WyBlog, the best thing about New Jersey since the invention of the 24 hour diner.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan
CH 2.0 Info Center
The Jersey Report
Labor Union Report
Net Right Nation
The Patriot Post Newsletter
Victor Davis Hanson
J! E! T! S! Jets! Jets! Jets!
NJ.com Caldwell Forum
The Caldwells Patch
The Jersey Tomato Press
"This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes."
#VRWC RSS feed:News Ticker Widget
In case you hadn't heard, the Founding Fathers were Muslims. Obama said so today, it must be true.
Obama reminded the audience that political opponents of Thomas Jefferson accused him of being a Muslim. "So I was not the first," he said lightly as the audience laughed. "It's true. Look it up. I'm in good company."
Obama pointed out that the founding fathers also supported the religion of Islam.
"Jefferson and John Adams had their own copies of the Koran," he said. "Benjamin Franklin wrote, that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."
Jefferson vanquished the Barbary Pirates.
Obama gave Iran the atomic bomb.
I'm sure that's the same thing, right?
And it's no coincidence he said it at the Muslim-Brotherhood linked Islamic Society of Baltimore. When it comes to coddling terrorists, Obama is a terrorist's best friend. Just look at all the mutts he let go from Guantanamo.
So naturally he took the opportunity to lambaste "anti-Muslim rhetoric."
President Obama on Wednesday used his first-ever visit to a U.S. mosque to decry "inexcusable" rhetoric against Muslims and call on the country to unite against religious intolerance.
Obama blamed Republican White House hopefuls for fueling anti-Muslim sentiment in the wake of terrorist attacks last year in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif.
He told the audience at the Islamic Society of Baltimore he's heard from countless young Muslims who fear they are "going to be rounded up" and thrown out of the country and other community members whose mosques have been vandalized.
Obama said it's a "time of fear" for Muslim-Americans, who are concerned about the threat of terrorism but also about being "targeted or blamed for the violent acts of the very few."
"That's not who we are," the president said. "We are one American family and when any part of our family starts to feel separate or second-class or targeted, it tears at the fabric of our nation."
Did you notice any mention of the Christians massacred by Muslims? Me neither.
There's a climate of fear alright, fear of the next San Bernadino. Because the Muslim Brotherhood isn't exactly known for it's sympathy to infidels.
In fact, it's Muslim countries that exhibit the most religious intolerance.
When was the last time you saw a highway sign that said "All Muslims Exit Here" or "Christians Only?"
Muslims are welcome in Vatican City. Christians in Mecca? Not so much.
Muslims are welcome in Jerusalem. Jews in Mecca? Islam teamed up with the Nazis to send Jews to the gas chambers, and not much has changed since then.
Their Koran is clear — kill the infidel.
While Obama is worried about hypothetical "anti-Muslim" activities, Muslims are busy killing Christians with ruthless efficiency.
How many of Obama's young Muslim friends have been burned alive?
How many beheadings are carried out in churches across America?
Where are the Jewish rape gangs?
Obama tells us Islam means "peace." Meanwhile, Islam is anything but peaceful, but, hey, maybe he doesn't always read the papers.
"The very word Islam comes from 'Salam' — peace," he said. "The standard greeting is 'As-Salaam-Alaikum' — 'Peace be upon you,'" he explained.
Except the practictioners of Islam say, Islam means "Submission." As in, we will submit to Islam's rule, or die.
Obama knows this of course. He was raised as a Muslim in Indonesia. But he pretends otherwise. Who knows what he really believes, he's a malignant narcissist, so he probably only believes in his own munificence. And he may even be right when he says "we" are not a war with Islam, because by "we" he means himself.
But make no mistake, Islam is at war with us. Islam is at war with
America, and all of Western Civilization. Islam and its barbarians are at the
gates. We open those gates at own peril.
One day after making himself the biggest financier of state-sponsored terrorism in the history of the universe, Barack Obama backpeddled ever so slightly.
The US has imposed fresh sanctions on Iranian companies and individuals over a recent ballistic missile test.
The new sanctions prevent 11 entities and individuals linked to the missile programme from using the US banking system.
The move came after international nuclear sanctions on Iran were lifted as part of a deal hailed by President Barack Obama on Sunday as "smart".
Ooh, I'll bet the Mullahs are quaking in their sandals now, eh?
But it's all right, we got 5 hostages back. Except we had to give Iran 7 terrorists in exchange.
And that's not all.
The EU is lifting restrictions on trade, shipping and insurance in full.
The US is suspending, not terminating, its nuclear-related sanctions; crucially, Iran can now reconnect to the global banking system.
Well, except for those 11 naughty boys he re-sanctioned today. But everybody else in Iran? Party on Mahmoud!
The UN is lifting sanctions related to defence and nuclear technology sales, as well as an asset freeze on key individuals and companies.
Nearly $100bn of Iranian assets are being unlocked.
Iran is expected to increase its daily export of 1.1m barrels of crude oil by 500,000 shortly, and a further 500,000 thereafter.
One hundred billion dollars for the Axis of Evil.
That sure does buy a lot of terrorism. Hezbollah just won the jihadi lottery. And Hamas is smiling with anticipation.
