MoeIssuesoftheDay.blogspot.com

Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s
Issues of the Day

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”

~~~ Adolf Hitler, 1935

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

~~~ Thomas Jefferson


Help. We need your help. Now.

We have moved from decades of home ownership to a lovely apartment in our long time neighborhood. Age and general health are what has brought on a need for us to scale down.

Our new circumstances have brought on our need to find a home for three of our cats. Over time our feline family has grown. Our home has been the depository for many unwanted felines. We have placed all but three with family and friends. We now have a need to place the last three, two males and one female.

The two males are friendly homebodies. The female is an outdoor cat.

We plan to keep the two remaining cats (male and female) because they are ten and eleven respectively. Experience tells us placing older cats is difficult.

All our cats are people friendly and in excellent health.

If anyone knows of someone who would like a good companion please write here (mvl270@yahoo.com) or call my cell at 508-493-9165.

Thanks, Moe and Helene Lauzier
What can we do about the Ukraun crisis? Here is the Dick Morris very sober take on the matter:

South Side Chicago not interested in hearing excuses for illegal immigration

By Chad Groening, OneNewsNow.com


A conservative black organization says it is fed up with the "callous disregard" the Obama administration has shown toward black Americans while bending over backwards to welcome 11 million illegal aliens.
The Obama Administration recently touted the fact that 40 Honduran illegal aliens were flown back home after they were held at a facility in New Mexico.
The facility houses approximately 400 people, so only 10 percent in that one small facility were being deported.
Charles Butler, a radio show host who lives in Obama's hometown of Chicago, is a member of the national advisory council of the Project 21 black leadership network.
He says blacks on the South Side of Chicago have no use for those who believe we should welcome thousands of illegal aliens from Third World countries.
According to estimates made by the Obama administration, over 90,000 children alone are expected to enter the U.S. illegally by the end of September.
"You can't go down to those areas talking about amnesty for illegals who are taking their jobs," Butler advises. "You can't go down to that area with a message of 'We're a country of immigrants.'"
Butler is making those comments to OneNewsNow while a video of Chicago residents (see below) criticizing President Obama has gone viral.
The healthcare double standard in his hometown is blatant, Butler says.
"If you go to Cook County Hospital and you're an American, you have to produce a driver's license, Social Security number, your finances," he explains.
If you're Hispanic, he says, you're provided a translator and given medical treatment.
"Whereas, if you're an American, you may or may not get treatment," he says.
Because of the crisis on the border, says Butler, more Americans are coming together to "take control of our country back from the advocates of illegal immigration and other failed liberal policies."
Jack Wheeler’s assessment
Jack Wheeler is a brilliant man who was the author of Reagan's strategy to break the back of the Soviet Union with the star wars race and expose their inner weakness. For years he wrote a weekly intelligence update that was extremely interesting and well structured and informative. He consults(ed) with several mega corporations on global trends and the future, etc. He is in semi-retirement now. He is a true patriot with a no-nonsense approach to everything. He is also a somewhat well-known mountain climber and adventurer.

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler

The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No resume, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract, empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya . Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is 'African-American,' the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obama is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obama has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him.

Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.

Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.  He is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
And yet he got elected, not once but twice. Thanks to those who did not think it was important to vote for freedom and those who were willing to give up their freedoms for entitlements.
Remember you don't have to be on a southern plantation to be a slave, if you are dependent on government entitlements you just have a different slave owner.
IF YOU WILL, PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO EVERY THINKING AMERICAN YOU KNOW
!  I JUST DID.

Protests Against The Illegal Invasion Gaining Steam


Imagine, if you will, that a pipe burst in your house. What would you do? Most people would shut off the water and then mop up the mess.
That’s how Deanna Frankowski of Leeds, Ala., believes the immigration crisis needs to be handled.

Stop the influx of illegal aliens first. Then deal with the ones who are here. That’s the message she hopes Washington receives from the protests held nationwide on Friday and Saturday. And it’s why she organized the one in Birmingham, Ala.

“I think the surge has been a concerted effort by President [Barack] Obama,” Frankowski said. “I think he believed that by this point in his Presidency, immigration reform would’ve passed.”

