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.

An Open Letter to Obama Voters

Posted: October 23, 2012 in Uncategorized

An Open Letter to Obama Voters.

An Open Letter To Obama Voters

Share19

Democrat Conventioneers An Open Letter to Obama Voters

Did you vote for Barack Obama in 2008? A lot of people did – obviously.

What a time. There’s still room for improvement, but what a testimony to just how far we as a nation have come in terms of racial harmony, tolerance, and diversity.

Only decades earlier, a man like Barack Obama – a black man – couldn’t even drink from the same water fountain as a white man, let alone become president of the United States. A hundred years prior to that, and he may well have been counted another man’s property.

On Nov. 4, 2008, millions gathered at the ballot box to prove, once and for all, that, in large measure, we as a nation have healed from our disgraceful, self-inflicted wounds of racial abuse, bias, and division.

That we could elect an African-American to lead the free world is indeed a very good thing.

We just happened to elect the wrong African-American.

In life, we sometimes find that the idea of a thing is far better than the thing itself. As a boy, I once ordered, from a comic book, a pair of X-ray glasses that promised to allow me to see the bones beneath my hand (my motives were a bit more ignoble). The two weeks it took for the glasses to arrive seemed like an eternity.

Once they did arrive, I ripped into the package and put them on, darting my head to-and-fro. It’s difficult to express my level of disappointment. As I quickly discovered, the glasses merely formed a halo effect around objects, creating the illusion of transparency. I felt embarrassed. I got took.

Barack Obama’s presidency has been a halo effect. Like I did so many years ago, in 2008, America fell victim to false advertising. As the past four years have demonstrated beyond any serious debate, the idea of President Obama was far better than the reality of President Obama. We were promised the world. We were promised transparency; but we were sold an illusion. We got took.

Indeed, during the 2008 campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama promised us that, if elected, we would look back upon the moment he took office and “tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.”

That was the idea of President Obama. That was what many good, well-meaning people voted for. That was the hope offered and the change promised.

That was not what we got.

Though it’s certainly not a comprehensive analysis, during the second presidential debate, Mitt Romney, in response to Mr. Obama’s attempts to gloss over his mounting leadership failures, summarized a few of the big ones. While addressing an audience member who, perhaps like you, voted for Obama in 2008, Romney observed, in part, the following:

“I think you know better. I think you know that these last four years haven’t been so good as the president just described and that you don’t feel like you’re confident that the next four years are going to be much better either. …

“He said that, by now, we’d have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. …

“He said he would have, by now, put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security because he pointed out they’re on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He’d get that done. He hasn’t even made a proposal on either one.

“He said in his first year he’d put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn’t even file it.

“This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he’d do. He said that he’d cut in half the deficit. He hasn’t done that either. In fact, he doubled it.

“He said that by now, middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It’s gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is … implemented fully, it’ll be another $2,500. …

“The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. … [T]he number of people who are still looking for work is still 23 million Americans.

“There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.

“How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It’s growing more slowly this year than last year – and more slowly last year than the year before. …”

The president has tried, but his policies haven’t worked.

Recently, my wife and I attended an outdoor festival in central Virginia. Although the event was not political, there were people from both the Obama and Romney camps handing out campaign stickers and other items. I suspect that if a poll were taken, liberals outnumbered conservatives by about two-to-one.

That’s why I was so taken aback. Although we saw dozens of people wearing Romney stickers, we only saw one man wearing an Obama sticker.

We walked up to a fellow with a gray pony tail, John Lennon glasses, and Birkenstocks. He was wearing a Romney sticker.

“Mind if I ask why you’re voting for Mitt Romney?” I asked. “I assume you are.”

His reply – and these were his words, not mine – was short and to the point: “Because I refuse to be that stupid twice.”

Changing one’s mind doesn’t always reveal a tendency toward indecision. Sometimes, changing one’s mind reveals a tendency toward wisdom.

 

Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.

 

Photo credit: BeFrank (Creative Commons)


Memo to Romney on Iran surprise.

BETWEEN THE LINES

Memo to Romney on Iran surprise

Exclusive: Joseph Farah shares shocking inside information on Obama’s nuke deal

Published: 1 day ago

twitter icon Follow author rss feed Subscribe to author feed

The media are asleep at the switch on what could prove to be the biggest story of the presidential campaign.

Mitt Romney needs to be paying close attention.