There's Obama's legacy: Terrorism. More terrorism than ever. Up to and including the Grand Prize, a smoking crater where Tel Aviv used to be, thanks to Obama's funding of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
If that's "smart" diplomacy, I'd hate to see what dumb diplomacy
Leave it to Genghis John Kerry to grovel before our enemies.
Secretary of State John Kerry thanked leaders in Iran on Wednesday for what he called a "quick and appropriate response" to return 10 American sailors back to the United States.
"These are always situations which … have an ability, if not properly guided, to get out of control," Kerry said in a speech on Wednesday morning at the National Defense University.
Here's a picture of our men, under "control," frame-grabbed from Iranian state TV. Looks "appropriate" to me; how about to you?
"Properly guided" indeed, for maximum propaganda value.
The sight of members of the American military, disarmed and under Iranian control, is of enormous propaganda value in Iran's ongoing war against the United States. To its allies in the Middle East, the photo demonstrates Iran's strength — how many jihadist countries have had this many American servicemembers under their power? — and it demonstrates American weakness.
Nations that take illegal propaganda photos, crow about their seizure of American boats, confiscate part of their equipment, and then point to our allegedly admitted faults aren't "easing tensions," they're flexing their muscles. I'm glad our sailors and boats are back in American hands — minus, apparently, their GPS equipment — but once again Iran has thumbed its nose at the U.S., demonstrating that it does what it wants — whether it's testing missiles, launching rockets near U.S. warships, or taking, questioning, and photographing American sailors who (allegedly) stray into Iranian waters.
Our country is in the very best of hands.
You could say this president hates the military. You'd be wrong. Barack Obama hates America. The military is just part of it.
American weakness is Barack Obama's goal. He welcomes it.
The Obama administration told us it was just two friendly countries helping each other with a broken boat. The Obama administration told us there was no "hostile intent." The Obama administration told us no apology was demanded.
None of it was true. Our military personnel were captured, forced to surrender on their knees, blindfolded, and photographed. Their images were then broadcast to the world on Wednesday morning by the Iranian regime, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. The American woman who was captured was forced to submit to Islamic law and don a hijab. State-run Iranian media announced that the whole affair was meant to be a "lesson" to "troublemakers" in the U.S. Congress.
And the presidential administration of Barack Obama went right along with the whole charade.
Anything to preserve his sham nuclear "deal" with the mullahs. By the time they get The Bomb he'll be retired and playing more golf than anyone thought humanly possible. The fallout will be somebody else's problem, and his palace guard media will make sure he's never blamed.
Iran just humiliated the United States for all the world to see. And Barack Obama went along with it, willingly, and without any concern for what it might portend for the future.
The only possible explanation for that is simple; it's what he wants.
Last month Obama's weaponized IRS sent a chill down the spine of every American with a proposal to force charitable organizations into reporting the Social Security Numbers of their donors.
Reaction was swift, and unpleasant. People cried foul, loudly, and for once the IRS backed down.
A wave of complaints forced the IRS on Thursday to withdraw its controversial plan to have nonprofit charities report the Social Security numbers of donors who give just $250 in any given year.
Under the proposed rule, the IRS would have created a voluntary system for nonprofits to collect and send the IRS personal donor information in their yearly report. The idea was to simplify the process for nonprofits — ranging from traditional charities to churches — and donors alike.
But lawmakers and nonprofits cried foul, and warned even a voluntary program could scare off donors who don't want to give out their Social Security numbers. Plus there were concerns that nonprofits would need to beef up data security to protect the information from hackers.
A new IRS notice to be published in the Federal Register says that, in the wake of these complaints, the proposal is being pulled.
"The Treasury Department and the IRS received a substantial number of public comments in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking," the notice said. "Many of these public comments questioned the need for donee reporting, and many comments expressed significant concerns about donee organizations collecting and maintaining taxpayer identification numbers. E Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking is being withdrawn."
Score one for the Good Guys!
Take that all you Lois Lerner wannabes! This time the people were on to you jerks, and we shut you down.
And don't you dare try to sneak it back in next year, because we'll be watching.
I touched on this massive regulatory overreach yesterday, but it deserves to be noted in big bold letters, because it forever changes the relationship between you and your doctor.
In his zeal to trample on the Constitution, Obama delegated to your doctor, actually to any doctor, the power to take away your right to own a gun.
No due process.
No ability to appeal.
One phone call, and you're banned from owning firearms. For life.
While President Barack Obama's planned executive action aimed at decreasing gun violence does include a plan for easier access to mental health care, it also calls for doctors to report mentally ill patients to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
According to details of the plan released by the White House, the rule allows for the Department of Health and Human Services to remove any barriers that could prevent health care providers from reporting patients with mental illnesses in order to disqualify those individuals from obtaining a firearm.
It's a page right out of Stalin's playbook.
Label your opponents "mentally ill."
Take away their guns.
Lock them up.
Then, when no one is looking, exterminate them.
It's not like his palace guard media is gonna complain, right?
And I'll bet you thought his electronic medical records decree was all about making things easier and more efficient for health care providers. Nope. It's all about making it trivially easy for his government to mine that data, and use it against us.
