014 12:01:00 AM - Mona Charen
Just because your opponent is hurling baseless or even ridiculous charges does not mean that you are free to disregard them. You may think it's absurd to argue that you are engaged in a "war on women." But contempt for the accusation is not enough.
Some strategists suggest (they have for years) the key for Republican candidates is to downplay social issues in favor of economic arguments. Pocketbook appeals are great, but the premise -- that social issues damage Republican candidates -- is shaky at best.
When Pew asked women voters to rank a list of issues in order of importance in September 2012, abortion was named less often than health care, education, jobs, Medicare, the economy, terrorism, taxes, foreign policy and the budget deficit. The only issues that ranked lower for women voters were immigration and energy. A post-election Kaiser poll found only 7 percent of those who voted for President Barack Obama cited women's issues as most important to their vote.
It's true single women tend to favor Democrats, but that isn't an abortion vote; it's a vote for security. American women are about equally divided between the pro-life and pro-choice positions, with the seesaw sometimes tilting a bit one way and sometimes the other, depending upon the polling question. Most Americans, including most of those who describe themselves as pro-choice, are comfortable with restrictions on abortion after 12 weeks gestation.
What Americans do recoil from is perceived extremism, and that's where Republicans need to learn their lines. In 2012, some Republicans seemed ill-informed and insensitive about rape and pregnancy. The press and the Democrats will always frame questions to abortion opponents as "you oppose abortion even in cases of rape and incest." It's up to Republican candidates to remind audiences that it is Democrats who are the extremists on this question. A possible response: "There are some rare and very tragic cases of pregnancies caused through rape and incest. They represent less than 2 percent of all abortions performed in the U.S. yearly. (Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute). My opponent, however, favors no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. Not for sex selection. Not at six months gestation. Not when the baby can survive outside the womb. Not at nine months gestation. In some cases, not even after a baby is born alive following a failed attempt at abortion."
Sen. Barbara Boxer, whom everyone agrees is a mainstream Democrat, once explained that life begins when you take the baby home from the hospital.
Democrats actually don't like to talk about abortion much. They know that voters are not with them, so they disguise what they're for with euphemisms like "choice" and "women's health." Lately, they've added contraception to the mix to weave their haunting tale of a Republican "war on women."
Who's against contraception? The only Republican on the national stage who has said anything remotely akin to opposing birth control was Rick Santorum. Santorum is a thoughtful guy -- not always a bonus in a candidate. He mused that contraception had been, on balance, a bad deal for women. He also revealed that he and his wife didn't use it, which is way more than we needed or wanted to know. Still, not even Santorum ever said that he would vote to outlaw it.
The Democrats were sly. Obama's Department of Health and Human Services slipped a mandate into Obamacare that requires all insurers to provide contraceptives for free. Not just to indigent women, but to all women. There is already a federal subsidy providing free contraceptives for the poor. In 2010, we spent $2.37 billion for family-planning services. It's the Democrats' great innovation to force middle-class women to subsidize contraceptive purchases by wealthy women.
Republican candidates who are accused of being against birth control because they oppose Obamacare should enjoy explaining that declining to subsidize something is not equivalent to opposing it. I decline to subsidize gun purchases by all American males. Does that make me anti-man? Anti-gun? I decline to subsidize gym memberships for all teenagers. Does that make me pro-obesity? I decline to subsidize farmers -- oh wait, we already do that, but I wish I could refuse. And the same goes for our subsidies of green energy companies, the NFL, big banks, transportation and thousands of other things.
Women voters are not an army of Sandra Flukes, flocking to the polls for their free diaphragms and limitless abortions, but they do flinch from extremists. It's up to Republican candidates to illustrate who the real extremists are.
From Greatness to Whiteness
4/22/2014 12:01:00 AM - Dennis Prager
When Americans over the age of, let us say, 45, look at any of the iconic paintings of America's Founders -- the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the signing of the Constitution, George Washington crossing the Delaware, any of the individual portraits the Founders -- what do they see?
They see great men founding a great country.
If you ask recent graduates of almost any American university what they see when they look at these paintings, chances are that they see something entirely different.
They are apt to see rich, white males who are not great and who did not found a great country. And for many, it is worse than that. These men are not only not great; they are morally quite flawed in that they were slaveholders and/or founded a country that allowed slavery. Moreover, they were not only all racists; they were all sexists, who restricted the vote to males. And they were rich men who were primarily concerned with protecting their wealth, which is why they restricted the vote to landowners.
In the past, Americans overwhelmingly saw pictures of greatness. Increasingly only conservatives see pictures of greatness. More and more Americans -- that includes the entire left and many universities attendees who were indoctrinated by left-wing professors -- now see rich, white, self-interested males.
The left-wing trinity of race, gender and class has prevailed. The new dividing lines are no longer good and bad or excellent and mediocre, but white and non-white, male and female, and rich and poor. Instead of seeing great human beings in those paintings of the Founders, Americans have been taught to see rich, white, (meaning -- by definition -- selfish, bigoted, racist, sexist) males.
In colleges throughout America, students are taught to have disdain for the white race. I know this sounds incredible, or at least exaggerated. It is neither.
For example, from the day they enter college, many students are taught about white privilege -- how innately advantaged white students (and all other whites are). Last week, the president of Western Washington University posed the question on the university's website: "How do we make sure that in future years we are not as white as we are today?"
Imagine if the president of the University of California at Berkeley had posed the question, "How do we make sure that in future years we are not as Asian as we are today?"
Inner city young blacks who work hard in school are routinely chastised by other black youth for "acting white."
