Common Core... An Education Debaucle

Fourth grade students in Dupo Illinois are reading a new biography of Barack Obama that's not setting well with some parents.  The book, which is a part of the school's Common Core curriculum, says that negative behaviors by the President as a teen, such as smoking and swearing, were caused by exposure to television. It also says that white voters in America were hesitant to vote for a black President and that Barack Obama purposely pushed the race issue to "bring the nation together."

"When Barry looked in the mirror, he saw a young black man.  But he didn't know how to be black.  And no one was there to teach him. He decided to act like the black characters he saw on TV.  He started acting tough.  He cursed.  What that what it meant to be black? As he got older, he started smoking and drinking.  He tried drugs.  Was that what it meant to be black?"

Does anyone but me understand how racist that paragraph is?  Barack Obama learned to be black (acting tough, swearing, drinking, smoking and using drugs) from the black characters on TV?  Funny - I don't remember Dianne Carol, Jimmy Walker, Bill Cosby and the gang, Redd Foxx (on his TV show, that is) Demond Wilson, or even Flip Wilson, swearing, drinking, smoking, using drugs, etc., on their shows.  Or maybe she means some of the black characters in movies?  But that's not what the book says.

"Barack Obama," is written by Jane Sutcliffe and published by Lerner. Jane Sutcliffe is a white author from New England who has written biographies about Helen Keller, Walt Disney and Milton Hershey. The biography of Obama is part of Scholastic's "Reading Counts" program and is accepted as part of Common Core.

The book talks about the election of the first African-American President.  

"But some people said Americans weren't ready for that much change. Sure Barack was a nice fellow, they said. But white voters would never vote for a black president. Other angry voices were raised. Barack's former pastor called the country a failure. God would damn the United States for mistreating its black citizens, he said."

Common Core, the new, government sponsored school curriculum, seems to be doing what Michelle Obama said a few years ago - rewriting history.  Let's take a look at some numbers provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and dispel some myths that Common Core and Ms. Sutcliffe seem to be promulgating about the election of Barack Obama..

Population, 2012 estimate                                    313,914,040

Black or African American -                 13.1% or   41,000,000 *

White                                                  63% or     190,700,000 * Hispanic/Latino                                    16.9% or   52,054,000 * Asian/Native American                           7%  or       2,097,400 * * = approximate numbers

President Obama got 51%, or roughly 98 million, of all votes cast in the 2008 and 2012 elections. According to the U.S. Census Bureau there are just over 41 million African-Americans in the country today. So even if all 41 million African-Americans voted for Obama, (and we know they didn't because some voted for Romney and most didn't vote at all) the President still got 57 million votes from whites, Hispanics and others.  

We now know that only 13% of African-Americans voted in the 2008 election and 96% of those voted for Obama.  And let's not pretend it was because of 'voter suppression' because statistically only 11% of African-Americans regularly vote in elections.) That means of the 5.3 million votes cast by African-American voters in 2008, 5.1 million were for Obama.  So of his total number of 98 million votes, nearly 93 million were cast by whites, Hispanics, Asians and others.  

If 100% of all others (Asians, Native Americans, etc.) voted for Obama it would have added up to about 2.1 million, and if 100% of Hispanics voted for Obama that would add up to 16.5 million, (it was, in actuality, only 63% of Hispanic voters which, again, is only a percentage of 16.5 million) so that's roughly 18.6 million. That leaves over 74 million votes that had to have been cast by whites and/or people of mixed races/ethnicities. The white vote alone was over 42 million, (as many votes as African-American citizens) making it by far the largest group of Americans to vote for Obama and only 20% behind the white vote for McCain. 

Just for the fun of statistics, Obama won 43% of the white vote in 2008.  Bill Clinton, in 1992, also won 43% of the white vote. As much as this Common Core book would have you believe otherwise, Obama got the same percentage of the white vote in his first election as did Bill Clinton. Some may think that insignificant however, Bill Clinton was enormously popular with white women so the fact that Obama tied him (actually got more votes due to population growth over the 18 year time span) completely disproves the insinuation in the book.  In 2012, Obama won about 40% and in 1996, Clinton won 46% of the white vote. Clinton's numbers went up and Obama's went down in the second election.  In a country that seems more racially divided than ever that could be a significant change.  Or it could simply be that Romney was far more popular among whites than McCain - not unimaginable.  But that's a topic for another day.

My point is not about race or white verses black votes but about the accuracy of the information that is being spoon fed to our children by the new, government backed Common Core curriculum.  They're teaching our children "historical facts" that simply aren't accurate.  Let's look at another example:

In an article I read this morning, the government’s new Common Core education standards instruct teachers that Lincoln's Gettysburg Address must be taught without mentioning the Civil War and without explaining why President Lincoln was in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

Wait....  huh??

The Student Achievement Partners instructions tell teachers to, “Refrain from giving background context or substantial instructional guidance at the outset.  This close reading approach forces students to rely exclusively on the text… and levels the playing field for all students as they seek to comprehend Lincoln’s address.”  

I think, in a round about way, maybe they're saying students should do their own research about the Gettysburg Address and discover for themselves why it was delivered.  But since when do grade school students do that?  And where are students supposed to do their research - in other Common Core books that don't give an accurate account of history?  The President himself left out the words "under God" when he read that famous address last week.  So if students read (or hear) an inaccurate version of the Gettysburg Address and then research it among inaccurate textbooks will they somehow, miraculously, find an accurate reason for the address itself?  It's highly doubtful.  Any student who reads the Gettysburg Address needs to have a full comprehension of the cause of the address - beforehand - so he/she can comprehend what Lincoln was saying.

Beware of Common Core and its progressive efforts to re-write history.  Edmund Burke, conservative Irish statesman and member of the British Parliament, once said "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."  In this age of rapidly spreading progressivism, this statement is even more important.  If we allow progressives to re-write history and go unchallenged, it won't be long until our children aren't really learning history anymore but simply "his story."

The Majority Of Americans Did Not Vote For Obama

Obama supporters like to point out that "a majority of Americans" voted for President Obama in 2012. Let's take a look at that a little more closely.

The average voter turnout in any recent election is about 64% of the population. That's about 192 million people who vote.  Of that, 51% voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.  That means roughly about 98 million people voted for Obama each time.  I hate to break it to those of you who think Obama is so popular but that's less than 1/3 of the population who voted for him.  It's certainly not the 'majority of Americans."  It's a majority of active voters but not a majority of Americans.  But 203 million did not vote for him.  So let's not pretend that because Obama won re-election it was because "the majority of Americans" re-elected him.

It's sad that so few Americans actually vote for the leader of the free world.   Nearly half the population doesn't vote for their elected leaders. And it seems a majority of those who do vote are so-called "low information voters" - people who know very little of politics or issues and vote only for a name, a face, or according to a candidate's popularity. They don't research the issues and what's best for the country.  It's not just sad - it's scary.

I believe President Obama was elected that way.  He was the first African-American candidate who actually had a chance.  (Jesse Jackson's attempt years ago was pretty feeble.)  He had a lot of backing and money from celebrities, the main stream media, corporations and people like George Soros.  Obama can deliver a prepared speech well.  He's a good looking man with a smile women like.  Then Senator Joe Biden said Obama is "clean and articulate" - something that if said by a Republican would have been the racial scandal of the decade. But since Joe (Foot In Mouth) Biden said it, it was overlooked by the media.

