Currently viewing the tag: "general news"

Rick Perry’s self-destruction.

AUSTIN – Today Governor Perry released the following statement in response to Donald Trump’s reprehensible comments on Senator John McCain. “Donald…
rickperry.org|By Rick Perry
Read More

Once again, the dark army of the progressive liberty-killing machine does its work. All hail the regulators, the real legislators in America today.

Read More

You will always be able to find a goon willing to muscle free people for unjust reasons.  The key, usually, is to employ the goon to work in communities the goon doesn’t come from.
The progressives are working aggressively on moving you to not just accept, but to cry out for the federalization of your local police force, so the next person that  comes out to your house won’t be the guy you went to high school with, it will be a guy from 3 states over, whose just following orders.
If you think you don’t trust the police now, wait until they have even LESS accountability, the same level of accountability our federal regulators have.
All of these candidates currently running?  None of them are coming close to addressing the real destroyers of your liberty, not threats, destroyers, for even as you embrace the latest political drama, even as you prepare to watch the next baseball game, your liberty is being denied. An army of unelected regulators never sleep.  Their beans are always getting counted as they figure out the next advance against your very right to be.
They are already figuring out how, without passing legislation, without letting you see what they’re doing, to use existing ‘law’ to expand federal power into your local police sheriff’s office.
You see, the perpetual tweaking of ‘law’ is doing by regulators, operating on the progressive model of ‘living documents’, where words on paper, unencumbered by literalist boundaries, are capable of producing, through great semantic gymnastics, the ‘legal’ changes required to drive the screws in deeper to build their liberty-destroying machines, machines that you, friend, are powering, even as you sit here.
Not ONE candidate is addressing the power of the Spartan social engineers, the invisible regulator class that does in the darkness what no politician would dare do in the public eye, at least, not yet, for you are still not quite sufficiently pacified.  But soon, soon you will be.

Read More

Looking at comments on pages attacking Trump, I’d say he’s not done. I’d also say these attacks are driving more people to him.
The minute Trump backs down, equivocates, apologizes, he’s instantly done.
For better or worst, he is the unapologetic, ruthless, fight like your life depends on it and you will never accept defeat kind of way candidate

Still underestimating Trump. I am NOT a Trump supporter. But man, how are so many people not seeing what’s going on? Your efforts to stop him are only damaging your alternatives and helping him. The typical rules of politics are not at play. You… Are…. Missing… The…. RAGE!

Read More

This is not liberty, America. Progressives, this is the type of power you enable. One day, conservatives will do the same to you.
Unlike you, I won’t be silent if ‘my team’ does this.

Abuse that formerly only went on in places like China, Russia, and Iran has repeatedly happened right here within the United States.
DAILYSIGNAL.COM
Read More

The civil rights act addressed a real need with an opportunistic federal power grab that violates our 1st Amendment rights. It went far beyond what needed to be done to simply get out of the way of people being able to defend themselves and build alternatives to racist institutions.
Ending government-mandated discrimination is one thing, coercing private entities into not being racist is another thing altogether.
Without the civil rights act, the power of the federal government to micro manage our affairs would be significantly reduced.

June 10, 1964, was a dramatic day in the United States Senate. For the first time in its history, cloture …
thegatewaypundit.com|By Jim Hoft
Read More

There is nothing a politician fears more than a well-armed, well-trained citizenry. This is much more intimidating than a vote. They can manipulate voters. They have. They use party primaries and election laws that favor those parties. They use vulgarly drawn district maps to create safe seats for their party-chosen candidate.
Elections mean Nothing! Laws are ghosts on paper made to be violated, loopholed. The only reality that scares a politician is the day you wake up and realize you have the POWER to end what they have taken centuries to carefully craft, a protection from liberty so that they and their progeny might continue to proper from plunder.

Read More

from TiogaFreedomist.com

Original Article from Tiogafreedomist.com A Drug Report on Tioga County- The Story of Goodies for Our Troops- OPEC Fail- Jade Helm Begins- more- FREE PDF Download Read more… This article is copyright © Tioga Freedomist

Go to Original Article from TiogaFreedomist.com

Read More

If you’re a public school teacher, by ‘law’ you have to pay union dues. You don’t have a choice.
If you’re not a progressive statist, the favorite kind of people for state-run schools, you will see your money, against your will, being spent to work AGAINST you.
And yet progressives LOVE this anti-choice practice.
Progressivism- the only choices you have is murdering babies, getting high and having sex. All other choices are made for you by the state. The party of anti-choice.

People who reject collectivist subjugation of individual liberty and individual and local sovereignty really ARE the greatest threat to progressive America.
People who advance the cause of collectivism, no matter its form, are the greatest threat to a free America.
We are, for each other, more of an existential threat to one another than ISIS ever could be.

Read More

Useful life, not sacred life…. The way of the progressive.

Embattled MIT professor Jonathan Gruber has not only gotten in trouble for bragging about helping President Obama put one over on the American people…
breitbart.com
Read More
The Optics Of The Obama-Castro Meetings

Bill Collier- The meeting with Cuba’s dictator will no doubt leave a bad taste in the mouth of President Obama’s critics and many Cubans, for whom the Castros are synonymous with Hitler or Stalin. The image of the President proudly smiling with glee and talking about how nations should only use pursuasion and nothing more in their dealings with one another is in stark contrast to the scowls and bitter bromides his domestic political opponents feel they endure. It was well beyond “persuasion”, his critics lament, for the IRS (allegedly) to turned loose on the President’s political opponents.