Regarding white privilege, last year, three academics at the University of Rhode Island wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education:
"The American Psychological Association's educational goals for the psychology major include sociocultural and international awareness, with learning outcomes regarding mastery of concepts related to power and privilege. Other professional organizations, including the American Sociological Association, have developed similar learning goals for teaching in higher education. Instructors have been charged with teaching their white students to understand their own privileged positions in society relative to those of marginalized groups."
The key point here is that the word "values" never appears. Instead of asking what values made America's Founders great, the left asks what race, gender and class privileges enabled those men to found America. Instead of asking what values does the white majority (or, for that matter, on some campuses, the Asian majority) live by in order to succeed, and how can we help inculcate those values among more less successful people of all racial and ethnic groups, the left asks what privileges do whites have that enable them to get into colleges and graduate at a higher rate than blacks and Latinos.
The undermining of the very concept of values was starkly made clear last month at a national inter-college debate tournament.
As reported in the Atlantic last week:
"On March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president's war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities."
In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like 'nigga authenticity' and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee's rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. 'F--- the time!' he yelled.
In a national intercollegiate debate contest, a black debating team won by transforming the topic of the debate, one that that had nothing to do with race, into a race question.
But to object to this, or to argue that a team might be disqualified for yelling "f--- the time" when told it had gone over the time limit, or to ask what performing hip-hop has to do with the topic "whether the U.S. president's war powers should be restricted" -- is now deemed to act white.
This is another victory for the left. And another defeat for standards, for truth and for the values embodied by the men in the paintings of the Founders.
5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America
4/22/2014 12:01:00 AM - John Hawkins
When you allow unlawful acts to go unpunished, you're moving toward a government of men rather than a government of law; you're moving toward anarchy. And that's exactly what we're doing. -- John Wayne
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. -- George Orwell
Tell me why any American should respect the law?
Because it's moral? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in a nation like America, it's not unusual for laws to be unfair, unjust, and even immoral.
Is it because laws represent the will of the people? Not anymore. Today, the "law" is often summarily created from murky statutes by unelected bureaucrats who face no consequences for destroying people's lives.
Well, is the law at least equally applied? Absolutely not. Your political affiliation and how well connected you are to the regime in charge can have a direct bearing on whether you're prosecuted for breaking the law and how serious the penalty will be.
So, what's left?
Respect for the law? Why should anyone respect arbitrary, immoral laws that aren't equally applied and don't reflect the will of the people? Under Barack Obama, the "law" in this country has become nothing more than whatever you can get away with and we're likely to feel the consequences of that for decades to come.
1) Obamacare is whatever Barack Obama says it is: Barack Obama has no more legal right to change Obamacare all by his lonesome than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, or for that matter, Justin Bieber does. He simply doesn't have the legal authority to delay the employer mandate, delay taxes that are written into law, or give subsidies through federal exchanges to places where no state exchange was set up. Yet, Obama has delayed or changed the meaning of the law 19 times as if he were Kim Jong- un, as opposed to the President of a republic.
2) There are different laws for Tea Parties and the Occupy Movement: In city after city, the Occupy Movement was allowed to protest without expensive permits, participants were allowed to illegally camp and in some places they were allowed to break the law with impunity, which is why it's so staggering that there were still almost 8,000 arrests by the time all the dirty hippies abandoned their tents and rape-free zones to go home and take showers. Meanwhile, Tea Party groups across the country weren't given any similar breaks.
Tea party activists...accused officials in at least four cities of giving preferential treatment to anti-Wall Street protesters, and one group in Richmond is asking the city to repay $8,000 spent for permits and other needs. ...The Richmond Tea Party said Mayor Dwight C. Jones' administration sought permit fees, portable toilets and other demands for their events, but has given Occupy Richmond a free pass. The occupation has grown to a tent city, with a makeshift library, a volleyball net and a row of portable toilets. Jones has said that because he is a product of the civil rights movement he has allowed the Occupy protesters to remain since Oct. 17. "He's sympathizing with them," said Colleen Owens, a spokeswoman for the Richmond Tea Party. "We would never, as a tea party, have gotten away with not complying with the law." Tea party organizers had to buy liability insurance, hire police and emergency personnel and even keep a defibrillator on site, Owens said.
When groups all across the country are charged thousands of dollars for permits and liability insurance solely because of their political beliefs while other groups are given a free pass, there is no equality under the law.
3) Illegal immigration becomes legal: Admittedly, George W. Bush did a mediocre job of securing the border and enforcing immigration law. However, as a practical matter, illegal immigration isn't "illegal" anymore. Obama has illegally passed his own version of the DREAM Act, illegally handed out work permits to people who are breaking the law, and for all intents and purposes, has stopped detaining illegal immigrants who haven't been charged with other crimes. According to Senator Jeff Sessions , "at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal."
This is despite the fact that being here illegally is a crime and the people who broke that law did so knowing that the penalty was deportation. Tens of millions of immigrants have been welcomed to this country because as EVERYONE is well aware, we already have a "path to citizenship" for non- Americans and it's called following the law.
4) The IRS illegally targeted Tea Partiers: If the IRS ever comes after you, try refusing to hand over documentation for years and pleading the 5th Amendment and see what happens to you. If you're lucky, maybe you'll end up in the same minimum security prison that Wesley Snipes went to after some advisors convinced him he didn't have to pay taxes. Yet, after the IRS targeted Tea Partiers because they were conservative, tried to refer them for prosecution to the DOJ, and illegally released some of their information to outside parties, the IRS officials have been refusing to cooperate with the investigation. If the IRS wasn’t guiltier than Wesley Snipes, it would be cooperating just like the rest of us are forced to do when we face an audit.