Many African American citizens voted for Obama simply because he's black. That has been verified.  He still gets a 75% approval rating from the African-American community - even as his numbers nationwide show him currently below a 40% approval rating.

White guilt caused many white Americans to vote for Obama as well, to prove to the world (and themselves) they weren't racists.  But isn't voting for a candidate simply because he's a particular race or color just as racist as not voting for him for the same reason?

Anyway - the point is that while Obama did get a majority of the votes cast, he was not elected by the majority of Americans.  Because 36% of Americans didn't vote and only 32% of Americans actually voted for him.  So 68% of the population did not vote for Obama.  Maybe that's why his numbers are going steadily down - that 68% is getting fed up with the lies, incompetence and complete lack of leadership skills.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Tonight I've been tempted to write about several things.  President Obama has delayed yet another part of the Affordable Care Act - the small business exchanges.  I'm betting he did this unilaterally as well - another un-Constitutional move by the President.  But I'm going to let that wait for now.

I also considered writing about the incredibly lame deal John Kerry and Obama made with Iran concerning their nuclear proliferation.  Even their President said basically that Obama is a fool and that they have no obligation to abide by the deal.  With Obama and Kerry in positions of power in this country - we're probably more screwed than we realize.  At least, more than some Americans realize.

Instead, I decided to write about Thanksgiving and what it means to me.  No - this won't be a 4th grade essay - at least I hope not.  I'm 56 years old and have celebrated a lot of Thanksgiving holidays in my lifetime.  So it should be a little more interesting than a 4th grade essay.

For me, Thanksgiving incorporates several things.  Certainly there is the history - the Pilgrims celebrating life in the new world and the blessings God gave them by not only helping them survive but making friends with the natives in the area. They certainly could have had it a lot worse. Jamestown, Virginia, comes to mind.

Secondly, Thanksgiving brings memories of my family as a child.  My parents had five children.  Dad was a Baptist minister and did not make a lot of money.  Think school teachers are underpaid?  Check out the salary of a preacher of a small church with five kids.  But we managed.  Mom worked part-time once we got older but not during the years we needed her at home.  We didn't have a lot of luxury items and usually only got new shoes once a year, at Christmas.  But we were happy.  We celebrated Thanksgiving every year by thanking God for the things we had, for the love of family and for our great nation.  And we had a big turkey dinner with all the fixin's to help celebrate it.

These days I still have things to be thankful for.  I have a wonderful wife - a woman I've known for 27 years who came back into my life unexpectedly and not only was available but interested.  How many people have that going for them?  I have a whole new family on her side that has added so much to my life.  And I still have my own family - my siblings, in-laws and nieces and nephews (in some cases Grand-nieces and nephews).

I still have ex-in-laws who love me and consider me part of their family.  Since my son and his mother are both gone now, I count myself very, very lucky to have that.  They are my only connections to my own departed family.  And I love them very much - not only for who they are but for keeping me a part of them.

I have some very dear friends out there who love me in spite of myself.  OK, I'm not that difficult to deal with but I'm grateful when someone decides I'm worth investing their time in.  I'm grateful when someone decides they'll care about me, with all my faults and flaws, and they'll be my friends(s).  Thanks to all of you for caring.

So Thanksgiving means a lot to me.  I'm thankful every day for all I have but it's nice to have a day, once a year, that makes me reflect on just how much that is.  I don't have an abundance of money but I consider myself a very rich man.  I have the love of a lot of people, not just family but others who have no obligation to put up with me but do so anyway.  I thank you all for that.

Happy Thanksgiving to each and every one of you.  For those of you who believe in God - may He bless you all with happiness and love in the coming year.  For those of you who don't believe in Him...  may He bless you as well and find a way to make you change your mind.  Thanks to all of you for reading my drivel. I hope it enriches your lives in some way each and every time.

A Deal With Iran... At What Cost To Us?

Just when President Obama's signature health care law, his supposed legacy, fails miserably he manages to make a deal with Iran on their nuclear development.  His is the "first administration in decades" to negotiate successfully with Iran.  But is it a good deal and what will the cost be to the United States?

The United States currently lists Iran as a state sponsor of international terror. Iran is a self-sworn enemy of Israel and has vowed more than once to "wipe Israel off the map."  For several years they have ignored U.N. demands to curtail their program to refine nuclear material for the purpose of building weapons of mass destruction.  And now, with a deal that lifts sanctions and increases money flowing into the country, we're going to trust them to do an about face?

"Iran is an enemy," former Senator Joe Lieberman said on Monday.  "tthere is American blood on Iranian hands" going back to the Beirut embassy bombing in 1983 by Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant organization.  "The Iranians have a terrible record of not keeping agreements and frankly of lying. This deal sends a signal to the world to start doing business with Iran again."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the deal is "a historic mistake" and has vowed to protect Israel from Iran at all costs.  

U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser, Tony Blinken, said "Israel is right to be skeptical.  An Iranian bomb would present an existential threat to Israel, and we have exactly the same goal, which is to prevent Iran from getting a bomb," Blinken said. "There may be tactical differences in how we get there."

Even prominent Democrats are criticizing the deal.  

"Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions," Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said over the weekend. "That is not a proportionate agreement."

Lindsay Graham, (R) South Carolina, said "we had the chance to deliver a body blow.  The sanctions actually worked but this interim deal gives the Iranian's $7 billion in cash and leaves in place one of the most sophisticated enrichment programs around," Graham said.

Defending the deal, Tony Blinken went on to say "if we could have gotten an entire freeze of their program right away in one fell swoop, of course, we would have done it.  But the Iranians were not prepared to go there. It would take a long time to negotiate that," he told CNN. "Indeed, that's what we're trying to get to. In the interim, what we didn't want to happen was for the Iranians to be talking to us and the rest of the international community and using the cover of talks to keep advancing their program. This shuts down the program for making progress. It rolls it back."

He added, "we are not taking the sanctions away. The existing sanctions will continue to be implemented," Blinken said. "And indeed, the amount of relief that Iran gets during the six-month period will be dwarfed by the sanctions that accumulate during this period. So the pressure on Iran is not going away. To the contrary, it's going to grow during the six months.

When Democrats criticize the President, as has happened quite a bit in the last week or so, you know there's a problem.  Iran continues to claim that its nuclear program is for energy only but only a handful of people, including our president, it seems, believes them.  President Obama once said Iran has a right to develop nuclear energy.  Really?  Who gave them that right?  Iran has a history of violence, a history of oppression, a history of lying and a history of threatening to destroy Israel. It seems to me, given that long and sordid history, they've given up the right to develop an energy source capable of wiping out a small country.

Even as a bipartisan group of Senators is drafting new and increased sanctions against Iran, President Obama has defended his deal saying "we cannot close the door on diplomacy. Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it's not the right thing to do for our security,"  

I've got news for you, Mr. President.  Allowing Iran to attain refined nuclear material capable of becoming a nuclear weapon isn't "the right thing to do for our security" either.

One can't help but wonder if this bad deal is an attempt by President Obama to add to his legacy.  Like the bad health care law, he may see a bad deal as better than no deal when it comes to his legacy.  It's the first time in over 30 years that an American administration has negotiated a deal with Iran. But this deal is reminiscent of the deals we made with the Soviet Union on arms limitation, even as the Soviets continued to increase their stockpiles and move them around strategically.  If we learned nothing else from the Soviet deals it should be that bad guys don't keep their promises.  