Of course the President’s supporters seem happy with the move, indeed the left in this country idolize the likes of Che Guevara, an Argentinian communist who played a key role in Cuba’s revolution. For them, opening trade, diplomacy, and travel to Cuba seems a bit like a dream come true. Michael Moore, a leftist documentary film maker, even came to Cuba to extol the virtues of its health care system.

The President has been seen with many foreign leaders who seem unsavory, including the Chinese communist leaders who notoriously order to aborting of all children beyond a couple’s first child unless that couple can pay steep penalties for “permission” to have other children. But so too have other Presidents been seen with such characters, and the President pointed out that having dialogue and diplomacy does not constitute agreement as such. For him, merely having diplomacy and dialogue is an improvement that might just mitigate future conflict. This is exactly what is being done with Iran, and normalization of relations is the end goal.

But Cuba is 90 miles off the coast of Florida, so the fact we have a communisty tyranny so close and that, with economic trade, it could afford (again) to export its revolution by force (as it once did) is deeply troubling. That the current American President proclaims policies that to his critics sound too much like the rhetoric coming from Cuba on “economic justice” only makes the optics of a Castro-Obama relationship seem all the more objectionable. A communist dictatorship across the ocean is one thing, but many Americans feel, instinictively, a particular revulsion for a communist dictatorship 90 miles from Florida!

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Make no mistake, the Castro regime is a massive human right violator. Even during the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Panama, anti-Castro protestors were brutally beaten by Cuban security who were on scene while the Panammian police stood by and did nothing.

For a President who is accused of being in bed with communism and who is accused of over-stepping his bounds of authority, the optics of being more friendly and congenial to Raul Castro than he has been toward his domestic opponents, the optics were particularly unfavorable: at least in the eyes of his domestic political critics. But President Obama believes an opening with Cuba might soften the regime and do for Cuba what Nixon felt US relations with Communist China would do: export the values of freedom. Some would argue that Nixon’s China policy has failed and that, instead of exporting freedom, America imported shades of socialism.

Despite his smiles and clear satisfaction in meeting with a man many see as an enemy of American values, despite the fact a majority of Americans appear to approve of this opening of relations with the communist dictatorship, one should not expect such efforts at open and cordial dialogue and a commitment to not go beyond persuasion with the President’s domestic political opponents.

Read More
Showdown Over Amnesty Versus DHS Funding Highlights American Divide

Paul Gordon Collier- There are 17 days left before the Department of Homeland Security will lose some of its funding.  The House passed a bill funding the DHS, but selectively de-funded parts of the DHS that would be needed to implement the order given by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson to stop all deportations of certain classes of illegal, or undocumented immigrants.  The order followed a recommendation by President Obama, but is more commonly referred to as the President’s Executive Action granting amnesty to illegal, or undocumented workers.

The bill is now stalled in the Senate, not because it lacks a majority to pass it, but because the democrats have been filibustering the Bill. The Senate requires 60 votes to bring legislation up for a vote.  So far, the GOP has only mustered 54 of the needed 60 votes.  The tactic of stopping legislation by not voting for it to come to the floor is called a filibuster.

The GOP ran in the 2014 election with a specific promise to stop President Obama’s Amnesty Executive Order.  Much of the GOP views the landslide victory from that election, where they flipped the Senate, took a super-majority in the House and scored major victories in State Legislatures not seen in almost 100 years, as a mandate for them to do whatever needs to be done to stop the President’s Executive Order (or, to be precise, DHS Secretary Johnson’s order).

A Rasmussen report from August of 2014, when the President announced his intention to implement executive action to create amnesty for illegal, or undocumented immigrants, found that 62 percent of Americans opposed the action.

From the democrat perspective, playing politics with the DHS is a demonstration of bad governance.  If the GOP wants to oppose Obama’s executive action, there are many other ways to do this without risking national security.  A Wall Street editorial even excoriated the GOP for its strategy, calling GOP members like Cruz and Sessions ‘restrictionists.’

The perspective from the DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson echoes the perspective from the left.  Remember, Johnson is the one who actually issued the order, following the President’s recommendation.  Jeh Johnson had this to say in an interview on CNN:

“If people in Congress want to have the debate about immigration reform, let’s have that debate. But don’t tie that to funding public safety and Homeland Security for the American people.  This is not a situation to make light of. In these challenging times, we need a fully-funded Department of Homeland Security.”

Johnson went to warn that furloughs could result for a minimum of 30,000 employees.  He further elaborated that he had concerns the agency would not be able to meet the growing security threats on our borders and from within.

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Ted Cruz has been attributed as the architect behind the DHS funding strategy of the Republicans.  However, he denied that role:”It’s now up to leadership to lay out their strategy, I told them this was not a winning strategy and they went down this road.”

On the Filibuster effort of the Democrats in the Senate, Cruz had this to say, “What we saw last week was stunning irresponsibility from the Senate Democrats, the Senate Democrats three times filibustered funding.”

Through all the smoke and mirrors, what emerges are really two clear narratives, one from the perspective of the left and one from the right.

The narrative from the left is this:
For partisan political reasons, stopping the President’s Executive Action granting Amnesty, the GOP is willing to put the country’s security at risk.  The GOP would rather break up families and deport children than fund the security of America.