5) Eric Holder encouraged state attorney generals to refuse to defend traditional marriage in court: In other words, if your state passes a ban on gay marriage, Holder wants state attorney generals to undercut the will of the people in order to further his political agenda. So according to Eric Holder, whether the people of a state get to have a representative in court depends on whether or not liberal attorney generals agree with their opinion or not. As John Suthers, the attorney general of Colorado, said:
I have been attorney general of Colorado for nine years, during which time the state has enacted laws that span the philosophical and political spectrum. I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs. But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all — and will continue to.
...Depending on one’s view of the laws in question, such a “litigation veto” may, in the short term, be a terrific thing; an unpopular law is defanged and the attorney general can take credit — indeed, he can be the hero to his political base and keep his political ambitions intact. But in the longer term, this practice corrodes our system of checks and balances, public belief in the power of democracy and ultimately the moral and legal authority on which attorneys general must depend.
....I fear that refusing to defend unpopular or politically distasteful laws will ultimately weaken the legal and moral authority that attorneys general have earned and depend on. We will become viewed as simply one more player in a political system rather than as legal authorities in a legal system. The courts, the governments we represent and, most important, the people we serve will treat our pronouncements and arguments with skepticism and cynicism.
When the "law" becomes little more than politics by other means, it deserves to be treated with the same rich contempt that we hold for politicians in this country. That has already started to happen, it's not good for the country, and much to the chagrin of the liberals who love this lawlessness as long as they're in charge, it's not going to end with Obama.
The Patriot Post
Monday’s Daily Digest
Apr. 21, 2014
“It already appears, that there must be in every society of men superiors and inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution and course of nature the foundations of the distinction.” –John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Don’t Mention ‘Recovery’
Democrats running for office this fall received some helpful advice from key strategists: “Yeah, that economic recovery… don’t mention it.” Stan Greenberg, James Carville and others warn that talking about “recovery” ignores “how much trouble people are in, and doesn’t convince them that policymakers really understand or are even focusing on the problems they continue to face.” In fact, “Democrats should bury any mention of the recovery. That message was tested … and it lost to the Republican message.” That’s because the president has had six long years to get the economy off the ground and he’s done nothing but add to the burden. Even Obama’s low-info voters get that.
Bundy Supporters ‘Domestic Terrorists’
Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) won’t tolerate what’s happening up at Cliven Bundy’s ranch1. “Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said. “I repeat: What went on up there was domestic terrorism.” If he was referring to the hyper-militarized Bureau of Land Management descending on the area with disproportionate force, he has a point, but he wasn’t. He was referring to the citizens who gathered to wave flags, hold signs and stand in support of Bundy, however misguided and lacking legal standing his quest may be. Bundy’s ranch isn’t the hill we’d choose to die on, but the federal government’s behavior in the case is undoubtedly inexcusable, as are Reid’s inflammatory comments.
GOP Mixed Signals
Republicans are sending mixed signals on immigration reform. The GOP introduced its principles for reform2 early this year only to have House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) warn that Barack Obama’s penchant for ignoring or changing the law “will spoil the well to the point where no one will trust him.” And yet activists at a Las Vegas fundraiser say Boehner told them he was “hell-bent on getting this done this year.” A spokesman didn’t deny it but maintained that Obama can’t be trusted. The two are not mutually exclusive – the GOP may decide to jump off the cliff anyway. But the lack of trust should be a deterrent. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.) also is drafting legislation that would give qualifying undocumented immigrants legal status and the chance to apply for citizenship through existing channels. The bill includes border-security measures and an effort to clear the backlog of applications for permanent legal status, known as green cards.” It’s supposed to be ready by summer, so stay tuned.
Gore Slams ‘Despicable’ Skeptics
Al Gore flew across the Pacific to the Aloha State last week – no word on how big his carbon footprint was – to proclaim of the climate debate, “Ultimately, we are going to win this thing.” It’s imperative, he explained: “Our way of life is at stake, our grandchildren are at stake, the future of civilization is at stake,” and those with contrary views are simply “immoral, unethical and despicable.” Such rhetoric has been preached for decades now, only alarmists' clamor has grown as the debate takes a decided turn. Public support for this hoax is rapidly cooling, prompting even more extreme scaremongering. Earth is nearing two decades of no observed global warming, the U.S. hasn’t been struck by a major hurricane in nearly a decade, tornadoes in the Heartland occur at a historically low rate, the Great Lakes are still nearly 40% ice covered as of April 17, global sea ice is above average, and Antarctic ice extent continues to shatter daily records. But who needs facts when you can slander your opponents?
SAFE Act Lawsuit Shot Down
A lawsuit in New York that sought to dismantle the state’s horrendous SAFE Act was shot down3 by state Supreme Court Judge Thomas McNamara Thursday. In the ruling, McNamara says, “Though plaintiffs assert in the complaint that the Safe Act infringes upon rights granted by this provision of the constitution, they do not point to any right created thereby nor is one apparent.” Really? Perhaps he should try reading it. The judge added, “While plaintiffs may disagree with the governor’s and the legislature’s assessment of the need to act quickly, the governor included in his certificate a recitation of his reasons for urging speedy passage. That is all the constitution requires.” Lawmakers also swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which means defending the Second Amendment. Instead, Democrats exploited the emotions following the Sandy Hook tragedy to ram through a draconian, explicitly unconstitutional
WE NEED YOUR HELP
Our annual Patriots' Day Campaign is critical if we are to be fully funded into the summer. The Patriot Post staff depends on you to make that happen.
“A sincere thank you for being the Voice of Essential Liberty for us all. We stand tall and proud as Patriots of this great country, but feel constantly trod upon by those who are either un- or ill-informed. It is your e-publication that continues to give us strength to stand up for what we believe in, no matter the consequences. Thanks for helping to keep conservative voices heard above all the Washington political rabble. Keep up the good work!” –Patti in Alabama
Help us continue putting the Right perspective into your inbox every week – please support our 2014 Patriots' Day Campaign5 today. We have approximately $11,250 to raise.
