MoeIssuesoftheDay.blogspot.com

Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at: mvl270@yahoo.com

Monday, September 22, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day




How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…









By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on September 17, 2014

Dear Friend,

If you've had enough of the NFL coddling and protecting players who abuse women and their own children, please join our effort to support the bill introduced by New Jersey Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) to strip the NFL of its tax exemption.

While individual teams pay business income taxes, the NFL does not.  The head of the National Football League, Roger Gooddell, made a whopping $44 million for the 2012 season and $105 million over the course of five years.

The premise of the tax exemption is that the NFL is not a business, but a fraternal association.  That is totally absurd!

Passing the Booker Bill would generate $100 million in revenue which would be earmarked for the victims of domestic abuse.

Send a message to the NFL!  Please sign this petitionand demand that Congress revoke the National Football League's tax-exempt status.

Click Here To Sign The Petition To Strip The NFL Of Its Tax Exemption!

Your signature will count!  We will send an email in your name to your Senators and Congressman telling him or her of your position!

Please get your friends and family to sign this petition too.
Thanks,
Dick Morris

Issues of the Day fully endorses this effort by Dick Morris. This is a bi-partisan attempt to right a considerable wrong.

Thanks, Moe Lauzier





We can only imagine what Robert Frost would have written upon seeing these beauties. Our thanks to Captain Bruce French.


MORE INSANE ARMING OF 'MODERATES'
BY DIANA WEST , SEPTEMBER 18, 2014
Diana West rejects idea Saudis will be effective 'partner' in training Syrian rebels...
I’m trying to look on the bright side of what passed for debate over another doomed effort to secure U.S. interests by embarking on the fruitless pursuit, cultivation and empowerment of Islamic “moderates,” this time in Syria. We would get better results sending an expeditionary force after the Loch Ness sea monster. No matter. In deliberations resembling a stampede, we heard: The ISIS is coming, the ISIS is coming! Quick, leave our own borders undefended and save Saudi Arabia!

That seemed be the subtext, anyhow, to much talk of Syria. There were odd glimmers of light as when House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers erupted in candor to say, “They use the term ‘moderates.’ I don’t know a moderate person in Syria.” Rogers also gave voice to the ever elusive obvious in noting that “arms that we supplied in Iraq and Afghanistan, American arms” are now in enemy hands.

He could have added Libya to the list and established the unmistakable trend. The U.S. is a total failure at rewiring the Islamic world, the impossible dream of disastrous wars and other interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, “the Middle East peace process” and elsewhere. Now, with predictably tragic consequences, we’re about to do it again.

And still our own nation’s borders remain undefended. I know I just said that, but this epic failure to protect these United States at our first and last line of defense – the ultimate betrayal – cannot be underscored enough. Killers – terrorists and disease – have easy access to our towns and neighborhoods, and our leaders’ priorities are elsewhere.

One look at the world map, however, shows that the most dire threat the ISIS-proclaimed “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria poses is to the seat of the “shadow-caliphate” next door in Saudi Arabia, as the headquarters of the international Islamic organization, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, is sometimes called.

A recent Saudi opinion poll reportedly released on social media claimed that 92 percent of respondents agree that ISIS “conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.” If the poll is even half-accurate, the ISIS threat could well be existential to Saudi Arabia. For all of ISIS’ barbaric violence, even including the most recent beheadings of Westerners in the region, it poses no such existential threat to the United States. If it did, though, this latest vector of jihad would in no way be blunted by U.S. support for Islamic “moderates” again.

“Nobody has a better idea,” Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told the Washington Post by way of explaining his support for the president’s plan to arm and train Syrian “moderates” in Saudi Arabia to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. “Total isolation doesn’t seem appealing at the present time, and the vote itself is legally the smallest possible thing. The interpretation of the vote will be that we vaguely support his not-entirely specific plan.”

On the force of such rhetoric – regrettably typical – Congress approved the president’s anti-ISIS, pro-”moderate” program. Then again, maybe interventionists voted for old time’s sake after retired ambassadors and generals from the failed Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns sent around a letter saying what a great idea it was to turn “properly vetted members of the Syrian opposition” – as if! – “(into) a moderate force” – as if! – “that is capable of defeating ISIL and bringing about a post-Assad Syria that is free of terror.”

And rainbows and unicorns will return to the land.

Only they won’t. They haven’t anywhere the U.S. has tried to work “moderate” magic before. Just ask the bereaved families of U.S. soldiers killed by “properly vetted” Iraqi and Afghan “moderates” – a point powerfully driven home in a floor speech by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif. Meanwhile, how is the administration that designated jihad at Fort Hood a case of “workplace violence” supposed to tell “moderate” from “extremist”?

They can’t. But I suspect that’s really beside the point.

Let’s go back to Saudi Arabia, the not-so-secret central front in this effort to stop ISIS before it’s too late (for Riyadh?). The kingdom, a Shariah-dictatorship par excellence, will be the training site for the “moderate” army as our “full partner,” according to the Obama administration. Secretary of State John Kerry, Time magazine declared in a headline, has now “(Enlisted) Saudi King in War of Ideas Against ISIS.”