The narrative from the right is this:
For the sake of awarding an unconstitutional act granting amnesty to illegal aliens, who will now be rewarded with taxpayer monies through welfare, the earned income tax credit, college grants, etc, the democrats are willing to put this country’s security at risk.  They are protecting the President and choosing illegal aliens over Americans.

The question forthcoming will be this; which side is able to better articulate their narrative and which narrative are the American people more pre-disposed to digest?  The question for you is this; which narrative makes more sense to you?

Read More

Why Boehner and McConnell Should Step Aside

By Bill Collier Jr- The conservative base of the GOP wants Boehner and McConnell, the respective GOP heads of the House and Senate, to go. They want them to go because the base believe these men, indeed the entire leadership of the GOP, are quislings at the helm selling their soul to special interests on a number of issues, including the Affordable Care Act (so-called Obamacare) and “Immigration Reform”. The conservative base feel un-represented in DC and they are, as Democratic pollster Pat Cadell has claimed, “ready to bolt the party.”

Average Americans do not closely follow the minutae and nuances of the political scene and do not have an in-depth working knowledge of the American political process. This does not mean they lack the acumen to understand these things, it’s only a matter of how much time they have: and understanding these things to the granular level takes time.

The truth is, as I see it anyway, that “realpolitik”, the art of the possible in the political process set before you, is not very simple or straightfoward. One might argue convincingly that in many ways Boehner and McConnell are masters of the art of realpolitik. Their ceaseless manuevering cannot be discounted as a factor in their party’s stunning successes in the last election cycle, though they’d be mistaken to assume they take the sole credit for those successes. They are indeed playing chess while it seems the President is still playing checkers, or at least that is the argument.

Some would counter that Americans are fed up with “realpolitik”, that they are becoming incresingly anti-establishment, regardless of their political persuasion. They want politics to be up front and simple, and people-powered instead of being driven by elites and special interests who buy access and influence. All this is grist for the populist mill on both sides of the political spectrum, but it is not entirely true that this sentiment drives dissatisfaction with leaders.

Far from populist sentiment driving dissatisfaction with leaders who master realpolitik, I would argue that dissatisfaction with leaders drives populist sentiment. And I say this as someone who, on principle, embraces a more populist politics driven by consensus of the People, especially at the local level.

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The real problem is not whether or not Boehner and McConnell understand realpolitik, the real problem is whether they can be both masters of that art and dynamic leaders of their own potential supporters. We should, I propose, take it as a given that if 60% or more of members of the Republican Party, this according to Pat Caddell’s polling, reject their own leaders then there is a leadership problem. When leaders must take to sniping their own allies and friends who demonstrate a lack of confidence in their leadership, then those leaders should step aside. When your own support base canot stand you then you cannot blame them and call them names in a petulant act of whining.

Already, Boehner is retaliating against those 25 House members of his own party who voted against him. And it is remarkable to see the number of House members who voted for him trying to excuse their vote to angry constituents who have been raising royal hell on the phone lines for the past few days. It would seem to the average American conservative that the GOP are far more afraid of harsh editorials by the New York Times than they are of angry constituents who have lost confidence in their ability to lead.

I am not arguing that Boehner and McConnell are in fact liberals in disguise plotting with the Democrats to move American down the road to socialism, as many angry conservatives are. I actually believe they are playing realpolitik in a skilled manner that will ultimately unravel the plans of their opponents on the left. I do not believe these men are not conservatives. But the reality is that these two men are focused on the traditional roles of leading a caucus of elected Republicans, a role that, arguably, is what their positions have normally entailed, and not on also being the leaders of PEOPLE on the street level who are looking for a symbol of their values and their opposition to their political opponents on the left.

The traditional role of merely being the leader of a Party Caucus is just not sufficient in the 21st century. In times past, people barely knew who these party leaders were, but not so today. Everything they do and say is published and broadcast to the Party base without any party filter- it is transmitted by bloggers and conservative news sites who are constantly looking for re-assurance that their leaders are towing their line. That those leaders have tended to just assume that if you tell your own base about the nuances required in realpolitik while assuring them of your shared goals that the base won’t get it is unfortunate.

The conservative base, up to 60% of the Republican party, no longer believes party leadership have the same vision or represent the same values they hold dear. This is not the fault of the followers, it is the fault of the leaders. And for this reason alone Boehner and McConnell should step aside from leadership and help find leaders who know how to both master realpolitik AND rally and inspire their Party’s core of supporters- and they should do this before that base just up and walks away.

Read More
SPECULATION- Obama May Recognize Palestinian State

Bill Collier- Rumors are circulating that President Obama may unilaterally authorize the State Department to extend “some level of recognition” of a Palestinian State in a move not unlike the sudden reversal of US policy regarding Cuba.

In that move, the President worked for over a year without disclosing his intentions to ANY member of Congress and it is believed that a similar approach is being taken with regard to the Palestinian bid for statehood. This effort would receive the blessings of John Kerry although many Democrats, who receive millions of dollars in campaign donations from Jewish sources, could face a backlash from those same sources if such a poicy shift were to materialize.

It is known that the US has threatened to use a UN veto if the UN Gernal Assembly votes to recognize the Palestinian State, however in recent statements the US has indicated this would be based on “the language of the resolution.” This seeming backpeddle has led to speculation that a policy reversal is in the offing.