Forcefully Defending the BIG Lie of ObamaCare
Eight million. That’s the latest BIG Lie6 the White House is throwing out for the number of ObamaCare sign-ups before the March 31 deadline-that-wasn’t-a-deadline7. We’ve noted that the number doesn’t account for paid premiums that actually constitute enrollment, meaning it’s irrelevant. And if you net out the millions who lost insurance due to Barack Obama’s “you can keep your plan” lie, it’s a wash at best.
But Barack Obama took his home run trot anyway, saying that thanks to this latest sign-up stat, “It’s well past time to move on as a country and focus our energy on the issues that people are most concerned about, and that continues to be the economy.” Of course, the reason “people are most concerned about the economy” is because Obama’s “economic recovery” has been as “successful” as his endeavor to socialize medicine. But that’s another story.
Speaking of numbers, we noted the other day that the Census Bureau would be changing the way it counts the uninsured. The change has been in the works since the Bush administration, but it’s almost undeniably political that its rollout coincides with ObamaCare enrollment. The Census Bureau won’t be running parallel numbers either, which means there will be no baseline comparison going forward for counting uninsured individuals before and after ObamaCare. Anyone doubt the new numbers will be favorable to the president?
Obama also asserted, “I think that Democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the fact that millions of people like the woman I just described who I saw in Pennsylvania yesterday, we’re helping, because of something we did. I don’t think we should apologize for it. I don’t think we should be defensive about it. I think it is a strong, good, right story to tell.”
Since he likes anecdotes so much, consider the story of two dozen Alabama widows dumped from their insurance thanks to ObamaCare8. Or is that just another example of what Harry Reid dubbed untrue “horror stories9”?
The truth is, whether it’s higher premiums, forced care people don’t want to pay for, coverage cancellation, or the penalty due for not signing up, the law is very painful for millions. For Democrats brazen enough to run on ObamaCare anyway, they know that as long as this law remains in place, it will be a lightening rod for every medical service complaint nationwide – as will any Democrat who voted for it.
That didn’t stop the president from taunting Republicans, saying, “I recognize that their party is going through the stages of grief, right – anger and denial and all of that stuff, and we’re not at acceptance yet.” We don’t call it grief to tirelessly fight for Liberty and constitutionally limited government. ObamaCare is an assault on both, and it must be undone. Acceptance isn’t an option.
Missouri Considers Right-to-Work Law
Following on the heels of some of its Midwest regional neighbors, Missouri’s legislature is considering right-to-work legislation. With a heavily Republican legislature it seemed like passage would be a slam dunk. But that hasn’t turned out to be the case.
The disappearance of US will
Posted on April 21, 2014 from Jerusalem Connection
By CAROLINE GLICK. JPOST
The most terrifying aspect of the collapse of US power worldwide is the US’s indifferent response to it.
In Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East and beyond, America’s most dangerous foes are engaging in aggression and brinkmanship unseen in decades.
As Gordon Chang noted at a symposium in Los Angeles last month hosted by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, since President Barack Obama entered office in 2009, the Chinese have responded to his overtures of goodwill and appeasement with intensified aggression against the US’s Asian allies and against US warships.
In 2012, China seized the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines. Washington shrugged its shoulders despite its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines. And so Beijing is striking again, threatening the Second Thomas Shoal, another Philippine possession.
In a similar fashion, Beijing is challenging Japan’s control over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea and even making territorial claims on Okinawa.
As Chang explained, China’s recent application of its Air-Defense Identification Zone to include Japanese and South Korean airspace is a hostile act not only against those countries but also against the principle of freedom of maritime navigation, which, Chang noted, “Americans have been defending for more than two centuries.”
The US has responded to Chinese aggression with ever-escalating attempts to placate Beijing.
And China has responded to these US overtures by demonstrating contempt for US power.
Last week, the Chinese humiliated Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during his visit to China’s National Defense University. He was harangued by a student questioner for the US’s support for the Philippines and Japan, and for opposition to Chinese unilateral seizure of island chains and assertions of rights over other states’ airspace and international waterways.
As he stood next to Hagel in a joint press conference, China’s Defense Chief Chang Wanquan demanded that the US restrain Japan and the Philippines.
In addition to its flaccid responses to Chinese aggression against its allies and its own naval craft, in 2012 the US averred from publicly criticizing China for its sale to North Korea of mobile missile launchers capable of serving Pyongyang’s KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missiles. With these easily concealed launchers, North Korea significantly upgraded its ability to attack the US with nuclear weapons.
As for Europe, the Obama administration’s responses to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and to its acts of aggression against Ukraine bespeak a lack of seriousness and dangerous indifference to the fate of the US alliance structure in Eastern Europe.
Rather than send NATO forces to the NATO member Baltic states, and arm Ukrainian forces with defensive weapons, as Russian forces began penetrating Ukraine, the US sent food to Ukraine and an unarmed warship to the Black Sea.
Clearly not impressed by the US moves, the Russians overflew and shadowed the US naval ship. As Charles Krauthammer noted on Fox News on Monday, the Russian action was not a provocation. It was “a show of contempt.”
As Krauthammer explained, it could have only been viewed as a provocation if Russia had believed the US was likely to respond to its shadowing of the warship. Since Moscow correctly assessed that the US would not respond to its aggression, by buzzing and following the warship, the Russians demonstrated to Ukraine and other US allies that they cannot trust the US to protect them from Russia.
In the Middle East, it is not only the US’s obsessive approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel that lies in shambles. The entire US alliance system and the Obama administration’s other signature initiatives have also collapsed.