But wait...  just last week we learned that President Obama doesn't either.

Don't Forget Where You Came From...

That is probably the best advice I ever received during my working life, both in the military and working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  Two different supervisors reminded me that nearly all of us start at the bottom and have to work our way up. Therefore, when we get into a position of importance we need to remember what it's like at the bottom to make us more effective supervisors.  And it applies to any civilian job as well.

When I worked my way up to Lieutenant in the BOP I began putting this philosophy into practice.  When talking to the line staff, everyone from the rookie to the highly experienced Senior Officer Specialist, I always tried to put myself back in their shoes and remember what it felt like to be there.  From the first few weeks that I started my career with the BOP I had aspirations of moving up.  After three different assignments in the Air Force I would never have been content to stay in the same place for 20 years.  It's difficult enough for me to think about doing that now that I'm retired.

From the time I was 19 years old I moved, on the average, about every 2-1/2 years.  Until now.  I'm pretty sure I'm here to stay because we just bought our retirement home.  So my days of moving from place to place are over.  But that's OK.  It's time to settle down and travel only when I want to.

I tell you about my moving because in my career with the BOP I worked seven institutions and at the Management Specialty Training Center in Denver.  For 19 of my 22 years I was in a supervisory capacity and trained and mentored staff on a regular basis.  I like to think I did a decent job and never forgot what it's like to be a new staff member trying to get along and figure out what you're going to do with your career.  I can think of quite a few people throughout my career that I encouraged and helped to seek a promotion. Some of them went on to be very successful, becoming AWs, Wardens and even regional staff.  I'm proud of them all for doing it.

One of the things I did when I was a Captain that was useful to me as well as to line staff was to make rounds through the entire institution and ask one specific question.  I would give the person a few days to think about it and then always get back to them for their answer.  The question?  "If you could change one thing about this institution what would it be?"

Line staff really liked being asked what they thought about things in the big picture. It made them feel more a part of the team. I would get some poor answers from people who were disgruntled with the system at times. But for the most part I got good ideas or, at least, good feedback and insight into what was important to them. The thing to remember when asking that question however, particularly if you just arrived, is never to try to make major changes in your new institution right away - unless that's why you were sent there or unless it's a blatant hazard the way it is.  You'll alienate people quickly if you show up and try making changes your first week.

I worked for a Warden once who, on his very first day in his very first department head meeting opened the meeting like this:  "I know you all liked the previous Warden.  Let me make this clear.  I'm the new Sheriff in town.  If you don't want to work for me I'll trade you."

Most of us were taken aback.  The man didn't even know us and he was scolding us and threatening us on his first day.  Needless to say he was not very successful at that, his last institution.  And for that he blamed everyone but himself.

Just a few tips from a retired old hack.  For some of you it won't matter and for some it will be inevitable - some staff simply won't like you for whatever reason. But it's always better if you don't have staff using that old line from Hawkeye Pierce in the M.A.S.H. TV program "Let's save time and start hating him now," right after your arrival.  It will make your job much easier.

The Joys Of Simple Things...

As some of you know I've been a little under the weather the last few days.  I caught a cold sometime on Wednesday last week and it got progressively worse until yesterday I was forced to spend most of the day in bed.  The cold lodged mostly in my ears and my throat.  My throat was incredibly painful when I coughed but to keep that cough from spreading to my lungs, I forced myself to do it.

Needless to say, after three days of laying around feeling miserable I was in need of cleaning up.  Since I feel a little better today I decided to shave and take a bath.  I normally prefer showers but today I wanted to immerse myself in hot water and just enjoy it for a while.

Fortunately for me, we have a deep garden tub in our new master bathroom.  The tub itself is about 24 inches deep but the overflow drain is positioned so you only get about 18 inches of water.  Not sure why they couldn't cut that in half and not force me to do without that extra three inches of water but the tub is deep enough that if I bend and cross my legs just right I can get about 80% of my body wet at the same time.  

Whoever wrote the song "No Man Is An Island" never took a bath in a too-small bathtub.

Anyway - I soaked, warmed up the water, soaked some more, washed myself clean, then emptied the hot water heater of it's warm water before finally getting out.  But I feel ever better than before (and even though Arden won't say it I know I must smell better.)  I'm not ready to go jogging but I do feel better.  It's amazing what a bath or a shower will do for you when you're not feeling well.  Of course, if you've got a fever (which I don't) getting out of the water can be a killer! 

So today I'm feeling better but still not doing much.  I'm not up to a lot of physical work yet and Arden doesn't want me going outside since it's so wet and cold.  So I'm mostly taking it easy, enjoying writing and Facebooking and laying around being somewhat lazy.  But hey - I'm clean!

Racism In Barack Obama's United States...?

I have been following with interest the story of Oprah Winfrey's comments to a British Television reporter that people who don't like President Obama are mostly racist and the reaction around the nation.

Oprah was promoting her new movie "The Butler" on the BBC and was asked by Will Gompertz if she thought “some of the treatment of Obama and the challenges he’s faced…is because he’s an African-American.”

Winfrey responded: “Has it ever crossed my mind?…Probably it’s crossed my mind more times than it’s crossed your mind. Just the level of disrespect. When the senator yelled out, ‘You’re a liar’—remember that? Yeah, I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, and that occurs in some cases, and maybe even many cases, because he’s African-American.”

She continued "There are still generations of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and they just have to die.”

Now, I understand that Winfrey did not mean people who hold racist beliefs should be killed but merely need to die off so younger, more enlightened people can rid the country of racism.  As if that's going to happen.  This country seems more racially divided than at any other point in my lifetime and part of it is because Obama supporters continuously scream racism toward anyone who opposes Obama, regardless of the reason for their opposition.  On Facebook just this morning an African American woman who works for the federal government posted "It's so sad how many of you all are Racist in the Country. Obama's in his last term and I support him."  That's a complete generalization of anyone who doesn't support President Obama's actions and policies.

Obama told continuous lies for three years concerning the health care bill and about people being able to keep their plans.  When that's pointed out those who mention it are called racists.  Congressman Joe Wilson yelled out "You lie" during a State Of The Union address and he was labeled a racist.  Jamelle Bouie of The Daily Beast says "even if it’s impossible to know Rep. Joe Wilson’s motivations - that the first black president is also the first to have his State of the Union address interrupted is significant, Wilson’s intent regardless."

I have some news for Mr. Bouie - if President Obama is impeached because he continues to violate the Constitution by arbitrarily changing laws without going through Congress to do it, or for fraud against the American people by lying to them continuously about keeping their health care plans - he'll be the first black president to be impeached as well.  But that won't mean it's happening because he's black.  It means he'll be held accountable for his actions.  But you won't get the left to believe that.

Mr. Bouie also says that Winfrey "isn’t saying Republicans oppose Obama because of his race, nor is she generalizing to all conservative opposition."  Really?  Let's look at that for a moment.  She referenced Joe Wilson, a Republican.  She followed that reference with "Yeah, I think that there is a level of disrespect for the office that occurs, and that occurs in some cases, and maybe even many cases, because he’s African-American.”  If she's not talking about Republicans and conservatives, who then?  Random individuals?  And does it include Democrats who didn't vote for Obama because he's black?  You never hear about them but we all know they're out there.  The Democrats, after all, were the party of segregation and the KKK.  I wonder if Oprah includes them in her generalization?