Now that he's opened the door, expect all manner of bureaucratic snooping into our medical history to become the new normal. He'll go after "fat" people, "heavy" drinkers, smokers, and anyone else who doesn't fit his definition of healthy. Coercion to conform will progressively ramp up, ending, of course, in denial of medical care for non-compliance with government diktats.
That's why this invasion of our privacy is such a Big Deal. And that's why it's vitally important to elect a president who'll guarantee to undo everything this megalomaniac has promulgated.
Ted Cruz for president. Because, freedom.
Did I say "car?" I meant gun. For Dear Leader hath decreed, every person who sells a gun, even if it's you listing your great-grandfather's 1913 Springfield rifle on Craigslist, is now reguired to register with the ATF and obtain a Federal Firearms License.
The Obama administration announced during a conference call with reporters Monday evening that the president's upcoming executive order may require somebody selling even a single firearm to obtain a Federal Firearms License.
During the call White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch explained the details of the order, which will be announced publicly by President Obama Tuesday at 11:40 a.m. The action, officials explained, would include guidance on how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives will now determine who is "engaged in the business" of selling firearms under federal law and, therefore, who is required to obtain a license to sell firearms.
"Numbers are relevant. The ATF and DOJ did not identify a magic number of weapons that makes you engaged in the business because that would limit their ability to bring prosecution."
Jarret then said that selling as few as "two firearms" could require somebody to obtain a federal firearms license. However, later in the call, Attorney General Lynch revised that number down further. "It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun," Lynch said.
The federal firearms license application process takes several months to complete and costs a significant amount of money, according to the ATF website.
Death by paperwork. Tyranny by bureaucracy. Can you imagine the Founding Fathers asking the British for permission to purchase their muskets? You can? Then go learn the words to "God Save The Queen" because you aren't a Real American.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Oh, but infringe is the name of Obama's game. So get this. Even if you jump through all his hoops and get his royal permission to exercise your Second Amendment rights, you'll also have to grovel for one more signoff, from your doctor.
Delivering on its promise to deliver "common sense" gun control, the Obama administration on Monday finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.
Did you ever take an anti-depressant? Tell your doctor you were "angry," "depressed," or "suicidal?" Congratulations, you're "mentally ill" by the standards of the Obama administration. No guns for you!
Doctors will report everyone "just in case," because they can now be sued if they "negligently" fail to report someone who later commits a crime. Who'd risk his livelihood on that chance? So mass reporting to the FBI will be the new norm. Just like in every other totalitarian state that ever existed.
Because the first step to total control of the population is disarming the population. And if this country is stupid enough to elect Hillary Clinton as president she'll stack the Supreme Court with so many left-wing nutjobs that the Second Amendment will cease to exist.
And then she'll load us into boxcars.
There is only one candidate who has pledged, repeatedly, to undo this
unconstitutional power grab. Ted Cruz. It is imperative that
Ted Cruz is elected the 45th president of the United States. Our freedom
hangs in the balance.
Talk about lowering expectations. The greatest gun salesman in the history of the universe has now admitted that his upcoming "New and Improved" executive orders on gun control aren't really going to do anything to stop bad guys from doing bad things.
"This is not going to solve every violent crime in this country," Obama said, setting expectations for what he can do on his own. "It's not going to prevent every mass shooting; it's not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal."
But other than that, it's gonna be spectacular!
In other words, he's (a) pandering to give Hillary wiggle room by letting her say the Democrats are "doing something," (b) just spitefully going after innocent Americans exercising their constitutional rights merely because he can, or (c) lying, because he intends to push for gun confiscation.
I suspect it's some combination of all 3.
Confiscation is their ultimate goal. Never forget that. Every time they come up with another "common sense" restriction on our Second Amendment rights, they're tightening the screws around our ability to constrain their quest for absolute power. The right to keep and bear arms ensures that We The People remain the stewards of our destiny. Without it, we are merely subjects of an imperial, tyrannical government.
Molon Labe, Mr. Obama.
Or as my Tea Party buddies would say, Wolverines!
Do you donate to charitable causes? Then get ready to hand over your Social Security Number along with your check.
An Obama administration proposal to have some nonprofit charities report the Social Security numbers of donors giving at least $250 in one year is raising concerns about security, government overreach and another episode of IRS targeting.
"There's a big caution here. There's a big yellow light that should be flashing for a couple of reasons," Illinois Republican Rep. Peter Roskam tells Fox News.
"Number one, the IRS has not demonstrated its capacity to hold this type of information from confidentiality and a security point of view."
The change would impact organizations that fall into the 501 (c)(3) category, which includes churches and other religious or charitable groups.
The Internal Revenue Service states the proposed change would be optional. But skeptics question whether it will eventually become the only option.
"It's the No. 1 regulation that people are commenting upon," attorney Cleta Mitchell recently told Fox News.
Mitchell argues that the IRS cannot be trusted and that the change could have a devastating impact on charities' ability to collect enough money to survive.
"It would have a dramatic effect on donors' decisions on whether or not to contribute," she said. "You'd see a lot of $249.99 contributions to every charitable organization in America. It's preposterous."