After entering office, Obama implemented an aggressive policy in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere of killing al-Qaida operatives with unmanned drones. The strategy was based on the notion that such a campaign, that involves no US boots on the ground, can bring about a rout of the terrorist force at minimal human cost to the US and at minimal political cost to President Barack Obama.
The strategy has brought about the demise of a significant number of al-Qaida terrorists over the years. And due to the support Obama enjoys from the US media, the Obama administration paid very little in terms of political capital for implementing it.
But despite the program’s relative success, according to The Washington Post, the administration suspended drone attacks in December 2013 after it endured modest criticism when one in Yemen inadvertently hit a wedding party.
No doubt al-Qaida noticed the program’s suspension. And now the terror group is flaunting its immunity from US attack.
This week, jihadist websites featured an al-Qaida video showing hundreds of al-Qaida terrorists in Yemen meeting openly with the group’s second in command, Nasir al-Wuhayshi.
In the video, Wuhayshi threatened the US directly saying, “We must eliminate the cross,” and explaining that “the bearer of the cross is America.”
Then there is Iran.
The administration has staked its reputation on its radical policy of engaging Iran on its nuclear weapons program. The administration claims that by permitting Iran to undertake some nuclear activities it can convince the mullahs to shelve their plan to develop nuclear weapons.
This week brought further evidence of the policy’s complete failure. It also brought further proof that the administration is unperturbed by evidence of failure.
In a televised interview Sunday, Iran’s nuclear chief Ali Akhbar Salehi insisted that Iran has the right to enrich uranium to 90 percent. In other words, he said that Iran is building nuclear bombs.
And thanks to the US and its interim nuclear deal with Iran, the Iranian economy is on the mend.
The interim nuclear deal the Obama administration signed with Iran last November was supposed to limit its oil exports to a million barrels a day. But according to the International Energy Agency, in February, Iran’s daily oil exports rose to 1.65 million barrels a day, the highest level since June 2012.
Rather than accept that its efforts have failed, the Obama administration is redefining what success means.
As Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz noted, in recent months US officials claimed the goal of the nuclear talks was to ensure that Iran would remain years away from acquiring nuclear weapons. In recent remarks, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the US would suffice with a situation in which Iran is but six months away from acquiring nuclear weapons.
In other words, the US has now defined failure as success.
Then there is Syria.
Last September, the US claimed it made history when, together with Russia it convinced dictator Bashar Assad to surrender his chemical weapons arsenal. Six months later, not only is Syria well behind schedule for abiding by the agreement, it is reportedly continuing to use chemical weapons against opposition forces and civilians. The most recent attack reportedly occurred on April 12 when residents of Kafr Zita were attacked with chlorine gas.
The growing worldwide contempt for US power and authority would be bad enough in and of itself. The newfound confidence of aggressors imperils international security and threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
What makes the situation worse is the US response to what is happening. The Obama administration is responding to the ever-multiplying crises by pretending that there is nothing to worry about and insisting that failures are successes.
And the problem is not limited to Obama and his advisers or even to the political Left. Their delusional view that the US will suffer no consequences for its consistent record of failure and defeat is shared by a growing chorus of conservatives.
Some, like the anti-Semitic conservative pundit Patrick Buchanan, laud Putin as a cultural hero. Others, like Sen. Rand Paul, who is increasingly presenting himself as the man to beat in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, indicate that the US has no business interfering with Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
Iran as well is a country the US should be less concerned about, in Paul’s opinion.
Leaders like Sen. Ted Cruz who call for a US foreign policy based on standing by allies and opposing foes in order to ensure US leadership and US national security are being drowned out in a chorus of “Who cares?”
Six years into Obama’s presidency, the US public as a whole is largely opposed to taking any action on behalf of Ukraine or the Baltic states, regardless of what inaction, or worse, feckless action means for the US’s ability to protect its interests and national security.
And the generation coming of age today is similarly uninterested in US global leadership.
During the Cold War and in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the predominant view among American university students studying international affairs was that US world leadership is essential to ensure global stability and US national interests and values.
Today this is no longer the case.
Much of the Obama administration’s shuttle diplomacy in recent years has involved sending senior officials, including Obama, on overseas trips with the goal of reassuring jittery allies that they can continue to trust US security guarantees.
These protestations convince fewer and fewer people today.
It is because of this that US allies like Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, that lack nuclear weapons, are considering their options on the nuclear front.
It is because of this that Israeli officials are openly stating for the first time that the US cannot be depended on to either secure Israel’s eastern frontier in the event that an accord is reached with the Palestinians, or to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
It is because of this that the world is more likely than it has been since 1939 to experience a world war of catastrophic proportions.
There is a direct correlation between the US elite’s preoccupation with social issues running the narrow and solipsistic gamut from gay marriage to transgender bathrooms to a phony war against women, and America’s inability to recognize the growing threats to the global order or understand why Americans should care about the world at all.
And there is a similarly direct correlation between the growing aggression of US foes and Obama’s decision to slash defense spending while allowing the US nuclear arsenal to become all but obsolete.
America’s spurned allies will take the actions they need to take to protect themselves. Some will persevere, others will likely be overrun.
But with Americans across the ideological spectrum pretending that failure is success and defeat is victory, while turning their backs on the growing storm, how will America protect itself?
T.W. Shannon - Rising Black Republican Star
4/21/2014 12:01:00 AM - Star Parker
In January of 2013 T.W. Shannon established two milestones.
He became the first black speaker of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. And, at the age of 34, he became Oklahoma’s youngest House speaker in history.
Also noteworthy is that this young black American is a Republican.
Now T.W. Shannon is making new headlines. He has stepped down from his position as House speaker to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex) has just joined Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), Dr. Ben Carson and Sarah Palin in endorsing Shannon.
Should Shannon succeed – there are several Republicans already in contention in the upcoming primary - he would become the second sitting black U.S. Senator, joining South Carolina Republican Tim Scott.