Well, it hasn’t. And the Nation is currently dealing with an influx of illegal aliens, tens of thousands of whom are children. They are pouring across the Nation’s southern border — many of them from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.

“They are using the children as pawns in a political chess game,” Frankowski said, pointing out that American parents who abandoned their children and sent them off on a trip by themselves would end up in jail.

“You have to follow the law of the land, she said. “Why is the government systematically choosing the laws they want to abide by?”

According to Frankowski, Make Them Listen has three objectives:

  • Close the borders.
  • No amnesty.
  • Stop the surge.
“Then,” she said, “we can deal with the people left in the country.”
Frankowski said that may very well include steps to citizenship, which many people involved in the protest movement would support, but that amnesty is not an option.

In the meanwhile, Frankowski knows how the U.S. government can cover the cost of dealing with the illegal immigrants: Use each country’s foreign aid to care for their citizens who made their way to U.S. soil illegally.

The Birmingham protest was part of a network of anti-illegal immigration rallies that took place at State capitols, Mexican consulates, and on streets and overpasses throughout the Nation over the weekend.
A flyer announcing the national protest said:
Our Border Patrol is overwhelmed by the massive flow of illegal aliens crossing our border daily.   Illegal aliens with communicable diseases and conditions such as tuberculosis, scabies, and head lice are entering our country unabated.   There is a very real security risk to Americans from drug cartels, gang members, and terrorists – all of whom can cross our border with no resistance.   Adding insult to injury, American taxpayers are being forced to pay for transportation, housing, schooling, legal assistance, and more for the illegals crossing our border.
The mass protest was the brainchild of Paul Arnold, founder of “Make Them Listen”, and was quickly embraced by a number of organizations, including: America Working, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), Americans Have Had Enough Coalition, MINNSIR, Overpasses for America, 2 Million Bikers To DC, Remember 1986, Riders USA, Help Save Maryland, Tea Party Community, and Tea Party Tribune.

Walmart Tests Low-Cost ‘Doc-In-A-Box’ Walk-In Clinics

Walmart Tests Low-Cost ‘Doc-In-A-Box’ Walk-In Clinics



A small number of Walmart stores in the South are serving as laboratories for an idea the company hopes to expand throughout the Nation: low-cost, walk-in health care clinics that focus on minor medical needs, preventive treatments and management for chronic illnesses.

The clinics, simply called “Walmart Care Clinics,” will offer $40 walk-ins for anyone except the company’s own employees, who — so long as they participate in the company’s health care plan — can use the clinics for $4 per visit.

Depending on where you live, you may have already become accustomed to seeing some type of health clinic at the nearby Walmart. But until this year, all of the clinics inside those stores have been owned and operated by outside contractors who lease the space. This new experiment, on the other hand, is all Walmart.

Although the clinics that have opened so far are staffed by nurse practitioners, the range of services they provide is similar to that offered by a general practitioner physician’s office: lab work, shots, hypertension and diabetes management, and referrals to outside specialists.

“We have a nickname for these things. We call them docs in a box,” Columbia, S.C.-based Medical consultant Lynn Bailey told WIS-TV News last week. “They’re actually quite good at managing diabetes and hypertension and high cholesterol.”

The first Walmart Care Clinic opened in Copperas Cove, Texas, in April. Since then, the company has opened a few more in Texas, and it should have two more locations at a pair of Walmart stores in South Carolina. According to The Dallas Morning News, Walmart’s goal is to have a dozen clinics operating by the end of 2014.

Aside from whatever profits the company might be able to glean by appealing to the enormous volume of customers who inevitably end up using one of the many adjunct services at Walmart stores (tax prep, banking, vision care, tire and lube, florists and more), the company may be acting out of necessity in order to get a handle on surging employee healthcare costs under the Affordable Care Act.

“With more than 1.3 million associates at Walmart nationwide, the retailer reportedly faces an estimated $330 million in added costs this year because more workers have signed up for insurance to comply with the federal Affordable Care Act,” reports WFAA-TV News in Dallas. “Walmart officials believe they can save a lot of money with in-house clinics, which will be staffed by nurse practitioners.”

Definition of the word "Conundrum"

     The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or
     confusing....

     Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of America:

     1. America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is
subsidized.

     2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are
victims.

