Sunday, March 31, 2013

Happy Easter...Christ is Risen!

Infinitely exceeding the bunny and eggs, we gather together today to celebrate the Glory of the empty tomb...the day Christ conquered death and brought unto us the gift of life eternal...
"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." ~ Matthew 28:1-9

Christ is Risen! He is Risen Indeed, Alleluia!

Friday, March 29, 2013

What's more important, Liberty or Equality?

Mark Levin began last night's program with an essentially important question:
What's more important in a country, liberty or equality?
Before answering, he discussed the latest usurpation of the Obama administration, as well as taking several calls, asking this question. After returning from a break, Levin provided the correct answer (ff to 18min in)...
On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Mark asks and answers the question - what is more important, liberty or equality? He says that liberty is more important because with liberty, comes equality and that liberty allows us to achieve greatness. If you have equality without liberty, than you have tyranny. This is about living free or not wanting to live free. Liberalism seeks to reshape the individual so that they become servants to the state and to the big government.
Which is more important, liberty or equality? Well let me ask you this: what does Obama promote, liberty or equality?

Equality without liberty is tyranny. Equality without liberty destroys individual sovereignty. It destroys human nature; it destroys free will. Equality without liberty is conformity. Manifests itself in many ways, including communism and so forth. Liberty recognizes and embraces individual uniqueness. Liberty makes possible the recognition and enforcement of unalienable rights. Liberty makes possible the equal application of justice, not the equality in terms of conformity of human beings, but the equal access and application of justice. The federal government today doesn't promote liberty in any respect. The Obama administration doesn't promote liberty in any respect. It claims to promote equality, in essence, radical egalitarianism. Radical egalitarianism is the life blood of an authoritarian, centralized, iron-fisted government. Liberty is the enemy of such a government. Radical egalitarianism is what's pursued when you don't have liberty. Once again, does Obama promote the notion of individual sovereignty or liberty in any of his speeches?

The bigger the government gets, the more it gets, the more concentrated its power and centralized its power, doesn't have a problem with equality in terms of conformity, it insists on it. Its problem is with the individual and the individual's nature. The individual must be forced to comply with Obamacare. The individual must be reshaped, so success is defined not as an individual pursuit or accomplishment, but success is defined as a gift from the government to the individual.

Liberty is the bane of tyranny. ... Liberty promotes equality in the sense that it recognizes human nature, and it recognizes that individuals should be treated justly under the law or in society generally. Equality without liberty is tyranny. Equality without liberty begets human misery.

Obamacare's not about freedom, it's about conformity. The IRS isn't about freedom, it's about conformity. Liberalism isn't about freedom, it's about reshaping man so that man becomes the servant of Big Government, so that we the people cease being the sovereigns, but we're the subjects. What do you think all these federal programs are all about? What do you think class warfare's all about? Redistribution of wealth all about? Congress passing these laws, the administrative state, the massive bureaucracy issuing regulations. It's not intended to unleash liberty, to unleash the economy, so that you can pursue your interests and your wants and your desires. It seeks to do the opposite, to control you. It rejects independent, self-sufficient individuals. It seeks to sabotage them, to obstruct them, to crush them.

Equality without liberty is tyranny. Equality without liberty is the pursuit of conformity. And conformity means inhumanity...

The federal government today seeks to smother the individual. The federal government today seeks to reshape the individual. The federal government today pursues conformity...

You cannot have justice, you cannot exercise your unalienable rights, without liberty.

We're not rejecting equality; we're rejecting what equality has become. We're rejecting equality as the overriding force in our society. Equality by itself is tyranny; it's inhumane...

What we need in this nation is more liberty, not less. What we need in this nation is less conformity...
ADDENDUM: If you listened to the end and caught that last caller before the break, Levin goes on an awesome rant against people attacking this country from within: "Is there nobody left in public office who will defend our way of life?"
Obama today going on and on about gun control telling us it’s time to move on, we’ve waited long enough. Who the hell does he think he is? Is he more powerful than the Constitution itself? Is that what we’ve become, ladies and gentlemen? That 2nd amendment is there to protect us from him! That 2nd amendment is there to protect us from Dianne Feinstein! That 2nd amendment is there to protect us from the whole damn bunch of these bastards! That’s why that 2nd amendment is there! And all the rest of them! And they demand that we surrender to them.

Well where does it end? It doesn’t end if we don’t speak up!
Check out the soundbite here!

Thursday, March 28, 2013

'Talking Ass' Jim Carrey makes it too easy

It seems only fitting that following this Hollywood lib's anti-gun antics and latest rantings, that someone put this talking ass in his place. All the lines are spot on...but there's something about that last line that's particularly priceless:
It takes a talking ass
to be out there passing blame
when you’ve shot someone
on every TV ever made

Come to think of it, brings another talking ass to mind...

Malkin: 'It's a crock' that amnesty must accompany securing the border

The federal government has one constitutional duty here...not to give amnesty to illegals, but to secure the damn border! Michelle Malkin makes some great points this morning...with some Obamacare candy at the end.