I met this brilliant young conservative several years ago and it is hard for me to contain my enthusiasm for his candidacy for this Senate seat.
Needless to say, the prospect of a new, courageous, and unapologetic conservative in the U.S. Senate is a something I find most appealing.
But I am also happy to see another black conservative voice joining the ranks of political power in America.
Shannon was my guest last year when, as guest host on Glenn Beck’s The Blaze show, I convened a panel of black conservatives. He discussed the influences in his life - then Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts and his Southern Baptist religion - and his rise to the Speaker position in the Oklahoma legislature.
It can’t be summed up more clearly than the quote he has put on his campaign website:
“I believe we must choose the path to faith, freedom and individual liberty. It starts with us, here today, now, Working together, with God’s favor, we can save the America that we love.”
Conventional wisdom that black liberalism is somehow natural and genetic needs to be disabused and, as more black conservatives like T.W. Shannon come on the scene and win elections, the many black conservatives around the country will feel more comfortable stepping forth and taking public stands for what they believe.
And when this starts happening, America will see that the incidence of black conservatism is far deeper and widespread than most believe.
In a survey done last October by the Pew Research Center on public opinion about the Tea Party, 25 percent of blacks said they have a favorable view about the Tea Party movement, just 6 points less than the percentage of whites saying they have a favorable view.
Blacks, despite their disproportionate voting patterns supporting Democrats, do not fit the profile defining typical liberal Democrat voters.
A Gallup poll done in 2011 showed that whereas only 28 percent of white voters and 45 percent of Hispanic voters who say they are “very religious” identify as Democrats, 80 percent of black voters who say they are “very religious” do.
There clearly is a disconnect between the religious values of blacks, who attend church more frequently than any other ethnic group in the country, and the moral relativism of Democrats.
One reason for this disconnect is that the many blacks who harbor conservative values are intimidated to step forth because of the concentration of political power in their communities among liberal Democrats.
I believe this will change as more strong conservatives like T.W. Shannon step forth.
Shannon’s traditional Christian values will ring true with church going blacks and with all Americans who understand that personal virtue and responsibility and strong families form the basis of a free society. And that wealth comes from ownership and entrepreneurship and not from government programs.
These are the values needed to unite and heal our nation, deeply divided today by the rifts caused by the divisive interest group politics of the left.
The Shocking Secret Behind Obamacare Enrollment Numbers
Michael F. Cannon
4/21/2014 12:01:00 AM
Barack Obama wants you to know he enrolled 7.5 million Americans through Obamacare’s health insurance Exchanges. What he doesn’t want you to know is how.
Federal courts may soon rule that President Obama induced the majority of those enrollees to enroll by offering them taxpayer dollars he has no legal authority to spend.
If the courts put a stop to that unauthorized spending, a majority of Exchange enrollees would suddenly face the full cost of Obamacare coverage, and enrollments would plummet.
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, states have the option of establishing an Exchange themselves, or letting the federal government do it. The Act also authorizes subsidies that can require taxpayers to cover nearly the entire premium for Exchange plans. Among the eligibility criteria for those subsidies is a requirement that recipients enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.”
Such requirements are routine, and this one is and unequivocal. Countless federal programs offer subsidies only in states that agree to implement them. The PPACA’s legislative history is littered with Republican and Democratic proposals to offer various subsidies — including tax credits and Exchange subsidies — exclusively in states that establish Exchanges.
The eligibility rules for the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies specify nine times, without deviation, that recipients must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.” House Democrats even complained about this part of the Senate-passed PPACA before they themselves approved it, so they knew exactly what they were sending to the president’s desk.
Confounding supporters’ expectations, 34 states declined to establish Exchanges. Under the plain terms of federal law, subsidies are therefore available in the 16 Exchanges established by states, and not available in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government.
In 2011, however, the Obama administration unilaterally announced it would force taxpayers to subsidize insurance purchased through federal Exchanges as well. It cited no statutory authority for its decision, and has stubbornly refused to follow its own law despite immediate and sustained criticism.
In January of this year, the Obama administration began spending billions of dollars of unauthorized subsidies to induce Americans to enroll in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government. The president is literally forcing taxpayers, without any legal authorization, to subsidize two out of every three Exchange enrollments.
Fortunately, unlike other ways President Obama has unilaterally rewritten the health care law, this one faces credible court challenges. Under the PPACA’s many interrelated provisions, those subsidies trigger penalties against millions of employers and individual taxpayers, who have filed suit asking the courts to put a stop to both.
Last month, one of those lawsuits — Halbig v. Sebelius — went before a skeptical three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit.
After years of not articulating any statutory basis for its decision, the administration assured the court that the PPACA “makes clear that Congress expected the federal premium tax credits to be available on the federal exchange.”
Through “a system of nested provisions that when you walk through them lead to the conclusion that the federal Exchange stands in the place of a state exchange.”
No one disputes the purpose of a federal Exchange is to stand in the place of a state-established Exchange. The problem is the administration’s logical leap that an Exchange established by the federal government is somehow “established by the State.”
Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee considered the panel’s swing vote, somewhat comically forced the administration to admit the tautology that an Exchange established by the federal government is not “established by the State.” He then explained, “the key language is who establishes the Exchange, and you just keep coming back to well, the Secretary establishes it.”
The D.C. Circuit likely will issue a ruling sometime in the coming months, as will the 4th Circuit, which will hear oral arguments in King v. Sebelius on May 14, another challenge to the legality of the subsidies. Two similar challenges, filed by the attorneys general in Oklahoma (Pruitt v. Sebelius) and Indiana (Indiana v. IRS), await consideration in federal district courts.