While this move seems unlikely, so too did the Cuban move, which has already caused outrage in the Cuban expat community. It would appear that the President, mindful that he has no more elections to endure and determined to use executive authority to what he perceives its limits to be, a line some feel has already gone too far beyond the legal norm, wants to push as much of his true ideological agenda as possible. It is calculated by some that his (alleged) vision for totally transforming America into what must objectively be defined as a leftwing presidential state that is led by technocrats with centralized authority supercedes all other considerations.

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

What is certain is that the President is swinging for the fences, determined to stay in control of the agenda and determined to keep his political opponents in reaction mode as he pursues initiative after initiative without consulting anyone but his own intuation.

Recognition of a Palestinian State while Congress is in recess, in between the recess of the old Congress and the swearing in of the new Congress, would be a fait accompli which the President may believe his political opponents could do little about, but it would also be extremely unpopular among all but the hard core leftist base. It would throw Israel into the arms of China and Russia and increase the likelihood of Israel taking Iran’s threats and potential of obtaining nuclear weapons into its own hands, and it would undercut Arab efforts to begin a process of moving toward an understanding with Israel. Finally, it would result in a Hamas controlled “proto-state” and place Israel at direct varience with US policy.

We will be watching events closely and while we cannot confirm that such rumors are true, the recent backtracking on statements about a UN resolution recognizing a Palestinian State and the recent move regarding Cuba seem to bolster such speculations.

Read More

Bill Collier- Officer Darren Wilson did not give a “a death sentence for petty robbery” as some who many see as race-baiters are saying. He was shot by a police officer who claims that this young man was threatening his life. A death sentence occurs when a court find someone guilty and passes a sentence. When an individual defends themselves, whether as a cop on the beat or a home owners facing an intruder, the death caused by their action is considered an act of self-defense. But as “blacklash” aimed at whites and cops is fomented by the likes of Al Sharpton and, some argue, the President himself, some fear the “whitelash” that will follow as angered whites, and cops, decide to push back against what they see as a libelous narrative that paints them ALL as criminals, racists, or jst inferior people from a moral perspective.

The real issue in this particular case is whether the officer acted in self-defense and the Grand Jury decided that he was, or at least that they could not indict him. Mike Brown is being made the new “hero” of the so-called “civil rights” movement, a movement that some argue is now demanding “special rights” for black criminals. The real issues in general are whether or not our police forces have non-lethal alternatives and whether or not there is an embedded prejudice against minorities by some police officers, enough so that we should have a national discussion about the issue.

While some would argue that, regardless of the details of this case, who was right and who was wrong. these issues of police aggressiveness and prejudice in some instances, the strategy employed by Ferguson inspired “protesters” (in quotes  because too many protesters have acted as little more than looting thugs) is making such rational and honest discussion impossible. It is merely leading to more hate and anger, and more prejudice on both sides.

The choice of Mike Brown as the symbol of these issues is problematic for civil rights activists in more ways than they seem to realize. To make a young man whose death, tragic as it may be, was at least partly the result of his own criminal conduct discredits all who use him as their “poster boy” means, to some, nothing more than painting all whites as criminals and amounts to a demand that black criminals should not be apprehended,  let alone punished Of course, the protesters and their supporters would deny this is what they want. and that is probably true, but the “optics” of having Mike Brown be the face of their movement are not good.

People in America are not being persuaded by the radical #Ferguson protests, by their disruptions, or by their broad-brushed accusations against all police and all white people. They are not impressed with painting all white people and all police with a broad brush more akin to blood libel that promotes violence against the maligned groups. Indeed, violence against whites, for simply being white, is on the rise, and everyone knows about the “knockout game” where blacks  come up on an unsuspecting white person and knock them out. Demonizing white people and cops will only continue so much longer, and violence against those groups will only be tolerated so much longer, before the gloves come off and a violent push back, sadly and tragically, begins to take place.

For instance, I can see a group of these “protesters” storming into a crowded mall accusing white people of this or that and being bum rushed by an enraged crowd who have just about HAD ENOUGH of being slandered because of the color of their skin. The rage these so-called race-baiters (aas some have labeled them) are feeding is going to erupt, and violently, because, as history shows us, no group of people, especially a MAJORITY, will long endure being abused through no fault of their own.

As a “white man” myself I am deeply angered and offended by people who accuse me of being “privileged” or “prejudice” just because I am white. I have experienced racism and hate both because I was white at the hands of prejudiced blacks (I must note, black people came to my defense) and by whites because I had a black girlfriend (Vietnamese refugees rescued me in this case). I do not own or receive or tolerate such slanders against myself because of the color of my skin. But I am not going to react in violence, the weapons of my warfare are spiritual, not carnal- I understand that demonic forces are behind this ramping up of hate and mistrust.

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

But I can see, and predict, that a violent backlash is coming, a whitelsh against the ongoing blasklash which Al Sharpton seems intent on fueling with his divisive rhetoric. I myself feel anger that rise up in me, a desire to strike back and punish these who accuse ME of being morally inferior just because I am born white, but I understand that this is of the flesh and is demonically inspired on both sides- so I wage spiritual war in prayer and in being a witness to the truth.