King on DoMA: 'To understand why gov't is involved in marriage is to understand why gov't cannot validate SSM'

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) presented an understandable and compelling case, not only for the federal DoMA law, but also explaining how without a license, marriage is illegal...and to understand how that works is to understand why government cannot validate same-sex marriage...
TheCorner: A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise illegal...

Each license comes with a set of qualifications that must be proven in order to obtain it. Those qualifications always indicate the government’s compelling interest in the activity...

To marry, two people must prove they are of opposite sex, not related, of age, and not married to anyone else. There is no requirement for proof of enduring love, comingling of finances, or even intent to cohabitate. To ask the government to certify any of those things would offend all Americans who jealously guard their individual autonomy. The government has a compelling interest in a legal record of procreation (this is further indicated by the doctrine of presumed paternity), and in creating a lasting environment where children will thrive. The fact that one must obtain a court order to divorce and the existence of tax-based incentives for marriage are other effects of the government’s interest in marriage.

Marriage is the stable platform from which families are launched. Government surely has a compelling interest in ensuring the stability of that platform, and even subsidizing the practice with tax incentives. Moreover, society has an interest in promoting procreation amongst married adults. Same-sex marriage does not present the possibility of natural procreation nor has same-sex parenting endured and thrived for millennia of human experience.

In our legal system, qualifications for licenses have long-standing foundation, and those qualifications are not considered discriminatory. They are considered to be necessary to pursue the interest of the public. In the case of marriage, those interests are all about children.

You do not need a license to begin a new friendship, start shopping at a new grocery store or pharmacy, or even begin a new dating relationship. Likewise, one does not need a court order to terminate any of those relationships. This fact indicates that there is something unique about marriage that necessitates government involvement. Insisting upon heterosexual marriage is therefore not discriminatory, nor does it constitute the government telling anyone whom to love. The argument for upholding the Defense of Marriage Act is rooted in the way marriage is historically treated by state laws. To understand why government is involved in marriage in the first place is to understand why government cannot validate same-sex marriage.
Hey, there's something other than bible thumping, Billy.

But that's not good enough. So what of this compromise? Couldn't much of the presumed confusion with the federal recognition be simplified, not by offensively redefining the institution of marriage, but by simply revising the language of the law to read 'civil unions', thus covering everyone? Of course, that would require Congress to dig through the tax code, and for them, it seems easier to offend the majority of Americans than to actually reform (i.e., do their jobs). Likewise, we've seen how the militant homosexual community, along with the Leftist media cheerleaders, take the Borg approach, so it's doubtful that this middle path would ever be allowed either.

Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Rising premiums and losing coverage with Obamacare

So maybe you can't keep your current coverage... Uhh, ya think?!
Reuters: Millions of Americans will be priced out of health insurance under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul because of a glitch in the law that adversely affects people with modest incomes who cannot afford family coverage offered by their employers...
'People with modest incomes' mean those who we were told this law had to be passed for?! The false bill of goods continue to be revealed...
AP: A new study finds that insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

What does that mean for you?

It could increase premiums for at least some Americans.
It will increase premiums for all on it. Further evidence that this power grab was never about controlling costs.

Related links: Wyden: Healthcare law's 'family glitch' leaves dependents without coverage
Premiums could rise under healthcare law, Sebelius concedes
U.S. Sen Ted Cruz Op-Ed on Obamacare’s Failure

Paul, Cruz, Lee ready filibuster on gun control

Cocked and loaded!
HumanEvents: Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Tuesday that has been widely interpreted as a threat to filibuster gun control legislation, although they evidently don’t use that word.

This sets the stage for another conflict between the young rising stars of the GOP and the old guard, led by Senator John McCain, who the Washington Times describes as a “key player” in the upcoming gun control vote… and he’s playing for Team Reid. McCain has been holding closed-door negotiations that lead some conservatives to see a “concession on the horizon,” at least on the matter of expanded background checks for gun purchases. It doesn’t seem like he would be likely to support a filibuster. If it happens, he’ll find a lot of cameras and microphones pointed at him, hoping to catch another “wacko birds” sound bite critical of the young Republican upstarts.

In addition to McCain, Reid can also count New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg as a partner in his gun control push, since Bloomberg just launched a $12 million ad campaign designed to pressure senators from at least 10 states to support the legislation Reid will bring to the floor. Bloomberg’s ads tell wavering senators that gun owners strongly support expanded background checks. His organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is also big on citing the fraudulent statistic that 40 percent of gun sales in the United States currently escape background checks. (The actual figure is closer to 5 or 10 percent; the cooked “40 percent” number is based on a tiny Clinton-era survey that counted inheritances and gifts between family members as “sales.”)

The gun-control lobby simply cannot walk away from post-Newtown hysteria empty-handed, so something is going to pass. A talking filibuster would give Paul, Lee, Cruz, and anyone who stands up to join them a chance to make the case for gun rights before a final package is assembled. They will want to make the best of that opportunity.
Time to wake up if you haven't already, folks, The seizure of healthcare and the prohibition of guns have been among the first steps to tyranny throughout world history. Don't put anything past an overreaching government.
“The Democrats’ proposed legislation would require universal background checks for private sales between law-abiding citizens, which according to DOJ would be effective only if accompanied by a national gun registry. This raises serious constitutional issues, and would divert resources from prosecuting felons and fugitives who try to illegally purchase guns.” ~ Ted Cruz

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

CBO: America will never see full employment under Obama

The fact that we won't is a shocker to none...what is though, is that the CBO had the stones to finally admit it!
CNSNews: The Congressional Budget Office is now projecting that the U.S. economy will never achieve full employment during the eight years Barack Obama serves as president.