That’s rich. Never mind the reports linking the Saudis and others (including Uncle Sam) to the rise of ISIS. Given that the Quran is the constitution of the Islamic state – Saudi Arabia, that is – where leaving Islam is a capital crime, where public beheadings (even for “sorcery”) are a frequent feature of public order, where religions besides Islam are banned, where, of course, there is no freedom of speech, where female genital mutilation is prevalent, where women can’t drive, where there is no public association of men and women (let alone music class, Valentine’s Day, figurative art, etc.), this is one “war of ideas” that may be fought only in the trenches of Kerry’s no-man’s land of a mind. Do the rest of us really have to follow along to support one “caliphate” over another?

On Sept. 1, 2014, a Saudi appeals court upheld the sentence of human rights activist Raif Badawi, co-founder of Liberal Saudi Network, a website created to foster political and social debate. For this “crime” of blogging – tweeting – about reform, Badawi was sentenced by the Saudi government to 10 years in prison, a 10-year travel ban thereafter, a fine of 1 million Saudi Riyals (roughly $267,000), and 1,000 public lashes. Could ISIS improve much on that? As reported by the Gulf Center for Human Rights, the court stipulated that Badawi receive “no more than 50 lashes per session, with a break of no less than a week between sessions. It is feared that the sentence and the first of the lashes will be imposed any day.”

Will that day be before or after our “moderates” come marching in?

Will ISIS Votes Haunt 2016 Contenders?

Will ISIS Votes Haunt 2016 Contenders?

By Jonathan Tobin

The country seems firmly behind President Obama's belated decision to use force against ISIS terrorists and to arm some of the Syrian rebels who will oppose them on the ground. But this seeming consensus isn't affecting the votes of some Republican presidential contenders.
Though even a libertarian neo-isolationist like Senator Rand Paul favors carrying the fight to ISIS, he and some others voted no on the Syrian component of the president's plan. That appears to be the safest course for anyone who fears being tarred with support of an Obama initiative or what may prove to be another unpopular war in a future Republican presidential primary.
That made Thursday's vote an interesting test of character for those 2016 contenders who may have serious qualms about the president's strategy but know that advocating standing aside would be a dereliction of duty.
That's the quandary for Senator Marco Rubio, who stands second to none in the Senate as a critic of the president's foreign policy. Rubio has rightly denounced the president's failures in the Middle East and, in particular, his abandonment of Iraq and dithering on Syria that allowed ISIS to become a dominant force in both countries on Obama's watch.
Like other conservatives as well as a not insignificant number of liberal senators, he's also rightly worried that the president's plans for this conflict are woefully inadequate to the situation.
More than that, along with many Republicans, he believes the president is wrong not to seek an explicit authorization from Congress to fight ISIS rather than to merely pretend, as the administration wrongly contends, that the 2001 vote granting President Bush the right to use troops against al-Qaeda also applies to the rival, and now more powerful, group.
But Rubio indicated that he would vote yes for the authorization on Syria. The question now is whether this will haunt him or anyone else planning on running for higher office or reelection.
Rand Paul seemed to be saying as much when he said that members of Congress were petrified by a possible vote to authorize force. Senator Ted Cruz, whose views on foreign policy are a lot closer to those of Rubio than they are to Paul, seems to agree.
Cruz said he opposes arming the Syrian rebels because the administration doesn't really have a clue as to which groups opposing the regime of Bashar Assad are "good guys" and which are "bad."
It's difficult to argue too strenuously with those qualms. The president's adamant refusal to act on the growing catastrophe in Syria not only enabled ISIS to fill the void but also undermined the chances that genuine moderates might be able to replace the despotic Assad regime and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies.
Moreover, there are, as the New York Times noted, ominous precedents for senators who swallow hard and vote to authorize the use of force but later have that decision thrown in their face by primary opponents.
Hillary Clinton, who voted for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while in the Senate, found herself outflanked on the left by Barack Obama in 2008.
The question facing Rubio and the rest of the Senate is one that juxtaposes the certainty that voting for an expanded conflict will be viewed by many voters as a mistake against the certainty that the failure to act will allow ISIS to prevail in the fighting.
As I've noted, as the U.S. prepares to step up the fight against ISIS, the country's main problem is not the lack of a strategy but the seeming inability of the president to play the part of a wartime leader. Supporting operations in the Middle East under such circumstances is a perilous undertaking. So, too, is any effort to finally aid those Syrian forces that are not linked to Islamists or Assad and the Iranians.
But Rubio is right to worry more about the danger of inaction than any possible political repercussions. Were the U.S. to stand aside in Syria, especially with the president foolishly taking the threat of a direct intervention on the ground off the table, the consequences would be grave. If, as most Americans rightly now understand, ISIS is a serious threat to U.S. security, any counterattack undertaken now, whether well led or not, is bound to improve the situation. More to the point, the failure to act would be a potential catastrophe and might make all the difference in the ultimate outcome of a conflict in which U.S. success is not assured, notwithstanding the braggadocio being heard to that effect in Washington these days.
There is no way of knowing today whether votes on Syria or Iraq will be major liabilities in the winter or spring of 2016 or, indeed, if the ISIS threat will still be an issue at that time. The year and a half between now and the presidential primaries is a lifetime in politics. But Paul and Cruz are probably right in reckoning that any vote that can be construed as insufficiently anti-Obama is a safe bet and that those who vote yes are giving up a valuable hostage to fortune, whether or not they run for president.
Just as it is simple to second guess those who voted for war in Iraq without thinking what dangers would have resulted from doing nothing, it will be easy to take pot shots at those who vote yes today.
But Rubio is still in the right here. The costs of doing nothing in war are usually higher than those of boldness. Even with an inadequate leader who is not prepared to do everything to achieve victory, the situation will be better off if the U.S. finally starts to do something to alter the correlation of forces in Syria and Iraq against both Assad and the terrorists.
Voting no may eventually be popular, but it wasn't the right thing to do.



