Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Irony: Bibi stands up while the House leaders surrender

A little less than four weeks ago, Hugh Hewitt interviewed Steve Scalise, House Republican Whip.  Hewitt repeatedly asked Scalise whether the House would hold fast or cave on DHS funding.  The Clinton-esque responses would have made for good comedy had there not been the overwhelming sense that of course the House would cave:

HH:  I was looking for the declaration, we will not blink. Is that fair to say that the House Republicans are not going to blink on this?...
SS:  We’re not blinking.
 (my emphases)

Of course, they weren't blinking on Feb. 9.  Apparently, however, they will not only blink but run and hide sometime this week, not long after Prime Minister Netanyahu stands up before the world, demonstrating what it is to be someone of conviction in these threatening times.
 
The irony of Boehner inviting a man who is unafraid, who refuses to "cave" to this WH, who is more than willing to stand up and fight for the survival of his country, all the while plotting the surrender of the Republican party and our nation is more than I can take.

I've already called my own Congressman and Rep. Walden's office, since he is head of the NRCC.  In a polite and resigned tone, I informed both offices that if Boehner puts a clean DHS bill up for a vote, they can stop sending me all their requests for money. 

Hugh Hewitt can be a devastating interviewer.  It's my understanding that he will be part of the CNN panel for a September Republican presidential candidate debate.  Various media apparently are helping him identify worthwhile questions.  


Now, I imagine by September, given the generous assist from Boehner and McConnell, we'll be well on our way to the complete dissolution of our southern border.  Worse, Republican leaders will still be lying to us.  I'm sure someone might be curious though to hear candidates answer this question: How do all those candidates intend to replace the millions of conservative votes that Boehner and McConnell have lost, through their deceit, timidity, and absolute incompetence?

We entrusted the future of our collapsing country to inarticulate, visionless, middle-management technocrats like Boehner and McConnell.  And now we are left to wonder how to live something resembling a decent and free life, while fools like Scalise, Boehner, McConnell stand by and and watch, and in some cases actively help, someone who has no love for this country ruin what little of America there is left to us. 

Monday, March 2, 2015

Matt Drudge Joins the Liberal Media Game

Matt Drudge is playing the liberal media reporting game, plain and simple.  In less than a few weeks, the liberal media has had to make major corrections while attempting to belittle Conservative Presidential front-runner Scott Walker. 

The story that “claimed” Scott Walker’s budget proposal to delete the requirement that universities report sexual assault cases turned out to be total horse manure.  Published in the Daily Beast, (who picked it up from a feminist blog Jezebel), and then reposted by USA Today has been “corrected and retracted“.

Just a week earlier, the grand old New York Times had to make a serious correction following their report that Walker caused tons of teacher layoffs with his budget cuts in 2010.  What the lazy writer and the editors failed to find out was that Walker didn’t become the Governor until the following year.  Whoops! 

And, of course the story/fabrication got syndicated nationally and spread throughout the internet.  In order for the NY Slimes to maintain any credibility, they just simply edited out the FALSE FACTS, and left the rest of the story intact.

Both of these bogus stories, (above), have been chronicled at the website Bizpack Review.  

Any one see a pattern here?  (This was not a rhetorical question)

The latest and greatest liberal media ploy is to 1) first and foremost, get the story into publication---fact or fiction.  And 2), deal with the retractions or corrections at a later date, long after the bull crap has spread across the fruited plains and through the internet.

Drudge’s main headline, (which is still up right now in all caps), PAPER: OBAMA THREATENED TO SHOOT DOWN ISRAELI JETS, will certainly be linked and repeated over the entire internet, and yes, the Conservative blogs and publications, and here at Mediaite, who makes the obvious claim: 

Conservative Blogs Explode over ‘Report’ Obama Threatened to Shoot Down Israeli Planes

When it drops off the headlines, Drudge will post a “our sources might not be as credible as we thought”, but the damage is already done.  And, judging from the comments at Mediaite, it’s the liberal heads that are “exploding” over this questionable story, much more than the conservatives.

See how it works?  Two can play this game.  It is sad that Drudge may have had to crawl into the gutter---with the liberal media---to make this point.  The Obama administration will never admit they really intended to shoot down Israeli planes, (even if Mika's dad* suggested it), but, the political ramifications are laid on the table as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress on Tuesday morning.