That would make Obama the only American president during the post-World War II era who never presided over a year in which the U.S. economy offered full employment to the American people.
Hard to believe so many still can't put two and two together to figure out that this guy and his policies are one in the same.

Levin weighs in on SCOTUS Prop 8 case

Tonight, Mark Levin thoroughly explained not only how the Supreme Court should rule on same-sex marriage, but more importantly why the Supreme Court has no business deciding this case in the first place...
Why do we reject our constitutional structure when some of the most difficult, controversial and political matters arise in this society? Why do we turn to five lawyers to make these decisions? Now, truth be told, many of us don't turn to those lawyers. But other people do, and they're hoping to impose their will on the entirety of society.
Mark goes on to question these notions of judicial review and why it's believed that five Justices are more likely to 'get it right' than states or other well as clarifying the true (and only) meaning of the 14th Amendment in which these same-sex marriage arguments, among many others, misappropriate...

So let me suggest this to you with respect to the power of the courts, in particularly the Supreme Court. Where there's not a clear constitutional issue as there clearly was in Loving vs Virginia under the 14th amendment, a clear violation of the 14th amendment, then why should the federal courts intervene? Why should the Supreme Court intervene?

The Equal Protection Clause doesn’t say the ‘liberal promotion clause’ or the ‘radical egalitarianism clause’ where people can pour their economic, social and cultural agendas into the Constitution for the courts to decide. That’s not what that clause is there for and that’s not what it means.

‘So Mark, what should the court do?’

In my humble opinion, the court should strike down the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, and through it, the district court’s decision in San Francisco. And the court should say:

‘We have no business in this case. The people of California voted, they passed Proposition 8 to amend their constitution. Maybe in ten years they’ll pass another proposition to reverse course. But there’s no federal constitutional violation here. This is not the same as segregation and racism. This is not a matter of equal protection.'
As Levin makes clear, this is not a fundamental, federal constitutional issue, but rather a 10th Amendment matter reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Related links: Justice Kennedy: ‘Serious Problem’ Supreme Court Deciding Too Many Issues That Can Be Decided By Congress
Michael McConnell: The Constitution and Same-Sex Marriage

Chief Justice doesn't seem to buy the label change

Highly dubious of Chief Justice John Roberts after that debacle of an Obamacare ruling, he nonetheless seems to hit the bullseye in regards to the point that supporters of Prop 8, and thus opponents to same-sex marriage nationwide, have made from the start: words mean things.
“If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say ‘this is my friend,’ but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that’s, it seems to me, what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. All you’re interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.”
Seems to me Roberts is saying, 'look, you've got civil unions in California...stop trying to redefine an existing institution.' Here's hoping that he won't deviate from that common sense...

There really isn't that much difference? Umm, I think you heard that incorrectly, pal. There's plenty of differences between these institutions, but you're still afforded the same rights as a living, breathing human being in America regardless of your sexual preference.

Why is that never good enough for the Left? Instead, like everything else, they seek to force their agenda on everyone, wrapping it in civil rights and the like (when it's not), and demanding that tradition, morality, principle, all of it be redefined according to their progression or whim.

ADDENDUM: Rush appropriately ripped the 'brain-dead' Mediaite reporter from which I referenced the video above (one reason I didn't feel the need to include the cockamamie article itself)...

Monday, March 25, 2013

The 'equality' of 9 is the extinction of the people's will

Unfortunately, like Roe v. Wade, the (re)defining of marriage is being handed over to 9 individuals instead of being left up to the Will of the People among the many states...

CNSNews: This week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two of the most critical cases of our time. On Tuesday, March 26, attorneys will make the pitch both for and against California's Proposition 8. This, of course, is the Golden State's pro-marriage amendment. It maintained the timeless definition of natural marriage as between man and wife.

Then, on Wednesday, March 27, the high court will consider the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed into law by then President Bill Clinton. It, likewise, secured the definition of legitimate marriage for purposes of federal law.

Although both cases certainly address a multitude of legal and political issues, they also involve a number of moral and cultural considerations that, if wrongly decided, will literally shake Western civilization to the core.

The stakes could not be higher. Of central concern is whether the Supreme Court will put its official stamp of approval on that cartoonish contradiction-in-terms labeled "same-sex marriage." Ultimately, these nine justices will decide either to recklessly deconstruct, radically redefine and render functionally trivial the age-old institution of natural marriage - or leave it alone.

Here's the bottom line: Homosexual activists don't want the white picket fence. They want to burn down the white picket fence. The endgame is not to achieve so-called "marriage equality," but, rather, to render marriage reality meaningless.

So, if the high court removes one natural marriage parameter for one special-interest group, then "equal protection under the law" requires that it remove all natural marriage parameters for all special-interest groups.