HELL FREEZES OVER: LIMBAUGH UNLOADS ON REPUBLICANS
by Kathy Shaidle , September 19, 2014
'I don't know what they stand for anymore, other than they're not Obama'...
Listeners have been asking Rush Limbaugh why he hasn’t devoted much airtime to election-related polls or analyzing the Republican Party’s chances of triumphing in the next election.


Thursday, Limbaugh addressed these questions, explaining that he “is not gonna talk about something if I have to do it perfunctorily, if I’m not into it and don’t care about [it].”

And if he can’t get excited about “the nuts and bolts of the election,” he explained, it’s because he doesn’t know “what the Republican Party message is” anymore.

Polls show that Obama and the Democrats are less popular than they’ve been in years, but at the same time, Limbaugh noted, these polls don’t exactly foreshadow an upcoming Republican landslide, either.

Limbaugh tried to explain why.

“I don’t know what to cheer about,” he said. “I can remember back in the days, the Reagan years, it was exciting to be a Republican. We knew what we supported. (…) It was something to be very proud of and excited about. You wanted to be part of it; you wanted to help it. I just don’t feel anything like that now.”

Instead, talk-radio king complained, today’s GOP is filled with cautious Beltway consultants and timid, defensive candidates who are afraid to say anything specific or “controversial.”

“Can somebody tell me what the Republican Party stands for when it comes to amnesty?” Limbaugh asked. “Does the Republican Party talk about job creation? Is the Republican Party talking about economic growth? (…) I don’t know what they stand for anymore, other than they’re not Obama, they’re not the Democrats. I really don’t know. So I don’t know what to talk about!”

Limbaugh challenged Republicans to stop speaking in clich├ęs and delivering vague boilerplate speeches. Instead, he said, candidates need to spell out exactly what they would do to fix, say, immigration or Obamacare.

He reminded listeners why the Republican Party made such gains in 2010.

“That vote in 2010 against a Democrat and for a Republican was the only hope anybody ever had of repealing Obamacare,” Limbaugh said. “That is a powerful single issue. That is something to get rallied behind, focused on and cheering and enthused about.”

This time around, he concluded, the GOP should go on the offensive again and focus on another urgent, emotionally charged issue, whether it is immigration or the threat posed by ISIL:

“Do you realize how many people are just itching to stand up and cheer and to be part of something that would be victorious and turn the tide – at least start to turn the tide – on all this?” he asked. “Whether you think we’ve lost the country or we’re on the verge of it, at some point you have to work on reversing course.”



obama_plots

During decades of wars, America has paid for failure to learn one lesson

By Guardian (UK)

The US seems doomed to constantly forget and painfully relearn one military lesson: unclear goals invite escalation.
The third Iraq war is the latest example. There are currently 1,700 US soldiers in Iraq - 1,600 more than were there in June. Just don't call them ground troops. So far, US forces in Iraq have been described as embassy security or "advisers".
The euphemism undercuts Barack Obama's insistence that US troops will not return to combat in Iraq - a message he repeated yesterday. The growing troop total is not the only US escalation.
Air strikes have expanded from Iraq's north to south-west of Baghdad, and will soon target Isis in Syria. Chuck Hagel, the US defence secretary, acknowledged that the first cohort of US-trained Syrian rebels "is not going to be able to turn the tide". Nor has the US firmed up a Middle East coalition that can sustain that proxy army in the field.
Obama laid out his goals in Iraq last week: to degrade and ultimately destroy Isis. It signals finality, yet its meaning is elusive. Dempsey testified that the destruction of Isis will occur when Sunni Arabs reject its ideology - raising the question of when the US will know it can stop bombing. It is a question that the US for decades has proved far better at deferring than answering, at the cost of countless lives, dollars and victories.
In Afghanistan, Obama's goal for his 2010-11 troop surge was to "break the Taliban's momentum". Its result was a diminished form of the insurgent force while a US presence stretches the war into 2016 and possibly 2024.
Obama's goal against al-Qaida was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" the organisation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At the moment, that looks successful, as al-Qaida's core has neared irrelevance since Osama bin Laden's death in 2011. But US drone strikes in Pakistan continue. The response to al-Qaida franchises in Yemen, Somalia and other battlefields is shrouded in secrecy, sparing the US the need to explain its goals.
George W Bush's goals for the second Iraq war pivoted from eliminating WMD to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein to the preservation of something resembling democracy. That war's most successful period adopted the more realistic (if undeclared) goal of making Iraq somewhat less violent.
In Korea, Douglas MacArthur reinvented the war from the preservation of a US ally in Seoul to the destruction of Moscow's ally in Pyongyang, and the conflict ended in gruesome stalemate.
In Vietnam, unrealistic guarantees to foreign proxies and preference for military solutions to political challenges contributed to a traumatising escalation.
US wars are more likely to end through an external event, such as Libyan rebels' killing of Muammar Gaddafi, than the deliberate application of force.
The exception is the first Iraq war. Its goal, removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait, was as clear as it was achievable. It obviated the need for escalation through its swift victory. Its tragedy was the post-facto establishment of removing Saddam as a policy goal, which has sunk the US ever deeper into Iraqi affairs.
Only in the first Iraq war did US policymakers make a frank commitment about the substantial costs required. Before and since, the preference has been to blur those goals, the better to appear forceful. Yet the costs of setting unclear and moving targets are that violence is compounded while victory remains elusive.