     3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the
government.

   4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting
poorer.

     5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in
other countries only dream about.

     6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about -

           YET THEY WANT AMERICA TO BE MORE LIKE THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES.

     Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century. Makes you wonder who is doing the math.

     These three, short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our
     current government and cultural environment:

     1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few
lunatics, BUT WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO JUDGE ALL GUN OWNERS BY THE ACTIONS OF A FEW LUNATICS. Funny how that works!

     And here's another one worth considering...

     2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money.
       
   HOW COME WE NEVER HEAR ABOUT WELFARE OR FOOD STAMPS RUNNING OUT OF MONEY?
       What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't. Think about this one for a minute.....and last but not least,

     3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our
military and cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, BUT WE ARE NOT STOPPING THE PAYMENTS OR BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS.

     Am I the only one missing something?

     What the hell is going on???
     
     We need to do SOMETHING about this! But what??

     Start, by circulating this item!


Why Aren’t There More Gay People?

By Robert Tracinski



I have a sensitive, inconvenient, and undoubtedly politically incorrect question: Why aren’t there more gay people?
I ask because there’s something confusing about our “culture war.” Given the prominence of the issue, you would expect homosexuality to be rampant in America. When asked to estimate how many gay people there are, most people guess that it’s on the order of 20% to 25% of the population. But yet another study has been released by the CDC giving a more scientific estimate, and it finds that almost 97 percent of Americans describe themselves as straight — the actual number who describes themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual is 2.3%. So the public’s perception is off by a whole order of magnitude.
It’s almost as if someone has been conspiring to elevate this issue way beyond its actual cultural significance. That is precisely what we find, and both sides are to blame.
For the moderate left, gay rights have to be magnified as a social issue because they want to keep alive the legacy of the civil rights movement. They know how much they gained by remaking the Democratic Party, the home of the old Dixiecrats, into the party that claims exclusive credit for the entire civil right movement—while smearing Republicans as racists. Their exaggeration of the culture war over homosexuality is partly an attempt find a new civil rights movement to fight over so they can maintain a manufactured moral high ground.
This explains why they demand, not merely tolerance for homosexuals, but a kind of mandatory obeisance enforced by the state. You don’t want to actively cooperate in gay marriages by, say, making their wedding cakes? Too bad. You will be tolerant, you bastard, or we’ll bash you over the head.
This also explains a lot of bizarre proposals that can only be described as a form of trolling: deliberate attempts to provoke an outraged reaction. I’m talking about things like demanding as a matter of principle that transsexuals be allowed to use school restrooms that correspond to their artificial gender identity rather than their biological one. If homosexuals are about 2.3% of the population, transsexuals are a much smaller group. Even an analysis that argues that their number is underestimated (if you include many who are not out of the closet) still places the figure two to three orders of magnitude smaller—from about one tenth of one percent to one one-hundredth of a percent of the population. Such cases are so rare that you would think they could be dealt with reasonably in their individual and local contexts. But no, it has to be magnified into a national social cause, and anyone who’s not on board has to be denounced as a bigot, just as bad as an enforcer of Jim Crow.
Why? Because the left needs a new civil rights movement, and they will try to manufacture one wherever they can.
For the far left, there is a worse motive. They take up homosexuality as a cause precisely because it is out of the mainstream. Some of them are evenregretting their largely successful campaign for gay marriage, because it might end up (literally) domesticating homosexual relationships, when their real goal was to make sure that “existing social institutions are abolished.” Hence one of the well-noted contradictions of the left: that marriage is only something to be celebrated when gay people do it. To these leftists, homosexuals are only interesting insofar as they can be used as an instrument of subversion.
So what about the other side?
Part of the reason I don’t really care about homosexuality as a social issue is that I’m an atheist, so I don’t view other people’s sexual preferences or practices as having any theological significance as some kind of metaphysical offense against God. In which case: live and let live.
The other reason is that I don’t see homosexuality as having any great cultural significance, either. This is not the first time that I’ve heard the real scientific statistics about the number of homosexuals. Some of the first proper studies on this came out in the 1980s, and the results were pretty much the same. What strikes me is how invariant the number of homosexuals is. Over the past three or four decades, public awareness and acceptance of homosexuality has grown by leaps and bounds, yet none of this seems to have made any converts.
This implies that homosexuality is a preference not amenable to ordinary social pressures. No one becomes gay just because it’s cool now. The gays will always be with us, so to speak, but they will be a relatively small subculture, somewhere on the order of Renaissance Fairs or, say, Star Trek conventions (not that there’s anything wrong with it!). Again, live and let live.
Which is to say that homosexuality only plays a leading role in the culture to the extent that it is recruited as a stalking horse for some larger social force — as we saw above, the far left’s desire to smash all institutions that might compete with the state. Religious conservatives may argue that gay rights and gay marriage are somehow the thin end of the wedge, but it’s a lot more reasonable to regard them as the tail wagging the dog.
Let’s put it this way: which is a more important issue, a couple of hundred thousand gay marriages — or the millions of heterosexual couples who, for larger social reasons, are not getting married and not forming stable relationships, with all of the negative consequences for their own lives and the lives of their children?
Perhaps it’s time to spend a little less time worrying about gay marriage and more time worrying about plain old regular marriage, among other cultural disasters.
In effect, the religious right and the cultural left have formed a kind of Baptist-and-bootlegger coalition to inflame this particular cultural issue beyond its actual importance in the real word. A conservative friend of mine recently noted to me how bizarre it will be a decade from now to find out that still just 2 percent of Americans are gay, that perhaps 15 percent of them are married, and that the country overturned millennia-old traditions and had a huge culture war to accommodate the sensitivities of about half a million people.
It would be equally strange if those who say they want to work for the moral reform of our culture let themselves be preoccupied for decades by such a small issue.
Robichaud: How to destroy the U.S., one step at a time