I can't help but wonder if, when she makes that statement, Oprah includes people of color who hate whites? My guess is that she doesn't.  Contrary to what some believe, racism is not a "whites only" infliction. There are plenty of people in this country and around the world who hate people of other colors, races, and ethnicities.  It's human nature.  And lately it seems African-Americans in the U.S. are becoming more and more hostile toward whites.  The new "Knockout Game" comes to mind, as well as the instances of black on white crime prefaced by "This is for Trayvon."

Former Representative Allen West said it best.  "I must be a racist because I oppose Obama."  Sadly, I know Obama supporters who would agree with that statement because West is a black conservative.  It seems you can't be "truly black" if you're a conservative.  You just don't understand that struggles of the black man in America if you're conservative.  At least - that's what many liberals and African Americans like to say.

I agree there may be a lack of respect for the President that is greater than has happened at other times in history.  Although George W. Bush was vilified by the left continuously and I didn't hear Oprah or anyone else on the left talk about how wrong it was.  Perhaps that lack of respect comes from the fact that many Americans simply abhor what President Obama has done?  He forced the health care bill down the throats of Americans with a 72% opposition rate.  His first month in office he apologized to the rest of the world for the nation we love.  He says America is the greatest nation in the world but he wants to fundamentally change it.  Maybe he's not getting respect because he demonstrates a complete lack of respect for us, the American citizens...?

Are there people who oppose Obama because he's black?  Absolutely.  Are they the majority?  Absolutely not.  Liberals like to pretend the only reason people oppose Obama is because he's black.  That way they can ignore the fundamental differences between conservatism and liberalism for their own convenience.  The fact is that most people who oppose Obama oppose his policies, his goal to "fundamentally change America" and the fact that he goes around the law to accomplish it.  Most of us opposed Clinton as well.  And one day, God forbid, may have to again....

What Are They Hiding?

Recently, as many as thirty-eight news organizations have signed a letter that was sent to the White House complaining about reduced access to the President and his activities.  It seems the White House is adopting a policy of barring the press from meetings and events and doing its own press releases after the fact.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest says the White House press releases are one way President Obama is keeping his administration transparent - because the public is allowed greater access to the administration at times when it wouldn't be logistically possible for the press to be present. 

Oh, OK.  Wait....  huh?  So keeping the national media out and being given only White House approved press releases and photographs after the fact is helping to keep the administration more transparent?  

That explanation defies logic for anyone except the Obama White House and the most blind Obama followers.  Even though the main stream media, for the most part, has fallen victim to Obama worship in the last five years, they're job is supposed to be monitoring and reporting government activities to the American people and the world.  Freedom of the press was set up by the founders so the government could not hide behind their own curtain of secrecy.  

But the Obama administration is cutting them off at the knees.

It must be getting serious.  The letter was addressed to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and has been signed by 38 news organizations.  All major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, Internet news outlets, and newspapers such as The New York Times and Washington Post have included their endorsements. The White House Correspondents' Association and White House News Photographers Association also endorsed the complaint. 

Josh Earnest chalked the complaint up to simple tension that exists between the press and the government. 

"The fact that there is a little bit of disagreement between the press corps and the White House press office about how much access the press corps should have to the president is built into the system," Earnest said at the daily White House news briefing. "If that tension didn't exist, then either you or we aren't doing our jobs."

However, the complaint did not cite private or restricted events.  It specifically mentioned presidential activities that are of a "fundamentally public nature," such as Obama's meetings with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Hillary Clinton and Pakistani human-rights activist Malala Yousafzai.

The Associated Press Media Editors and the American Society of News Editors have sent a letter to their members requesting they not publish the White House press releases or photos.  "We must accept that we, the press, have been enablers," the letter says. "We urge those of you in news organizations to immediately refrain from publishing any of the photographs or videos released by the White House, just as you would refuse to run verbatim a press release from them."

One can't help but wonder what the President is trying to hide by blocking media access to him and his activities.  He is already in hot water stemming from the disastrous turn of events with Obamacare.  And his relationship with the media is already somewhat strained because of the recent spying on the Associated Press.  He has had a majority of the media on his side up to now.  If he loses them he's in big trouble.  I'm not sure why he doesn't understand that.

Harry Goes Nuclear....

Yesterday the U.S. Senate voted 52 to 48 in favor of the so called "nuclear option" - a rule change in the Senate that will prevent minority filibusters of some Presidential appointees, particularly some judges and executive appointments. 

Changing over 200 years of tradition, Reid's move goes directly against what he, Joe Biden and then Senator Barack Obama said back in 2005 when Republicans were considering the same rule change.

"I urge my Republican colleagues not to go through with changing these rules," Obama said on the Senate floor in 2005. "In the long run it is not a good result for either party. One day Democrats will be in the majority again and this rule change will be no fairer to a Republican minority than it is to a Democratic minority."

Harry Reid, in 2005, said of the Republican plan to change the rules “The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government."

Interesting how people change their opinions based on who is in control, huh?

"A deliberate and determined effort to obstruct everything, no matter what the merits, just to re-fight the results of an election is not normal," President Obama said of the change. "And for the sake of future generations, it cannot become normal."  This coming from a President who once said the Constitution was in his way because he was "constrained by the system our founders put in place."

When asked about Obama's change of opinion on this Senate rule change White House spokesman Josh Earnest cited increased Republican obstruction and the need to get the Senate working again.  "The circumstances have unfortunately changed for the worse since 2005," Earnest said.

Once again Democrats show their hypocrisy by being fervently against something when it's proposed by the other side but all in favor of it when it will work in their best interest.  I would caution Harry on one thing, however.  With all of the uproar over the failure of Obamacare, the lies told by the President and Obama's approval rating plummeting, if I were Harry Reid I'd already be making plans to change the rule back come December of 2014.  If the American people are still angry about their losses due to Obamacare by next year's election date the Senate and House could easily be under Republican control.  Does Reid really want to turn over control of the Senate to the Republicans with this new rule change still in effect?  

Where Were You November 22, 1963?

On this date in 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.  He was shot twice from behind - one bullet passing through his back and out his throat and the other taking out most of the right side of his head. The enhanced footage and autopsy photos are gruesome.

Lee Harvey Oswald was named as the lone gunman who killed Kennedy from the 6th floor of the book depository building there on Commerce Street.  Oswald was killed several days later by Jack Ruby, a nightclub owner with suspected ties to the mafia.  Ruby was tried and convicted for killing Oswald and received a death sentence.  He appealed and was granted a new trial but died of a pulmonary embolism before the trial date could be set.

There are many conspiracy theories surrounding the killing of John Kennedy. Some people believe there was a second shooter who fired from the infamous "grassy knoll" to the right and in front of Kennedy's motorcade.  There has never been any evidence or witness that said the second shooter was there.  I've been to the sight of the Kennedy assassination and on the grassy knoll.  If someone had been there and fired a gun people would have seen and heard it.  So I don't believe it.

There is another theory that puts a second gunman on the roof of another building directly behind where the motorcade was travelling.  This theory says the bullet that hit Kennedy's head came from that location. Again, there is no evidence to support this theory.  It's simple speculation.

The first bullet that hit President Kennedy passed through him and hit Governor John Connally in the back, passing through his chest, through his right wrist and into his thigh.  Some people believe this to be impossible however, I watched a documentary several years ago in which a marksman was placed on a scaffold at the same height and distance from the target(s).