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE VOTE FAILS

Handicapping the Scottish independence referendum was tricky, but the analysts who thought Scotland would vote for independence had some persuasive arguments.  The independence movement was better-organized and more exciting; it did a better job of using both traditional and new media; the political leader of the movement, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, was charismatic and capable; young voters were fired up about casting a historic independence vote; the Scots were tired of living under ruling coalitions in London they didn’t vote for; the Scots were swinging left, while the rest of the UK was having a few second thoughts about cradle-to-grave socialism; the referendum was set up so that Scots living abroad, who tended to favor remaining in the United Kingdom, couldn’t vote.  Even the wording of the referendum was said to make independence sound like the rightful due of the Scottish people, which could influence fence-sitters to vote yes.
But in the end, three centuries of union were preserved, and it wasn’t even close.  Turnout was huge, and the final tally came in 55 percent against independence, 45 percent in favor.  The “Yes” vote did enjoy some regional successes, however, notably including Glasgow, which voted by 53 percent in favor of independence.
Conventional wisdom now swings smoothly to the conclusion that the Scottish independence referendum was never all that serious to begin with – it was always meant to be a shakedown, an effort to rattle cages in London and squeeze out political and financial concessions for Scotland.  In that, it seems to have been successful, although it remains to be seen just what the vague promises made to Scots by England during the campaign will amount to in practice.  One suspects those promises will be generously fulfilled, to prevent the whole drama from repeating itself in the near future.  Consider the contrast between the statements made by Salmond and Prime Minister David Cameron, as reported by the UK Guardian:
David Cameron has declared a “clear result” in the Scottish independence referendum after Scotland voted by a 10.6-point margin against ending the 307-year-old union with England and Wales.

The prime minister promised a devolution revolution across Great Britain, including votes on English issues by English MPs at Westminster, as he hailed Scotland’s decision to remain inside the UK.

“There can be no disputes, no reruns – we have heard the settled will of the Scottish people,” Cameron said in a statement outside No 10 Downing Street shortly after 7am on Friday.

Earlier, Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, struck a defiant note at a downbeat Scottish National party rally in Edinburgh, saying he accepted Scotland had not “at this stage” decided to vote for independence.

He paid tribute to what he called a “triumph for democratic politics” and said he would work with Westminster in the best interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK – warning the leaders of the three main parties to make good on their promises of enhanced devolution for Scotland.

“We have touched sections of the community who have never before been touched by politics,” he said.
Clear result, Scotland has spoken, no disputes, no reruns, settled will of the people… now, let’s get busy with devolution!  Which sounds like an excellent idea, actually, provided it’s managed properly.  I suspect “devolution” – more properly, decentralization - will be the big story of the 21st Century, just as centralization was the big story of the 20th.  Centralized power doesn’t work: its promises are never fulfilled, its errors are epic in scale, it wastes hideous amounts of money, it fosters bitterness and unrest by forcing top-down solutions on dissenting people, and it dilutes the sense of representation that democracy is supposed to bring.  That was a common lament from Scots who favored independence – they felt they had no effective voice in the central government.  It’s a complaint that found sympathy among Americans observers, whose nation was founded on precisely those complaints… and where today’s citizens feel increasingly disconnected from a massive and distant central government they don’t control in any meaningful way.  By definition, centralization is the dissolution of representation, an idea I explored at greater length over at RedState yesterday.
Some interpret the failure of centralization as the death knell for large and diverse nations.  Even liberals are prone to bang out “America is ungovernable” screeds when they’re frustrated about not getting their way, or when they’re trying to cover for the latest Big Government failure.  The answer may instead lie in decentralizing power to preserve national unions, shifting both power and responsibility to local governments.  This has the immediate beneficial effect of making voters feel better-represented, as smaller governments they can more readily influence grow more significant than the distant national capital.  It makes the people in different states or regions less prone to resent one another.  It breaks up the lobbyist and special-interest domination just about everyone, across the political spectrum, professes to hate… but which is inherent to big, centralized government.
And perhaps most importantly, decentralization gives citizens a greater sense of both control and responsibility for their own fates – something the Scottish independence movement spoke passionately, even poetically about – while also giving those unhappy with local rule an easy way to withdraw their consent without leaving the nation.  The Scots have a golden opportunity to use the enhanced powers coming their way to make Scotland a proud example of successful government within the United Kingdom.  I hope they do such a bang-up job that the rest of the U.K. ends up wishing they could be more like the Scots.
Holding the United Kingdom together is very good news for Prime Minister Cameron, who was so doomed by the success of the “yes” vote that he was reduced to claiming he wasn’t doomed by the success of the “yes” vote.  His political coffin can now be wheeled back into storage until the next crisis.  Here’s more of his statement from the Guardian, along with reactions from some other leaders:
Cameron said: “The people of Scotland have spoken and it is a clear result. They have kept our country of four nations together and, like millions of other people, I am delighted.  [Ed. note: for the benefit of American readers, the other two nations of the UK, besides England and Scotland, are Rohan and Gondor.]