The Liberal Media Game has now become:  Sources? We don't need no stinking sources.  Or, the sources don't have to be credible, as long as the story gets out there.  In this case, Matt Drudge has clearly made his point.  And the liberal media will have to simply live with their new found yellow journalism---tactics unbecoming in today's Media.

It's only going to get uglier.

* Mika Brzezinski is the daughter of Zbigniew Brzezinski, (a former National Security Advisor for the Carter Administration).  Mika is the co-host on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program, that spews liberalism to the tenth degree.





  



Saturday, February 28, 2015

How False Narratives Work in the Liberal Media---It's All Boehner's Fault!

Late last night, in an attempt to pass a three week extension on a DHS funding bill, John Boehner and the Republican-controlled House came up short on the voting.  Some of the liberal media pundits began their false narratives soon after, yet, in a moment of "Democratic Disarray", Nancy Pelosi had to come to rescue the Democrats from purgatory.   

Headline from Politico: Congress passes one-week DHS fix

"The last-minute move comes after House Republicans dealt a humiliating defeat to John Boehner."

The "set-up" from Politico:
And Boehner’s allies believe that the earlier DHS debacle on Friday, when 52 Republicans voted against the three-week plan, was in part aimed at toppling the speaker.
And, my response:

Wouldn't it have been nice if the non-biased authors here included---in the context of this story---the fact that 176 Democrats voted against the three week plan? That right folks, the whole narrative of the story changes when it’s factually reported that only 12 Democrats voted for the 3-week extension. When the final failing tally came out, (224-203), even liberal reporters like Dana Bash at CNN and Erin Burnett on Out Front were asking [at the time] if the Democrats realized that in the event of no other votes taken that night, they, DEMOCRATS, would be seen as responsible for a DHS shutdown. 

And let’s not forget the reason for this whole mess---Barack Obama taking immigration law into his own hands and changing it by lawless executive orders to allow/afford five million illegal immigrants almost all of the rights of American citizens, including social security cards, up to $24,000 in tax refunds for each family, and all the public amenities afforded to legal immigrants---changes in immigration laws that Obama said himself just a year ago that he didn’t have executive rights to do. 

But, by all means, let’s play the political “gotcha” games, (including bogus narratives blaming John Boehner for what Republican house representatives were elected to do, (along with now a Federal Judge)---to stop Obama’s illegal interference with immigration laws that are constitutionally left up to the legislature, not the executive branch. 

Democrats, (Harry and Nancy), keep asking for a “clean bill”, (as if they’ve ever provided one in the past when they were in power), yet the full funding of the Department of Homeland Security is stained with Obama’s fingerprints all over it---directing DHS to head up an illegally obtained program a majority of Americans disapprove of. Let’s forget the attention and manpower needed to implement this illegal program, (while the primary job of DHS is to protect this nation from terrorist entities), and hand Obama and the Democrats what they want---a clean Boehner bill---that provides this President with powers he clearly does not possess. 

Apparently Democrats are o.k. with subverting Constitutional law even if most American citizens are not. As if cramming ObamaCare down the throats of Americans didn’t cost the Democrats dearly, (see 2014 Shellacking), let’s give the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi Democrats what they want, again, and see how this plays out in 2016 when the liberal Democrats take another shellacking. Give them their unclean bill, and let them choke on it.

(It should be also noted that in the ditch Mitch McConnell passed this fiasco down to the House, when he, and his cowardly beltway Republican cohorts gave in to the Democrats demands to remove the immigration rider.  As a Conservative Republican, I can safely say I'm embarrassed at the actions of this "Republican-controlled" Senate.  Apparently, they are not in control of anything)


~ Rov

Sunday, February 8, 2015

John and Jeb turn to liberal "illogic"

Apparently opposing a path to citizenship for so-called "dreamers" is not only immoral, but so inane as to deserve mockery.  No reasonable or moral person could oppose citizenship for children brought here by there illegal alien parents.

"It's about basic fairness," said John Boehner back in July of 2013.  "These children were brought here on no accord of their own."