“White rage” , a whitelash, is being stoked by the ongoing and, many now argue, irrational “blacklash”. Some say that is intentional, but if it is then the ones stoking that rage should know that they will quickly lose control over the situation if they do this. The fact that a notorious “anti-white black supremacist” (as some have now taken to calling Al Sharpton) is spearheading what some see as a “racist” President’s efforts in this arena proves to some that the President wants to foment a race war. I doubt that either supposition is true, but appointing Al Sharpton will only make a peaceful resolution and real discussion impossible.

The Ferguson shooting does reveal some weaknesses in our law enforcement system, both in terms of training and the use of non-lethal methods and technologies, but a rational discussion of either that or lingering racist sentiments, on all sides, is now impossible. One feels that blacks are taking the side of a criminal thug who might not necessarily have needed to die for a petty robbery and whites taking the side of a cop who may have only been doing all that his training allowed for him to do- in other words, blacks will defend Brown because that is “their” side and whites will defend Wilson because that is “their” side.

As a white man, I am finding that even suggesting that there are still race problems and that blacks are far more likely to suffer lost economic opportunities and prejudiced treatment by official agencies, including the police, is no longer even considered for discussion without being shouted down. I see more and more anti=black racist comments being directed at these protesters, and a callous disregard for the life of this young man, Mike Brown, who committed a petty robbery and who resisted arrest.

On the other hand, if I suggest that the police officer is not a criminal, that Mike Brown chose to rob someone and then assault a police office, I am called a racist by some black people who just assume that all white people are moral inferiors just because of the color of their skin.

Here is the tragedy: judging from his statements and divisive actions, Al Sharpton seems to a race war and, sadly, as whites and police become more incensed at the blood libels being lobed at them, he may get precisely that. One hopes that white people and police do not fall for the bait and that more and more black people rise up to demand a more rational response, but so far things seem to be marching toward a conflict on the basis of the color of people’s skin.

This would be a tragedy far beyond the tragedy of one young man’s tragic death.

Read More
Hagel Out As Secretary of Defense

Chuck Hagel Steps Down As Secretary of Defense
Bll Collier- In a move that was as sudden as it was unexpected, Chuck Hagel offered his resignation on the morning of November 24, 2014 to the President, effective immediately. Hagel has only been at his post since 2013 and his tenure was rather short.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel

It is believed that the sudden move was meant to allow a replacement candidate under the lame duck Congress, a candidate who will fit more with the pacific policies of the Administration. Hagel had been more of a hawk and had repeatedly suggested that the fight against ISIS might require ground forces. It is also believed by insiders that Hagel resisted the talks with Iran, talks over their nuclear weapons program which are currently at an impasse.

The new nominee is expected to be someone who might be less attractive to the GOP, owing to their pacific intentions and possibly their lack of experience with defense or military matters. Increasingly this more pacific Administration has bucked heads with top military brass, and although there has been quite a turnover in both the Department of Defense and the Pentagon, the President has not been satisfied that the upper ranks have not embraced or backed his broad sweeping policies which involve a far less aggressive foreign policy stance and a reduction in military manpower and capability. The President has focused more on diplomatic ties and economic leverage and tends to eschew either using military force or the threat of military force.

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Within the military, the popularity of Hagel and the President, the civilian leadership, has hovered at around 20% to 30%, which many see as understandable due to the deep and ongoing cutbacks. The new Secretary of Defense will continue the previous policies of the Administration and it is expected that they will be more in lockstep with the core beliefs of the Commander in Chief.

While Republicans have threatened to block all nominees by the President over his use of what they call “executive amnesty” for 4-5 million illegal immigrants, they have stated that they would not block nominees who are vital to national security.

Within the Defense establishment there are growing concerns that the pacific policies and the force reductions in the face of Russian and Chinese military expansion is beginning to seriously undermine America’s global military standing. Others, however, are convinced that the US military would have to be reduced by over half to reach a point where it could not handle any potential foreign threat. A third school of thought believes that the overall military budget is bloated due to a combination of a top-heavy administrative and logistics organization and over-inflated prices for military equipment by the defense industry in general.

It is generally believed that this move is part of a larger effort by the Administration to gain complete control over foreign policy, putting and end to contradictory messaging, and pursuing their deep felt convictions regarding diplomacy and economics as better tools than force or the threat of force much more consistently and un-apologetically.

Read More
Federal Election Consequences

Editorial By Bill Collier-  GOP takeover of the US Senate could have interesting consequences, not so much in bills that will be passed as in the degree of pushback and resistance the President will receive regarding his massive use of executive actions, especially through the policies enacted by unelected regulators.

The EPA will certainly come under scrutiny as its regulatory regimen is seen as illegal on the part of many Republicans. One can expect joint House and Senate Hearings, and investigations, on this very subject. The EPA has been implementing, through the broadest possible interpretation of its regulatory powers (ceded to it by the Congress over the years), a cap and trade regimen aimed at dramatically reducing the coal industry and limited the use of fossil fuels, even at the cost of a loss of hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs and the precipitous increase in energy costs. This very agenda has been voted on in Congress and was rejected by lawmakers. It is also rejected by most voters.

But this is not the only area of concern. Lawmakers will have more clout to investigate Benghazi, the IRS, and the Justice Department’s actions regarding Fast and Furious and its attempts to silence the media by investigating and spying on reporters.

