New Obamacare Defense: Blame Everyone But Yourself | RedState.

New Obamacare Defense: Blame Everyone But Yourself

obama-finger-pointing-poster
Yesterday at the conclave of the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council, Barack Obama got a chance to demonstrate what he does best: blame others and make excuses.

President Obama on Tuesday sought to redirect some of the political blame for the botched rollout of the federal health insurance exchange to Republicans, characterizing GOP lawmakers as rooting for the law’s failure.

[Editor’s note: what Mr. Obama seems to forget is that Republicans had nothing to do with the botched health care act. It was all done in secret, behind closed doors, without the participation of the GOP. REMEMBER: They had to “pass it to find out what’s in it.” Sounds like the definition of a stool sample.]

Addressing a gathering of business executives, Obama acknowledged that the health-care rollout “has been rough, to say the least,” and he lamented the government’s archaic information-technology procurement system.

[Editor’s note: Technological challenges are not the problem, Mr. Numbnuts. The problem is in the policy itself. It won’t work, regardless of tech challenges. But then again, a community organizer wouldn’t have any experience with technological challenges beyond phones and pagers, now, would he?]

Obama said that fixes to the HealthCare.gov Web portal are underway and that the exchange will function for a majority of people by the end of November. But the president said staunch opposition from congressional Republicans is inhibiting the law’s implementation.

[Editor’s note: Seems a bit nebulous to say that the “exchange will function for a majority of people” when you can’t really come up with any numbers besides a “majority”. Staunch opposition is coming from congressional Republicans because of their constituents. Or, have you not figured that out yet, Mr. Numbnuts?]

“One of the problems we’ve had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in failure,” Obama said at the Wall Street Journal’s CEO Council meeting in Washington. “We obviously are going to have to remarket and rebrand, and that will be challenging in this political environment.”

The president also voiced frustration with the toxic political atmosphere endangering his signature legislative achievement. He said Washington needs to “break through the stubborn cycle of crisis politics and start working together.”

[Editor’s note: The “toxic political environment” and the need to “break through the stubborn cycle of crisis politics” was of your own creation… or those of your handlers. Since you can’t seem to do anything on your own, you’re nothing more than a puppet and your chief mouthpiece, Jay Carney, can’t seem to best you in the telling of lies. We don’t believe a word you’re saying, Mr. Numbnuts.]

Let’s review the bidding. To date no one has explained how the contracting procedure for information technology systems contributed, much less caused, to the ignominious beginning of Obamacare. Rather the fault lies with the incompetent boobs with which the Obama administration has recruited at great expense. According to the Washington Post:

Others point fingers at the Department of Health and Human Services, which took years to issue final specifications, preventing CGI (my note: the main vendor for healthcare.gov) from really getting started until this spring.

If specs weren’t available until Spring 2013, and those apparently weren’t very well thought out, then it is hard to blame the contracting system. It worked well enough to allow a crony of Michelle Obama to win a sole source deal for the lion’s share of the project:

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.

Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.

Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.

[…]

As reported by the Washington Examiner in early October, the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed only CGI’s bid for the Obamacare account.

One is also left wondering why Obama seems surprised that the GOP is “invested” in the failure of Obamacare. Obamacare is just another Democrat foray into Cargo Cult Economics (here | here | here | here | here) that requires a willing suspension of disbelief and huge majority of Americans acting against their own economic interests for it to succed. That sentient beings would oppose such nonsense is hardly news.

And, of course, there is the partisan aspect of the issue. It is hard to find an example of an opposition party working 24-7 to make the other party’s agenda succeed.  When partisan tensions are exacerbated by the fact that this monstrosity was rammed through the Congress in a dishonest manner, by two of the most duplicitous, unindicted felons to ever lead the House and Senate, that would be Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, without a single Republican vote, it is hardly a shock to find hard core opposition.

Apparently Obama thinks this is worse than when his own party advocated killing American troops in Iraq , part of the “slow bleed” strategy articulated by that odious bag of pus, Jack Murtha, in order to ensure America lost a war because they couldn’t bear the thought of George Bush succeeding.

He also fails to explain how GOP opposition has had any impact at all. Obamacare is the law. It is being implemented. It is funded.

As he bemoans the “toxic political atmosphere” he should do a bit of soul-searching (admittedly it would take about fifty men and a sizable pack of bloodhound to find his soul) and examine how the political environment got this way. It didn’t happen overnight. He struggled in a manner worthy of Hercules to burn down his own credibility, rebuff the opposition, and lie left-right-and-center for no greater reason than just to stay in practice.

Ironically, it has turned out that the most effective opposition to Obamacare has not been the GOP, it has been the Obama administration’s epic incompetence and malfeasance.


There’s an old saying, “If you make people think they are thinking, they will love you. If you make people REALLY think, they will hate you.” Especially Liberals. They think they know it all.

Oh, they know a lot of “stuff”… it’s just that all that they know “ain’t so”.

In Thomas Friedman’s book, “The World Is Flat,” he talks about how people stand in long lines and buy tickets from scalpers to see Britney Spears. Yet, in China, they stand in long lines and scalp tickets to hear Bill Gates speak. Friedman makes this point to question American values and priorities.

I make the point to illustrate the lack of knowledge on the part of Liberals.

Britney helps us escape reality; so does The Bachelor, The Bachelorette, Dancing With The Stars, and yes, even Donald Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice.