It's all very simple. If anything is marriage, then everything is marriage. And if everything is marriage, then nothing is marriage at all. "'Marriage equality' becomes 'marriage elasticity,' with the ultimate goal of 'marriage extinction.'"

I sincerely hope that the honorable and learned men and women who sit on the highest bench in the land recognize that all of these San Francisco-style social-engineering games are a deceptive means to a destructive end. And it's not the emotionalist end they've dolled-up and dished out. The left's fierce push for "gay marriage" has nothing to do with "marriage equality" and everything to do with "marriage extinction."

Why are nine unelected individuals permitted to constantly chip away at our Republic? The implications of this decision, along with others, could not only set the stage for a moral backslide, but will undoubtedly contribute to the further decline of our society. Look back no further than Rome to understand that though this battle is nothing new under the sun, it is nonetheless a redefining one for civilization.

ADDENDUM: On the argument of 'marriage equality', particularly as it pertains to Christianity, Dana Loesch wrote an excellent RedState piece for wobbly conservatives...
I’ve never understood how anyone who spent the past four-plus years lamenting the size of government could then argue for its increase by inviting it into the discussion of marriage. We complain about government in health care, we complain about government in education, we complain about government regulating soft drink size, but suddenly some of us have no problem with more government in people’s relationships with one another. Marriage is a covenant between a man, woman, and God before God on His terms. It is a religious civil liberty, not a right granted by government. It should never have been regulated by government in the first place, and government shouldn’t have an expanded reach in further regulating it now. There is no allowance constitutionally that invites our government to define the religious covenant of marriage.

I’ve no issue with same sex couples entering into contractual agreements with each other or sharing benefits... Isn’t that the goal of this conflict? If so, to me, that’s an issue separate from marriage.

In suing over marriage one is demanding that others modify their beliefs to accommodate another. Do not people of faith retain their First Amendment liberty of freedom of religion?
Spot on! There's not only an attempt to redefine the institution of marriage, but there's the ongoing battle to redefine what rights actually are. And secular advocates are petitioning a few individuals on the High Court to do so? What a wrong turn. The religious are asked to give up a defined sacrament in exchange for an invented right? How is that more advantageous for society than maintaining the sanctity of marriage? It's not...and there's nothing conservative about it.

As theRightScoop points out, "What many don’t understand about the Christian opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is that God created marriage and he created sexuality, therefore both are sacred... To change the definition of marriage between a man and a woman is to desacralize this institution and turn it into something God did not intend."

If government wishes to arbitrate definitions for legal purposes, then let them refer to us all as civil unions equally, and allow the sacrament of marriage to remain the religious institution it has always been in America. Alas, I know that will never be enough for the Left.

Amnesty would be 'a death sentence for Republicans'

To say Republicans aren't being honest with themselves is putting it lightly...
CNSNews: On his March 19th show Rush Limbaugh declared that amnesty for illegal aliens would be "a death sentence for the Republicans."

That's because amnesty includes the ability to legally vote, Limbaugh reasoned. Citing poll data, Limbaugh said that 70 percent of Hispanics "say that they believe that government should be the primary source of prosperity." Therefore, Rush says, "Let's say you have ten million illegals, seven million of them are automatically gonna vote Democrat. Republican Party's finished."

"It's a mathematics conclusion. It's not any more complicated than that. And there's nothing that the Republicans can do," Rush continued.

Rush went on to point out a blatant contradiction in the arguments of those in the Republican Party who push for full amnesty:

"If you listen to the Republican proponents for immigration reform, amnesty, what have you, whatever you're gonna call it, they always say that Hispanics are Republicans-in-waiting. That these are big family value, churchgoing, largely Catholic, I mean, they are Republicans-in-waiting, okay? Accept that.

"Then, why are you making a move for gay marriage? Because obviously somebody who's devoutly religious is not gonna support homosexual marriage."

"With the Hispanics being Republicans-in-waiting, just waiting, I mean, they're conservatives at heart. Okay, so why do the Republicans want to moderate on abortion and why do the Republicans want to get squishy on gun control? I mean, conservatives are not supportive of any of that. So I just don't think that they're being honest with themselves."
Is this their idea of Republicans-in-waiting? Becoming Democrat-lite? Considering the wobbliness of many party affiliates these days listening to a secular pop-culture and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), not to mention the court decisions this week, Western civilization is hanging by a thread.

Obama gives half a billion to Palestinians

Sequester...what sequester? TheRightScoop provides more insight into Obama's perspective of the world...
So Obama preaches financial Armageddon over 2% cuts, yet he runs willy nilly around the world increasing US aid to countries/regions in the name of stabilization or something. So that’s half a billion to the Palestinians and another $200M to Jordan. That’s not counting all the millions that Joe Biden is spending to travel the world for who knows what:
FoxNews: As federal agencies scramble to avert or delay sequester-tied furloughs, the Obama administration continues to spend millions of dollars on foreign aid to the Palestinians – and seek millions more, despite past efforts by Congress to freeze the money.
Not only is it evident that Obama's not gonna let a little sequester get in his way (that was pretty apparent with the donation to Egypt earlier this month), he's gonna display his dominance by rubbing it in Israel's face to boot.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Obamacare: three years later...we're bracing for the real pain

On Friday, Democrats began the pre-celebration of the third anniversary passage of President Obama’s signature health-care legislation by voting down a Republican amendment to repeal the entire law.
HotAir: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s amendment repealing Obamacare failed to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate on Friday, receiving 45 ayes and 54 nays. The amendment was attached to the Senate Democratic budget resolution for 2014…

“Tomorrow is the three-year anniversary of the passage of Obamacare,” Cruz said on the floor before the vote. “Obamacare is hurting young people. It’s hurting seniors. It’s hurting Hispanics. It’s hurting African-Americans. It’s hurting single moms. It’s hurting the economy. It should be repealed.”
You can check out the votes here...every name, right down party lines.