“As I said during the campaign, it would have broken my heart to see our United Kingdom come to an end. And I know that sentiment was shared by people not just across our country but around the world because of what we have achieved together in the past and what we can do together in the future.

“So now it is time for our United Kingdom to come together and to move forward. A vital part of that will be a balanced settlement, fair to people in Scotland and importantly to everyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well.”

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, said the referendum was a vote from the Scottish people for change. “We know our country needs to change in the way it is governed and we know our country needs to change in who it is governed for. We will deliver on stronger powers for a stronger Scottish parliament, a strong Scotland.”

But he said that would go beyond Scotland. “We will also meet the desire for change across England, across Wales, across the whole of the United Kingdom.”

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, said the referendum “marks not only a new chapter for Scotland within the UK but also wider constitutional reform across the union”.

Echoing the SNP’s argument, he said a vote against independence was “clearly not a vote against change”.

“We must now deliver on time and in full the radical package of newly devolved powers to Scotland,” he added.
Not everyone is wild about the broad outlines of Cameron’s “devolution revolution,” including the feisty UK Independence Party, which thinks it doesn’t go far enough:
Yet that result raises the risk of further turmoil, with MPs from Cameron’s Conservative party threatening to revolt against the prime minister’s late and potentially vital vow to quickly increase the Scottish parliament’s powers while protecting its spending.

The Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, said Cameron’s offer of more devolution for England did not go far enough. “The English are 86% by population of this union. They’ve been left out of all of this for the last 18 years. We still have a situation where Scottish MPs can vote in the House of Commons on English-only issues. I think what most English people want is a fair settlement,” he said.
Well, “independence” and “autonomy” also mean paying your own way, Scotland.  How about it?  Any takers?  While we await the answer, Bloomberg Businessweek reports the markets are very pleased with the preservation of the United Kingdom:
Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Lloyds Banking Group Plc, which had threatened to shift their domiciles out of Scotland if it separated from Britain, rose. SAP SE fell the most in more than five months after the biggest maker of business-management software agreed to buy Concur Technologies Inc. Sulzer AG lost 3.8 percent after people familiar with the plan said Siemens AG may make an offer for Dresser-Rand Group Inc. Options and futures on stocks and indexes expire today in a process known as quadruple witching.

The Stoxx Europe 600 Index gained 0.4 percent to 349.06 at 1:30 p.m. in London, after earlier rallying as much as 0.9 percent. The number of shares changing hands in the gauge’s companies was more than double the 30-day average for this time, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The U.K.’s FTSE 100 Index advanced 0.6 percent to 6861.39, about 17 points lower than a 14-year high reached in May.

“It’s a risk-on day,” Richard Champion, chief investment officer of Sanlam Private Investments (U.K.) Ltd., which manages $4 billion, said by telephone in London. The Scottish referendum “is one more thing investors don’t have to worry about. A ‘yes’ vote would’ve caused uncertainty for the European and U.K. markets. In continental Europe, we have loose monetary policy that will be supportive for shares.”
There’s a lot to be said for the stability that comes with a comfortable union.  Centralization, with its attendant corruption, inefficiency, and arrogance, is the great menace to harmonious union in the new century.
G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day




How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…









By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on September 17, 2014

Dear Friend,

If you've had enough of the NFL coddling and protecting players who abuse women and their own children, please join our effort to support the bill introduced by New Jersey Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) to strip the NFL of its tax exemption.

While individual teams pay business income taxes, the NFL does not.  The head of the National Football League, Roger Gooddell, made a whopping $44 million for the 2012 season and $105 million over the course of five years.

The premise of the tax exemption is that the NFL is not a business, but a fraternal association.  That is totally absurd!

Passing the Booker Bill would generate $100 million in revenue which would be earmarked for the victims of domestic abuse.

Send a message to the NFL!  Please sign this petitionand demand that Congress revoke the National Football League's tax-exempt status.

Click Here To Sign The Petition To Strip The NFL Of Its Tax Exemption!

Your signature will count!  We will send an email in your name to your Senators and Congressman telling him or her of your position!

Please get your friends and family to sign this petition too.
Thanks,
Dick Morris

Issues of the Day fully endorses this effort by Dick Morris. This is a bi-partisan attempt to right a considerable wrong.

Thanks, Moe Lauzier





A recent study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than men who mention it.