A ruling for the plaintiffs would uphold part of Obamacare the president is trying to repeal all by himself. And it would expose that the president is inducing millions of Americans to enroll in Obamacare under false pretenses.
Obamaland: Where Cowboys are Villains and Race-Baiters, Gay Radicals and Marxists are Heroes
4/20/2014 12:01:00 AM - Doug Giles
Rancher Cliven Bundy looks like he could still be in a heap of trouble for having thoroughly ticked off Fedzilla and the Keebler elf himself, Harry Reid.
Being the peacemaking Christian that I am, herewith are ten ways Cliven Bundy could get the Feds off his backside and actually ingratiate himself to the big government droogies of the Left.
1. Bundy should fire his ranch foreman and hire Jay Carney who could effectively lie his butt off about Cliven’s cows. “Eating grass? His cows aren’t eating grass. What are you talking about? These are the most transparent, grass adverse, cows ever.”
2. Bundy should rename his ranch “Benghazi” , then the Feds would never show up. Ever.
3. Staying with the Benghazi motif, Bundy could also blame his cows' raid upon the BLM’s grass flats the result of an anti-Muslim YouTube video. Case closed.
4. Bundy should start boldly smoking and selling grass versus having his cows eat the grass.
5. Bundy should become, for the remainder of his life, a vile race-baiter. If he sold nothing but hate towards whites and conservatives, he could owe the IRS two million in back-taxes and they'd include him during White House fundraisers and MSNBC would give him his own talk show. Problem solved.
6. Staying in the racist vein, Bundy could join the New Black Panthers Party, change his name to Shabrique Shazamm and intimidate all the white devils when they show up to vote during the upcoming midterms. Can you say, “Instant protection by the DOJ?”
7. Bundy should get gold-capped teeth, trade his cowboy hat in for a hoodie, walk around holding his crotch and say “mother-%&#$@” every other word. He’d be hailed as a victim and a poet. A victim poet, I tell you.
8. Bundy should build a mosque on Ground Zero. If he did that he’d own half of Nevada.
9. Bundy should start hanging out with Latin dictators and expand his enterprise from cattle ranching to a gun running operation for drug cartels south of the border. Do it, Cliven. Like, muy pronto.
10. Finally, and especially, Bundy should claim that he was the inspiration for Brokeback Mountain. If CB played the gay card they’d throw him a party at the White House and the BLM goons, wearing Daisy Dukes, would serve him and his posse a desert tortoise consommé.
Paying Attention Now? Gosnell Movie Campaign Reaches $1 Million After MSM Ignore Gruesome Abortion Story
4/19/2014 4:30:00 PM - Cortney O'Brien
Shortly after becoming the most successful crowdfunding campaign ever on Indiegogo, the Gosnell Movie project spearheaded by filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney to expose late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell and his 40 year history of filthy abortion clinics and butchering of babies, has just reached $1 million in funds. That means they are nearly halfway to their goal of completing a movie about America's most prolific serial killer that the mainstream media all but ignored.
By reaching the $1 million mark, the Gosnell campaign also becomes the largest non-celebrity film on any crowdfunding website. McElhinney reacted to this incredible feat:
"We now have 11,000 people who through small contributions are sending a message to the media and Hollywood that they are tired of seeing the news being suppressed to protect uncomfortable truths."
Author and Terror Expert: We Are Less Safe Than a Year Ago
4/19/2014 12:00:00 PM - Cortney O'Brien
Runners will take their marks Monday at the start of the 2014 Boston Marathon, no doubt with last year’s cruel memories still fresh in their minds. Since Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev exploded two pressure cooker bombs at the finish line in 2013, killing three people and injuring almost 300 others, can participants feel any safer running the route this time around? Author and terror expert Robert Spencer thinks the answer is a tragic "no." Tuesday I had the chance to speak with Spencer about his new book, Arab Winter Comes to America. In both his book and during our conversation, he gave our country a poor grade for its efforts to stop terrorism. His harshest critique for the current state of Americans’ safety, was that political correctness under the Obama administration has left the United States vulnerable to attacks.
It’s been a year since the Boston Bombing. Would you say we are any safer in America?
“We are less safe, because the Boston bombing was a massive failure on the part of the FBI. They were told Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a follower of radical Islam. The Russians told us they were jihad. If the FBI had been able to investigate, maybe they’d look a little harder and could have thwarted the bombing.They didn’t find anything, so they stopped the investigation. [...] Islam stopped being mentioned in counterterror training.”
Would you say the Boston bombing victims were also victims of political correctness?
“Absolutely. 100 percent.”
How easy is it for a terrorist to enter our country and become an American citizen?
“As easy as saying it to me just now was.”
In a piece he penned at Jihad Watch, Spencer noted that just this week Somali Muslims protest counter-terror efforts in Kenya. He noted that, while Kenyan police might be cracking down too hard on Muslims after recent bombings, these charges of police injustice are similar to charges Muslim groups have made in the U.S. — that the FBI and police target Muslims indiscriminately:
So we see Muslims ostensibly opposing jihad terrorism, and yet protesting against counter-terror efforts in the U.S., Israel, Kenya and elsewhere. One might almost get the impression that these charges of brutality and disproportion are always leveled against any counter-jihad action, as a tactic to clear away all obstacles before the advancing jihad.
Spencer wondered how the US could stand to allow radical protesters within our borders.
“This is nothing short of grotesque. What kind of people are these allowed into our country?”
How many “extreme” Muslims would you say are in the US?
“There’s no telling - the situation is so fluid.”
Another example of someone with radical Islamist views who wreaked havoc on our country, was Nidal Malik Hasan. Hasan, who was a major in the United States Army, had touted his extreme views prior to murdering 13 people, yet our government did not act:
The US was waging a "war on Islam", Nidal Hasan explained to fellow graduate students at a military medical college in Maryland, before mounting a defence of Osama bin Laden and endorsing suicide bombers.