By: Holly Robichaud


One of our distinguished Massachusetts U.S. senators, Daniel Webster, once said, “There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government.”
While people are more concerned with the latest binge-worthy television show or the newest game on their iPad, are they missing the destruction of the United States?
How would you do it from within?
The first step would be to jeopardize the country’s financial stability. Increasing the national debt by $7 trillion is a good starting point, and letting the debt keep growing until it overtakes the country’s gross national product is the death knell.
Another way to unbalance our finances is to encourage everyone to become dependent on government handouts instead of being self-
sufficient. When takers outnumber taxpayers, the system will collapse.
The second step would be to destroy U.S. credibility abroad. Spying on our friends doesn’t help our relationships.
Notifying our enemies of a date certain for withdrawing our troops, such as we did in Iraq, is not a policy of strength. In the television series “Game of Thrones,” it would be, let’s say politely, a career-ender.
Trading five Taliban prisoners for one soldier who walked away from his post is the worst negotiating ever. Putting it into sports terms, that’s like the Red Sox trading five great players to the Yankees for a benchwarmer. However, the sports trade doesn’t have potentially deadly consequences attached.
Another step would be to toss out our governing principles. Ignoring our Constitution along with the two other equal branches of government destabilizes the fabric of our society. Changing laws by executive fiat rather than the legislative process undermines our democracy. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution so no one person could dictate. The document empowers the branches of government so there are checks and balances. Without them, we become a dictatorship.
Lastly, you would neglect one of the basic principles: protect the people. Thomas Jefferson said, “A nation without borders is no nation.” Allowing people from other countries to hop, skip and jump over the border is a nonviolent invasion.
A century and a half after Daniel Webster, President Obama is showing us what the senator was talking about. Step by step, his actions are threatening the fundamental stability of our nation. He is demonstrating exactly how to destroy America from within.
G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Monday, July 21, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s
Issues of the Day

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future.”

~~~ Adolf Hitler, 1935

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.”

~~~ Thomas Jefferson


Help. We need your help. Now.

We have moved from decades of home ownership to a lovely apartment in our long time neighborhood. Age and general health are what has brought on a need for us to scale down.

Our new circumstances have brought on our need to find a home for three of our cats. Over time our feline family has grown. Our home has been the depository for many unwanted felines. We have placed all but three with family and friends. We now have a need to place the last three, two males and one female.

The two males are friendly homebodies. The female is an outdoor cat.