NBC Offers Repellent Advice on Appeasing Home Invaders







Americans have a constitutional right to armed self-defense, but they have other choices as well.  The University of Colorado, for example, last year offered the students it sought to disarm with statewide legislation other “crime prevention tactics.”  Options for female students facing rapists included passive resistance,” biting, and self-degradation.  According to one proponent of the bill to ban the lawful carrying of firearms on campuses, such threats are “why we have the whistles.”
Along similar lines, NBC’s Today Show recently offered suggestions on how to deal with violent home invaders.  Their basic advice:  politely defer to the intruder, but if things really get out of hand, reach for the insect repellent.
For the tips, the Today Show interviewed former NYPD detective Wallace Zeins, whose New York City pedigree was evident in his recommendations.  First, Zeins instructed viewers to use their vehicles’ key fobs as a makeshift alarm.  Following that, the former detective told the audience to keep a can of wasp spray in the bedroom to use as an improvised chemical weapon against a violent intruder.  Further, the report suggested abandoning one’s home to the intruder as soon as possible.  If captured by a violent home invader, Zeins’s advice was to comply with the attacker’s every wish, and to never lie to them.
At no time did the report suggest that firearms were a viable option.  Also unclear was whether Zeins himself has abandoned the firearms he carried as a police officer in favor of bug spray to protect his own home and family.
The Today Show’s omission of firearms as a legitimate means of self-defense isn’t especially surprising, given NBC’ slengthy history of anti-gun bias.  Nevertheless, while the defensive capabilities of firearms for home defense may continue to escape the attention of NBC’s producers, the legitimacy of this option has been recognized by far weightier institutions.
The Supreme Court’s Heller decision noted one of the reasons D.C.’s handgun ban was unconstitutional was that “[t]he prohibition extend[ded] … to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.”  The Supreme Court’s opinion in McDonald reiterated this point.  State legislatures have increasingly passed Castle Doctrine legislation to protect residents who employ armed self-defense from unjust prosecution and civil liability, amplifying a doctrine well-established in Anglo-American case law.
Further, there is strong evidence that gun use is the most effective means to defend oneself from criminal attack.  A 1988 study by Florida State Professor of Criminology Gary Kleck titled Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force determined, “Victim resistance with guns is associated with lower rates of both victim injury and crime completion for robberies and assaults than any other victim action, including nonresistance.”
Despite their best efforts, Today and Zein inadvertently gave one sound piece of advice, when the former detective told viewers to treat home invaders “like royalty.”  While he apparently meant that a victim should be as obsequious as possible to an assailant, liberty-loving Americans have a strong tradition of treating interloping monarchs to the business end of their rifles.

MOTHER OF SLAIN JOURNALIST JAMES FOLEY DROPS BOMBSHELL ON TV

Not that red-blooded Americans need any more reason to desire a total shake-up of the entrenched establishment… nevertheless, here’s a bit more fuel to add to the fire.
Diane Foley told Anderson Cooper in a CNN interview that she was both “embarrassed” and “appalled” at how the situation regarding her son’s capture and eventual execution played out. Primarily because the government looked right past the plight of her son and treated her and her family as an “annoyance.”
Diane Foley she wasted no time in indicting the government with serious “mishandling” of her son’s capture and treatment. For example, she told Cooper that many times she and her family knew more about the whereabouts of her son James than authorities ever did.
“Jim was killed in the most horrific way. He was sacrificed because of just a lack of coordination, lack of communication, lack of prioritization,” Foley said. “As a family, we had to find our way through this on our own.”
The Foley’s are like any other family who love their children. They weren’t selfish; they merely wanted to be reunited with their loved one.
At times, when it seemed like the U.S. government wasn’t doing enough to help them, the Foley’s considered raising ransom money to free their son.
Shockingly, they were told by the state department that, if they were to do that, they would be charged with a criminal offense.
The Foley’s were left with very little recourse, and were forced to depend on a government that didn’t really seem all that interested in helping free their son.
“I think our efforts to get Jim freed were an annoyance [to the U.S. government],” she said in the interview. “It didn’t seem to be in (U.S.) strategic interest, if you will.”
As outrageous as it is, perhaps it isn’t all that shocking.
The Obama administration has been very calculating and very secretive in its handling of affairs internationally, often using situations like this as mere political props.
For instance, Foley revealed to Cooper that more than once they were told by U.S. government officials they were “not go to the media,” and that the “government would not exchange prisoners” or carry out “military action” to help free her son.
Why wasn’t the government interested in helping the Foley’s? The answer to that question might have something to do with America’s desire for military engagement with ISIS.
Keep in mind, much of the establishment is always looking out for their best interest. If you’ll recall, just a few short months prior, right as the VA scandal broke, Obama hastily arranged a hostage negotiation for Bowe Bergdahl, despite lacking the constitutional authority to do so.
His release served Obama and his administration as much as it did Bergdahl.
So, if you look at it in a certain light, James Foley might have served the U.S. government’s interests better dead than he ever would have alive.
As his mother said, “Jim would have been saddened… Jim believed, till the end, that his country would come to (his) aid.”