Great innovators such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Frederick Douglas, Henry Ford and, for those of you who want to think, Nikola Tesla, helped us invent new horizons. Even though Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are noted Liberals, when it came to capitalism they did something right. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Other great minds have helped chart new horizons, but nothing of truly outstanding note ever came from the likes of Liberal, Progressive and Communist minds like the losers Karl Marx, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and so many others of their ilk.

Why do we, at first, condemn those who give us new “realities” and frontiers? Because when we are challenged to “think” (and when Liberals are challenged to think) they (and we) become…

…uncomfortable.

Thinking and having thoughts are two different processes. Thoughts are the process of organizing the current knowledge and experience you have acquired to come up with ideas about your present or future situation. Thinking, on the other hand, requires you to envision that which you have to think of or experience…

The dilemma is that thinking forces you to consider possibilities for which you do not know it all and you don’t have it all figured out and thus creates confusion. For Liberals, it creates TREMENDOUS confusion.

Too often, leaders avoid confusion because it makes them look insecure when they do not know the answers. They appear to be lacking confidence in themselves in their circumstances…

…sort of like our present dimwits in charge of the District of Criminals.

Since we are taught that confused people lack confidence, we don’t consider that confusion could be the pathway to brilliance. We don’t even consider that there are tools that empower us to navigate through confusion.

So, we Americans go about our daily lives looking up to misfits as our role models and people who entertain us and make us “comfortably numb” in our stupor. When people make us think that we are thinking we love them. That is because they meet us where we are – our current reality – and ask us to stretch it just enough to make us proud. But when smart people force us to think, we hate them. It causes us to be uncomfortable: it forces us out of our intellectual comfort zones… something that the fools in Washington, D.C. don’t do too often, or often enough.

Nikola Tesla promulgated the theory of wireless technology in the early 1900s. The scientific world called him a fool. They said if you send out a wireless signal, it would continue into outer space for infinity and get lost. They believed a wireless signal could not travel around the earth. For the scientific community, their belief was their reality. And they lived it as if it were a fact.

What reality do you hold? Where would society be if we were more open to the new realities of inventors?

Step out of your comfort zone and “think outside the box” and think that which you have never thought. DREAM! You will be amazed at the possibilities that are hidden in plain sight.


Spanish Word for “Black” Gets Spanish Teacher Fired.

Spanish Word for “Black” Gets Spanish Teacher Fired

 

 

Petrona Smith is a teacher at a Bronx middle school who, by teaching kids Spanish, gave them the valuable knowledge of how to survive in this country that increasingly resembles Mexico.Unfortunately for Smith, there was one particular seventh-grader in her class who, I’d put money on, had been brought up in a liberal household, because he finds words to be offensive—the word “negro” in particular. No, not as in what Senator Harry Reid would call the “Negro dialect” of a black person, but as in the Spanish word for the color black.

The lesson in class that day was on colors, and this seventh-grade whiner evidently took offense at the Spanish language’s designation of the word “negro” for the color black, even though, it’s worth adding, the Spanish language existed long before the racial term “Negro.”

As any kid on his way toward being a good liberal in life would do, he tattled on the teacher for her lack of political correctness. The teacher was fired and now she’s suing.

I’m probably in alignment with a lot of conservatives in saying that I have a hard time sympathizing with liberals when they become the victims of liberalism. Because Smith is black, she is probably a liberal (or at least a Democrat), and so while she truly is the victim here, all I can really do is chuckle about it.

It reminds me of one of my favorite beers, Negra Modelo. I took three years of Spanish in high school, but while I don’t really remember much, I do know that “modelo” in Spanish means a standard, or a model, and “negra” means the color black when applied to feminine nouns. “Modelo,” however, is a masculine noun. So, following the grammatical rules of Spanish, the modifier “negra” should actually be “negro,” the masculine form of that color, which is used for masculine nouns. However, the company went with the grammatically incorrect “Negra Modelo” instead of the closer-to-correct “Negro Modelo” (though really it should be “Modelo Negro,” since, in Spanish, adjectives come after the nouns they modify), because, it is my theory, the company did not want to offend black people. Instead, they butchered the language.

This, furthermore, is much like the feminists’ butchering of English. Certain words in the language offend them, so they change the words. “Woman” becomes “womyn” and “history” becomes “herstory.” So intense is the pathological and borderline psychotic loathing that feminists feel toward men that any hint of a mentioning of their sex must be eradicated from the language.

The best I can hope for Petrona Smith is that she wins her lawsuit, gets her job back, and, if she is indeed a Democrat, opens her eyes to the fascism her party peddles in demanding political correctness.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/spanish-word-for-black-gets-spanish-teacher-fired/#ixzz2UhV0Wd2z

Editor’s Note: Negro is also used in Portuguese, “noir” in French, and is not considered racist. I, too, do not feel sorry for the Liberal twits who do not understand words of color like “blanco”, “rojo”, “amarillo”, etc.


On Benghazi and ‘Expendable Faggots’

 

Posted by Ann Barnhardt – May 10, AD 2013 5:16 AM MST

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with the rest of the regime players, murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens. It was a hit. It wasn’t incompetence. It wasn’t deer-in-the-headlights collective inaction. It wasn’t a kidnapping plot gone wrong. It was a hit.