Now, three years later, we find that Obamacare is even less popular than when it was passed...
WeeklyStandard: In 2010, the Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress in open defiance of public opinion, and an incensed citizenry responded by giving Republicans their biggest gains in the House of Representatives since before World War II. Now, coinciding with tomorrow’s 3-year anniversary of President Obama’s signing Obamacare into law, new polling suggests that his namesake is now even less popular than it was at the time of its passage.

According to the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll for March, only 18 percent of Republicans, 31 percent of independents, and 58 percent of members of Obama’s own party, have a favorable opinion of Obamacare. Overall, Kaiser’s polling indicates that only 37 percent of Americans like Obamacare — down 9 points from Kaiser’s tally in the month immediately following Obamacare’s passage.

By about 2-to-1 margins, Kaiser’s respondents now say that, under Obamacare, they expect the cost of American health care to rise (55 percent), rather than fall (21 percent), and the quality of American health care to fall (45 percent) rather than rise (24 percent). By more than 3-to-1 margins (57 to 16 percent on costs, 55 to 18 percent on quality), independents share these same low expectations for life under Obamacare.
And as IBD suggests the eventualities, "Democrats may find themselves scrambling to toss ObamaCare overboard, before voters do the same to them."
The reality is ObamaCare will probably never be more popular than it is today, since its harmful side effects are still just theoretical. But if ObamaCare does produce skyrocketing premiums, insurance exchange fiascoes, lost workplace health coverage and lost jobs, the little public support it gets now will collapse.
As officials scramble in attempts to avoid it's implementation from being a 'third-world experience', Mark Levin took the time Friday to explain just how Obamacare was a coup and it how it was designed to change the relationship between the government and the citizen. Mark says even the drones are about to get a rude awakening when they experience 203% premium increases!

And that's just for starters. Aside from health insurers warning of massive premium increases, there are many other concerns: employees being forced to reveal personal health info or pay up, the effects on small businesses' ability to hire more employees, more doctors are planning to retire early, the list goes on... And the real brunt of this legislation isn't fully implemented until 2014 (conveniently planned for Obama's reelection, of course). Too bad the average low information voter doesn't understand how this massive leviathan is weighing on our society, which begs the question: by 2014, who will the clueless blame when Obamacare kicks in?

Probably still not Obama, as so many still don't have a handle on the man himself being tied to the policies he's implemented. But perhaps if more realized that not a single bit of this monstrosity (which carries his name, btw) applies to him, his family, members of Congress, nor other members of the administration. Another convenience, no? Here's a reminder from three years ago...
WashingtonTimes: President Obama declared that the new health care law “is going to be affecting every American family.” Except his own, of course.

The new health care law exempts the president from having to participate in it. Leadership and committee staffers in the House and Senate who wrote the bill are exempted as well. A weasel-worded definition of “staff” includes only the members’ personal staff in the new system; the committee staff that drafted the legislation opted themselves out. Because they were more familiar with the contents of the law than anyone in the country, it says a lot that they carved out their own special loophole. Anyway, the law is intended to affect “ordinary Americans,” according to Vice President Joe Biden (who - being a heartbeat away from the presidency - also is not covered), not Washington insiders.
But let's conclude this by talking about the realities of the situation.

When the private insurance market is decimated by this government seizure, and the so-called Affordable Care Act becomes unmanageable, then what will the government turn to? As they've said from the very beginning, they want a single-payer any means necessary.

So what that the federal government trashes one-sixth of the economy to get there; it's always been more about seizing the ability to control 100% of our lives anyway. All about control, and little to do with our health, much less the cost of care, which is where the conversation actually started between the people and their Congress well before Obamacare was ever passed three years ago.

ADDENDUM: Senator Ted Cruz submits damning evidence of Obamacare's failure in his latest op-ed!

Friday, March 22, 2013

Video of the week: 'Kapooyah! Kapooyah!'

Ya gotta love when local news interviews the locals. What an entertaining way to end the week with a smile...
TVSpy:KPRC found a local woman well-versed in onomatopoeia to talk about the size and sound of the hail that fell during a storm that recently hit the Houston area.

Kapooyah! Have a great weekend.

The man who scares the Left: Dr. Benjamin Carson is everything Obama pretended to be

It looks like there's at least one man speaking out who scares the hell out of the Left. An independent black man who has escaped the Democratic plantation and is articulating conservatism in a manner which they know not how to confront, nor combat. They cannot figure out how to demonize him, and that's turning out to be a very positive thing for not only conservatism, but the nation on whole, in respect of unifying, which seems to be a foreign ideal in the divisiveness promulgated by the current Ruling Class of D.C.