Beyond investigations and regulatory oversight, it will be impossible for the President to continue to determine spending largely without Congressional oversight through the use of “continuing resolutions” which have essentially skirted the Constitutional requirement for an actual BUDGET to be originated in the House and confirmed in the Senate. The President and the GOP will have to work out actual budgets as it is certain that the GOP will not tolerate one more year without an actual budget.

Many votes which were held off by Harry Reid, the now former Majority Leader, to shield Democrats from taking tough stands will be pushed with a vengeance.

What is more, it is possible the rule changes imposed by Reid, which effectively blocked man of the maneuvers formerly open to a minority, will remain unchanged, at least for now. If indeed the GOP leadership roll back those rules, to their own disadvantage, one can be sure their base will be angry. The media will give them no point for doing so, and their opponents will not hesitate to use the relaxed rules to gum up the works as much as possible.

In effect, then, those rule changes which many see as making the Senate far less collegial and deliberative than it used to be, could become permanent, leading to a further erosion of the public’s trust and confidence in their government.

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

This will be especially problematic for any Obama appointees, including whoever might replace Attorney General Eric Holder. With the current rule changes, Republicans will be able to quickly vote down nominees and avoid long, drawn our hearings and maneuvers by the other side to delay the vote while they and their media allies beat up on the GOP.

No doubt the establishment media, who are largely an adjunct of the Democratic Party machine in the eyes of most conservatives, will extol the virtue of the “rights of the minority party” and the need for “bipartisanship”, which, in practice, amounts to giving the Democrats everything they want while giving the GOP and its base nothing they want. Indeed, the media who place their own liberal bias first and foremost have aided in polarizing America because, like partisan Democrats, they present “fairness” as giving only one side a voice and giving only one side what it wants.

Of course, conservative media, especially blogs, radio talk shows, and Fox News, will be equally uncompromising and will call any compromise with Democrats a surrender. They will snipe at any GOP leader who considers immigration reform or modifying but not repealing the Affordable Healthcare Act, and they will in general add to the polarization. Most conservative media sources admit that they are conservative but do little to balance their coverage or go beyond watchdog news and opinion piece writing, and both their language and their coverage serve only conservative readers or viewers.

The difference is that many of these conservative outlets, including pundits on Fox News, disclose their own agenda while leftists in the media refuse to disclose their bias, or even admit to it. The practice of disclosing one’s ideological or party bias on the part of media is not accepted among most of the establishment media.

Between overtly biased partisan pundits and biased reporters who refuse to admit their bias, let alone disclose what it is, politicians face a media environment dominated on both sides by the ends of the political spectrum and will be clobbered unless they throw red meat at their base.

While the GOP are making many noises about cooperation and working with the President, voters in the middle are especially favorable toward this view, they must contend with the perception among many rank and file members that the Democrats (and their media allies) will demonize them unless they abjectly surrender and their own base (whom, feeling alienated, did not support their 2012 Presidential nominee) be further alienated if they perceive that the GOP is giving in too much. Likewise, however, the establishment media and the Democrat base are likely to pressure the President and his Party to “tow the line” and even to resort to more executive actions rather than giving in to the GOP.

In short, we will see real budget battles, more investigations and hearings, much more pushback on executive and regulatory actions not popular with the GOP, and probably more polarization fueled in part by partisan media on both sides which, far from being objective and counseling compromise, will attack anyone on “their side” who dares to go down that road.

Read More
Corbett’s Education Budget Cuts- Fact or Fiction?

Tom Corbett cut education spending by $1 billion, or so the Wolf Campaign has been alleging in a series of campaign ads.  Our local news outlet, The Tioga Freedomist, recently did an in depth study of these claims and found that the numbers do not add up.  Read the excerpt of the report, then be sure to read the full report at TiogaFreedomist.com

Corbett’s Education Budget Cuts- the Myth exposed

Education Cutter Or Education Spender?

Paul Gordon Collier

We at the Tioga Freedomist decided to look into claims by Democrats that Governor Tom Corbett has dramatically cut education spending in Pennsylvania, as well as claims by the Governor’s office that, in point of fact, he’s spending at record levels.  This is not a commentary about whether Governor Corbett is spending enough money on public education or not, only on the claims made by both sides.

There are a lot of numbers and details involved which could make this report very ‘wonkish’.  We realize we have a lot of readers who have no great desire to wade through statistics and charts to try to figure out what a report is actually saying.  In that spirit, we are going to begin our report in a non-traditional way, with our findings in simple black and white language, to be followed by those wonkish details for those who want to make sure our claims have a basis in reality.

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Claims by the Democrats that the Governor is an education cutter do not align with the facts and figures we investigated.  What is true is that the spending on education which school districts directly received (the Basic Education Supplement part of the total PA Department of Education budget) reached its peak in 2010-2011 thanks to f $1.04 billion in Federal Stimulus dollars.

That year, the total Basic Educational Supplemental Budget was $5.77 billion, as compared to $5.35 billion for this current fiscal year and $5.4 billion proposed by the Governor for FY 2014-15.

If we include the Federal Stimulus dollars in the mix then yes, Corbett has cut spending in education.  However, to do so would be the equivalent of comparing the total number of touchdown passes by Ben Roethlisberger and Michael Vick in one year to the total number of touchdowns scored by just Nick Foles the following year.

