The Obama administration refuses to refer to the Taliban as “terrorists,” President Obama has said that “ISIL is not Islamic” and of course avoided the “I-word” when talking about “violent extremists” in his SOTU speech.
Editorial cartoonist for the Augusta Chronicle Rick McKee envisions Obama on Wheel of Fortune:
Ha! So spot-on we’ve got to see it twice, courtesy of Fox News’ Eric Bolling with a Pat Sajak response:
Big Government gets money from the people and then uses it selectively to reward some and punish others.
We all pay taxes. We all are being used as future taxpayers as the collateral for all the U.S. government bonds that are being used to finance our bloated government. The theory is that Big Government uses this amassed money and leverage to do things in the common good.
In real life, big government uses us to reward friends and punish enemies.
Thus, the headline in the Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Analysis: ‘Red’ states get bigger budget cuts under Obama.”
As Washington has tightened its belt in recent years, the budget cuts have sliced most deeply in states where President Obama is unpopular, according to an analysis of federal spending by Reuters.
Between the 2009 and 2013 fiscal years, funding for a wide swath of discretionary grant programs, from Head Start preschool education to anti drug initiatives, fell by an average of 40 percent in Republican-leaning states like Texas and Mississippi.
By contrast, funding to Democratic-leaning states such as California and politically competitive swing states like Ohio dropped by 25 percent.
Though Congress sets overall spending levels, the Obama administration determines where much of that money ends up. Lawmakers also have curtailed their ability to direct money to their home states when they adopted a ban on spending in 2011 known as “earmarks.”
That has given administration officials more power to steer money to places that might return the favor with votes, said John Hudak, an expert on federal spending at the centrist Brookings Institution who worked with Reuters on the analysis.
“In the context of the Obama administration, swing states and blue states are doing better than red states,” said Hudak, who uncovered similar spending patterns by previous presidents in his book “Presidential Pork.”
“I would suggest these numbers would tell us there is politicization going on,” he said.
If you are surprised by this, you need to wake up. This is the whole point about big government. Supposedly the government is supposed to represent us. But in fact it uses its power to represent its own interests.
The only thing that will help is to massively reduce the power and scope of government so that people live by private means rather than by political means.
The post Big Government Uses Funds to Punish Enemies, Reward Loyalists appeared first on Political Outcast.
It’s hard to be a conservative when there’s little left to conserve. The increasing pace of America’s progression from free markets to a command economy has reached such a pace and become so obvious that way back in 2009, the Russian Prime Minister used his spotlight time at the World Economic Forum to warn America not to follow the socialist path. The Russian newspaper Pravda, once the leading communist voice on earth, published an article entitled “American capitalism gone with a whimper.” People around the world can see the individual decisions of producers and consumers are being replaced by the form letters of a faceless central-planning bureaucracy even if the Obama boosters still haven’t swallowed the red pill and watched the matrix dissolve.
Pushed by the breathtaking speed of America’s devolution into a command economy, some conservatives have entered the ranks of the radicals. They’re beginning to think about how to cure the systemic political problems precipitating the November Revolution of 2008. One solution some are embracing is known as the Sovereignty Movement. This is a movement of citizens and state representatives attempting to right the listing ship-of-state by appealing to the 10th Amendment which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The 10th Amendment addressed one of the most hard-fought points in the establishment of a central government. The States even though they surrendered some of their sovereignty didn’t want to lose it all. Specifically they didn’t want to lose the power to make internal decisions. They did not want to be powerless before a distant national bureaucracy. So as the cap-stone of the Bill of Rights the 10th Amendment was meant to reassure the States they would remain sovereign within their borders. However, since the 1830s, court rulings have garbled the once universally accepted meaning of the 10th Amendment as the Federal Government extended its authority from roads to schools to GM to Health Care to whatever they want.
Now some are turning to a resurrection of the straightforward meaning of the 10th Amendment as a way to mitigate the ever expanding power of centralized-control and social engineering combined with perpetual re-election and runaway pork-barrel deficit spending. But, is this enough?
As a Historian I always believe even a little history might help push back the darkness swirling around us. In 1787, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, as Benjamin Franklin left Independence Hall, a lady asked “Well, Doctor, what have we got a republic or a monarchy.” “A republic” replied Franklin “if you can keep it.”
Many have the mistaken idea that the United States is a democracy.