Dr. Carson's theory on the media:

Dr. Ben Carson responds to Rush:

Rush gives more insight into why Dr. Benjamin Carson scares the Left...with a little Limbaugh Theorem thrown in there:
Some people were asking me about Ben Carson last night. And I said, "Let me tell you what his secret is. People are not able to detect an agenda when Ben Carson speaks. That's the magic." And it's the same thing with Obama. Obama does not appear to have an agenda. At least people don't attach an agenda to him. What that means is, people are not, therefore, automatically predisposed to being wary. People who have agendas, and those agendas are known, will automatically have people suspicious of them. Because what is an agenda? It means many things to many people.

When you get to the low-information crowd, an agenda is a design, a plan you have for them and about them over which they may not have any control. They're very suspicious of agendas. That's why anybody that has one is automatically a suspect. It's just human nature. It's the way things exist in the country and in our culture today. It hasn't always been this way, but it is now.

Well, Dr. Carson is able to make a speech, to appear at the National Prayer Breakfast, to be a guest on a TV show, to tell you what he thinks, and even tells you the way he thinks things should be. But nobody thinks that he's got an agenda. So there's no grand design. There's no perception that he wants to force people to do something. And that's what many people think of as an agenda. And that, I think, is one of Obama's secret techniques. He gets away with not having an agenda. And to the extent that he does have an agenda, it's fighting these mysterious, powerful forces that are destroying everything. And what's ironic about this is that there hasn't been a president in a hundred years who's had this kind of naked desire to subjugate people and to control them. And yet the low-information crowd that supports Obama, that's the last thing they think about him.

You stop and think about this and it'll make sense to you. It's why Benjamin Carson is universally popular right now. It's because he doesn't appear to have an agenda. And in order for him to maintain that position, he's making it clear to anybody that he's not a Republican, not a conservative. If anything, he's an independent.

If you stop and think about it, in many ways -- and I mean this -- in many ways, Dr. Benjamin Carson is everything Obama pretended to be from 2004 to 2008: postracial, postpartisan, a healer, he's really a healer. He's a neurosurgeon. He saves the brains of the children. He's a real healer. He has demonstrable experience and success in the private sector. But right now, Ben Carson is probably, in a lot of ways, everything Obama pretended to be, and everything that people thought Obama was. He's the polar opposite of Obama, in most ways.

And you don't think that scares the Left to death? Think again...

Related links: Neurosurgeon’s speeches have conservatives dreaming of 2016
Dr. Benjamin Carson's Stirring Speech at CPAC 2013

Middle finger to the citizen, welcomed hand to the illegal

After Boehner idiotically proclaimed that he 'absolutely trusts Obama'...the GOP leadership backs a Democratic-supported immigration bill? What tha...
On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show: John Boehner hails a bipartisan House immigration plan, which we haven’t even read yet. Mark says the only reason the Democrats want citizenship for illegals is to get more votes for their side. Marks proposal is, if we are going to grant citizenship for would be Democrats then we should open up our borders to the world for would be Republican voters.

Reuters: Leading Republican lawmakers, moving to repair frayed relationships with Hispanic voters, on Tuesday put their weight behind comprehensive immigration reform efforts that will likely include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented foreigners.

Speaker John Boehner praised a bipartisan plan emerging in the House of Representatives that includes an arduous pathway to citizenship for 11 million people living in the United States illegally.

While he did not specifically endorse allowing the 11 million to become American citizens, Boehner told reporters that the House effort "is frankly a pretty responsible solution."
Responsible? Doubtful...especially if it's bipartisan, and especially when that bipartisanship is working with an administration that's constantly lying...
On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show: Mark says the Obama Administration is lying when they say that they've deported more illegals than ever before; they are cooking the books and the numbers. Instead, they just let illegals out of prison for DUI and other crimes because of the sequestration.
Haven't we been saying they're cooking the books? On more than just this subject, mind you. So, why is the Republican leadership pushing this when, compared to all the other more exacerbating issues, the public doesn't even rank immigration reform as a high priority?

More idiocy, Johnny boy...

But the kicker comes with this new ad of illegal aliens demanding free healthcare. Unreal.

As GatewayPundit comments, "What part of “we’re broke” don’t you understand? Obviously, these people believe it is a natural human right to go someplace illegally and demand free healthcare." Mark Levin comments as well...

As Mark alluded to, this is one area where even guys like Rand seem to go wobbly, sounding like his dad's brand of libertarianism...

Come one, come all...welcome to the welfare state. Middle finger to the citizen, welcomed hand to the illegal. Sheesh...will this lunacy ever end in my lifetime?

Obama's Israel: the same tactics used to divide and dismantle America

In the sequel to his 2009 Cairo speech, finally making his way to Israel, many were scratching their heads this week wondering, 'what's he doing here?' Well, the ominous writing was on the wall, literally, with that evaporative map released in an administrative video before the trip that essentially erases Israeli territory...