We plan to keep the two remaining cats (male and female) because they are ten and eleven respectively. Experience tells us placing older cats is difficult.

All our cats are people friendly and in excellent health.

If anyone knows of someone who would like a good companion please write here (mvl270@yahoo.com) or call my cell at 508-493-9165.

Thanks, Moe and Helene Lauzier
John Boehner and Barack Obama

Boehner: House Has No Plans to Defund Unconstitutional Acts by Obama


House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated today that if President Barack Obama takes actions that exceed his constitutional authority, the House of Representatives has no plans to use its own constitutional authority to withhold funding from those actions.
At his weekly press briefing, CNSNews.com asked Boehner: “You’ve said you disagree with calls to impeach the president over abuse of power via executive actions. But under the Constitution the House actually has the power of the purse. So, if the President takes actions that exceed his Constitutional authority, will you withhold funding for those actions in the next must-pass appropriations bill?
“There’s a lot of ways to deal with this issue,” Boehner responded. “But we’ve got a Republican House and we’ve got a Democratic Senate. And there are a lot of things we’ve passed here that the Senate clearly has not passed.
“Now, when it comes to that issue, some of these actions that you could defund, there clearly isn’t, I wouldn’t guess, an appetite in the United States Senate to withhold those funds,” Boehner continued. “That’s why we’ve decided that the more direct approach of suing the president is the right path to go down here.
“Listen, I’m for upholding the Constitution,” said Boehner, “and I’m for protecting the interest of the House vis-à-vis the power grab that’s going on by the White House. And while he has the authority to issue executive orders, he does not have the authority to unilaterally change laws in our country, which he has done.”
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution says: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."
Federal spending laws regularly include language prohibiting the Executive Branch from using funds for certain purposes.
Appropriations bills must be passed by both the House and Senate and be signed by the president—or overcome his veto—before they become law. This means that the House has the constitutional authority to pass a bill that withholds funding for executive actions, including those they believe exceed the president’s constitutional authority.
The Senate can refuse to pass, or the president can refuse to sign, a bill passed by the House that prohibits funding for Executive actions the House deems unconstitutional or outside the scope of the Executive’s legal authority, but unless the House relents and agrees to fund that activity, the Executive cannot engage in it.
At the end of the last fiscal year, the Republican-controlled House initially passed a continuing resolution to fund the government that denied funding for implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Senate refused to pass a CR with that language, and President Obama refused to accept one. After 16 days, the House backed down and passed a CR that permitted implementation of Obamacare.
Boehner announced this June that the House now plans to sue President Obama for taking unilateral actions that exceed his legal authority, saying at the time that abuse of power affords Obama “king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators."
"On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around,” Boehner said, adding the President has a habit of "ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others and at times, creating laws of his own."
When he was asked earlier this month if he agrees with calls by some Republicans to impeach President Obama for executive overreach, Boehner simply answered, “I disagree.”