The whole incompetence argument is simply the domain of moral and intellectual cowards who insist upon seeing the world through rose colored glasses and deny objective reality. My contempt for these people knows no bounds. It’s one thing to be stupid. It is quite another to be a coward. Cowardice is a pure moral choice. This is why courage is the fruit of the Third Sorrowful Mystery (the crowning with thorns). If courage was a genetic phenotype, as baseline intelligence largely is (as opposed to willful ignorance), then Our Lord would not desire that we pray for the grace of courage every day. Show me someone arguing that the Obama regime is incompetent and I’ll show you a quivering little coward.

Next is the whole “kidnapping plot gone wrong” argument. Sorry. It doesn’t hold water. First, the theory that Obama wanted to do a prisoner exchange of Ambassador Stevens for the Blind Sheik right before the election in order to look like some sort of hero is simply ludicrous. Americans would have been repulsed and disgusted by such a move. Americans don’t cotton to capitulation to kidnappers. And releasing the Blind Sheik? No, this would have worked against Obama in public opinion. The fact of one of our Ambassadors being kidnapped at all would have come off as a sign of profound weakness, and releasing the Blind Sheik would have pegged the needle on the ol’ wimp-o-meter.

Next, this kidnapping scenario assumes that the Obama regime was relying on fairly contested elections, had no election fraud teams in place in the major metro areas of the swing states, and/or was truly Nixonian in its desire for a unanimous victory. Again, nope. They clearly weren’t going for a unanimous or near-unanimous electoral college sweep as Nixon was trying to do. They were all about targeted fraud in the swing states. They had no care or concern about winning Kansas, Wyoming or Oklahoma. The motives simply don’t match up.

Finally, we have to ask why the Clintons were co-conspirators in the murder of Stevens. WHY are the Clintons a.) participating in the initial murder of Stevens and b.) not throwing Obama and Jarrett under the bus? The Obama machine stole the 2008 primaries from Hillary, and both Bill and Hillary personally loathe Obama and his Chicago crew. Why this unholy demonic alliance?

Because Chris Stevens was a lynchpin in the running of arms by the Obama regime and Clinton’s State Department in full cooperation with each other to the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda through Libya. And yes, it is absolutely sane and appropriate to assume that Huma Abedin (Hillary’s consigliere and daughter of high-ranking Muslim Brotherhood leaders) figures into this. Both Obama’s White House and Hillary’s State Department were mutually and equally tied to this arms running, and both of their bacons were equally in the fire. The Obama White House, I am convinced, has plans for the retention of power beyond 2016 (Michelle?), and Hillary thinks she is going to be POTUS from 2017-2025. The bottom line is that the duumvirate of the most dangerous, evil psychopaths on the face of the earth decided for slightly different reasons that Ambassador Stevens needed to be dead in order to cover the gunrunning to the Muslim Brotherhood, and so together, they killed him. They withdrew all of his security (at the behest of the State Department), told the Muslim Brotherhood that it was all-clear, guaranteed that there would be no response or retaliation to an attack (only the Oval Office could issue the stand-down order), and even put the cherry on top by instantly framing the entire hit as some sort of musloid blasphemy propaganda. That was just gratuitous. Sickeningly gratuitous.

If it had been a kidnapping plot, Chris Stevens would have been KIDNAPPED. Remember, he had almost no security in the end. He wouldn’t have been gang raped, killed and then had his dead body gang raped again.

The Clintons have a long history of having people murdered, all the way back into the early 1980’s in Arkansas. Vince Foster. Ron Brown. These people are psychopaths and murderers. You have to deal with this.

The Obama machine, being neo-Stalinist, is also murderous, having seen to the assassination of at least three of Barry’s sodomy partners from Trinity UCC cult on the South Side of Chicago. Purely as an aside, don’t you think that it is odd that an attention whore like Jeremiah Wright saw three members of his cult murdered within just a few weeks of one another and never said a WORD publicly about that? No demands for a full FBI investigation on the front steps. No march through the streets with Jesse Jackson and Fr. Pfleger demanding that justice be done and that the targeted killings of his flock be given the highest priority by law enforcement. Nope. Nothing. It’s almost as if Wright was neither surprised nor alarmed by the rapid serial killing of his “parishioners”. I wonder what POSSIBLE EXPLANATION there could be for that?

Sadly, Chris Stevens was just another “expendable faggot” in the eyes of the Obama-Clinton machine. He was a dead man the day he accepted the position. And doesn’t it seem odd that the Obama-Clinton machine would send a known sodomite man to be the ambassador to an unstable, backward muslim country to begin with? Again, it was probably done intentionally as a last-ditch hedge, an ace-up-the-sleeve as it were. Stevens could be killed, and then turned into some sort of sodomite martyr as a last-ditch plan. But, they didn’t need that. They had the “blasphemy video”. Eyeroll.

Finally, I would like to reiterate that the ultimate “expendable faggot” is Barry himself. I worry. I worried terribly after he showed up stoned to the first debate. I continue to worry now. Barry the man is in no way any sort of intellectual driver behind the regime. He is a puppet, a facade, a lazy imbecile and sodomite and nothing more. If the drivers decide that he is worth more dead than alive, assassinating their “expendable faggot” would be the mother of all Reichstag Fires, and would likely result in instant suspension of the Constitution and martial law. IF BARRY IS ASSASSINATED, THE FIRST THING THAT A TEXAS, A KANSAS, AND ANY OTHER REMNANT STATES LOYAL TO THE CONSTIUTION SHOULD DO IS SECEDE. LIKE, WITHIN MINUTES.