Most charities don't have the staff or the expertise to keep your Social Security Number safe from hackers and thieves. So this proposed regulation exponentially increases our exposure to identity theft.
And the IRS has never been too concerned about our privacy either. But this time they say they're trying to help us.
The agency said the change was proposed in September in part because some taxpayers who were being audited -- or "under exam" -- say they lost their donation records and that charities also having a record would help them verify deductions.
No receipt, no deduction. Seems pretty simple to me.
But tying my donations together in an IRS database? No chance for abuse there, right? No budding Lois Lerners eagerly searching for ways to harass donors to the "wrong" charities? No pattern matching to find all the Republicans who donated to Right To Life organizations so they can be targeted by pro-abortion groups?
This is yet another massive Obama administration regulatory overreach, designed to intimidate Americans who they view as harboring dissenting viewpoints. The Treasury Employees Union overwhelmingly tilts left, and their membership would love to peruse a list of donors to causes they don't like.
Not only that, but imagine how many progressive organizations would love to get their hands on such a list, and how easy it would be for an IRS employee to "leak" it. California's commie attorney general, Kamala Harris, is already salivating at the prospect.
Then envision the Founding Fathers tryng to comprehend how the emanations of penumbras which incarnated a "right to privacy" protective of feminism's holy sacrament of abortion are not applicable to the sanctity of our charitable donations. That sound you hear is Thomas Jefferson weeping from beyond the grave.
On the other hand, a Cruz administration could have a lot of fun with Planned
Parenthood's donor list. So maybe this isn't such a bad idea afterall! Obama's
gonna ram this totalitarian power grab down our throats no matter what we say,
so why not let the lefties know how we're going to use it against them?
It should be fun to watch 'em squirm.
The Climate Change Gab Fest must go on, or the terrorists will win!
President Obama calls the upcoming climate summit with world leaders in Paris a "powerful rebuke" to Islamic State terrorists who attacked the city earlier this month.
"What a powerful rebuke to the terrorists it will be, when the world stands as one and shows that we will not be deterred from building a better future for our children," Obama marveled, after previewing his attendance at the summit which begins next week in Paris.
Because a bunch of guys standing around talking about a carbon tax will definitely have Da'esh quaking in their sandals. Or as one of my regular readers put it recently, maybe he plans to crush them with solar panels until they scream for mercy.
There's probably even instructions for building your own windmill on the back of those leaflets he airmails to the terrorists before bombing them. Anything to save Mother Gaia, right?
Here's a thought Chief. Why can't the world stand as one and crush these jihadi bastards once and for all? Shouldn't that be your priority? What's it gonna take to keep your attention focused for more than a day or two on the guys trying to kill us?
I know, I'm asking a lot. Especially since its basketball season.
So would it help if we said these guys were secretly Republicans? I heard you really, really, really get all lathered up when you're going after Republicans.
Because face it, whatever you're pretending to do about terrorism, so far, it isn't working. In fact, you're making things worse. A whole lot worse.
Last year you said Da'esh was "the JV team." Two weeks ago they were "contained." A few short days ago they were "nothing to fear."
No wonder you'd rather we all talk about gun control over Thanksgiving dinner.
Do you realize just how ridiculous that sounds? Disarming America in the face of "a serious threat to all of us?"
Oh, right, the real serious threat is Climate Change. Or so you say.
I think Da'esh has other plans.
President Golfpants talks tough.
President Barack Obama said Sunday the U.S.-led coalition "will not relent" in the fight against the Islamic State and was confident the terror group would be defeated, insisting the world would not accept the extremists' attacks on civilians in Paris and elsewhere as the "new normal."
Uh huh. Once again he's full of it. Because it turns out he relents about 75% of the time.
U.S. military pilots who have returned from the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq are confirming that they were blocked from dropping 75 percent of their ordnance on terror targets because they could not get clearance to launch a strike, according to a leading member of Congress.
Strikes against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) targets are often blocked due to an Obama administration policy to prevent civilian deaths and collateral damage, according to Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The policy is being blamed for allowing Islamic State militants to gain strength across Iraq and continue waging terrorist strikes throughout the region and beyond, according to Royce and former military leaders who spoke Wednesday about flaws in the U.S. campaign to combat the Islamic State.
"You went 12 full months while ISIS was on the march without the U.S. using that air power and now as the pilots come back to talk to us they say three-quarters of our ordnance we can't drop, we can't get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us," Royce said. "I don't understand this strategy at all because this is what has allowed ISIS the advantage and ability to recruit."
Can you imagine George Patton or Douglas MacArthur waiting for "clearance" before blowing the shit out of the enemy?
In the immortal words of General Anthony McAuliffe, Obama's strategy is "nuts."
But what else would you expect from the guy who said he's not interested in "America winning?"
Meanwhile, Putin is going after ISIS with guns blazing, and getting results. So naturally Obama is telling him to cool his jets.
Speaking at the end of the ASEAN summit in Malaysia, Obama also pressed Russian President Vladimir Putin to align himself with the U.S.-led coalition, noting that the Islamic State has been accused of bringing down a Russian airliner last month, killing 224 people.
"He needs to go after the people who killed Russia's citizens," Obama said of Putin.