And now we find out that about the same time, Jeb Bush claimed that it's "ridiculous" not to put such children on an "accelerated path" to citizenship.

But is there any sound argument here?  Or just more liberal illogic?  Amnesty advocates -- and now act of love advocates -- have never been terribly clear about their reasoning.  It's not hard to see why.

Boehner, as does Bush, appeals to fairness.  It's the only fair thing to do grant them a fast track to citizenship.  Unfortunately none of them bother to explain where they found this "principle of fairness":

Not Boehner, not Bush, not Rubio, not Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch (the co-sponsors of the original proposed 2001 "Dream Act"), not anyone has explained why it is fair to let the children of illegal aliens go to the front of the immigration/citizenship line!

Why should an 18 year old, born in a foreign country, brought here illegally, be "fast-tracked" ahead of a 25 year old who's been trying to come here legally for a year, five years, seven years? 

We are being asked to accept the idea that it's fair to let someone go to the head of the line because of someone else's criminal act.  There is nothing fair about John Boehner's (and Eric Cantor's) and Jeb Bush's proposed solution. In fact, it is demonstrably unfair.

But Bush whines (or scolds?) that not to give them the fast track is to make them pay a price for their parents' "decisions," that is, their parents' crimes.  

Bush gets this completely wrong.  To claim that they don't deserve a fast-track to citizenship is only to claim that they do not deserve to be rewarded for their parents' crimes.  

They are not -- pace Jeb -- being asked to pay any price!  Their are no fines or court summons being issued.  They go to schools paid for by American citizens; hardly a "price." 

Imagine at the age of 5, a child's parents figure out how to "move" illegally from a dilapidated tenement into a modest, but clearly superior tract home, which they do not own and have no legal or moral right to live there.  And they live their for several years.  The crime is well-known.  But no one bothers to do anything about it.

Is there any moral principle that says that the children are entitled now to ownership of the house?  Yet this is what we are asked to believe by the "act of love" advocates.  We do not accept this principle for any other crime.  Why accept it here?  

You will not hear an answer to this question.

Jeb is not through: if we don't give them citizenship, we would in effect render them "country-less." This, however, is just obtuse. Clearly they have a country: the country in which they were born.  There is a place where they can exercise their citizenship rights.  According to Jeb, however, they should be allowed to exercise their citizenship rights.... where they spent the most time....?  huh ?

Again -- the principle underlying this claim is simply unfathomable.  Children of diplomats or military or businessmen do not acquire this strange entitlement because they spent a lot of time in a country different from their native home.  What is the rationale here?  (There isn't one.)  

The irony is this -- their parents are applauded for their act of love, for wanting to make a better life by committing a criminal act.  However, it's wrong to suggest to -- never mind encouraging -- the children, upon reaching the age of 18, to respect the law, go back to their native country -- and apply to come to the United States of America legally.  

The irony is perhaps magnified by a condition of the original law, requiring them to be of good moral character.  Apparently, in the eyes of people like John and Jeb, "good moral character" has nothing to do with refusing to benefit from the crimes of your parents.


Sunday, January 11, 2015

Missing In Action

1.5 Million, including World Leaders, march in solidarity against Radical Islamist Terrorist and neither Obama or Holder, (who was in the vicinity), were not in attendance.  

More to come........... 

Update:  French Interior Ministry says 3.7 M people rallied across France in march against terrorism & to remember #CharlieHebdo, supermarket victims

Update #2: 


By Josh Rogin

The lack of senior U.S. government officials at free speech, anti-terrorism rallies in Paris and Washington Sunday left many wondering why President Barack Obama's administration would miss an opportunity to outwardly display solidarity with France, a country it supports in so many other ways, during its time of crisis. 
CNN’s Jake Tapper noted that there were no senior U.S. officials at the Paris rally, which stood out due to appearances by dozens of world leaders including Germany’s Angela Merkel, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah. U.S. Ambassador Jane Hartley led the U.S. delegation. 
"I don't mean this as a criticism of the Obama administration, but as an American, I do wish that we were better represented in this beautiful procession of world leaders," Tapper said.
More Photos:









What is more than obvious is that most of the world was watching something other than football on this Sunday.  World leaders, (some who had put their differences aside), met in one of the most memorable gatherings of our time to Unite in one voice, in defiance of Islamic Terrorism and the fanatics who murder innocents in the name of their "God", Allah.  The New York Daily News had this scathing report on Monday.