Two ballistic mannequins, complete with skeletons, were placed in a convertible vehicle in the exact positions as were Kennedy and Connally at that precise moment (according to the Zapruder film.) The precise location of the first shot was marked on the mannequin representing Kennedy and the shooter, using a scope, hit it almost perfectly.  That bullet passed through the first mannequin and out the throat, then hit the Connelly mannequin in the back, passed through the chest and into the leg.  The only difference was that it missed the wrist, which could be explained by the fact that the bullet hit a bone and deflected at just enough angle to miss the wrist of the Connally mannequin.  That would only be an inch or two.

So that "miracle bullet" theory was proved to be totally feasible.  Of course, there are other things that are questionable about the entire thing such as - where did the third bullet go?  Where did the pristine bullet come from that was found on the gurney?  And why were the records sealed for so long?  Mystery still surrounds the murder of the President even if Oswald was the lone shooter.

I don't remember where I was that day.  I was six years old and would have been in school but honestly, I can't recall it.  What I do remember is watching the funeral on TV.  The two most specific things I remember are the boots backward in the stirrups of the horse and JFK Junior saluting the procession.  It was a somber day, even for a six year old.

John Kennedy wasn't a really great guy.  He was a politician and a philanderer, kind of like Bill Clinton.  But he was a decent President in the time he had.  He stood strong against the Soviet Union in the Cuban missile crisis - letting the communists know we were not going to allow them to arm Cuba against us.  We came close to a nuclear war that day but Kennedy's backbone forced Khrushchev to back down.

Kennedy was loved by people throughout the world.  It would have been interesting to see what would have happened in this country had he lived to serve another term.  Supposedly, the Kennedy Assassination Files are to be opened and made public in 2017.  We shall see.  It will be interesting to finally discover what secrets lie within.

In an interesting side note - the weather in Dallas today calls for a high temperature of 38 degrees and rain. If those weather conditions had been present 50 years ago John Kennedy would most likely never have been shot because he wouldn't have been riding in an open convertible.  

Martin Bashear Makes MSNBC So Proud...!

Several days ago, MSNBC talk show host Martin Bashear, took offense to Sarah Palin comparing our national debt to China to economic slavery.  Palin's comparison and explanation were spot on but Bashear, probably in an effort to boost his sagging ratings, lambasted Palin and became increasingly vulgar.  He called for someone to defecate and urinate in Sarah Palin's mouth for what she said.  Really?

Martin Bashear is the only one who has an inkling as to why he would say something like that and he later apologized for it - after video of his disgusting rhetoric went viral and people began criticizing him for it.  One can't help but wonder if he apologized because he was sorry he said it or because he was sorry it made him look like the pathetic liberal he is.

What's interesting about the whole thing is that MSNBC has so far done nothing to Bashear for this pathetic and unjust outburst.  They suspended Alec Baldwin from his new show for using an anti-gay slur but have done nothing to Bashear for making vulgar remarks about Sarah Palin.  (Yeah - I don't understand why anyone gave Alec Baldwin a show either but they did.  MSNBC.  Go figure.)  

Apparently what matters to them is the target.  Gays, lesbians, transgenders, liberals, atheists, Muslims, etc., are off limits and warrant punishment. But vilify a Christian, conservative Republican and that's OK, regardless of how disgusting your words are.  The fact that Bashear is still on the air proves that to be the case.  After all - he was insulting Sarah Palin, one of the true enemies of liberalism and, therefore, an enemy of MSNBC.  So why would they discipline him?  When you're a far-left liberal, morals and ethics apply only when speaking of friends.

Obamacare - Over 100,000,000 Served....?

During a conference call with progressive volunteers, hosted by Organizing For Action on Monday evening, President Obama told participants that over 100 million Americans had already signed up for Obamacare.

Of course the Obama controlled media called it a gaffe even as more and more evidence shows he has been lying about Obamacare and its consequences for over three years.  Then, when that fact was uncovered, he lied about lying.

And he's still at it.  ‘I just wanted to take a few minutes to speak to everybody because you guys are the ones who are in the trenches, day-in, day-out,’ Obama said, complaining of ‘misinformation’ that’s being circulated about the law.

But “problems with the website … have created and fed a lot of this misinformation,” he admitted.

What misinformation?  From the beginning Republicans said the law itself would raise taxes, cause people to lose their current policies and cost billions of dollars - all of which the President denied.  Every one of those things has now proved to be correct.  So what 'misinformation' is he talking about?

On Monday the President boasted about his administration's skill in getting people to buy health insurance through the government exchanges saying ‘in the first month alone, we’ve seen more than 100 million Americans already successfully enroll in the new insurance plans."  Really, Mr. President?  According to CNN, one of your cheerleaders, the total number of enrollees as of Tuesday was 133,257.  Of course, you probably meant to say 100,000 but just goofed up and said 100 million.  Yeah, I'm sure that's it because you've never lied to us about numbers before.

In other news, House Republicans have introduced a bill calling President Obama's unilateral changes to the health care law "unconstitutional."  Six different times President Obama has made these unilateral changes to the law and its implementation and finally the House is doing something about it.

Since signing the Affordable Care Act into law the President and his administration have made the following changes to it without going through Congress:

*  In 2010 Kathleen Sebelius added language that would cause the cancellation of millions of current policies that were supposed to be grandfathered in.

*  A one-year delay in requiring firms with over 50 workers to provide insurance

*  Scrapping a long-term care insurance program (for nursing home care, for example) called the CLASS Act

*  Lifting the requirement on businesses to file a form called a 1099 for a variety of business expenses

*  A one year delay of the employer mandate

*  And now the President's newest change - allowing insurance companies to extend current plans that do not meet the requirements of the law.

On the campaign trail in 2008, President Obama said “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.”

It seems Mr. Obama has forgotten that statement since he now makes changes to the health care law on a regular basis, without going through Congress as required by that very Constitution.

President Obama continues to prove that he will do what he wants when he wants and he'll worry about the consequences only if public opinion goes against him.  Then he'll lie about doing it.  It's a consistent pattern that, sadly, we're all accustomed to by now.  But some people still support and believe him.

More Evidence That Obama Lied

As much as President Obama, his administration and his minions want to pretend Obama didn't know so many people were going to lose their health care coverage while he was going around saying "If you like your plan you can keep it. Period." there is more and more evidence every day to suggest that he did know and deliberately lied about it.

Take the example of Department of Justice attorneys just last year in a written response to a court challenge of the law's requirement that insurance plans provide coverage of contraception. “It is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on,” DOJ lawyers wrote.  “Defendants have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end 2013.”

”The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small-employer plans and 45 percent of large-employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” the Federal Register says. “The low-end estimates are for 49 percent and 34 percent of small and large-employer plans, respectively, to have relinquished grandfather status, and the high-end estimates are 80 percent and 64 percent, respectively.”

So we're supposed to believe that Obama's lawyers were telling the court about so many people losing their coverage and Obama himself still didn't know about it?  Is he really that out of touch with what's going on in his administration?

Obama's statement that you can keep your plan if you like it was always a lie. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius knew it from that moment in 2010 when she had wording added that would nullify the grandfather clause if any changes were made to policies.  Obama's lawyers told the court last year about the cancellation of policies.  Does anyone really believe that President Obama didn't know the truth? I'm thinking even Bill O'Reilly will have to change his mind now that this information is out.