Translation? Yo Vlad, you're making me look bad.
Now look, I'm no fan of Putin. He's a tyrant, and no friend of freedom. But as Churchill famously said, "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" — meaning, of course, the enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) friend.
Were it that we had such clarity from the narcissistic quisling currently
occupying the White House.
In the wake of the Paris terrorism attacks, should we enhance screening of Syrian refugees? Obama says "no."
President Obama threatened late Wednesday to veto legislation aimed at improving screening for Syrian refugees, potentially putting the White House and Congress on a collision course in a matter of days.
The veto threat came as the House was preparing the bill -- which sets high hurdles for refugee admission including FBI background checks and sign-offs by top officials -- for floor action as early as Thursday. In a committee meeting, Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, accused the president of confusing the public about the intentions of the legislation.
Moments later, the White House issued a statement defending the current screening process and claiming the changes called for under the bill would create "significant delays and obstacles" for the existing vetting program.
"Given the lives at stake and the critical importance to our partners in the Middle East and Europe of American leadership in addressing the Syrian refugee crisis ... [Obama] would veto the bill," the White House said.
American leadership? Didn't Obama say he wasn't "interested" in that?
Why yes, yes he did.
Fortunately, for now, Honduras is doing the vetting Obama won't do.
Honduran authorities have detained five Syrian nationals who were trying to reach the United States using stolen Greek passports, but there are no signs of any links to last week's attacks in Paris, police said.
The Syrian men were held late on Tuesday in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, on arrival from Costa Rica, and had been planning to head to the border with neighboring Guatemala. The passports had been doctored to replace the photographs with those of the Syrians, police said.
"We received information from (fellow) police services that these five Syrians left Greece and passed through Turkey, Brazil, Argentina and San Jose in Costa Rica before finally reaching Tegucigalpa," said Anibal Baca, spokesman for Honduras' police. "They are normal Syrians."
Just "normal" Syrians, on a pleasure trip.
Of course, "pleasure" for them is killing infidels.
Here's where I say, "thanks Honduras!"
And it's also where I say, "typical Obama," siding with terrorists instead of protecting America. It's who he is. It's what he does.
And it'll get us all killed.
But then, Obama wants that too.
Because these are considered to be the ten most important issues facing the US Army under the "leadership" of one Barack Hussein Obama.
1. Prevent Sexual Assault
2. Balance and Transition the Army
3. Champion Soldiers, Civilians and Families
4. Bolster Army activities in the Asia-Pacific region
5. Ensure personal accountability on and off the battlefield
6. Tell the Army Story
7. Implement Army Total Force policy
8. Prudently manage reset, modernization, research and development
9. Strengthen information assurance and cyber security
10. Develop effective energy solutions
Notice anything missing from that list?
I guess Obama doesn't actually want to defeat ISIS, since, you know, it's not on The List. Maybe it's just an oversight, along with anything to do with Iran, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
And he's also presumably not interested in helping protect our NATO allies from a resurgent Russia, because, again, it's not on The List.
But, what about China rattling their sabers? Does that fall under priority number 4? Um, no. The executive summary on that one is all about "building partnerships" for "common interests."
I don't know about you, but I have a "common interest" in not being invaded or killed by Arabs, Iranians, Russians, or Chinese. Something tells me Obama's Army commanders don't share that desire.
If that doesn't scare the living crap out of you, well, you're probably a
clueless liberal who's planning to vote for Hillary.
Yeah, he really said it. He really said "I'm not going to 'take everyone's guns away.'"
President Obama on Tuesday dismissed the notion that he is seeking to take away people's firearms as he delivered his latest call for stronger gun laws.
Speaking to police chiefs in Chicago, Obama sought to rebut the argument made by conservatives, which he said is designed to stoke fear.
"Some of you are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs, please do not believe this notion that somehow I'm out to take everyone's guns away," he told the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
"Every time a mass shootings happens, one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of guns and ammunition jumps up because folks scared into thinking that, 'Obama's gonna use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights,'" he added. "Nobody's doing that."
"We're talking about common-sense measures to make criminals don't get them, to make sure background checks work, to make sure that we're protecting ourselves."
Of course he's lying.
Remember, "if you like your plan you can keep your plan?"
Or, "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor?"
And, "I'll reduce premiums by $2,500 dollars per year?"
How'd those promises work out for you?
He also "wasn't going" to force you to buy health insurance either. So have you made your Shared Responsibility Payment yet?
And are you detecting a pattern here?
Is the Obama White House "the most transparent administration in history?" (Not by a long shot!) Can you detect more than a "smidgeon" of corruption? (I can!)
Did he close Guantanamo Bay?
How many "shovel ready projects" have you seen in your neighborhood?
Is the deficit reduced by half? (Hint: He just demanded, and got, another $1.5 trillion dollar increase in the national debt.)
Did he just sent troops into Syria? Do you recall him promising not to do that?
Lies upon lies upon lies. Because everything Obama says is a lie, including "and" and "the."
So when Obama says he's not going to confiscate our guns you can be sure of only one thing. Obama is going to confiscate our guns. Guaranteed.
His track record speaks for itself.