Obama

Obama's Only Public Comment on 'Terrible Tragedy' Was Followed by a Joke

"It's wonderful to be back in Delaware," President Barack Obama told a gathering there on Thursday.
Then he made his only public remark of the day on the Malaysian passenger plane that was shot down over Ukraine several hours before he spoke, killing all 298 aboard.
"Before I begin, obviously the world is watching reports of a downed passenger jet near the Russia-Ukraine border, and it looks like it may be a terrible tragedy. Right now we're working to determine whether there were American citizens on board. That is our first priority. And I've directed my national security team to stay in close contact with the Ukrainian government. The United States will offer any assistance we can to help determine what happened and why, and as a country our thoughts and prayers are with all the families of the passengers, wherever they call home."
The president continued: "I want to thank Jeremy for that introduction. Give Jeremy a big round of applause. It is great to be in the state that gave us Joe Biden.  We've got actually some better-looking Bidens with us here today. (Laughter.) We've got -- (chuckles) -- Beau and his wife Hallie are here. Give them a big round of applause. We love them."
After plugging infrastructure projects in Delaware, Obama went on to do some fundraising in New York. In between, aboard Air Force One, the White House says he "placed separate telephone calls to President Poroshenko of Ukraine and Prime Minister Najib of Malaysia to discuss the tragic crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17." The White House later released a photo of Obama on the telephone.
When the president finally returned to the Washington area Thursday night, MSNBC reported that he was still on the plane more than half-an-hour after it landed: "That usually means that the president is engaged in an uninterruptable telephone call," the MSNBC reporter said.
But no -- according to the Associated Press, Obama's return to the White House was delayed by the discovery of a suspicious package there:
"White House spokesman Josh Earnest says Obama was held aboard Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base until the package at the White House was determined to be of no threat to the president," the AP reported. "Air Force One landed just after 10 p.m. EDT but Obama remained on board for more than a half-hour. Meanwhile, House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, who flew back from New York City with the president after they attended a political event, got off and departed the base."
He arrived back at the White House just after 11 p.m.
Obama reportedly will spend some time with his advisers on Friday before going to the presidential retreat at Camp David for the weekend.
Secretary of State John Kerry issued the following statement on the plane shoot-down on Thursday night:
"We are horrified by the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. There are no words adequate to express our condolences to the families of the nearly 300 victims. We offer our sympathies and support to the Governments of Malaysia and the Netherlands at this difficult time, as well as to all those whose citizens may have been on board. We are reviewing whether any American citizens were aboard the flight. The United States Government remains prepared to assist with a credible, international investigation any way we can, and we will continue to be in touch with all relevant partners as we seek the facts of what happened today."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro

Will Legalizing Illegals Help Unemployed? Rep. DeLauro: That's a 'Gotcha Question'


When asked by CNSNews.com on Wednesday whether legalizing illegal aliens would help the unemployed in the United States, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D.-Conn.) countered that that was a “a gotcha question” and declined to answer it.
DeLauro was speaking outside the U.S. Capitol at a rally for the unemployed.
CNSNews.com asked her: “Do you think allowing illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. and putting them on a path to citizenship will help unemployed Americans?”
DeLauro responded: “What I think is that we need comprehensive immigration reform and so far again, one more time, Republicans in the House of Representatives have said no.
"You want to address the issue? The Senate did it overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way, so let’s move forward. And it’s not a question of asking the gotcha questions, it is about comprehensive immigration reform.
“If you’re serious about addressing the issue, then we’ll take it up, or if you’re not serious, because my Republican colleagues are not serious. They just want to play a political game. And you know what? It’s going to backfire on them.”
CNSNews.com followed up: “What do you think of the effect, though, of--”
DeLauro: “I’m telling you, what is the issue? You tell me, do we want? No, we want a comprehensive immigration reform. You want to get to the heart of the question? Get to the heart of what the answer is. Don’t pick and choose what we think is going to, as I said, do gotcha, you know?”
CNSNews.com interviewed DeLauro at the "Witness Wednesday," which is hosted by The Center for Effective Government, th National Employment Law Project, the Coalition for Human Needs, and the National Women's Law Center. The rally featured the reading of some of “more than 2,000 stories from Americans suffering from long-term unemployment” by “members of Congress and faith, labor, civil rights, and nonprofit leaders” in order to “demand an extension of long-term unemployment insurance.”