It’s not. It’s a representative republic. The Framers distrusted unfettered democracy therefore they inserted several mechanisms into the Constitution which added some innovations between direct democracy and the power to rule.
One of the great innovations the Framers built into our system is the federal concept. Since this is an important component of our political legacy that has been overlooked in our contemporary education system let me define what is meant by federal. A federal system is a union of states with a central authority wherein the member states still retain certain defined powers of government.
According to the Constitution, the Federal Government cannot mandate policies relating to local issues such as housing, business, transportation, etc. within the States. At least this was how the Constitution was interpreted by President James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. He expressed this clearly in a veto statement in 1817. In that there has never been anyone more qualified to address the original intent of the framers I believe it is important to bring his entire statement into this article:
To the House of Representatives of the United States:
Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled “An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements,” and which sets apart and pledges funds “for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,” I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.
“The power to regulate commerce among the several States” cannot include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such a commerce without a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.
To refer the power in question to the clause “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms “common defense and general welfare” embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared “that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
A restriction of the power “to provide for the common defense and general welfare” to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.
If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill cannot confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it cannot be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and a reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
This is an eloquent expression of how the Constitution was meant to be understood. However, through expansive interpretations by activist judges this gradually morphed into almost limitless Federal control of the domestic affairs of the States.
Another vital component of our Constitutional heritage is the protection provided by a system of “Checks and Balances” wherein each level or branch of government acts as a barrier to other levels or branches of government from acquiring too much power. The most important check on the power of the Federal Government in relation to the constituent States was the Senate. In the Constitution, the people directly elected the House of Representatives to represent their interests, the various State legislatures elected the members of the Senate to represent the individual states.
The adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 mandating the popular election of Senators fatally damaged this system. Since then, the States have been reduced from equal partners with the Federal Government to a group of individual lobbyists. Before this amendment, senators remained in office based upon how they upheld the rights of their state. The hot-and-cold winds of populist considerations didn’t compromise the Senator’s ability to serve. This freedom to vote against populist sentiment allowed the Senators to balance the directly-elected House.
Now we have two houses of Congress trying to spend enough of other people’s money to make political profits for themselves. So what do I propose? Resurrect the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th, and while we’re at it, we should drive a stake through the heart of the 16th, which allows progressive taxation and all that’s still on the conservative side of radicalism.
Restore the balance and save the Republic!
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
(The Independent) Grabbing cannabis in Seattle will be as easy as indulging in crisps, candy and cola next month, when a marijuana vending machine will open in the city.
From 3 February, customers can buy cannabis from the American Green ZaZZZ machine at the Seattle Caregivers medical dispensary.
The cabinet will be stocked with medicinal and recreational marijuana, as well as pot-infused edibles, CBS News reported.
Now that notorious high school bully Mitt Romney has announced he’ll be skipping a third run for the White House, the Boston Globe will print on Sunday a lengthy profile of Republican presidential candidate Gov. Jeb Bush and his high school shenanigans, dating back to 1967. What will we learn from this? As The Hill neatly summarizes in its headline, “Jeb Bush was a pot-smoking bully, say former classmates.”
President Obama’s transcripts? No. The type of bathrobe Sen. Ted Cruz wore in college? Paisley.
Who else has had enough of this kind of “reporting”? Rick Wilson, among many others.
We don’t either. We just wish he’d quit smoking whatever it is that makes him support amnesty and Common Core.
We need more states rising up against Federal surveillance.
U.S. News reports, “NSA’s Water, Power Supply under Threat in State Legislatures.”
Congress failed to agree last year on a measure that would reform the practice of mass government surveillance, but privacy-minded state legislators have a back-up plan for shutting down alleged violations of their constituents’ constitutional rights.
In eight states, legislators are pushing bills they hope will either boot National Security Agency facilities or ban the agency from setting up shop.
We need one State to push something like this across the goal line. Hopefully that would be the first little rock down the hill in what would become an avalanche.
The bills would prohibit state and local governments from offering material support to the agency, including use of public utilities that carry water and electricity. Two of the bills would criminalize official cooperation with the NSA and several seek to squeeze contractors out of work with the electronic spy agency.
The state-level push began months after whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed in June 2013 the NSA’s bulk collection of U.S. phone records and Internet-mining programs.