And so I'll tell you this. When Obama comes for my guns he's going to have to pry them from my cold, dead hands. I will not stand by and allow a tyrant to disarm me, or my fellow Americans. Not without a fight. The Second Amendment means something, and if a supposed "consitutional scholar" hasn't yet figured out what that something is, I'll be glad to explain it to him.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Of course we expected nothing less.
The U.S. Department of Justice informed lawmakers on Friday that its closing the two-year investigation into whether the IRS improperly targeted conservative groups. There will be no charges filed against ex-IRS employee Lois Lerner — or anyone else for that matter.
In a letter obtained by CNN, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik claimed the investigation found "substantial evidence of mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia leading to the belief by many tax-exempt applicants that the IRS targeted them based on their political viewpoints. But poor management is not a crime."
"We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution," the letter added.
They also were unable to determine whether or not water is wet.
BTW fellas, Contempt of Congress is a crime. You could look it up.
And why did she plead the Fifth? Multiple times? That sort of implies she thinks she was guilty of something, doesn't it?
See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil. Unless thou art a Republican, then they throw the book at you.
Obama's DOJ would make John Mitchell blush. Because when it comes to liberal / progressive Democrats, the ends always justify the means. Lois Lerner is a good soldier who helped her boss get re-elected. And so she'll now be rewarded for her treachery.
Interestingly they decided to tell us this on a Friday afternoon while everyone is talking about Hillary and Benghazi. It's almost as if they're not really proud of themselves, so they'll quietly let this story die, and slink back into the bowels of the bureaucracy, never to be held accountable for anything.
It's the Chicago Way.
Obama wants to use your tax dollars to bail out Puerto Rico, where nobody pays federal income taxes.
With Puerto Rico buried in debt and on course to completely run out of money by the end of the year, the Obama administration is urging Congress to take unprecedented action to help the island, including granting a type of bankruptcy protection unavailable to the nation's 50 states.
The administration said the broader bankruptcy protection, which would be available only to territories but not fiscally pressed states, is needed to help Puerto Rico avert a mushrooming crisis and restructure its $73 billion in debt.
The island will soon "face the unenviable and difficult choice between repaying its debts and maintaining vital public services," the administration said in a statement and 10-page fact sheet released Wednesday evening. "The latest reliable estimates reveal that, without further steps, Puerto Rico will not have the resources to pay for both."
Puerto Rico is the poster child for wasteful government spending, bloated bureaucracy, and inefficient, archaic central planning run amok. Oh, and did I mention that no one on the island pays federal income taxes? That doesn't stop them from claiming tax credits, of course. And so Obama wants us to send more of those down there too.
In addition to urging Congress to offer Puerto Rico the new type of bankruptcy protection, the administration is also recommending that Congress broaden access to the island's Medicaid program, a move that would pump money into its teetering health-care system. It also wants the island workers to have access to a broader array of federal tax credits, including the earned-income tax credit, in an effort to pump up its dismal 40 percent labor force participation rate.
Typical Democrat. Throw more money at people who've already proven they can't wisely use the money they already have. Puerto Rico, like every other liberal progressive shithole in America doesn't have a revenue problem, they have a spending and regulatory problem.
The debt is just the symptom of the problem. The real underlying issue is the Island government's addiction to spending—a habit which produces $6 billion dollar deficits per year and a government centered economic model which leads to stunted growth. To put it into perspective, even if the island completely defaulted on its roughly $3 billion dollar per year debt service payments, this still does not address half of the deficit problem.
This is what scares financial markets and undermines the credibility of the government. This is why there are several other jurisdictions that have much higher debt to GDP ratios than Puerto Rico and still have better credit ratings than the Island.
And as always, the solution is less government.
If we are going to help them, there is a sane way to do it. Dismantle the current government apparatus that is costly and ineffective as a first step. Then, we should simultaneously implement real and strong free market reforms that open up the economy and lead to robust growth and job creation. Finally, a new independent mechanism should be created to manage the debt, based on a collaboration between the government of Puerto Rico and the US, in order to restore investor confidence and allow the island's government to regain access to the financial markets.
None of which involves throwing money down a rathole. Puerto Rico needs tough
love, not bailouts. Let's hope Congress agrees.
On Friday, the Obama Administration officially announced the end of its spectacularly unsuccessful $500 million plan to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels. . . .
This latest decision is the most obvious manifestation of what Obama Administration officials have been telling the press for the past few days: the plan for Syria, in light of Russia's intervention, is to do nothing to escalate the situation. There are no plans to send anti-aircraft weapons to moderate rebels being hit by Russian air strikes, for example. Eli Lake and Josh Rogin write that some White House advisors are even encouraging the President "to give up on toppling the Syrian regime."
In Obama's America, we "give up."
But don't worry, he's still leading on the important stuff.
When CBS host Steve Kroft questioned Obama about Russia president Vladimir Putin, the topic quickly turned to climate change.
"He's challenging your leadership, Mr. President," Kroft said, of Putin.
And Obama's reply: "I got to tell you, if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in, in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we've got a different definition of leadership. My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change and [an] international accord that potentially would get in Paris."
In other words, Obama will fight World War III with windmills and solar panels.