The citizens of the United States of America should have been a huge part of this defiance, yet their leadership was unprepared, AWOL, or just didn't care.  What a shame.

Final Update:  My take on this issue:

The simple truth of the matter is, our current resident in the White House screwed the pooch big time on this one.  And yes, the optics do matter.  The entire world was watching three million people---and dozens of world leaders---come together in one voice to admonish a group of people, (specifically, the radical Islamist Terrorist) for their actions.  Make no mistake, “freedom of speech” and the human right to speak out, (and even make fun of others without the threat of death), were on display yesterday.

That our dear liberal friends are here in massive defense of our President’s mistake should be no surprise.  They too realize an opportunity to participate in this show of unity was an error on the part of the White House, Ms. Jarrett, and the leadership of this country.  Few envisioned the massive gathering of millions who have left a lasting impression of how a world unites against those who will murder in the name of their “God”, Allah, and their Prophet, Mohammed.

That the United States of America was not represented in this affair, to be included as one voice, with a single message, is an embarrassment to most of the citizens of this great nation.  Sadly, our President missed the boat---an opportunity to include the U.S. as a supporter in this righteous endeavor.  We can all hope that in the future, this nation would be far better represented, despite the excuses from our friends on the left.

(cross-posted at Hot Air and Politico)

And, from a commenter at Newsbusters:

VoteOutIncumbents 
“Obama's first act as POTUS in 2009 was to walk into the Oval Office and tell an aide to take that bust of Winston Churchill and get it out of here. It was sent back to the British embassy from whom it was on loan. Obama's "screw you" to the British and now the French is about his perception of colonialism. He thinks the French cartoonists got exactly what they deserved. The decision to send no official from Washington was not an accident. It was thought through carefully...it is Obama's way of saying to Europe you're on your own with the post-colonial problem you created.”

(the key phrase here is my bold)


Monday, January 5, 2015

Feds Want to Raise the Gas Tax

Feds Want to Raise the Gas Tax

With the price of gas finally a relief to middle income families, (for now), some people, (politicians), are calling for a higher federal tax----per gallon of gas.

The argument is that the Feds haven’t raise their tax for close to twenty years, and they need more money to build the highway trust fund* to repair our crumbling roads.

But here’s the real culprits that are gouging the customers---THE INDIVIDUAL STATES.  My question is, where’s this money going?  Shouldn’t all of these gas taxes be going toward re-building our roads.  If you examine the charts at the link, you can see THE STATES are already getting more than their fair share of a gallon of gas.  Now the FED wants another .12 cents a gallon.

*  Here’s the problem with Federal Trust Funds:  Care to guess how well our Federal Government has managed our Social Security Trust Fund?  There’s ZERO real money in the account.  Our politicians have managed to borrow/rob every dollar in the account and replace it with I.O.U’s, which will most likely NEVER be paid back.

Bottom line, again, if you look at the tax charts of what the individual states are already charging/stealing, wouldn’t it be prudent to demand that YOUR STATE provide documentation about where all this money is getting spent, before approving another rise in Federal Tax.  When the price of fuel heads back towards four dollars a gallon---and it will---does anyone think they will get tax relief from your state or the Feds?

Historically---it never happens.



Tell your Senators and Congress-people we've been hosed enough!

Update:


Senators Bob Corker and John Thune, once respected Republican Senators have taken up the establishment Republicans tactic in justifying almost doubling the Federal Gas Tax.

The incoming Republican leader of the Senate Transportation Committee said Sunday an increase is up for consideration, as “we have to look at all the options.”

“I don’t think we take anything off the table at this point,” John Thune said on “Fox News Sunday.”

This citizen is planning an all out revolt against raising the Federal Gas Tax---a tax increase of almost 67% and unlike sales tax, gas tax is a flat fee and is not based on the sale price of gasoline. No matter how low gas prices dip, the federal and state gas taxes remain the same. Therefore, the tax percentage fluctuates significantly with changing gas prices.

More to come..................