If President Obama is so brilliant - as his adoring followers like to say - what's the reason he is always in the dark about various things in his administration?  Does he stay intentionally uninformed so he can't be blamed for anything?  Does he make decisions and sign laws without a second thought as to what happens from that point on?  Does he appoint people to work for him to keep him uninformed? Is he actually not very bright at all?  Or is he simply a clever liar who is able to fool a lot of people a lot of the time?  I'll leave that to you to decide.

Even if I was a supporter of President Obama's policies I would have serious problems with him continuously saying he was unaware of major occurrences they become public.  That's no way for any President, Democrat, Republican or Independent, to lead a country.  It is his job to know what's going on and it's the job of his advisers and executive staff to keep him informed of the goings-on in their departments. If he wants to remain in the dark about everything I ask once again....  why do we need him?

Does Chris Matthews Even Believe Himself?

It seems Chris "I get a tingle up my leg" Matthews can't defend his man crush with facts these days so he has to try playing the race card.... again.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said President Obama lied about people being able to keep their health care plans - a fact which has become very clear in the last couple of weeks.

“We look at the mess that has been created out of Obamacare by the president having said, ‘You can keep your policy if you like it, you know, guaranteed, period.’ It turns out that was a lie. And he repeated it over and over and over again,” Cheney said.

That's pretty straight forward.  The President did lie about it.  Then, after three full years of telling people they could keep their plans, "Period", the President lied again by saying “what we said was” you can keep your health care plan “if it hasn’t changed since the law’s passed.”  Not only was that statement untrue but it shows how stupid the President believes American people to be.  Nowhere in Cheney's criticism of the President is there a hint of racial overtones.  Unless you're Chris Matthews.

Apparently hearing this truth about his man crush was just too much for the MSNBC loud mouth.  On his show "Hardball" (which could easily be re-named "Hard Head") Matthews reacted in his usual fashion.

“Is this, calling the president a liar, the new language of American politics? Or is it a language specially treated for the country’s first African-American president?” Matthews asked viewers..  all twelve of them. 

Since Matthews has no defense for Obama's lies he plays the race card - something he does on a regular basis.  If, God forbid, Hillary Clinton replaces Barack Obama as President in 2017, Matthews undoubtedly will (if he still has a show, that is) change his favorite rhetoric from "they don't like the President because he's black" to "they don't like the President because she's female." Never will he admit people don't like the Democrat President(s) because their policies suck.

It must be difficult being Chris Matthews - watching your idle make a fool of himself and watching your ratings dive on a regular basis.  Maybe Matthews should talk to the President about a public relations job.  He could continue spreading his hateful "Obama does no wrong and if you disagree you're a racist" garbage and maybe get to spend more time with the object of his affection. Who knows? He might get a Medal of Freedom like that other person who has been playing the race card on a regular basis recently....?

Obama Skipping Gettysburg - Right Or Wrong?

Today marks the 150th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's famous speech at the Civil War battlefield in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.  The battle at Gettysburg, which began July 2nd and ended on July 4th, 1863, was the bloodiest battle of the war, with the most casualties of any battle.  Over 56,000 men died that day.  Some believe it was the turning point in the war.  Lee's defeat at Gettysburg was major and the beginning of the end for the Confederate army.

On November 19, 1863, President Lincoln traveled to Gettysburg to commemorate the battle.  He was asked to say a few words - words that he himself thought would be insignificant.  Those words still resonate today and are believed by many to be his best speech ever.

I memorized the Gettysburg Address in 5th or 6th grade history class and still remember most of it to this day. Lincoln's words were simple yet profound, although some disagreed at the time.  The Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Patriot-News dismissed one of the the greatest Presidential speeches in history as “silly remarks…altogether ordinary… unremarkable in eloquence and uninspiring in its brevity."  Apparently the editor didn't care much for President Lincoln's remarks.  (They issued a retraction of that editorial today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of that "silly" speech.  Better late than never.)

Controversy has arisen over the fact that President Obama is not going to Gettysburg to also commemorate the day.  In a move that seems contrary to what he should do, the President who likened himself to Lincoln during his initial Presidential campaign, is sending little known Interior Secretary Sally Jewell, who was appointed to her position just this year.  Many in Pennsylvania are upset that President Obama is not going to Gettysburg today. 

"It would be an occasion for him to honor a crucial time in our past, to create a historical bridge to today," writes Salena Zito, a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review staff writer.  "His dismissal of the request shows a man so detached from the duty of history, from the men who served in the White House before him, that it is unspeakable in its audacity," Zito added. "Ask almost any person in this historic town; even his most ardent supporters here are stunned."

But others believe Obama's non-appearance is proper so the festivities and remembrance will be about Lincoln's speech rather than about President Obama.  Heather Cox Richardson, professor of history at Boston College, says President Obama is doing the right thing by not going.

"The Gettysburg Address," she said, "is a re-dedication of the idea of equality that was seized upon in the Declaration of Independence a century earlier. And now, with the country mired in sharp political divisiveness."

"By not going, President Obama lets that speech stand on its own. If he went, it would all be about him," she said.

"The themes of the Gettysburg Address are what we really need to focus on," she added. "And in an ironic twist, our first black President can't be present for them."

Of course, when asked by reporters why the President wasn't going to Gettysburg, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney didn't have an answer. 

"I think that is an enormously significant event in our history, and I think Americans will take the appropriate time to consider it, consider the speech that was delivered there," he said. "But beyond that, I don't have any updates on the President's schedule."  Figures, Jay.

I'm somewhat at odds over this one.  After all his comparisons of himself to Lincoln - announcing his campaign intentions in Springfield, Illinois, taking his first oath of office on the Lincoln Bible, and traveling to Washington following his election following Lincoln's historic route, President Obama is skipping out on the commemoration of Lincoln's greatest speech?  It does seem a little odd.  I guess he could be doing it to avoid drawing attention to himself and thus detracting from the importance of the day.  But I don't believe that.  President Obama is not normally the type to avoid drawing attention to himself.  I think it's more that he is detached and finds an appearance at this particular event uninteresting because it's not about him.  I could be wrong but when narcissism runs through your veins you don't avoid attention.

Either way - today is a very important day in our history and should be about those famous words of Abraham Lincoln following that horrific battle.  Let us all remember them now...

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Holiday Hatred Rears Its Ugly Head...

The East Point Academy in West Columbia, South Carolina, recently cancelled its participation in the annual Operation Christmas Child project - a program that collects and distributes toys and presents for underprivileged children.  Their participation was halted because the American Humanist Association threatened to sue the school.

“We received a letter saying we had to cease and desist immediately or they would take legal action against us,” the principal told Todd Starnes of FOX News.  The body of the letter includes the following:  "This letter serves as notice to policy making school officials of the East Point Academy's unconstitutional conduct and as a demand that the school terminate all promotion, sponsorship, endorsement or affiliation with Operation Christmas Child immediately."

The principal, Renee Matthews, said “We have a very small budget and very small legal budget. We felt that we could not risk using our school funding for classrooms and teachers to fight a court case.”

Congratulations to the American Humanist Association.  They won a victory.  But what did they win?  They can sit back and claim victory over a Christian program because needy and underprivileged children in Columbia will now go without Christmas presents.  That's got to make you all warm and fuzzy inside, huh?

Myriam Webster defined humanism as:  "a system of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good and that problems can be solved using reason instead of religion."  Wickipedia defines it as:   a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). 