Last year, bills in Utah – home of the NSA’s massive Utah Data Center – and Maryland – host of the agency’s Fort Meade headquarters – sought to shut down those operations, winning broad media coverage.
The Utah bill remains active and its sponsor, Republican state Rep. Marc Roberts, is cautiously optimistic about its chances, particularly after a seemingly receptive committee hearing in November.
The Feds will never rein in their unconstitutional meddling themselves. Between the momentum of the Convention of States movement, and efforts such as this, perhaps the People are finally waking up—at least a tiny bit—and cutting the first few links in the chains of creeping tyranny.
On the other hand, the darker side of me expects to see many of the proposing State legislators taken down by very inconvenient revelations about their personal failings and foibles. Ironically, if the NSA managed such a campaign it would only prove the absolute necessity of passing the bills.
So perhaps that will not occur. We’ll see.
Did Ex-CIA Director David Petraeus and Four-Star General Carter Ham Convert to Islam, as Current CIA Director John Brennan was Accused of Doing?
Since publishing screenshots from a commenter on this site that appeared to show an extremely bizarre, pro-Islamic message posted to the twitter account of four-star Gen. Carter Ham (Ret.), there have been some further developments. At the time of the Benghazi attacks, General Ham was the Commander of AFRICOM. Individuals familiar with scams originating in Nigeria that use stolen photos and names of high-profile figures to create fake accounts have been brought to our attention (see comments in this post). One of the figures who has been victimized by this despicable behavior specifically is General Ham.
Here is a screen shot of one of those FAKE twitter accounts:
The official twitter account for General Ham appears to go by the handle @Carter_F_Ham and identifies the General as having joined in September of 2010. The account is currently listed as “protected” and has been since sometime after October 26, 2012:
This is where we run into some legitimate questions, the Nigerian scammers notwithstanding. In a screen shot sent to us by Shoebat.com commenter Jeff Benton, we see that a tweet appears to have been sent by then CIA Director David Petraeus from @CentralIntel on or before October 26, 2012. The contents of that tweet are not known because the account was protected. It’s important to keep in mind that this tweet was sent out six weeks after the Benghazi attacks and two weeks before Petraeus would resign.
In response, an account using the same @Carter_F_Ham twitter handle tweeted the following (syntax, punctuation and spacing exactly as it appears):
“May Allah bless u on this auspicious day of Eid, May it be a new beginning of greater prosperity, success & happiness. I Salute”
In response, Benton politely asks if this message means that both Petraeus and Ham converted to Islam:
In his comment on a previous Shoebat.com post, Benton said the following about what happened after he replied to the tweet in question:
…the Good General has since blocked his account once I sent that question to him…
As additional confirmation that the tweet was sent from what is today billed as the more than four-year old @Carter_F_Ham account, check out the URL in the web browser of Benton’s screenshot (https://twitter.com/Carter_F_Ham):
When we first posted about Benton’s findings, it stirred up some staunch Ham defenders, which we welcome. This is NOT about propaganda; it is about getting to the truth. Benton responded to one of those defenders with the following:
…when I first found it I thought it had to be fake… But when I looked into it, the differences between the bad English using peeps, the format, and style of some of the bogus sites I found were WAY different than this twitter account that had personal correspondence between the head of CIA and our good General… There was a complete difference in the bogus sites and this twitter account… And the more I searched the more I became convinced that account was for real…
In another comment at this Shoebat.com post, Benton wrote the following about his tweet to General Ham:
I thought for sure the General would respond to my question with either an “It’s not any of your business” or an “It was a private joke between the 2 of us” But when I received no response, and the account went protected, I began to wonder if those two fella’s had converted to Islam for real… I have already emailed and shared the photos with a couple of news agencies who never said a peep about them, and yes I shared them just in case there was something to them and something happened to me… Now I don’t know what they mean, or if there is anything to them that implies anything… All I know for sure is that the Twitter account was for real…
At one site with a page devoted solely to identifying all of the fake accounts for General Ham, there is a section for all falsified twitter accounts attributed to him. Below is a screen shot. Note that the one identified above as Ham’s “Official Twitter account” is the ONLY ONE that has in parentheses “not sure” next to it, though it’s not clear if it’s referring to that account or the one after it. In any case, if caught, the author could assert that the “not sure” reference was for either “Carter_F_Ham” OR “carter20011″. Either the “(not sure)” should have gone after “Carter_F_Ham” but before the hyphen or it should have gone after “carter2011″ but before the next hyphen:
What we can conclude is very important at this point. The twitter account that is today billed as the official twitter account of Gen. Carter Ham since September of 2010 tweeted a pro-Islamic message that called for the blessings of “Allah” on October 26, 2012, six weeks after four Americans were murdered in Benghazi by Muslim terrorists at a time when Gen. Ham was a high-profile figure in conservative media circles and on Fox News.