And not for nothing, but he's one to talk about "running your economy into the ground." I guess because he's just so gosh-darned good at it, right?
Besides, "the community of nations" will rise up and defeat ISIS. Any day now. Presumably with carbon credits.
I suppose all that's left now is for him to give his last SOTU in Arabic.
Then the capitulation will be complete.
Yeah, I know, you guys really want me to comment on last night's cattle-call debates. Here goes: Carly won.
Now on to the news.
While you were watching Megyn Kelly bait Donald Trump for laughs and ratings, our Dear Leader was busy doubling down on his "Republicans and Iranian mullahs are two sides of the same coin" Orwellian claptrap.
Obama's "common cause" argument rests on several factual premises that seem to us obviously false, and that certainly are not obviously true — among them, that Republicans desire war, that there is a meaningful distinction between "Iranian hard-liners" and the Iranian regime, and that those hard-liners would prefer American military action to American appeasement.
But there is an even more basic objection to Obama's statement. Assume for the sake of argument that the "Iranian hard-liners" and the Republicans really do want an all-out military confrontation. Now, consider an example from history when such a result actually obtained. On Dec. 7, 1941, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. On Dec. 8, Congress declared war on Japan. Would it make any sense to say that the Japanese and the U.S. Congress had made "common cause"?
Obama is equating mutual antagonism with its opposite, "common cause." Again, Orwell put it more pithily: War is peace.
Because Obama is the center of his universe. If you are not with him, you are against him. And, everyone who is "against" him must be acting in concert.
Which means Chuck Schumer is a Republican now. LOL.
It's all part and parcel of Obama The Petulant.
Lame duck Obama no longer cares about even the appearance of civility with Republicans, or any Democrat who dares to oppose him. His gloves are now off, it's all personal to him (and his worshippers), and his radical ideological agenda is on full display. It's full Orwell, replete with blatant lies, rewriting of history, and assault on the fabric of society itself. Obama is a bully, with a bully pulpit, and he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution or its founding principles, which he thinks is deeply flawed. He has done more to damage the Constitution, the economy, and societal unity than all prior presidents combined.
That's what "fundamentally transforming" America means to him: Burn it down.
Which, to utilize his own twisted logic, puts Obama firmly in "common cause" with every rogue regime, terrorist group, radical Islamist, and Marxist revolutionary worldwide. Hence we get rapproachment with Cuba and Iran while shunning Great Britain and Israel. We get subservience to Vladmir Putin's expansionist aggression while gutting our own military capabilities. We get the rise of ISIS, the disintegration of Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, a resurgent China, and saber-rattling in Argentina while our erstwhile Commander in Chief plays golf with celebrities. Not to mention crippling deficits, a moribund economy, and bureaucratic tyranny on an unprecedented scale while he demonizes patriotism and slanders local law enforcement.
In short, if Obama wasn't actively trying to destroy everything America and Americans have ever stood for, what exactly would he doing differently?
And if you wanted to see him "succeed," who better to lead the country down
the rabbit hole than stealth-Clinton-crony Donald J. Trump?
You've heard of the Rooney Rule, right? It's an NFL regulation which requires teams to interview at least one minority candidate for every open head coach and front office job.
Because in the meritocracy of pro football, tokenism counts.
So, after posting yesterday about Obama's secret town by town, block by block racial database I got to thinking about how he'll use it. And I thought, "Rooney Rule."
Imagine having to prove you tried to sell your house or rent your vacant apartment to at least one black person just to satisfy Obama's racial bean counters.
It's not as far-fetched an idea as you might want to believe.
Banks and mortgage companies already are required to amass volumes of statistics on the racial makeup of their loan portfolios, and they're in danger of being sued by the feds for not approving "enough" loans for low-income and minority borrowers. Welcome to the bizarro world of "disparate impact" litigation.
So why not another HUD form at closing to document how many minority buyers put in an offer on your house? Complete with a section for you to explain why you chose not to sell it to them, of course.
And no, price won't be a valid reason.
We've already seen how affirmative action requires colleges to allow lower SAT scores for minority applicants. So why wouldn't the Obamaunist social justice warriors demand that you accept a lower price for your house in order to fulfill their utopian goal of racial balance in housing?
Ditto for apartment rents. I can see Obama using his database to define below market rents that would only be available to minority tenants. Meanwhile, white guys, if you're even allowed to rent to them, still pay full price. You know, to make up for past discrimination, or slavery.
Because nothing can stand in the way of giving Obama's sycophants the right to
live wherever they desire, regardless of their ability to pay. It's all part
and parcel of the Equality Of Outcome worldview. From each according to his
ability, to each according to his needs.
Remember last month when I said you should pay attention to the Supreme Court's affirmation of "disparate impact" lawsuits? You know, the racial grievance industry's statistical tool to "prove" discrimination and guarantee equality of outcome and big paydays for the reparations crowd?
And remember too when I noted that Obama voided every zoning law in America in his quest for affordable housing?
Well, here's how his grand redistributionist scheme is playing out. While we weren't looking, he took census data and built a humongous database to map the racial makeup of every city, town, neighborhood, and block in America. It shows exactly how many minorities live on your street.