Can someone tell me what's ethical about denying a child a bit of happiness during the holidays just to make a point?  And what values can you have if you make it your goal to prevent children who do without on a day to day basis from having a little joy in their lives, free of charge?

Participation in the Operation Christmas Child project was completely voluntary and therefore not a violation of anyone's rights.  And while the American Humanist Association might object to the word "Christmas" because of it's historical Christian context, the word itself has become synonymous with the winter holidays including Santa Claus, snowmen and other non-religious items and persona.  Anyone who denies that is viewing the world through hate-tinted glasses.

Hopefully those underprivileged kids in Columbia, South Carolina, will have some Marines around who can collect toys and gifts for them since the children of East Point Academy have had their program shut down by hate filled secularists.  Or maybe the ethical "humanists" send a letter to the Marines as well since the Marines are a government entity as well.  That would prove interesting, I'm sure.

"It's The Law Of The Land!..." Or Something Like That

Last week President Obama made another one of his unilateral changes to the Affordable Care Act.  In the wake of millions of people losing their health care coverage because of his "wonderful" law, the President declared that insurance companies could stop cancelling policies that don't meet the new minimum standards for a period of one year so people would stop losing their coverage.

The President's supporters are touting his actions as benevolent and compassionate, putting the people ahead of politics.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In reality it's a political move and only a political move. With a mid-term election coming up next November, President Obama can't have the American people angry and him (and the Democrats) because they lost insurance policies he guaranteed they would be able to keep.  So he merely switched the blame.  With all of the hoops insurance companies had to jump through over the last three years just to prepare for the implementation of Obamacare, they're hardly going to jump back through them to change things back and renew or replace cancelled policies for only a year.  President Obama knows this.  That's why he did what he did.  Now he can place the blame on the insurance companies and pretend he and his law had nothing to do with it.  And there are those who will believe him. Remember the Obamabots' motto...  "Let's just believe whatever he said last and go with it."

The interesting difference this time is that some Democrats are questioning whether or not President Obama has the Constitutional authority to make these unilateral changes.  Funny - they didn't ask that question the first five times he made changes to the law without consulting Congress.  I'm sure their questioning of their leader has everything to do with their constituents and their upcoming re-election bids.  It's difficult to win re-election when your constituents have become disillusioned with you and your boss.

I find it interesting that the main stream media isn't questioning Obama's authority to make changes to laws on a whim.  After all - Obama, Harry Reid, Democrats in general and the main stream media all proclaimed "It's the law of the land" when Republicans were trying to change it.  They seemed to indicate that the law couldn't be changed simply because it's the law.  Yet they praise Obama when he does it - even if he does it illegally.  Can you imagine what they would have done if Bush had gone around changing laws without going through Congress?  He would have been impeached.

So according to Obama and the Democrats - laws cannot be changed once they're in place.  And they apparently must be followed.  Hmmmm  I wonder why that doesn't include the Defense of Marriage Act? Or immigration laws?  How about the law that says there is supposed to be an approved budget every October?  And of course - the debt ceiling should never be raised because, after all, it's the law of the land. Right Mr. President?  Correct, Senator Reid?

Yeah - it's interesting how Republicans are wrong if they do something and Democrats praise each other if they turn around and do the very same thing that Republicans suggested.  Delaying Obamacare is a great example.  When the Republicans suggested it last month the Democrats were all about "It's the law of the land!!"  Last week, when they were afraid of losing votes, they began asking the President to do that very thing.

Look up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary.  You'll find a picture of your favorite Democrat.

Al Sharpton - Just Doing What He Does Best...

Sharpton is at it again.  During an interview a couple of days ago Sarah Palin compared the growing national debt and the possible consequences to slavery. Al Sharpton, apparently believing that slavery only happened to black people in America and not to anyone else anywhere else in the world, responded by basically calling Palin's statement racist.

“Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China," Palin said. "When that money comes due – and this isn’t racist – but it’ll be like slavery when that note is due. We are going to beholden to the foreign master. . . We’re not wards of the State but free men and women who can live good and productive lives without D.C.s appointed best and brightest telling us what to do.”

Sharpton responded quickly.  “Our federal debt is like slavery? Slavery was horrific, vile, a vile practice that was explicitly based on race. So it’s hard to avoid sounding racist when you make comparisons like that. This kind of talk has no place in our political debate. But Palin doesn’t seem to care. She only cares about throwing red meat to the right wing.”

Maybe Al needs a history lesson.  Slavery has been around almost since the beginning of recorded history. The Jews were held in bondage in Babylon in the year 597BC.  White European Christians were held as slaves in North Africa by Muslims between 1530 and 1780.  ( Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).)

Slavery of Africans in this country got it's start in Africa where black people were held in slavery by other black people and sold to European and American buyers. From History Online: "African law recognized slavery and the right of owners to alienate slaves. A relatively low population density and an absence of the concept of property in land encouraged the development of slavery in West and Central Africa. Slavery had been important in the medieval empires of Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, and slave exports had supplemented the export of gold. Although African slavery was not a benign institution, slaves in Africa were used in a wider variety of ways than in the New World: they were employed as agricultural workers, soldiers, servants, and officials."

Ironically, Captain John Smith, founder of Jamestown, Virginia, where slavery in America began, was captured by the Turks while fighting against them as a soldier and was sold into slavery for a period of time. He escaped by killing his owner.

Despite his hateful rhetoric and continuous race baiting, Al Sharpton is an ordained minister.  One would think he would remember certain Biblical teachings and verses, particularly Proverbs 22:7.  “The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender's slave.”  This is exactly what Sarah Palin was speaking of.  I suppose, in Sharpton's world, the Bible is now a racist book....?

It seems metaphors may not be used in today's society lest one be accused of racism or hatred.  People use the words "slave" and "slavery" all the time without it being racist.  "He is a slave to his job.  He is a slave to drugs."  Body builders are often called "slaves to their bodies."  Despite Sharpton's wishes, African Americans do not get to lay sole claim to practice of slavery nor to the word. Certainly slavery in this country was an atrocity that went on far too long and needed to be changed.  But slavery didn't originate in this country nor is has it been completely eradicated in today's world.  And making a metaphorical statement, particularly when it's backed up Biblically, is not racist.

Sarah Palin is correct in linking our debt to China to the possibility of future slavery.  The nation that borrows the money could very easily end up being ruled and controlled by the nation to whom they owe the debt.  I find it interesting that Palin knew, and qualified with her statement "This is not racist" that someone would accuse her of it.  I guess she's accustomed to it by now.

Let The (Blame) Game Begin....!

Yesterday, in what seemed like a gesture of understanding and compassion, President Obama once again unilaterally made unconstitutional changes to the Affordable Care Act.  Pressured by his Democrat colleagues, in the face of mounting disapproval due to insurance policies being cancelled by the millions because of Obamacare, the President declared that insurance companies and state insurance boards can continue policies that do not meet the minimum Obamacare standards for another year.  He didn't mandate they do it but simply allowed them to.

Supporters of the President will say he did it because he cares about the people. But let's take a good look at that.

Before and during the government shut down, foreseeing problems with the implementation of Obamacare, Republicans asked repeatedly for the President to allow the delay of that implementation.  Not only did Obama refuse to entertain the idea but he refused to consider it while saying publicly he was open for any negotiations with the Republicans.