How did this happen and who sent it? After consulting with a trusted IT expert and a very prolific twitter user, we’re told there are no fewer than three things that could have happened (each one addressed below):
1.) General Carter Ham sent out the tweet personally.
2.) An assistant to Ham or someone with access to his password sent out the tweet.
3.) The account was hacked.
1.) Ham sent out the tweet: The notion that Ham would have sent out the tweet personally with everything that was going on in the wake of Benghazi is not impossible but perhaps not the most likely. A four-star General sitting at his laptop, sending out Happy Eid messages calling for Allah’s blessings is possible only because it was sent from his twitter account but it’d also be bizarre.
2.) Ham assistant sent out the tweet personally: Of the three possibilities, an assistant sending out the tweet does seem the most likely but can’t be known for sure. It’s at least conceivable that a few people had access to Ham’s twitter account and one such person sent out a pro-Islamic tweet, not knowing that the account wasn’t protected. It’s also possible that Benton’s reply could have prompted this action to be taken. A logical follow-up question would be: Did General Ham have any Muslim assistants who had access to his twitter password or was a decision made to send out the tweet based on political correctness? Either scenario is unacceptable.
3.) Ham’s account hacked: If Ham’s twitter account was hacked, it was hacked less than two months after the Benghazi attacks at a time when the General was high-profile. Why was this not made news? That it wasn’t made news SHOULD be news today, as should any facts which show the twitter account of AFRICOM’s Commander was hacked at such a time. Earlier this month, CENTCOM‘s twitter account was hacked and it made news very quickly. Here is a video about that:
All of this says nothing about the original contents in the tweet attributed to Petraeus. If a tweet was sent out from Ham’s official twitter account in response to a tweet by Petraeus, can it be deduced or inferred that the original tweet had a similar message to the one sent out on Ham’s twitter account? If so, what did it say? Was it pro-Islamic as well?
Nonetheless, just two weeks later, Petraeus was out as CIA Director after the details of an extramarital affair became public. The man who replaced him – John Brennan – was alleged by former FBI Agent John Guandolo to have converted to Islam while a station chief in Saudi Arabia in the 1990’s. As you can see, Guandolo is unequivocal about his claims:
*Article by Ben Barrack
You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.
Joseph: Dead on – but there’s more! [“What if Obama were president during WWII?”]
FDR was a socialist Democrat who was looking out for his party’s supremacy – but he saw World War II on the horizon, a battle between Western civilization and Hitler’s Nazi ideology.
Roosevelt began gearing up our industry long before we were engaged in actual war. He tapped William Knudson, president of GM, and other industry leaders to master the conversion from peacetime manufacturing to produce military goods and weapons that would eventually be needed. Knudson was told by FDR we’d need to produce 50,000 airplanes. A reporter asked Knudson if he could make 50,000 aircraft, and Knudson, a Danish immigrant, said “I can’t, but America can”! He then called upon heads of America’s auto industry to use their mass production abilities and skills to make planes, engines, tanks, food stuffs, uniforms, ammunition … everything we and our allies would need. Ford Motor Company built the world’s largest factory in a few months’ time, began mass producing the B-24 Liberator bomber and by 1945 was producing a bomber every 58 minutes! Kaiser could build a Liberty Ship in as little as 18 hours.
Roosevelt brought our nation together! He had the right vision and got the right people to prepare for and wage war.
There is no comparision between FDR and BHO!
Joseph Rush Wills II
University of North Texas sociologists George Yancey and David Williamson are issuing a warning that some of the most virulent anti-Christians in the country tend to be among the influential and elite.
Yancey and Williamson, authors of the new book “So Many Christians, So Few Lions: Christianophobia in the United States,” studied anti-Christian sentiments among various people and found some common, and alarming, traits.