Read the full report at The Tioga Freedomist

Read More
US Army Manual Outlines Warfare Tactics Against American Citizens

The Army Manual on War Against the States?  Army Manual ATP 3- 39.33

Was this Ferguson Police Sniper following the Army’s Instructions in Manual ATP 3-39.33?

Paul Gordon Collier-  The US Army just released a de-classified manual on riot management called CIVIL DISTURBANCES, or ATP 3- 39.33 .  The Manual is designed to instruct US Soldiers on how to handle civil disturbances both abroad as well as at home.   The manual is designed to serve “Army Commanders and Staff Elements  at all echelons who are tasked with planning and directing civil service missions.”

The manual specifically states that it “provides discussions and techniques about civil disturbances and crowd control operations that occur in the Continental United States( CONUS) and outside the Continental United States (OCONUS).”  Note that this manual is to instruct US Military personnel on how to conduct themselves IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES.

In light of that key information, this part of the document is particularly disturbing:
In this section, the manual addresses the use of sniper fire being the first choice of lethal action against a group.  The manual calls for the targeting of the leaders of the disturbance.  The scale of lethal response runs from sniper fire to indirect fire, which includes aerial fire as the penultimate response before indirect fire.

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Given that this manual is intended to instruct our military on how to manage civil disturbances on American soil, many questions must now be asked about the constitutionality of such a manual, the training of such a military force that may be deployed to, in point of fact, run an operation that looks remarkably like a military action on American soil targeting American citizens.

The Freedomist will be investigating this document further and providing updates to this story as facts warrant them.  In light of the recent actions in Ferguson, in which snipers were deployed by the police department, one must also question if this manual is also being followed by our civil police departments as well.

You can read the document for yourself here: atp3_39x33

Read More

No Heroes In Ferguson

On August 14, 2014 By
No Heroes In Ferguson

The Ferguson Riots- An American Turning Point?

While politicians and activists from both sides of the political spectrum scramble to benefit from Ferguson, we wonder if Ferguson might be a turning point in American history, when people reject the limousine leadership of the left and the right and start leading themselves.

OPINION- William Collier- There is rioting, police brutality, and racial hate menacing the town of Ferguson, MO as a result of the fatal police shooting of 18 year old Michael Brown.

Michael Brown (Social Media screen grab)

Events in Ferguson, Missouri, which is in St. Louis County, have taken a course which alarms many citizens across the political spectrum.

Meanwhile, leaders in Ferguson are calling for people like Al Sharpton to remove themselves from a local problem.  They accuse Al Sharpton of inciting a near-riot when he proclaimed that the incident in Ferguson involving a young black man being shot to death by police is ‘bearing witnesses for all of America’, specifically America’s race relations.

According to Sharpton, the Band-Aid has been ripped off, and all of America is seeing that racial hatred is alive and well. The accusations are seen as doing more harm than good, inciting militant activists to violent actions, such as can be seen in Ferguson right now.

PHOTO- Facebook MEME circulating allegedly shows another side of Michael Brown. We have not confirmed that this IS Michael Brown FACEBOOK SCREEN GRAB

Regardless of the act that led up to the unstable situation in Ferguson, the reaction by the local police has been dramatic and militaristic.  The police deployed were wearing military-style clothing.  They were armed with heavy weapons and drove armored vehicles.  They were not facing insurgents, but unarmed protesters.

This overt display of military power on American streets by a local police department has come under scrutiny not just from the protesters, but even from the members of the community who do not support the protesters.

An armored vehicle with a fully automatic weapon manned and ready…against unarmed protesters. PHOTO Provided by ANONYMOUS Twitter user

The incident that triggered the riots and unrest was the shooting of an 18 year old unarmed man, Michael Brown. Michael Brown had a long criminal background before the incident, so the police might well have been aware of who he was.  According to the police version of the incident, Brown was assaulting an officer.  There was a struggle for the officer’s gun which led to the 7 shots that killed Brown.

A friend of Brown, who is also accused of participating in the assault, claims Brown was attacked for no reason by the police.  The friend claims Brown was shot while trying to raise his hands and surrender.

Police supporters claim this is a cut and dry case.  They note that the officer was injured in the altercation and that both Brown and his friend have a criminal background (as I noted earlier), including assault (this has been confirmed in the case of Brown, but not in the case of his friend).

Michael Brown supporters say this is a case of police brutality and, now, as charged by Sharpton, racism. In fact, President Obama called Michael Brown’s family to offer condolences before any facts had emerged about the actual nature of the shooting.   Obama’s overture to the family is seen by the police supporters to reinforce the narrative that this is about racial hate, not an altercation that went wrong.

Scereen Grab- Fox News covered Al Sharpton’s inflammatory remarks which many local leaders wish he would not have uttered.

But both sides in that debate have problems to contend with.

For the police supporters, there are real and proven incidents of police brutality against members of the community of Ferguson during this unrest.  There have even been reporters that have been roughed up, arrested and let go without any paperwork filed, and a number of other documented ‘irregularities’ by this police department.  These incidents cannot be brushed aside, and they only serve to offer evidence of a police department gone rogue, one that could possibly have done what Brown’s friend alleges they have done.

Two reporters were arrested, one roughed up, at a local McDonald’s when they were clearly not breaking any laws and, though they were released, no paperwork was filed. Another reporter was shot point blank with a rubber bullet. Additionally, I myself watched a live feed as police, in military gear, with armored vehicles, pushed a crowd of protesters INTO an otherwise quiet and peaceful neighborhood.