As his disgusted audience "erupted", he was halted by their lecturer after just two minutes. Yet two years later Hasan, still a member of the Army he had denounced, would violently conclude his demonstration.
What does one have to do before he or she is denied rights in our country?
“You’re innocent until proven guilty. But this (Hasan terrorist act) is an example of a politically correct culture, where’s there’s Islamophobia in the media. This could have been a career ender for them if they reported it. Career suicide.”
Media bias is something you talk about in your book. What if the Boston bombing had been carried out by Christian extremists? Would there be a difference in how the media covered it?
“It would’ve been a huge thing. They would’ve started an investigation of what’s going on in churches.”
What are a few of the unanswered questions about the Boston bombers?
“What are the connections of the Boston bombers to the Chechen jihad? Did they receive training? If so, who did they receive training from? How were they able to elude police, throw bombs back?”
The answers to those questions likely lie behind the dangerous veil of political correctness.
The Best News Ever in a World Filled with Bad News
4/20/2014 12:01:00 AM - Michael Youssef
Much of the world will be celebrating Easter this week. Unfortunately, in the West, secular humanism has relegated the Christian Easter to mere “Easter bunnies” and “Easter eggs.”
That degeneration can be closely linked to Western society’s replacement of “thinking” with “feeling.” We have replaced the thermostat with the thermometer. We have given up on rigorous intellectual debate of facts and irrefutable truth and replaced it with “that’s fine if that’s how you feel about it.”
Perhaps the trend is no clearer than when the media—and consequently, the man on the street—expresses an opinion on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In the past, people either accepted or rejected Christ’s resurrection as a fact of history. But in today’s post-modern culture—where most of the “thinking” takes place between the nose and the chin—people are apt to say, “Jesus rose from the dead? So what?”
That attitude perpetuates apathy about the most important event in human history, which in turn causes people to miss out on the greatest news they could ever personally experience—news that brought about Western civilization itself.
For the thinking person, Christ’s resurrection is the best news ever because the evidence for it is overwhelming:
1. It was recorded by four independent accounts, which accurately reported many small details, such as the number of angels at the tomb, the number of women who went to the tomb, the time of their arrival, and the overall sequence of events. All the accounts are easily harmonized.
2. The removal of the tombstone and the presence of the grave cloth proved that Jesus’ body was no longer in the tomb. In the culture of that day, and with such a dense population, it would have been impossible to hide a body if it were stolen. The authorities could have easily produced it.
3. After Jesus’ resurrection, He appeared to not just a few women in the garden, but to a wide variety of people, including a group of 500. Surely 500 people could not have suffered a hallucination at the same time.
4. The resurrection changed things in dramatic ways, such as the change in the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. But the greatest evidence of all might be how it changed the disciples and instilled in them a willingness to die a martyr’s death. Surely they would not have been willing to die a decade or two later for a lie or hallucination.
As English educator and historian Thomas Arnold once said: “I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort . . . than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”
In fact, some of the best books on the resurrection were written by lawyers (Frank Morison, Gilbert West, J.N.D. Anderson, among others)—some of whom had originally set out to disprove the resurrection.
Sir Edward Clark, another English jurist, once wrote: “As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences of the first Easter day. To me the evidence is conclusive and over and over again in the high court, I secured the verdict on evidence not nearly as compelling…”
That’s why the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the greatest news of all—it is indeed great news, not just a great story. It is the ultimate truth, not just an opportunity to eat chocolate bunnies.
And because it is true, every human on the face of the earth must respond to it one way or another. Our individual eternal future, and the future of civilization, depends on it.
Another Allmazing Example of Government Stupidity and Political Correctness
Daniel J. Mitche
4/20/2014 12:01:00 AM
If you had to pick the most inane, pointless, and intrusive example of government stupidity, what would you pick?
We have lots of examples of regulators running amok.
But we also have really absurd examples of wasteful spending.
We even have examples of government stupidity that can be characterized as a combination of wasteful spending and foolish regulation, such as one part of the government squandering money on research about how to encourage condom use by providing prophylactics of different sizes while another part of the government has regulations preventing the private sector from providing prophylactics of different sizes.
Today’s post, however, could win a prize for the most profound and disturbing example of government stupidity. It mixes foolish red tape with over-the-top political correctness.
Here are some jaw-dropping details of the federal government running amok in Michigan.
A set of seating is being torn down outside the Plymouth Wildcats varsity boys’ baseball field, not long before the season begins, because the fields for boys’ and girls’ athletics must be equal. A group of parents raised money for a raised seating deck by the field, as it was hard to see the games through a chain-link fence. The parents even did the installation themselves, and also paid for a new scoreboard. But, after someone complained to the U.S Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, an investigated by the department determined the new addition was no longer equal to the girls’ softball field next door, which has old bleachers and an old scoreboard.
This is utterly absurd for several reasons, most notably that the federal government shouldn’t have any role in education, much less efforts to micro-manage high school sports facilities.
But even if one accepts that Washington bureaucrats should interfere in such matters, it’s important to understand that it is bureaucratic lunacy to interpret “Title IX requirements to offer equal athletic opportunities to both boys and girls” to somehow mean equal seating.
What happens if there are fewer people who want to watch female sports? Should there be a requirement to build bleachers that are mostly empty?
Or maybe we can blend Obamacare to Title IX and create a mandate that parents and others in the community have to attend female sporting events 50 percent of the time?
Actually, I shouldn’t even joke about such an idea, lest some bureaucrat think it’s a serious proposal.
P.S. The Keynesians will be happy. They like it when wealth and/or capital is destroyed since that supposedly forces “stimulative” rebuilding exercises.