The sociologists say that there is not rampant “Christianophobia” in the country, but that those who do hold the most irrational anti-Christian views tend to be well-educated and gravitate toward positions where they could, at least in theory, use their authority to assert their hatred.
The authors aren’t talking about your average folk who may not want to go to church, but the sort of rabid, unreasoning hatred that you often see among atheists on the Internet.
Yancey said that he and Williamson first decided to explore the topic when they were conducting interviews of liberal activists for other projects and they began to notice a worrisome trend of anti-Christian feeling among some respondents.
In a blog entry, Yancey stated that the title of the book, “So Many Christians, So Few Lions,” comes from the unusual number of interviews in which respondents made jokes about feeding Christians to the lions, which Yancey compares morally to making jokes about throwing Jews into ovens.
He shared three examples of some of what he considers the worst statements from respondents:
“I want them all to die in a fire. (Male, aged 26-35 with doctorate)
“They should be eradicated without hesitation or remorse. Their only purpose is to damage and inflict their fundamentalist virus onto everyone they come in contact with. (Female, aged 66-75 with master’s degree)
“They make me a believer in eugenics….They pollute good air…I would be in favor of establishing a state for them… If not, then sterilize them so they can’t breed more. (Male, aged 46-55 with master’s degree)”
The authors note that there seems to be less of this intense level of hatred directed against Christians than there is directed against atheists. However, people who hate atheists are less likely to be highly educated or in positions of social influence than are those who despise Christians.
Yancey says this presents an unusual aspect to the data the authors gathered, in that we tend to think that educated people are more reasonable and less prone to irrational hatred. There is perhaps an inference that could be drawn that maybe hatred of Christians is somehow justified. But the authors don’t seem to believe that, just note it.
Yancey said one of the aspects of hatred directed at Christians is the ways in which the Christianophobes dehumanize the targets of their hatred. He refers to a definition which he identifies as “animalistic dehumanization.”
People who engage in animalistic dehumanization believe that Christians show “lack of culture instead of civility, coarseness instead of refinement, amorality instead of moral sensibility, irrationality instead of logic and childlikeness instead of maturity.”
On the last point, Yancey said the Christian haters believe that Christians are immature and easily manipulated by their leaders. As examples, he shared statements from two interviewees:
“The leaders are deceptive and power hungry individuals who invoke ‘God’ in a political sense to rally their supporters. … They play to people’s emotions, daily. (Female, aged 26-35 with bachelor’s degree)
“Their movement’s leaders are the worst type of manipulative authoritarian scum and their millions of followers are sad, weak people who are all too willing to give up their self-respect and liberty for a fantasy. (Male, aged 26-35 with bachelor’s degree)”
The authors’ work underscores what I’ve always felt was a powerful theme in the atheist religion (yes, religion). While many atheists will make a show of pretending to be smarter than the average bear, many if not most of the atheists I’ve ever encountered are obviously motivated more by emotion than intellect — specifically, an intense dislike of Christianity.
That dislike does tend to coalesce into the sort of irrational hatred that the authors describe, and I believe it is the real motivating factor behind the countless lawsuits that aim to stop public prayers, remove monuments, prevent mention of God in schools, etc., etc.
Their observations about the most hard-core anti-Christians being in positions of influence also rings true. Just take a look at Mikey Weinstein and the inordinate influence he has exerted at the Pentagon in recent years.
I would suggest that the differences in social influence and education between atheists and Christians are simply part of the natures of the two groups and have nothing to do with who is smarter.
The key phrase for atheists is “highly educated,” which says nothing about intelligence. Applying Ockham’s Razor (a favorite philosophical concept atheists love except when it’s used against them), education just means you’re adept at parroting answers teachers want to hear and jumping through bureaucratic hoops — hardly evidence of the ability to think independently.
(William of Ockham, of course, was a Franciscan friar and theologian, which should tell you which side in the atheist-Christian debate really has the brains.)
As for social influence, those who reject Christianity are less likely to feel hesitant about pursuing power and wealth than most Christians. Obsessed as most atheists seem to be with proving once and for all that they are right and Christians are wrong, it’s only natural that the most virulent anti-Christians would wheedle their way into positions of authority.
Yancey and Williamson bring up many intriguing points that shed light on the current state of our country. Their book could be worthwhile reading for Christians who want to know their enemies.
The post Feeling Among Elites That Christians ‘Should be Eradicated’ appeared first on Political Outcast.