And you people keep paying taxes into this.

Kyrie eleison.
Christe eleison.
Kyrie eleison.


Minute Men NewsYet Another Democrat Tries To Assassinate An American President – Minute Men News.

Yet Another Democrat Tries To Assassinate An American President

 

 

images

I laughed out loud when I learned that the man who sent poisoned letters to President Obama is a Democrat. And then I thought, “Well doesn’t that figure?”

The would-be assassin, whose fame I will not contribute to by writing his name, sent letters laced with ricin to Obama and to Republican Senator Roger Wicker. Inhaling the toxin is deadly, and all it takes to kill a human is an amount 1/288 the size of an aspirin.

A picture of the man, a white guy whom I will henceforth refer to as John, surfaced on the Internet (where pictures are wont to surface). It comes from his Facebook page and shows John kneeling down beside the back bumper of a car, which has a sticker on it that reads, “Christian and a Democrat.” John is giving the sticker a thumbs-up.

However, his Facebook page lists his political views as “Independent.” So the fact that he gave a pro-Democrat bumper sticker a thumbs-up and also tried killing a Democratic president likely means he is one of those people who feel that Obama is too moderate, that the Democratic Party is not suitably liberal, and therefore has registered as an Independent.

Even I initially thought that whoever did it was either a Republican or some backwoods, tinfoil-hat-wearing pseudo-Libertarian. Now that it’s come out he is a Democrat/Independent, it’s no surprise; virtually every assassin or would-be assassin of American presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have been leftists (to the extent that their political views are known).

Successful assassins (whose politics we know):

  • John Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, shot and killed President Lincoln
  • Charles Guiteau, a member of the communist Oneida Community, shot and killed President Garfield
  • Leon Czolgosz, a leftist anarchist (similar to the useful idiots in the Occupy movement) shot and killed President McKinley
  • Lee Harvey Oswald, a communist, shot and killed President Kennedy.

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2013/04/feds-arrest-suspect-in-ricin-laced-letters-sent-to-obama-senator/#ixzz2QvvyEetI


The Real Reasons Bill Clinton Now Supports ‘Gay’ Marriage : Political Outcast.

The Real Reasons Bill Clinton Now Supports ‘Gay’ Marriage

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal former president Bill Clinton has come out of the closet in support of homosexual marriage. In 1996, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Why the change? He says that 1996 “was a very different time.”This tells me that Clinton governed in terms of opinion polls. In 1996, opinion was against homosexual marriage, therefore, he was against it. In 2013, opinion polls show a different view. There’s nothing startling in this type of moral shift. Politicians do it all the time.

With 17 years of pro-homosexual propaganda hitting us every day, I’m not surprised that opinions have shifted. Let me ask the poll question, and I bet opinion would shift back hard the other way. Remember, low-information and no-information voters are now in the majority.

But let’s get back to Clinton and the real reason for his shift.

First, Hillary is setting her sites on a 2016 presidential run. This means she’s lining up all the special interest groups ahead of time. Homosexuals, while they make up no more than three percent of the population, have great influence and deep pockets.

Bill can now speak in support of her candidacy without having to answer questions about signing DOMA.

Second, Clinton’s support of homosexual marriage removes the stigma of his sordid sexual affairs. How can he be against consensual homosexual sex when he and his liberal friends and media sycophants kept saying that his sexual exploits were  only about sex and it was consensual? Sex is no big deal, no matter who’s doing it to whom.

The Lewinsky scandal didn’t emerge until 1998, two years after Clinton signed DOMA. Once he got caught in the Lewinsky tryst, he was damaged goods. Supporting homosexual marriage makes his extra-marital sexual encounter just another sexual encounter.

If homosexual marriage is now accepted when in 1996 it wasn’t, then surely a healthy male with a sexual appetite like Clinton’s can’t be denied similar sexual freedom. Clinton’s sexual rendezvous with Monica Lewinsky was a big deal 17 years ago, but the moral goal posts have been moved since then. With homosexual marriage now accepted, who’s going to judge a president who only did what came naturally?

Third, Clinton helped America lose its moral compass. He now has to justify it. Instead of repenting, he’s succumbed to the deviancy. Again, this is an old story that makes literature what it is today.

The late New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan described this phenomenon in a 1993 paper as “Defining Deviancy Down,” defined by Suzanne Fields as “lowering the bar for what was once considered deviant behavior, giving a pass to things society once scorned.” Notice the date.

Moynihan started from Emile Durkheim’s proposition that there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can

“‘afford to recognize’ and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of ‘old’ standards, and accounts for much of the present ‘cultural war. . . .’”

The long-term effects of lowering the moral bar are not immediately seen or understood. But it doesn’t take a degree in psychology or social work to see the devastating consequences of moral surrender to the bleating sheep of moral discontent.

Ascent to homosexuality is not new. Some of the great civilizations of the world tolerated, even extolled the virtues of homosexuality. As any 8th-grade history student knows, the remnants of their civilizations are little more than tourist attractions today.

America is headed in the same direction.


New photos, details emerge of Newtown mass shooter Adam Lanza | The Lookout – Yahoo! News.