Questions Raised Over Merkel's Communist Past
By M.E. Synon
Americans frustrated by German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s reluctance to meet demands for stronger sanctions against Russia have now begun to ask if there is a good reason the German leader has been targeted by US spies.
Questions are being raised about Merkel’s early life in totalitarian East Germany, the extent of her ties to its communist regime and her history as "an ardent Russophile" in Soviet-dominated East Germany.
Last year, in information leaked to the German news magazine Der Spiegel by former US National Security Authority contractor Edward Snowden, Merkel learned that the US intelligence service had been tapping her personal mobile phone since 2002.
The tap was part of a mass surveillance of European leaders by joint US and British intelligence.
In a furious confrontation with President Barack Obama Merkel compared the snooping practices of the U.S. with those of the Stasi, the secret police of the communist dictatorship in East Germany.
Subsequently the Obama administration refused to give Berlin a "no spying pact," but agreed to stop spying on Merkel personally.
Some Americans are now asking: was there a good reason the US needed to keep an eye on Merkel's private conversations? As Reuters blogger Jack Shafer wrote when the story broke last year: "Just as Germany has yet to expunge its Nazi past, its eastern, totalitarian provinces have not come close to expunging their Communist past."
"The longitudinal interest by the US in all things Merkel may be informed by her past. She was a citizen of East Germany before reunification, and her personal history has long been controversial."
One Washington foreign policy expert, who did not wish to be named, this week described Merkel to Breitbart London as "a former member of the East German Communist Party who functioned as a mid-level propaganda commissar for the Free German Youth, that is, the young Communists."
"She and the then-KGB operative Putin, who is fluent in German, were active in East Germany at the same time. Whether they met or worked together, I don't know, but they were both in the same line of work."
In April Cliff Kincaid, a director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, wrote "Merkel was known to be suspiciously pro-Russian when she ran for high office in Germany but that her political party, the Christian Democrats, nominated her anyway."
Kincaid notes that Merkel "grew up in the formerly communist East Germany and spent 35 years of her life under the dictatorship."
Germany's increasing dependence on Russian energy imports "is related to Merkel's decision, after the accident at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, to phase out Germany's nuclear energy program."
Kincaid refers to a book by Günther Lachmann and Ralf Georg Reuth called The First Life of Angela M. He says the book suggests "that she had deeper ties to the communist regime than previously known or acknowledged."
"She has admitted joining the Free German Youth, the communist youth organisation, and a photo has surfaced showing her in a communist uniform. But the book argues that she hid her role in the youth group as secretary for agitation and propaganda, instead depicting herself as someone engaged in 'cultural' affairs."
"One of Merkel's defenders said she 'couldn’t remember whether she was involved in agitation and propaganda.'"
But links with the old East Germany communist regime don't end with Merkel: "Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder went to work for the Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom. He is described as a personal friend of Vladimir Putin and once called the Russian president a ‘flawless democrat.’ He has defended Russia’s invasion of Ukraine."
Günter Guillaume, a top aide to Willy Brandt, a former West German Chancellor, was exposed as a spy for East Germany in 1974.


Email from a friend:

Hi Moe,

I am now 72 years old.  Never, in my wildest dreams, did I ever imagine that my Country would die before I did.  Now I am not so sure.
political cartoon

What Is Gun Violence?


The term “gun violence” seems to have been coined by either the anti-gun media or some other anti-gun group in an effort to vilify the tool used to perpetrate violence on another.

Somewhere someone said, “If we call it ‘gun violence’ that will make it sound like guns are bad. We should do that.”

You and I know guns are neither good nor bad. Guns cannot do anything on their own. A gun cannot be violent any more than can a hammer, or a bowling pin or a rose bush. A gun can be used during violent acts. But here is something interesting: A violent act is not always a bad thing. Righteous violence in defense of the innocent is a good thing and should be applauded. Yet still the media and anti-gun politicians continue to beat the drum of “gun violence” in America as if to say, “If we take away all the guns, there will be no more violence.”

Several years back, politicians also said, “If we take away all the booze, no one will drink and all those problems will go away.” We saw how that turned out. It spawned the largest crime wave in U.S. history and directly gave rise to criminal syndicates that are still running today.

Since 1993, crime has been dropping. Despite a few recent high-profile cases, the numbers of mass shootings have been dropping. Armed citizens regularly intervene to protect others by employing or threatening to employ violence with a gun. But the media doesn’t report on that. Criminals are much more interesting. Guns work. Violence, when employed against criminal predators, benefits honest citizens.

So I ask again, “What is gun violence?”

It is a fantasy term. It is political spin designed to dupe the masses. If the media and the politicians can keep you thinking that guns are bad and keep telling you that reducing the number of guns will reduce crime, maybe you will believe them and one day give up your freedoms.

Our Founding Fathers knew that each individual citizen of a free Nation would need guns in defense of those freedoms. To restrict guns is to restrict our ability to, when needed, draw a line in the sand and be able to back up our words.

So many liberals will decry such ideas as something that will never happen and will say that the right to bear arms against the government is something that simply is not and will not be needed.

I give to you “The Battle of Athens, Tenn.” In 1946, after election fraud and voter intimidation in the elections of 1940, 1942 and 1944, the citizens of McMinn County took up arms to finally stop corrupt politicians.