The crowd being pressed by the police fled into the neighborhood, running between homes, often being chased by police, bringing chaos to a neighborhood that was not involved in the rioting. The police then proceeded to turn their tear gas and rubber bullets on the people in this neighborhood who had stepped outside to see what was causing all the disturbances on their front lawns and back yards.

The notion that this same police force, the local police force in Ferguson and the St Louis County Sheriff’s Department, never uses excessive force cannot be easily discounted after what has transpired.

For the supporters of Michael Brown, the problem is that the only witness to claim this was police brutality may himself have been involved in the alleged attack on the police officer and, if reports are true (which we have not confirmed), he is himself a criminal.

<!– Generic Leaderboard Image 728 x 90 –>

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

He certainly has the tattoos that are associated with gangs, say those who disbelieve his story, which we have not confirmed.  It had been alleged that the deceased man, 18 year old Michael Brown, had a criminal record already, including burglary and assault. Man posts with links to court records went viral. What is disconcerting about these allegation was that his juvenile record is closed and he is only 18- this means his list of crimes SINCE he turned 18 would be fairly lengthy. His rap sheet is cited as reason to believe the police officer’s version of the events.  We have learned that possibly 4 other witnesses have also come forward with similar stories. We have SINCE CONFIRMED- Michael Brown had NO CRIMINAL RECORD and no charges were pending against him.

The shooting took place on August 9, a Saturday, at around noon. After the shooting, efforts to organize protests and reprisals went viral on social media, and by Monday the riots had become severe, resulting in businesses being looted,  One local convenience store was not only looted, it was also burned down.

The rioters were further inflamed by the vitriolic and black supremacist rhetoric of the New Black Panther Party, as well as by Al Sharpton, both of whom flew in from out of state to ‘lead’ the protesters’.

The violence-inciting rhetoric was legitimized, police supporters argue, when US Attorney General Eric Holder promised to get involved, as well as by President Obama’s rush to call to offer condolences to Michael Brown’s family before getting the facts of what actually occurred.

But many local citizens and leaders, even those who believe this was police brutality, have accused the politicians and the national figures from outside of making things worse.

I saw one woman on live video, a black woman who had come out of her home. She was outraged at how the violence was encouraged by people from outside the community. She noted that while her taxes were up and schools were failing, these local politicians continue to ask for the “black vote” but do nothing for the black community.  The only time political leaders, local or national, show up in a black community is during times like this, in their helicopters and Lear jets, making matter worse for all concerned. She kept saying “they win, they win”.  When asked who “they” were, she replied, “them politicians!”

She did not appear to sympathize with police, who she saw come through her quiet neighborhood bullying anyone who was seen outside, even homeowners who were concerned about the ruckus.  But she did not endorse the rioting, which she blamed on “people from outside the community coming to stir things up and get their 15 minutes of fame!”

Whatever the truth is now may only matter in the legal sense of the word.  The question from the outside looking in is this, who benefits?

There seem to be two opposing views on this:

The first view is from the leadership on the right.  They believe that whether the killing was justified or not, leftist agitators saw an opportunity to reinforce the demonizing narrative of the white man attacking the black man.  It is the same tactic used by the mullahs of Iran who wish to deflect blame for their own failures away from themselves by attacking the great Satan, America.

In the case of the trusted leftist voting bloc of African Americans, the deflection is away from the failures of democratically controlled governments to deliver prosperity and security to the ghettos of America.  If the black community focuses on hating white people, they won’t pay attention to the failure of government, run by Democrats, to give them a good education, offer them a safe place to live and a path to prosperity.

The countervailing view from the leadership of the left is that the police are attempting to agitate the black community in order to create a similar bogeyman, for different voting bloc, this one for republicans, white America.  The narrative goes something like this; The black mob is being whipped up to a frenzy by republican-leaning agitators to reinforce the notion that white America should fear violent black America and come back to the republican party to check the growing power of the black-supported left.

As outlandish as these theories sound, they have more than a few adherents, and this is the cause of no small amount of division between Americans. But the police reaction may have a rather interesting effect not foreseen by anyone- people from the left and right, people who are of all races, and people who disagree about the original incident, all seem to agree that what the police in Ferguson are doing to protesters and what outside leaders are doing to stir the pot are equally awful and illegitimate in a free and democratic society of equals.

One sees leftwing and rightwing blogs, as well as social media commentary all saying the same thing- the spectacle of a military-styled police force is detestable on the streets of ANY American neighborhood.  It could be that if there are true agitators on the left and the right, neither side will get what they want, greater control over the voting power of a bloc of people.   It could be, at the end of the day, when the dust has settled on Ferguson, that the real winners might be the Americans, of all ethnicities and beliefs, who decide to no longer be led by the helicopter-swooping, Lear-jet parking leaders.  Rather, they will choose to lead themselves where they are, neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block, town by town, to build pathways to prosperity, security, and liberty.

In Ferguson, it appears, there are no heroes.  One can only hope that from such flames, a new resolve is forged in America, to build, where you are, with those who will build with you, what most of us really want, across all divides, the freedom to prosper and pass along to our children a better world than the one we were given.

Let us hope at the end of the day, be they Republicans or Democrats, that we do not say the only winners from Ferguson were ‘them politicians’’.

The Obama Bush- Perfect symbol of the reality today?

Read More