New photos, details emerge of Newtown mass shooter Adam Lanza

 

 

 

 

Accused Newtown shooter Adam Lanza was spending more time alone in the months leading up to the mass shooting as his mother, Nancy Lanza, attempted to encourage him to be independent despite his mental disabilities, a Hartford Courant/Frontline investigation has found. In a new documentary called “Raising Adam Lanza,” which airs Tuesday night on PBS, reporters from the Courant attempt to retrace the steps taken by Nancy and Adam in the years leading up to the shooting, complicating the picture that has occasionally appeared in the media of Nancy as a gun obsessed mother who was in denial about her son’s mental challenges.

 

Adam is believed to have shot his mother four times in the head as she slept on Dec. 14 before shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary, where he attended school as a child, and killing 20 children and six women. He then took his own life.

 

Frontline and The Hartford Courant provided Yahoo News with several previously unpublished childhood and teenage photos of Adam Lanza they uncovered in their investigation.

 

The 20-year-old had been spending more time alone in his mother’s $500,000 home in the affluent Connecticut suburb in the months leading up the shooting, Courant reporters Alaine Griffin and Josh Kovner found in their investigation. Adam’s social world gradually began shrinking after he left Newtown High School at the age of 16 to enroll in a nearby college, where he made As and Bs before withdrawing there, as well. Since 2010, Adam had not attended school.

 

Between 2010 and 2012, Nancy took Adam to nearby gun ranges to practice shooting. Nancy purchased four firearms, including the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle Adam is believed to have used in the attack, during the same period. Her friends say Nancy used target practice as a way to bond with her withdrawn son. Police also uncovered thousands of dollars worth of violent video games in the Lanzas’ home. Police believe Adam may have been inspired by the video games he played in the attack, since he changed the magazines of his weapons more frequently than was necessary, Frontline reported. Late Sunday, the Courant also reported that Adam may have felt that he was in direct competition with Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, based on news articles about Breivik’s 2011 crime they found in the Lanzas’ home.

 

(Hello! Is anybody paying attention to what is going on here?  Duh!)

In the months before the attack, Nancy took frequent trips and left Adam at home unsupervised–including on one trip this past Thanksgiving–in an attempt to make him more independent.

 

Her friends say Nancy is the forgotten 27th victim that day.

 

“She’s been described as some sort of gun nut or survivalist and this other misconception that she was a bad mother,” her friend John Bergquist told Frontline. But he said her life “revolved around caring for Adam.”

 

Adam was diagnosed at a young age with sensory integration disorder, a medically controversial diagnosis that meant Adam had trouble coping with bright lights, loud noises, and knowing when he was in pain. Later, when he was in middle school, Adam was also diagnosed with Asperger’s, a condition related to autism that can make social interaction challenging. (Medical experts cautioned that autism disorders are not associated with violent behavior.)

 

A friend of Nancy’s remembered that when Adam was just six years old, he did not like to be touched. If children his age touched them, he recoiled or became upset. “He was angry with them,” Marvin LaFontaine, Nancy’s friend, told Frontline. Richard Novia, who co-founded the tech club Adam joined while he attended Newtown High School, told Frontline Adam would have “episodes” as a teen where he would completely withdraw from the world, sometimes sitting in a corner, motionless.

 

Nancy raised Adam and his older brother in their Newtown home on her own after she and her husband separated in 2001. In 2009, the couple officially divorced, and Adam abruptly cut off contact with his father in 2010 for reasons that are unclear.

 

Nancy’s friends said she was planning on moving to either Washington or North Carolina to enroll Adam in college again, so that he could get a degree in history.

 


Look out, Mr. Obama, a Tax Revolt Has Begun in America Led by Mickelson & Woods :: Minute Men News.

Look out, Mr. Obama, a Tax Revolt Has Begun in America Led by Mickelson & Woods

 

 

mickelson660

President Obama, you have a big problem. You may own the media, so you can control the Benghazi disaster. But you have no control over this one. A tax rebellion has started.

Phil Mickelson is one of the most famous athletes in the world. He is worth in the vicinity of $100 million. Last year he made almost $50 million. Yet he doesn’t want to pay California’s high taxes.

Tiger Woods is far more famous and worth far more — over $1 billion, yet he agrees with Mickelson and admits that he left California in 1996 for the exact same reason: high taxes.

In the same week, famed boxing promoter Bob Arum announced that superstar boxing legend Manny Pacquiao’s next fight will not be in held in America.

The man who makes tens of millions per fight refuses to pay Obama’s higher U.S. income taxes. He is considering Mexico City, Asia, or Dubai for his next fight.

Can you imagine? Smart businessmen would rather choose Mexico City over America because of Obama’s taxes.

Then Tina Turner went public. She is renouncing her U.S. citizenship to become a Swiss citizen- which just happens to have lower taxes than Obama’s America.

But these are just the rich celebrities courageous enough to go public. This is merely the tip of the iceberg. The rich are fleeing in droves. The Obama tax and spend Ponzi scheme is imploding.

What changed?

Read More:  http://www.foxnews.com/

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2013/02/look-out-mr-obama-a-tax-revolt-has-begun-in-america-led-by-mickelson-woods/#ixzz2JgjG6kUm


Does God give us the “right” to keep and bear arms? – No Compromise Foundation.

Does God give us the “right” to keep and bear arms?

Today, someone on Twitter asked the question, “Where does God give …

First, let me begin by defining government.  According to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the American government is tri-partied.  It consists of We The People, the States, and the Federal Government (not national which implies power over the people instead of a federal government, which is assigned certain tasks to complete on our behalf).