Rocky Mountain Momentum: GOP's Gardner Surges Ahead in Colorado Senate Race



Democrats and left-wing groups have spent the last six months tearing down Colorado Republicans' Senate nominee, Rep. Cory Gardner, dropping millions of dollars on negative advertising. The idea has been to exploit their hefty financial advantage to define Gardner as a terrifying right-wing gargoyle in voters' minds before he had the resources and platforms chance to introduce himself on his own terms. Two new public polls indicate that their costly efforts haven't gotten the job done. Yesterday we told you about a new Suffolk/USA Today survey showing Gardner pulling into a very slim lead over incumbent Democrat Mark Udall (43/42). We also highlighted a Quinnipiac poll that put Republican gubernatorial nominee Bob Beauprez ten points ahead of incumbent Democrat John Hickenlooper. Quinnipiac hadn't released its Senate numbers yesterday, but I speculated that they'd almost certainly show Gardner in the lead:



Lo and behold, those results have now dropped:


Colorado U.S. Sen. Mark Udall trails U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, his Republican challenger, 48 - 40 percent among likely voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Independent candidate Steve Shogan gets 8 percent. With Shogan out of the race, Rep. Gardner leads 52 - 42 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds. This survey of likely voters can not be compared with earlier surveys of registered voters. In the three-way matchup, Gardner leads Udall among men 53 - 34 percent, with 9 percent for Shogan. Women go 46 percent for Udall, 43 percent for Gardner and 7 percent for Shogan. Independent voters go 42 percent for Gardner, 40 percent for Udall and 15 percent for Shogan. Republicans back Gardner over Udall 88 - 5 percent with 5 percent for Shogan. Democrats back Udall over Gardner 90 - 3 percent, with 2 percent for Shogan.

A separate question asks Shogan voters, who are far more likely to say that they may change their vote before election day, whom they'd pick as their second choice in the race. That result: 52-42 for Gardner. Other polling has shown Gardner trailing among independents (a rarity for a Republican this cycle), and losing women pretty badly. This survey suggests he's closing those gaps. He's now (+10) on personal favorability -- extraordinary, given the relentless character assassination ads -- while Udall is (-8) on the same measure. Sure enough, Udall's individual character ratings are ugly: He's underwater on "honest and trustworthy" and "cares about people like you," while Gardner is soaring on both fronts. Of those respondents who say their vote will reflect their feelings on President Obama, they break against the president by nearly a three-to-one margin. Polls have consistently shown Obama's overall approval rating upside-down in the Rocky Mountain State for months, with Obamacare acting as another major drag.  The Udall campaign has rushed out internal polling to reassure nervous supporters:


National Journal's Josh Kraushaar notes that even Udall's own figures show him several points shy of 50.  He also points out that the Q-poll's sample was pretty heavily Republican, which explains the big leads for Gardner and Beauprez.  Both margins look like outliers, at least for now.  But there's a common denominator between Q's data and the less-outliers USA Today poll: Udall is polling in the low 40's -- a big time danger zone for an incumbent.  I'm skeptical that Gardner is actually up by eight in this race, but the red flags for Udall and the GOP's momentum look to be real. Stuck in a dead heat or trailing, Udall is taking the unprecedented step of avoiding televised debates in Colorado, perhaps because his first un-televised meeting with Gardner didn't go well for him. At all.  Instead, he's going to continue bombarding the airwaves with attack ads as his primary means of interacting with voters.  Denver's local CBS affiliate fact-checked one demagogic spot he's running against Gardner, declaring it misleading and "politics at its worst:"


It's a bit weird seeing excellent, fair, down-the-middle reporting, isn't it?  I'll leave you with this link to a Hot Air piece I wrote last week about Planned Parenthood's surreal attack on Cory Gardner over his proposal to...expand women's access to birth control.  The ends always justify the means, even if you have to tie yourself into embarrassing pretzels to get there.

Proof That Sarah Palin Derangement Syndrome Is Real


The weirdest thing happened today. In a world with few sane liberals, Jeffrey Goldberg is a sane liberal. He’s typically sober-minded and almost always worth a read on any number of topics. But today he tweeted out something very, very, very weird. Pardon the abbreviated French I used in my response:
Um, yeah. This went over precisely as well as you’d expect it to and Goldberg quickly realized its imprudence. So let’s cut immediately to this part:
We all say, think or tweet stupid stuff. It’s best to just acknowledge that we can all be idiots at times, say we’re sorry, and move on. It may be a good idea for Goldberg to explain precisely what he was thinking, but apology accepted. I’m just using the whole incident as a means to discuss the broader oddity of American progressives’ Palin Derangement Syndrome.
Now, I’m no reflexive Palin-defender. See, for example, my “No, Sarah Palin, Baptism Isn’t A Good Punchline For A Terrorist Joke.”
But more than anything I might say in favor of or against her policies, I’m struck by how she causes people with progressive tendencies to lose their ever-living minds. What is that about? And I’m interested in that not just because she gets everyone to Peak Freud in under 10 seconds, but because she’s just a great example of how progressives treat all women who share some of her characteristics.
And that’s whether we embrace life in all its messiness — fertile wombs, grizzly bear mothering, shooting wolves out of helicopters, you know the usual — or simply reject the victimization status so graciously conferred upon us by feminism or, horror of horrors, we trust in God.
I’m honestly wondering why, though. Why are we such a threat? Is it the power of our non-barren wombs? Is it the power that comes with not accepting progressive politics of constant victimization? Are women only really acceptable to liberal elites if we’re constantly trying to be just like men? Is it our understanding of guns? (A friend noted in response to Goldberg’s odd comment that of course that picture isn’t reminiscent of Sarah Palin since “Palin knows the third rule of gun safety.”) Is it the confidence we exude as faithful women?
It may be that. One Goldberg defender suggested that there was no big deal with comparing the eye-cloaked, Burqa-wearing woman with Palin. Here was his explanation:
Because all religions are exactly like, according to the deep thinking of some folks walking the earth right now. Of course that’s an easy comparison. Easy peasy. And idiotic and reductive to the extreme, but whatever.
I don’t know Goldberg. And I like his writing a lot. But if this kind of derangement can get even to someone like him, it’s disconcerting.
Let’s stop with the weird double standards for slurs allowed against conservative women that aren’t allowed for liberal women.
You don’t have to like Sarah Palin, although if you’re still obsessing over and against her in 2014 you may want to seek professional help. But also, just consider precisely why you fear fecundity, Christianity and strong women. And whether current elite embrace of death and barrenness, the empty public square and victimization of women are all they’re cracked up to be.