We need guns. Righteous violence works to protect Americans. Don’t let liberals use the term “gun violence.” Call them on it, every time. Guns are not violent.


elizabeth_warren

Netroots Nation: A choice of grannies

By Associated Press
At a summertime getaway for liberals, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren has captured the hearts of Democratic activists beginning to think about an heir to President Barack Obama. But their minds tell them that Hillary Rodham Clinton could help them hang onto the White House.
Warren, whose tough-on-Wall-Street message makes progressives swoon, received a rousing reception at the annual Netroots Nation summit on Friday, where people interrupted her fiery speech with chants of "Run, Liz, Run," even though she has repeatedly denied interest in running for the president. In the hallways, Democratic fans of Warren said Clinton isn't necessarily their preferred option — but probably their best shot.
"We've known Hillary since, really, 1991. There's a sameness that works against her a little bit with the activist base," said Kyle Tanner, 39, of Chicago. "But she's mounted amazing electoral operations. There's a huge advantage to that."
(File Photo)

Netroots Nation: A choice of grannies



Clinton remains a dominant figure as Democrats begin to consider the 2016 presidential campaign, which will begin in earnest after the fall midterm elections. Many liberals question Clinton's ties to Wall Street and are seeking a fresh face, even though polls suggest the former secretary of state gives them their best chance of electing the nation's first female president.

If Clinton runs, a major question will be whether she can energize what some call the "Elizabeth Warren wing" of the party, who volunteer for campaigns, donate money and helped power Obama to two victories. A populist mood pervaded the meeting Friday, with many activists urging punishment for Wall Street banks and steps to address income inequality. Others raised concerns that many of Obama's promises — to reform immigration, address climate change and rebuild the economy — remain unfulfilled.
"If I had my choice, it'd be Elizabeth Warren," said James Conlon, 40, a Seattle-area field organizer for the National Education Association. "So many of the other folks like Hillary Clinton are a little bit too entrenched and they have too many big-money interests that have been supporting them."
Warren sought to tamp down the presidential chatter, but her 17-minute speech sounded like a campaign call-to-arms, with vows to fight for tougher rules against Wall Street, for environmental protections and equal rights. To Warren, Wall Street and lobbyists represent the opposition.
"We can whine about it. We can whimper about it. Or we can fight back," Warren said. "I'm fighting back." A grassroots group called "Ready for Warren" passed out blue "Run Liz Run" signs and plastic hats throughout the Cobo convention center.
Gaye Tannenbaum, 61, talked up Warren as an ideal presidential candidate. Tannenbaum, who votes in Kansas but lives in Uruguay, said Clinton has been "beaten up" in political fights and the party was seeking a relative newcomer.
But Michelle Coyle Edwards, a 33-year-old from Alexandria, Virginia, said she was excited about a Clinton candidacy.
"I feel like the momentum's really behind Hillary right now, and I want to focus where something can actually happen," she said.
Another potential candidate, Vice President Joe Biden, wasn't the subject of much buzz along the sidelines but his speech was well-received.
Biden portrayed himself as a champion of liberal causes, recalling his unplanned public support for gay marriage during the 2012 campaign, a move that nudged Obama to announce his backing for same-sex marriage.
"I come out of the civil rights movement and there's not a way in God's green earth that I could sit there and be asked a question about the civil rights issue of our day and remain silent," Biden said Thursday.
Clinton was invited to speak at Netroots Nation but declined amid an extensive tour to promote her book, "Hard Choices." Ready for Hillary, a group that is laying the groundwork for a Clinton campaign, maintained a presence at the conference.
The former New York senator faced skepticism during her only appearance at the event in August 2007. In a Democratic presidential debate, Clinton declined to give up taking campaign donations from lobbyists, drawing boos and hisses from liberal bloggers. She said many lobbyists "represent corporations that employ a lot of people."
More recently, Clinton has echoed the nation's economic frustrations, pointing to the need to address the gap between the wealthy and poor. In an interview with PBS's Charlie Rose, Clinton said if she runs for president she would have a "very specific agenda."
"You have to run a very specific campaign that talks about the changes you want to make in order to tackle growth," Clinton said, pointing to widespread economic progress made when her husband was president.
G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Blog Archive

issues