As WND reported last week, Barack Obama has secretly sent high-level emissaries to meet with representatives of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Qatar to set the stage for a major announcement any day that a deal has been struck over Iran’s nuclear program.

The problem with the deal is that is a phony diplomatic coup – designed only to propel Obama’s re-election bid.

Here’s the essence of the deal: Iran would make a gesture to “temporarily suspend” part of its nuclear enrichment program in exchange for a lifting of U.S. sanctions. Obama would send Iran a letter accepting Iran’s contention that it does not have any nuclear weapons ambitions, and he would announce to the world that a foreign country (unnamed) was responsible for the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists.

Obama’s representatives made clear to Iran that a Romney administration would be more pro-Israel and that the current administration discouraged Israel from attacking Iran.

Iran’s delegate was told, in no uncertain terms, “Play ball with Obama before Election Day or face an attack by Israel in a Romney administration.”

It’s worth noting that no State Department representatives were in attendance at this meeting on or about Oct. 1. Instead, the outreach to Iran is being directed by Valerie Jarrett, a key political strategist for Obama and an Iranian-born member of his inner circle.

This could be the “October Surprise” Obama is planning to swing the election his way. With the rest of the media in the dark as to the nature of this impending deal, they are likely to allow the White House to write the script for them. Even alternative media and talk radio are largely ignoring the critical details of the breakthrough reporting by Reza Kahlili for WND.

Unless that situation changes in the next few days – with more developments coming – there’s only one thing that can blunt the impact of this dangerous political charade: Mitt Romney’s awareness of the facts.

The Iran nuclear program represents a political and geo-strategic game-changer.

Obama knows this.

He is likely to attempt, in the next few days, to turn this “breakthrough” into his own Camp David-style achievement.

The establishment news media will not be doing any digging for the truth. They are neither equipped for it, nor inclined to do it – so long as it helps Obama. The alternative media aren’t much better when it comes to hard-hitting investigative reporting, especially into foreign affairs and the Middle East. They just don’t have the personnel and sources on the ground.

I’m writing this as a warning – to Americans and to Mitt Romney.

I don’t expect the media to see through this ruse.

Now think about this: No one in the Obama administration has hinted at an impending deal with Iran on its nuclear program. I am not hinting. I am telling you it’s coming. So when you see these events unfold, who are you going to believe?

Are you going to believe what Obama says? Are you going to believe this amazing “breakthrough” just came about coincidentally a few days before the election? Are you going to believe this was the result of hard diplomatic work and tough negotiating over the last four years? Or are you going to recognize this was an act of political desperation, a sell-out of national security, a betrayal of Israel and a deal with the devil?

Consider yourself warned.

Team Romney: Take heed of this briefing. How you handle what’s coming could well determine who is serving in the White House come Jan. 20, 2013.


VP Debate Preview: Joe Just Needs to Be Joe… and Everybody Knows Joe’s an Idiot – The Rush Limbaugh Show.

VP Debate Preview: Joe Just Needs to Be Joe… and Everybody Knows Joe’s an Idiot

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: No, Joe Biden isn’t just an idiot: he’s a fucking idiot!

October 11, 2012

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH:  Okay, so what’s the subtext for the debate tonight?  Not even a subtext.  What is the spin, the predebate spin? The predebate spin for the debate tonight is, “Don’t expect too much from Biden, he’s always been an idiot.”  Well, that’s what it is.  We got a montage, “Joe just needs to be Joe.”  Well, what’s Joe?  Joe’s an idiot.  They’re really trying to tamp down the expectations of Biden in this debate tonight. He’s got the unenviable task of trying to defend Obama’s record and his record, which Obama couldn’t do. So everybody is revved up to watch this thing tonight.

This is gonna get a big audience, too.  You know, the first debate, 65, 70 million people.  One of these guys from California that projects the election based on the economy (they haven’t been wrong since 1980) one of these guys says, “Look, the thing to take away from the first debate is the size of the audience that tuned in.”  He says 70 million people tuning in means that there are a whole lot of people out there who really are paying attention and want to change their vote. I mean, not so much want to change their vote, but are open to changing their vote.  That 70 million is the greatest indication of dissatisfaction with status quo. That if a small number of people tuned in, “Ah, no big deal.  Why watch this debate?  I’m not changing my mind.”  But 70 million watching means that there are a lot of people not happy with current circumstances. I thought it was a great point of view.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We put together a montage for the big debate tonight, a little montage of Obama and other Democrats and their singular advice for Joe Biden tonight in his debate with Paul Ryan…

DIANE SAWYER: What’s your message to Joe Biden about tomorrow night?