Ted Cruz: A Nuclear Iran Remains 'Most Significant Threat'


By Cathy Burke

Iran's nuclear ambitions are a bigger threat to America than the Islamic State (ISIS) militants, Sen. Ted Cruz says.

"As grave as the threat from ISIS is, in my view the most significant threat to U.S. national security remains the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability," Cruz told the Washington Free Beacon.

Cruz said America must not use the fight against the Islamic State group to appease Iran because it would only "facilitate their acquiring nuclear weapon capability." He also blasted Obama administration policies that "have increased the chances of Iran acquiring nuclear weapon capability, and have perversely increased the chances of future military conflict."

Answering "what should a strong president do," Cruz touted his legislation that "would immediately re-impose sanctions on Iran, would strengthen those sanctions to make them as crippling as humanly possible, and then it lays out a clear path to how Iran can lift those sanctions.”

The Texas Republican's assessment of the Iran threat echoed that of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who in a recent interview declared "a conflict with ISIS — important as it is — is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran."

But Cruz told the Free Beacon the Islamic State group and Iran have one thing in common: Both are "radical Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. The one thing on which they agree is killing Americans."

"If we don’t act now and if they are able to consolidate power and control of a nation state with massive oil revenues, the inevitable consequence of that will be a significant and perhaps even massive loss of life here in the United States,"Cruz told the Free Beacon.

America's objective is straightforward, he said.

"We have a job to do, and it’s not transform distant countries into democratic utopias,"said Cruz. "It’s not turn Iraq into Switzerland. It’s to prevent people who want to kill Americans from killing Americans.”

"I think it is unquestionably right that we are tired of sending our sons and daughters to distant lands to engage with nation-building,"he added. "But I think it is a profound misreading of the American spirit to confuse that with Americans being unwilling to defend themselves, being unwilling to stand up to serious and real national security threats, and to stand up with overwhelming force.”




Harvard: Millions Of Dollars More For Gun Control



Harvard University’s School of Public Health is set to receive a $350 million donation to study “gun violence” and other “complex health threats challenging the U.S. and the world,” CNN reports. The donation, the largest ever received by the university, is being made by the Morningside Foundation, run by the descendants of Hong Kong real estate tycoon T.H. Chan, for whom the school will be renamed.
Billionaire bankrolling of the anti-gun movement is perhaps the most significant new development in the gun control debate in our lifetime.  Last year, anti-gun activist Michael Bloomberg donated $350 million to Johns Hopkins University’s School of Public Health, already named for Bloomberg, based upon his previous donations.  Bloomberg, the Washington Post reported, also “has committed to spending $50 million of his personal fortune this year to build a national grassroots movement that will pressure lawmakers to pass more restrictive gun laws.”
In May, we noted that the Democracy Alliance, backed by George Soros, is planning to funnel millions of dollars to a variety of groups that support gun control and other “progressive” causes.  According to an internal document prepared by the “alliance,” those anti-gun groups include the Brennan Center, the Center for American Progress, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown operation, MediaMatters, Organizing for Action/BarackObama.com, the Progressive Majority, and Third Way.
Also in May, the Washington Times reported that anti-gun members of Congress aren’t satisfied with the millions of dollars that their ideological brethren are investing in the anti-gun cause.  They want gun owners to help pay for it as well.  Toward that end, Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) have introduced legislation proposing to spend $60 million of the taxpayers’ money to study gun violence (i.e., promote gun control) over the next few years.
The Chan family chose Harvard to receive its $350 million donation at least in part because one of the members of the family attended the school previously.  However, Harvard’s School of Public Health already had a long record of aggressive support for gun control, largely funded by the Joyce Foundation and other progressive donors.  Its Injury Control Research Center, led by anti-gun public health researchers David Hemenway and Matthew Miller, was the source of much of the biased anti-gun advocacy “research” that convinced Congress to prohibit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from paying for any more of it with the taxpayers’ money.
Gun control supporters would like nothing more than for gun owners to think that resistance to the anti-gunners bottomless pocketbooks is futile.  But, we know that no matter how much money the anti-gunners spend, they can’t buy our freedom, because it’s not for sale.  Let the anti-gun billionaires know that by Voting Freedom First on November 4.

G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier




Blog Archive

issues