A key part of President Obama's legacy will be the fed's unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of "racial and economic justice."
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama's racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document "inequalities" between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make "disparate impact" cases against: banks that don't make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don't offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of "racial disparities" and "segregation," even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.
In Obama's world, all white people are racists. And his goal is to take from the whites and give to the blacks. Because slavery. And Confederate flags. Or something.
I suppose at some point he'll make us white folks pin yellow stars on our shirts too.
The idea of homogenizing America is not new. It's one of those utopian fantasies bantered around in college faculty lounges on Friday nights after everybody's gotten just a little high.
Except, President Choom Gang now has the power, and the desire, to impose this racial spoils system across America.
As I recall, there once was another country that kept detailed records of every citizen's race. They moved people around too, although their goal was to prevent mixing of the races, and they locked up the "undesirables."
So imagine my lack of surprise when retired General Wesley Clark, a true nut who's politics are even farther to the left than Obama's, floated the idea of segregating "radicalized Americans" from the "normal community."
In an interview with MSNBC news anchor Thomas Roberts, retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark suggested segregating "radicalized" Americans from those who are loyal to the United States.
Clark said he believes our government needs to get "increasingly tough" in its treatment of "radicalized" Americans and should reexamine our domestic law procedures.
Now let's parse that statement: "Radicalized Americans" who are not "loyal." Ergo, Conservatives. As in people opposed to Obama. What this president and his supporters demand is loyalty to his regime. Opposition to Obama is de facto evidence of racism.
Really, that's how they think. Ask a liberal. She'll tell you.
And of course the way to stamp out racism is to impose quotas. Quotas in housing. Quotas in lending. Quotas in employment. Quotas in education. Quotas everywhere. That's what his database is for. Ensuring the proper quotas. Deviate from the preferred racial makeup, and yup, you're a racist. So Obama will impose quotas on you.
Quotas ensure equality of outcome. Or so I'm told. Quotas will make us all "equal," no matter what that freedom of assembly clause says. And if anyone doesn't feel "equal," he sues, and then he gets a check. Cha-ching! Equality!
This is your future America. Obeisance to the racial bean counters.
Of course sooner or later we'll end up like
Zimbabwe — no white people allowed. But hey, that's a small price
to pay for "equality," right?
Your town doesn't have enough black people.
Obama is going to fix that.
And if it means turning your neighborhood into a slum, well that's the price you gotta pay.
Citing "exclusionary zoning" HUD Secretary Julian Castro released Obama's totalitarian regulatory onslaught against suburbia. The goal? Uniformity in racial balance and housing quality for every town, city, hamlet, and village in America.
AFFH is easily one of President Obama's most radical initiatives, on a par with Obamacare in its transformative potential. In effect, AFFH gives the federal government a lever to re-engineer nearly every American neighborhood — imposing a preferred racial and ethnic composition, densifying housing, transportation, and business development in suburb and city alike, and weakening or casting aside the authority of local governments over core responsibilities, from zoning to transportation to education. Not only the policy but the political implications are immense — at the presidential, congressional, state, and local levels.
It doesn't matter what kind of neighborhood you want to live in.
Obama will dictate who moves in next door.
Obama will dictate what kind of house you'll be allowed to build.
Obama will dictate where you live, where you shop, where you work, and how you get around town.
It's the culmination of decades of "equality of outcome" nonsense spewed by the denizens of "fairness." Because it's "unfair" that someone who worked hard all his life has a nicer house than someone who is sliding by on Section 8 vouchers.
The Obama administration announced new rules on Wednesday that are meant to racially integrate America's neighborhoods but some conservatives claim are an attempt by Washington to play a heavy-handed role in creating "utopias."
The new HUD housing rule comes on the heels of a landmark Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed the federal agency's power to ban housing policies that hurt minorities.
The Fair Housing Act, which originally was passed in 1968 and barred racial discrimination, demanded the government end segregation.
The new rule takes this a step further and requires cities across the country to scrutinize their housing patterns for racial bias and report the results every three to five years. Communities would also have to set and track goals to further reduce segregation.
"Unfortunately, too many Americans find their dreams limited by where they come from, and a ZIP code should never determine a child's future," Julian Castro, the secretary of the department of Housing and Urban Development, said Wednesday in a written statement. "This important step will give local leaders the tools they need to provide all Americans with access to safe, affordable housing in communities that are rich with opportunity."
They couldn't wave their magic wands and make the inner cites safer and nicer. So they're going to force every town to look more like the inner cities. Only they're called "transit villages" now. High density housing. Designated retail locations. Bus and train depots. And no parking lots.
Sounds wonderful, right?
And if that's what you want, great. Go for it.
But America is not a communist central planner's blank canvas. Our towns and cities each have unique features that make them desirable to different groups of people. Homogenizing our living experiences will not bring us all closer together; it'll bring conflict and foster resentment since we'll lose control over how and where we live.
Or does no one remember what East Germany looked like before the Berlin Wall came down? Because that's Obama's vision for your town. Depressing, unappealing sameness, miles and miles of bleak utilitarian boxes, devoid of color and indistinguishable from any other corner, anywhere.
I don't want to live there.