This is an important concept as concerns both U.S. and biblical law.  Government is not just the federal government or the state government, it is us all of us.

Therefore, all duties of government belong to us all.  However, we tender to the federal and state governments certain duties to be carried out on behalf of the whole government, which includes us.  So, when someone says that only government should have guns, remember we are one-third of the government structure in this country.

Further, we are the first nation in the history of this earth which had no subjects.  Every other nation considered their heads of state as rulers and the people as its subjects.  Even Great Britain had—and still has—as a basis of government, the concept of their people as subjects.  As Americans we have never subjects.  We are free men who are citizens and government is subject to us and to our designs, not the other way around.

Our history includes numerous wars with Great Britain, beginning with the Revolutionary War. That war was fought for a number of reasons, including religious persecution.  However, the catalyst for the commencement of hostilities was the British hubris believing they could simply march in and take our guns.  Men bled and died; fortunes were committed and lost; families destroyed, and lives forever changed, but in the end, America prevailed and history was forever changed.

This land remained free for a number of spiritual reasons, but also because we believed that every man should be armed. We the People were the government and to disarm us was to disarm the United States.

Now, with the same imperial hubris, the strutting peacocks calling themselves “representatives” fire about legislation that pretends as if we have no history.  They assume to themselves the position of royalty—not loyalty—in assuming they can pass gun control or confiscation legislation and steal the rights of We the People granted under the Second Amendment.

How would the nation feel if we decided tomorrow to end their rights under the First Amendment?  What if government declared tomorrow that everybody has to be a Mormon and no one is allowed to criticize the President, the Congress or the Courts?  Would they then say it is not an infringement, just a defining, or would there be an outcry that shattered every glass in the great halls of Washington D.C.?  I suspect the latter.

Obviously, there have been stains on our history, such as those left by the blood guilt of slavery, but even that, after a long hellish century, was cured by the second Great Awakening as men of faith and compassion refused any longer to tolerate the ungodly, cruelty, and horrors of slavery.  In the end the might of righteousness prevailed and the scourge of slavery was ended.

But it was the preaching of men such as George Whitefield (sometimes referred to as Whitfield), Charles Spurgeon, Charles Grandison Finney, and Jonathan Edwards that planted the seeds of faith and spiritual courage in the hearts of what would become the Christian Abolitionist movement.  And this rare blend of compassion, courage and righteous indignation fueled what would become a demand for justice for all people, with an understanding that if one man was enslaved, then all were enslaved because We The People is all of us, united as one of the three branches of government.

Remember, in those days the army was comprised of the militias of the several states. It was We The People who often brought their own arms to the conflict that engaged in the bloody four year conflict that claimed the lives of 650,000 Americans.  Remarkably, that was the same number of slaves that were present in the United States at the height of slavery. That amounts to one death for each man stolen from his land and brought here to the states as slaves.

So, were they right to take up arms to end slavery in America?  More importantly, in the larger sense, are we today—their progeny—right in our demand to keep and bear arms?  Do we truly have God-given rights protected by the U.S. Constitution; and more importantly, are these truly God-given rights in the light of scriptures?

The first answer is easy. Yes, we are both allowed and, in fact, I would argue we are expected to keep and bear arms.

The Militia Act of 1792

“Passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musketbayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

The militias were divided into “divisionsbrigadesregimentsbattalions, and companies” as the state legislatures would direct. The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act. Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.”(Source:  Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792)

Further, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The definition in Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines infringed as “broken, violated: transgresses.  Clearly the Founding Fathers believed that everyone should be armed.

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty’s teeth.” – George Washington

I will proceed no further with the hundreds of quotes that could be applied, but suffice it to say, both history and the law support our unabridged right to keep and bear arms – of any sort – without limitation.  We are the government. We are not subjects of the government that may be stripped of our rights.

We The People are one-third of the government.  You cannot strip this third of government of guns while allowing the other two-thirds to keep theirs.  That would be as unlawful as Congress attempting to control the executive or judicial branches of the federal government.

So this discussion once again asks:  Does God give us the right to keep and bear arms?

What about the sixth commandment which is oft quoted, “Thou shalt not kill.”  Does that on its face not annul the right to keep and bear arms?  Let’s look and see what the commandment really says.

The Hebrew word used for “kill” is ratsach.  The word literally means to murder or shed innocent blood.  Therefore, the command is not prohibition against killing, but against murder or the shedding of innocent blood.

In point of fact, scripture demands the death of murderers because murder requires the scales of justice to be balanced by the blood of the murderer.  That is why we can be both prolife and pro-death penalty.  Both are just.

Therefore, the sixth commandment is not a prohibition against keeping and bearing arms; nor is it a prohibition against shooting a home invader in the dark of night —someone who presents deadly force or even for the defense of others.

Let’s look at Psalm 82:3 and 4 where we are commanded to: “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.”

The Psalmist says that to do otherwise is judging unjustly.  If the wicked are strong and we are to deliver them—to rid them from the wicked hand—how are we to do it?

Here is what the Lord commanded David in 1 Samuel 30 when his family was kidnapped and his goods stolen:

8 “And David enquired at the Lord, saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? shall I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue: for thou shalt surely overtake them, and without fail recover all.