When the implementation of the sign-up phase began on October 1st, people who have individual plans began to receive cancellation letters from their insurance companies who cited Obamacare for the cancellations.  Since Obamacare has minimum standard guidelines (which include things many people don't need) the companies either had to change those plans (and raise the premiums) or cancel them and refer the policy holders to the Obamacare exchanges.  In the three years since Obamacare was signed into law the insurance companies had prepared to be part of the exchanges so they would be ready for the October 1st deadline.

What President Obama did yesterday was initiate the blame switch from himself and the Affordable Care Act to the insurance companies and/or the state insurance boards.  He put the responsibility for continuing individual plans in their court knowing full well that the insurance companies either cannot or will not do all of the work necessary to reinstate those policies for a year by the deadline of December 15th or January 1st. When people find themselves uninsured by the end of the sign-up phase the President will now place the blame on the insurance companies for not doing what he said they could do.  It's a very clever move on his part but easy to see through if you look with open eyes.

How do I know this is what the President has in mind?  He stated exactly that yesterday when he said "The Affordable Care Act is not going to be the reason people's policies are cancelled."  That's the simple and straightforward precursor to "I told the insurance companies they could continue those individual policies but they refused to do it.  That's not my fault."

Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, Rahm Emmanuel's brother and one of the architects of Obamacare, is already saying the insurance companies are the demons here and they will deny people individual plans because there is no money in it for them anymore.  The main stream media will be once again supporting the President now that he has announced this delay.  They can now get back to demonizing the insurance companies and Republicans again.

Insurance companies took all the necessary steps to be ready for the implementation of the sign-up phase of Obamacare.  Having the President change the rules at the last minute puts the insurance companies in a bind, making them out to be the bad guys.  Policies that have already been cancelled will probably not be reinstated because the deadline is too soon.  It's by design. Very clever design.

One other thing, as was pointed out by a friend of mine this morning - with all the uproar about Obamacare and people losing policies and the failed web site no one in Washington seems to be talking about the budget - at least not openly. The deadline for that is coming rapidly and if nothing is done in the meantime we're looking at another possible government shut down.  Are you ready for that?

Major Garrett Doesn't Play Nice...

...and probably won't be welcome back at the White House - even though he's the White House Correspondent for CBS.

The reason?  Garrett dared to ask President Obama direct questions about his knowledge of the problems and shortcomings of Obamacare and asked the President if he knew about them ahead of time.  Garrett used to be a top notch, unafraid reporter when he worked for FOX News.  I've had doubts about him since he moved over to CBS and became a part of the great, main stream media cheer leading squad.  But it seems Garrett hasn't forgotten where he came from. Rather than leave his cojones at the door to the White House press room (like most of the other "journalists") it seems he smuggled them in this morning.

"Do you not believe, sir, that the American people deserve deeper, more transparent accountability from you …?" Garrett asked of the President. "Do we deserve more detailed explanations of whether you knew people would lose plans? And didn't you know website would fail?"

You can bet President Obama isn't happy about being put on the spot like that. Of course, he denied knowledge of reality once again, pretending he didn't know about these things until after the fact. I ask once again - if President Obama is always the last person in the White House to know anything why do we need him there? He didn't know about Benghazi. He didn't know about the IRS. He didn't know about the NSA spying. He didn't know about the Justice Department spying on the Associated Press. So the bigger questions are "What does the President know, how long did it take him to find out and how long will he continue to deny knowledge?"

Congratulations to Major Garrett for asking real questions - you know - actually being a journalist. Nothing against the current FOX guy but I wish you'd come back, Major. I always enjoyed watching you grill Obama, Robert Gibbs and Jay Carney. Wait - I know... tag team!!

President Obama Guilty Of Fraud?

According to Andrew McCarthy - the former federal prosecutor not the actor - President Obama has not only committed fraud against the American people but serial fraud.  The numerous lies and misrepresentations from the Obama and his administration concerning the health care law would be enough to put any corporate CEO or regular citizen in prison.

About half of the people in this country believe the President knowingly lied about the health care bill.  About 40 percent believe he truly didn't know that his promise to the people (that they could keep their doctors and their insurance plans) would turn out to be untrue.  "Mostly conservative" talk show host Bill O'Reilly gives the President a pass by saying that in his opinion President Obama never read the law and was deliberately unfamiliar with it so he had no idea he was not telling the truth.

IF that's true (and I don't believe it for a minute) then President Obama's hand selected cabinet members and assistants are failing him big time.  Keeping the President of the United States in the dark and allowing him to go out and tell the people things that aren't true would be a ludicrous way to run an administration.  It would make Barack Obama merely a puppet.

But we know it's not true.  I do believe the President didn't read the bill before he signed it and that he hasn't sat down and read it to this day.  But I also believe he knew people would lose their insurance policies, that many premiums would skyrocket and that families would not see a $2500 yearly reduction in their insurance costs.  It was discussed and documented in White House meetings back in 2010, after Kathleen Sebelius and her staff inserted changes that would deliberately cause policies to be cancelled.

According to Mr. McCarthy, U.S. Attorney guidelines say if someone repeatedly lie about something that eventually causes losses for a large group of people then that person is guilty of fraud.

Another lie told by the President is that the new law would not raise taxes on anyone.  They wrote the individual mandate saying anyone who did not acquire health insurance, either on their own or through Obamacare, would be fined by the IRS.  The President, in an interview, actually scolded George Stephanopoulos for suggesting Obamacare was a tax. Then Obama's attorneys went to the Supreme Court and successfully argued that it was not a fine but a tax.  (And still people praise him for it.  Unbelievable.)

President Obama's approval rating is falling markedly because of the revelations of Obamacare since the implementation of the sign-up phase on October 1st. Even Democrats are beginning to criticize him for making them look bad.  With a mid-term election now less than a year away many of them are worried about the fallout from the disastrous turn of recent Obamacare events.

On the radio yesterday I heard about a Republican bill that would call for people to be allowed to keep their current insurance policies.  That bill, however, is more message than substance because it only allows for people keep their plans if the insurance companies decide to let them.  There is no mandate in the law to force the insurance companies to keep the plans they have already cancelled or are considering for cancellation.  Republicans believe this law will make people think they (Republicans) aren't the ogres Democrats make them out to be and are actually listening to the people.  It's a feel good law, that's it.

Senate Democrats also have a bill.  Their bill mandates that insurance companies keep people on their current policies.  They will replace the House bill with theirs and send it back to the House for approval.  If Republicans, who have no intention of forcing insurance companies to comply, refuse to approve the Senate bill they will be demonized by Democrats as uncaring ogres who won't do what's best for the people. Once again the Republicans are killing themselves.

If what Mr. McCarthy says is true Republicans now have everything they need to level impeachment charges against President Obama.  Everything that is... except the cojones to do it.  Republicans will never file impeachment charges against the first African-American President of the United States unless he does something so blatantly illegal that a huge majority of Americans call for it.  They will not take the chance of being labeled racists - even though they have already been so labeled by many Democrats, pundits and Obama supporters nationwide.

I guess people will believe what they wish to believe.  Obamacare is a disaster and President Obama has been lying to us about it for three years.  But he'll get a pass.  He always does.  One can only hope the Republicans have the cojones to bring this topic up next year during their campaigns - along with all the other lies that have been told by this administration.  With the main stream media a part of the Democrat National Committee, hitting the Democrats with the truth is the only way Republicans have a chance to win.