Obama's trip, particularly his speech to impressionable Israeli youth, university students, Palestinian sympathizers and the like (a.k.a. Israeli liberals), presented a distinctively recognizable indication of what Obama's objective would be: use the same strategy of divide and dismantle within Israel that he's used within America, while of course appearing to unite and assist in fixing relations (another variation on the Limbaugh Theorem, if you will).

Blame Israel for everything that's gone wrong, and give the Palestinians their fair share, all through the auspice of peace...I'd swear we've heard something like this somewhere before (with different words shuffled around of course)...

Note: prepare for the clapping seals...

"The days when Israel could seek peace simply with a handful of autocratic leaders, those days are over."
Right, because Obama's assisted in promoting the rise of an Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East region, so now Israel is left with attempting to seek peace with a gang of radical Arab Springers? Uh huh, I think we all know how that's gonna go over. About as well as with Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.
"Put yourself in their shoes. Look at the world through their eyes. It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own, living their entire lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements not just of those young people but their parents, their grandparents, every single day. It's not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It's not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands or restricting a student's ability to move around the West Bank or displace Palestinian families from their homes. Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer."

Not fair, not just, not right. Is this not the same divisive language of class warfare that he's cast on the rich, on those of us who believe in a sovereign nation as opposed to a porous one, or even on those of us who revere the sanctity of marriage? It's all the same. It's never the true democratic, or even moral, method of the rule of law. Instead, it's always the wants and desires of a few in which all must be forced to change. And as Obama addresses Israeli youth, it's once again the same declaration, 'it's not on them, it's on you!'

AllahPundit over at HotAir points out one final quote I thought worth mentioning...
Here’s the one passage in Obama’s speech that I can’t get over. Literally no one, except maybe George W. Bush, still believes the following is true; it would have been a tough sell at any time, but at the moment it’s mind-boggling.
"Four years ago, I stood in Cairo in front of an audience of young people. Politically, religiously, they must seem a world away. But the things they want – they’re not so different from you. The ability to make their own decisions; to get an education and a good job; to worship God in their own way; to get married and have a family. The same is true of the young Palestinians that I met in Ramallah this morning, and of young Palestinians who yearn for a better life in Gaza."
Which Egyptian “young people” does he mean? The ~5% of the country that’s liberal and reform-minded and that quickly disappeared from political view after Mubarak was deposed? Or the majority of the population that says they want to tear up the treaty with Israel and then elected a guy known for demanding that Palestinians be returned to “the entire land of Palestine”? If you want a truly honest, bracing explanation of what’s wrong with the peace process, skip O’s shpiel below and follow that last link. It’s all there: Screeching demonization of the “bloodsuckers” plus the ember of Palestinian revanchism that’ll burn forever, whether a “peace” deal is ever struck or not. It’s very, very O-like (O for Obama and Oprah) to think that a speech cajoling one side to understand their neighbor a little better might help resolve a zero-sum game over the most famously disputed territory in the world.
If you really want to understand where Obama's coming from in this speech, look no further than his emblematic hero, Saul Alinksy, of whom is quoted almost verbatim as he speaks to these young Israelis...
WND: In his address in Jerusalem today, President Obama channeled Saul Alinsky, citing the radical community organizer’s defining mantra as he urged young Israelis to “create change” to nudge their leadership to act.

Obama told a crowd of college students at Jerusalem’s main convention center that Israel “has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be.”

One of Alinsky’s major themes was working with the world as it “is” to turn it into the world as “it should be.”

In his defining work, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to “the first rebel,” Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda. He asserted radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking it from the outside.

“It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system,” wrote Alinsky.

Obama related his Alinsky quote to a suggestion that “peace” begins with the people and not just the leadership – a statement some may relate to community organizing.

He further suggested Israelis do an end-run around the country’s leadership and “create the change that you want to see.”
Similarly insisting on the same sort of mob rule mentality that he's promoted within American society today, via Alinsky’s tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation. And we know what Obama thinks of us here who would like to do an end-run around his Big Government leviathan in an effort to regain more liberty...that's not the change he believes you should ever see again.

After the trip to his self-imposed territorial redistricting of Israel, Obama ventured to the restriped West Bank state to tell Abbas that he chastised Netanyahu over settlement construction and made clear that the Palestinians were being treated with indignity because of Israel's 'occupation'. And he wonders why only 10% of Israelis (a.k.a. the clapping seals) have a favorable view of him.

Once in the West Bank, Obama pulls the same fair share bit, saying it's 'not fair' that Palestinians don’t have their own state, and that they're not a 'free people' because of Israeli 'occupation'...never mind the fact that WeaselZippers points out:
Fact: Former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians land equaling 100% of the West Bank and Abbas still said no.
Obama even had the gall to compare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a disagreement between the U.S. and Canada. Hmm, can't recall a rocket lobbed over that border...

No one's that naive, B.

Oh, but what of the welcome mat rolled out for Obama's arrival? Or the muslim response to his visit? Just take a gander at the following headlines to get a clear picture of that...