OBAMA: Well I… (big sigh) You know, I think Joe just needs to be Joe.

BIDEN 08.14.12: They’re going to put y’all back in chains!

OBAMA: Joe just needs to be Joe.

BIDEN 01.30.07: (background noise) You got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.

OBAMA: Joe just needs to be Joe.

BIDEN 07.11.06: (background noise) You cannot go to a 7/Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking!

OBAMA: Joe just needs to be Joe.

BIDEN 06.27.12: My grandpop used to say, “Joey, when the guy in Dunmore, the next town over, is out of work it’s an economic slowdown. When your brother-in-law is out of work, it’s a recession. When you’re out of work it’s a depression.” It’s a depression for millions and millions of Americans!

OBAMA: Joe just needs to be Joe.

BIDEN 10.02.12: (audience noise) This is deadly earnest. How they can justify, raisin’ taxes on the middle class that’s been buried the last four years. How in Lord’s name?

OBAMA: Joe just needs to be Joe.

BIDEN 09.09.08: Chuck Graham, state senator, is here. Stand up, Chuck! Let ’em see ya! (rimshot) Oh, God love you. What am I talking about? (rimshot) I tell you what, you’re making everybody else stand up, though, pal. (rimshot) I tell you what, stand up for Chuck! (rimshot).

OBAMA: Joe just needs to be Joe.

RUSH: “Joe just needs to be Joe.”

That was Chuck Graham, state senator from Missouri, who’s in a wheelchair. “Stand up, Chuck! Let ’em see ya! Oh, God love you, Chuck. Oh, what the hell happened? What am I talking about?” Yeah, Joe just needs to be Joe. And I’m sure you could think of countless other examples that we coulda plugged into our montage.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We sit around here and we laugh at and make fun of Joe Biden, but I just want to remind you of something. This guy used to be the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the… I don’t know if he was ranking during the Clarence Thomas hearings, but he was there.

He can be as below-the-belt sleazy, dishonest, typical left-wing as anybody out there. He may now have this image of bumbling old grandfather running around saying inane things. But he has a track record of sleaze: Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, Ed Meese. This guy can employ all of the filthy tactics that anybody on the left can. And don’t think for a moment he won’t. He’s gonna come out for Ryan, and the way he does this is he will go overboard complimenting Ryan.

He’ll come out and say he’s so honored to be here. Paul Ryan, he’ll talk about him as a great up-and-comer, how we’re all lucky to have such a caring and decent guy in the House. He’ll go on and on and on about how wonderful a guy Ryan is, and then say, “But he just doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He really cares, but, I mean, come on, man! He doesn’t really have a clue. He tries. He’s working real hard.”

He’ll be as condescending as he can be. You wait! The purpose of this is he’s gonna try to rattle Ryan, get him off his game, try and get him to go personal with Biden. Ryan knows this, and I think he’s well prepared for it. I just want to warn you: Biden is not this bumbling, doddering old grandfather that’s half senile. Now, it is true — it is true — that Biden has not faced media questions in five months.

He hasn’t. They’ve shielded him. You know the last time he had any major media time? It was when he went out and talked about how he has no problem with same-sex marriage, and this was prior to the Democrat convention. If you recall, Obama was holding that in reserve. Obama hoped to light up his convention. At the time Obama was thinking about it. What was the word they were using? He was reflecting. (interruption)

Oh, yes, yes. He was “evolving.” Obama was evolving on the issue of same-sex marriage, ’cause up to that moment he had not come out for it. But he was “evolving” on it. He was gonna make a big, grand announcement where he had completed his evolving, his evolution. It was gonna be either at the convention or shortly after, because there was some damage they had to limit.

A number of African-American churches and preachers want no part of same-sex marriage. In fact, there’s a group of black preachers that’s gonna spend a million dollars running an ad campaign trying to convince 25% of blacks in this country not to vote for Obama. Now, I don’t know how much they’re gonna succeed with a million bucks, but that’s what they’re gonna spend.

It’s a big issue for some of these black churches and black preachers, and they don’t like any of it. So Obama was evolving, and Biden went out there, and one of the theories was that Biden preempted Obama on purpose because there was talk at the time of brooming him and replacing him with Hillary. Biden didn’t wanna be humiliated. Biden didn’t want to be thrown off the ticket. Biden, for all we know, wants to be president someday!