 9 So David went, he and the six hundred men that were with him, and came to the brook Besor, where those that were left behind stayed.

 10 But David pursued, he and four hundred men: for two hundred abode behind, which were so faint that they could not go over the brook Besor.                     

11 And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave him bread, and he did eat; and they made him drink water;

 12 And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters of raisins: and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him: for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights.

 13 And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days agone I fell sick.

 14 We made an invasion upon the south of the Cherethites, and upon the coast which belongeth to Judah, and upon the south of Caleb; and we burned Ziklag with fire.

 15 And David said to him, Canst thou bring me down to this company? And he said, Swear unto me by God, that thou wilt neither kill me, nor deliver me into the hands of my master, and I will bring thee down to this company.

 16 And when he had brought him down, behold, they were spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking, and dancing, because of all the great spoil that they had taken out of the land of the Philistines, and out of the land of Judah.

 17 And David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, which rode upon camels, and fled.

 18 And David recovered all that the Amalekites had carried away: and David rescued his two wives.

 19 And there was nothing lacking to them, neither small nor great, neither sons nor daughters, neither spoil, nor any thing that they had taken to them: David recovered all.”

How well do you think this same David would have done against Goliath had he not been armed with a deadly weapon.  He certainly was nowhere near physically strong enough to take on the almost 10 foot tall giant.  No, he need personal protection.  He rejected military hardware, armor, sword and shield and opted instead for personal protection, a “handgun” if you will.  He killed Goliath and saved his people from the Philistines.

There are times when only force will do.  Here is the Lord’s commandment in Exodus 22: 2 “ If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.”

But one might ask, What about the New Testament?  Are we not commanded to love, forgive and turn the other cheek?

Yes, we are, but we are not commanded to be enslaved by weakness.  If we are enslaved without any means to protect ourselves, how do we deliver the hand of the oppressed from the hand of the wicked?  No, Yeshua says in Luke 22:36: “[Christ] said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:8: “8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

This passage is a very wide intent.  The words “provide not” are all inclusive.  This passage does not define provision as food and shelter. No, this passage is purposely open ended. It means total provision, including protection from whatever may come.  It is foolish not to assume that whatever means of protection it takes to guard ones family is both legitimate and required.

For Paul declares that one who provides not for his family has “denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.”  Infidel means someone who is outside the faith.  Yahweh forbid that we get caught falling short of this mandate to protect our families.  We then are charged to protect our household by whatever means necessary, be it “assault” rifle, or hand gun, or any other weapon essential to the protection of our family.

Others will remind us that our protection is in the strength of the Lord for he will provide all things.  Does that mean we sit down, do nothing, and expect a roof to magically appear over our heads, food to mystically appear on our tables, and money to wondrously show up in our pockets?

What foolishness!  We work to provide a home, food, income and, yes, guns and ammo that we might be able to care for our loved ones needs, comfort, and safety, while keeping in mind that we are also responsible for delivering the downtrodden from the oppressor.

What about turning the other cheek?  Just as in the example above, where the thief is breaking in, we are allowed to use deadly force when it is required.  However, turning the other cheek is applicable for insults, theft, when no life threatening force is presented, etc.  Romans 12 says that we turn the other cheek saving room for the wrath of God.  Romans 13 describes government as that wrath and it carries not the sword in vain.  For they (government) are to be a rewarder of good and a terror to evil.  In fact, that is the test to determine if an entity is just corrupt power or government.

We often hear quoted Romans 13:1-2:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”

There are two problems with the way this quote is often used.  First, one must continue reading the rest of the passage which says:

3 “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

But if what is called “government” is not following the command to be a terror to evil and not a terror to good, not being a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,” then it is not government by this definition and must be opposed.  Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to Yahweh.

The second problem with this quote is the verbiage. In this passage the word “power” is mistranslated.  Historically we need to remember that King James was at that time in history usurping a throne that was not his.  He had the power to ascend the throne, but not the authority.  Therefore, he often use synonymously the words power and authority.

The word that was translated “power” is not the Greek word dynamis which means power (as in dynamite) but the word exousia which means power derived from just authority.  Therefore, we are to be subject only to power derived from just authority.  If the entity calling itself government does not derive its power from just authority, then it is just tyranny not government. 

 The federal branch of American government attempting

to disarm one-third of the American government

is not government, but tyranny. 

Therefore, I must conclude that any attempt to disarm the people in any way, is sedition because it is in violation of our history, deprives one-third of the government—the people—of a right inherent to all, and despotically limits armaments to only two parts of government.  Further, it nullifies the ability to carry out the divine command to one-third of the American government—the people—to deliver the poor and oppressed from the hand of the wicked.  Additionally such a disarmament dramatically reduces or eliminates one’s ability to protect their family, home and nation.

As a citizen we are bound to protect this nation against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.  Any attempt to disarm We the People of this country is immoral, illegal and therefore violates the First Amendment as well as the Second Amendment, in addition to violating the commandments in the holy scriptures.  To disarm the people is at once an act of war, and, in fact, a coup d’état.  It is treason and sedition against the government of the United States, comprised of We The People.       

Finally, any home that is not prepared to protect its children, women, aged, infirmed, or weak is living in an unbiblical state of wanton disregard of a Biblical edict, historical precedent, and common sense.  As a result, we have not only been given the “right” by Yahweh to keep and bear arms, we have been given the obligation to keep and bear arms both as a spiritual matter and as a matter of U.S. law and historical understanding.