Hamas welcomes Obama to region by raining Qassam rockets down on Israel…
Khamenei: Iran will destroy Tel Aviv if attacked
Gaza rockets slam southern Israel during Obama visit
'Most Palestinians hate Obama'...
Palestinian protesters to Obama: “We want RPGs, not the CIA”…
Palestinian protestors chant “Allahu Akbar,” burn American Flag at anti-Obama rally…

Fact is, no matter what giant depiction he's speaking beneath, an Obama-led America is more hated now than under Bush!
FoxNation: U.S is now less popular in the region than at the end of the George W. Bush administration.

Despite downgrading the trip, many see Obama's arrival as the sequel to his 2009 visit to Cairo, where he announced a "new beginning" with the Muslim world. Four years later, that doesn't auger well for renewed efforts in Israel and the West Bank. According to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, confidence in Obama in Muslim countries dropped from 33% to 24% in his first term. Approval of Obama's policies declined even further, from 34% to 15%. And support for the United States in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan is lower today than it was in 2008 in the closing year of George W. Bush's administration. That collapse of support has not happened elsewhere.

In his Cairo speech, Obama pledged a relationship between America and Muslims around the world "based on mutual interest and mutual respect." But in 2013, interests are diverging, and respect is in short supply.
ADDENDUM: Check out the first hour of Levin's program last night:
On Thursday's Mark Levin Show: Mark talks about President Obama's trip to Israel and says that Obama hates Israel. Everything he is doing is not in our biggest ally's interest. The Middle East is in disarray and Obama hasn't done anything to improve the situation. Obama also quotes from Saul Alinsky during an Israeli speech saying Israel "has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be." Obama is ashamed of America - as he goes overseas and blasts our traditions and heritage.
...then Friday, Mark reported about an unfortunate strong-armed apology...sigh.

Monday, March 18, 2013

temporarily down

anebbandflow will likely be shut down the majority of the week in observance of the departure of a loved one.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Last week review: Obamacare fees, DiFi dustup, and CPAC!

No...haven't abandoned the blog. Just purposefully skipped this past week to enjoy a relaxing Spring Break with the family. Of course, I had to turn on the radio and the tube a little during this time, and encountered a few stories out there that I thought I should pass along in case you missed 'em!

Employers Blast Fees From New Health Law
WSJ: Employers are bracing for a little-noticed fee in the federal health-care law that will charge them $63 for each person they insure next year, one of the clearest cost increases companies face when the law takes full effect.

Companies and other plan providers will together pay $25 billion over three years to create a fund for insurance companies to offset the cost of covering people with high medical bills.

The fees will hit most large U.S. employers, and several have been lobbying to change the program, contending the levy is unfair because it subsidizes individually purchased plans that won't cover their workers.
All of those paying attention foresaw this coming. Makes one wonder why more employers weren't as outspokenly against this monstrosity when Democrats were ramming it down our throats? But the tally on this Leviathan is far from will just keep growing and growing and growing...until it sinks us. Sounds like a good reason to defund it now, don't you think?

Ted Cruz vs. DiFi

Then, comes the man who is single-handedly taking on one Democratic Senator at a time, forcing each to explain themselves. Of course, most of the time, they can't...

First, his brilliant opening remarks...

...then the challenge, in which FrankenFeinstein (h/t Levin) proceeds to show her @$$, in an attempt not to answer the question...

...followed by some interesting commentary from Levin, defending Cruz's remarks from attacks on the right and left, and an insightful interview with Neil Cavuto...

(Catch that McLame apology? Pshhh...)

Proud to call this man MY SENATOR!


And finally rounding out the week (and into the weekend), here were some of the great speeches from CPAC 2013...

Allen West:

Marco Rubio:

One of the two main fighters on Capitol Hill right now, Rand Paul!

My Governor, Rick Perry!

The last conservative standing of the presidential primaries, Rick Santorum!

A first conservative pick of the primaries, Michele Bachmann!

The doctor that dared to criticize Obama, to his face, Ben Carson!

The barracuda herself, Sarah Palin!

And then finally, the keynote speaker, and MY SENATOR, the other of the two fighters on Capitol Hill, Ted Cruz!

And then I can't forget to mention the expected straw poll winnings, as far as this blog figured.

There was of course much more here and there, but enjoy this encapsulation of last week's catch-up!

ADDENDUM: Oh! Of course getting wrapped up in the politics of things, almost forgot to mention...

We Have A Pope!
AL: Argentine Jorge Bergoglio was elected pope Wednesday and chose the papal name Francis, becoming first pontiff from the Americas and the first from outside Europe in more than a millennium.

He asked for prayers for himself, and for retired Pope Benedict XVI, whose stunning resignation paved the way for the tumultuous conclave that brought the first Jesuit to the papacy.

Bergoglio had reportedly finished second in the 2005 conclave that produced Benedict — who last month became the first pope to resign in 600 years.

After announcing "Habemus Papum" — "We have a pope!" — a cardinal standing on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica on Wednesday revealed the identity of the new pontiff, using his Latin name.

The 76-year-old archbishop of Buenos Aires has spent nearly his entire career at home in Argentina, overseeing churches and shoe-leather priests.

Tens of thousands of people who braved cold rain to watch the smokestack atop the Sistine Chapel jumped in joy when white smoke poured out a few minutes past 7 p.m., many shouting "Habemus Papam!" or "We have a pope!" — as the bells of St. Peter's Basilica and churches across Rome pealed.