He’s run before, and if he gets thrown off the ticket, that kind of kiboshes that. So some people theorized that Biden was saying, “Oh, you’re gonna throw me off the ticket? Here, watch this,” and he went out and stole all the thunder on same-sex marriage, A, and then possibly embarrassed Obama. He kind of forced Obama to go ahead and finish his “evolving.” Some people thought that Biden might be taken to the woodshed.

He might have been taken to the woodshed, because ever since then we haven’t seen Biden. Since then, we haven’t heard from Biden. Now, they built an exact replica of the set tonight for Biden to rehearse, and he has been rehearsing with Chris Van Hollen, congressman from Maryland. He’s an equally sleazy, mean, potentially very mean guy. And that’s what Biden is. I just warn you again.

I fully expect him to come out here and be overwhelmingly gracious and nice and complimentary until he digs the knife in. It’ll be in a grandfatherly, “I got all kinds of wisdom. This a great up-and-comer, but it’s not his time yet. We’re so fortunate to have a guy like Paul Ryan in our government. We’re so fortunate to have man of just great potential. But, Paul, you don’t know what you’re talking about yet, man!

“You gotta keep working on it. I really love you, man, but you don’t have a clue.” It will be something like that, mark my words. If not at the beginning of the debate, it will be somewhere in the debate. But it’s gonna be condescension. “I know all. I’ve been here years. I got experience. You’re a neophyte. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re a nice guy, but you’re really a fool.”

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Bob in Crossville, Tennessee. Folks, Snerdley loves calls from the South. We do get calls from other states. It’s just he loves the South. He loves ’em, loves the accents. This is Bob in Tennessee. Bob, hi.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I’m not originally from Tennessee. I was with you from day one in WABC in New York.

RUSH: Oh, so you fled!

CALLER: Yeah, I fled. Like you.

RUSH: (laughing) Yes. Yes, I hear you.

CALLER: I’m reading and hearing this commentary about how Old Joe is such a great debater, and my recollection of 2008 vice presidential debate is not that Joe demolished Sarah Palin.

RUSH: He didn’t.

CALLER: I think it went the other way.

RUSH: Yeah. As I saw your call up there and your question, “Do you recall Biden beating Sarah Palin?” I don’t. I don’t. Drudge’s headline is, “America’s Favorite Punch Line,” with a picture of Biden. Look, I told you earlier what Biden’s gonna do. I don’t have time to tell you again but you know I’m right. Go back and research it.

 

END TRANSCRIPT


Chris Matthews Freaks Out At Obama: “What Was He Doing?” | RealClearPolitics.

Editor’s Note: Wassamatta Chris? The “tingle” running up your leg starting to feel like piss running down?  You dip-shit jerkwad!

Chris Matthews Freaks Out At Obama: “What Was He Doing?”

“Tonight wasn’t an MSNBC debate tonight, was it?” Chris Matthews said after the first Obama-Romney presidential debate concluded on Wednesday night.

“I don’t know what he was doing out there. He had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. Romney, on the other hand, came in with a campaign. He had a plan, he was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive, he was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively, he was going to relish the evening, enjoying it,” Matthews said.

“Here’s my question for Obama: I know he likes saying he doesn’t watch cable television but maybe he should start. Maybe he should start. I don’t know how he let Romney get away with the crap he throughout tonight about Social Security,” Matthews complained.

Matthews then demanded that President Obama start watching cable news, specifically his program.

“Where was Obama tonight? He should watch — well, not just Hardball, Rachel, he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence. He would learn something about this debate. There’s a hot debate going on in this country. You know where it’s been held? Here on this network is where we’re having the debate,” Matthews said.

“We have our knives out,” Matthews said, admitting his network is trying their best to defend Obama and his policies. “We go after the people and the facts. What was he doing tonight? He went in there disarmed.”

“He was like, ‘Oh an hour and half? I think I can get through this thing. And I don’t even look at this guy.’ Whereas Romney — I love the split-screen — staring at Obama, addressing him like prey. He did it just right. ‘I’m coming at an incumbent. I got to beat him. You’ve got to beat the champ and I’m going to beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy, the moderator, whatever he thinks he is because I’m going to ignore him,” Matthews said.

“What was Romney doing?” Matthews asked. “He was winning.”

“If he does five more of these nights, forget it,” Matthews added. “Obama should watch MSNBC, my last point. He will learn something every night on this show and all these shows. This stuff we’re watching, it’s like first grade for most of us. We know all this stuff.”