Comment

You need to be a member of No Compromise Foundation to add comments!

Join No Compromise Foundation

Comment by Jake Baker 22 hours ago

I would like to add that in the early days of our nation’s history, it was the ministers, the preachers of the gospel that helped lead the people to fight for our independence.  They were called the Black Robe Regiment.

What is the Black Robed Regiment?

A Brief History by David Barton

The Black Robed Regiment was the name that the British placed on the courageous and patriotic American clergy during the Founding Era (a backhanded reference to the black robes they wore). [1] Significantly, the British blamed the Black Regiment for American Independence, [2] and rightfully so, for modern historians have documented that:

There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763. [3]

It is strange to today’s generation to think that the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence were nothing more than a listing of sermon topics that had been preached from the pulpit in the two decades leading up to the American Revolution, but such was the case.

But it was not just the British … (continue reading about the Original Black Robed Regiment…)


On Obamacare (and Guns), We Won’t Comply – John Ransom – Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary.

On Obamacare (and Guns), We Won’t Comply

 

Americans know instinctively that when liberals start talking about deficit reduction that’s it’s just a case of the fantods, as Huckleberry Finn would say. And say what you will about old Huck, but he knew a couple of frauds when he saw them.

No matter what liberal “Wonks” like Ezra Klein say about the historically dumb healthcare “reform” known as Obamcare, Americans are uneasy about it.

And they should be.

More and more law-abiding Americans say that they have constitutional objections to the healthcare and liberty land grab by the Obama administration.

Coming next? It could be guns!

Despite Sotomayor Ruling, Hobby Lobby Won’t Comply With Abortifacient Mandate, says the National Catholic Register.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby as well as a number of other organizations and groups that have filed lawsuits against the mandate, said in a statement posted on its website following Sotomayor’s decision that the company would not provide abortifacient drugs in its health-insurance plan.

And the trend could grow, from healthcare to guns. And then, Houston, we have a problem.

The best thing- as Democrat strategist James Carville admitted last year- that could have happened for the Democrats is for the Supreme Court to have tossed out the landmark legislation that bears Obama’s name.

But that didn’t happen, so now the Democrats are stuck trying to make another bad law work.

Obamacare supporters like Ezra Klein, instead of trying to fix the problem continue to play dirty pool when it comes to healthcare reform.  They now count it as a deficit fighter, when in fact, it’s no such thing.

Unless of course you count any bill with a tax increase in it as a deficit fighter. A defense contract could be a deficit fighter too, if a defense contract was designed just like Obamacare.

Here let me show you the sleight of hand that liberals did to claim Obamacare fights the deficit.



Say, for example, that when we decommission the old Nimitz-class carriers we then replace them with the newer Gerald Ford class of carriers at $15 billion a clip. Let’s say, in this example, that we then raise taxes 3.8 percent on people who go over a certain income limit, to an extent that we not only pay for each carrier but we also create a surplus of $100 billion that we can apply to the deficit- just as they did in Obamcare. Actually in the case of the aircraft carriers, the exact same tax increase that the used for Obamacare would pay for the carriers and leave a surplus of $180 billion over the same period, almost twice what Obamacare claims.

Then we could pass both the replacement aircraft carrier budget authorization and the tax increase in one bundle- just as they did with Obamacare- and call it the The American Affordable Defense Act (AADA).

Then any time someone threatens to scrap the Ford class carriers we could cry out “But getting rid of the AADA would add to the deficit!”

While the typical American doesn’t necessarily know the ins and outs of Obamacare, the same confidence game has been played on them so may times that they are wise to it.

Counting on public stupidity to see a massive new spending program, like Obamacare, as some sort of deficit fighter, because THEY SAY IT IS, just shows you how weak the original case for Obamacare was in the first place.

And only in Washington can you start off entitlement reform that’s supposed to reduce spending, by ushering in a massive new government program that will greatly grow government spending. And then pat yourself on the back for it.

Wasn’t it the same type of entitlement Ponzi scheme that gave us the problem in the first place?

Wonks and politicians may not see it, but those guys are in the process of self term-limiting out of business anyway- either by votes or by pageviews. 2010 was just a preview, not a conclusion even accepting the standstill in the 2012 election.

Readers know that I hate to pick on the Washington Post this way, but I don’t know anyone who would willingly call themselves a wonk in the first place. The Post’s Wonk brand is stuck in the Way-Back Machine of the 1990s.

The Wonk Disneyland, known as DC, is exactly what gets us these kinds of political and mathematical ruses that pass for solutions these day. The only choice we will have soon is to stop complying with federal mandates like Obamacare.

Because Americans continue to favor repeal of Obamacare.

The Supreme Court decision calling Obamacare a tax will likely reinforce the opinion that it’s a flawed piece of legislation that greatly expands government bureaucracy at a time when Americans think that government is doing too much not too little.

You can pass Obamacare as a deficit measure and call it Constitutional -and then wonk about it all you want. But Americans know the truth.

Obamacare, like the tax on tea that saw a load of it dumped into Boston Harbor in 1773, is just plain dumb.  And both also go against natural law.

I won’t comply.

 

John Ransom

John Ransom

John Ransom is the Finance Editor for Townhall Finance. You can follow him on twitter @bamransom and on Facebook: bamransom.

TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall columns and Townhall.com’s daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.