Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Obama wrecked the Middle East

Putin Slams Obama on Arab Spring: “Do You Realize What You Have Done?” (VIDEO)
 (Telegraph) – Vladimir Putin snubbed Barack Obama and revived Russia’s historic role in the Middle East on Monday by calling for a new “broad coalition” to fight Isil based on co-operation with the Assad regime, report Richard Spencer, Harriet Alexander in New York and Roland Oliphant in Moscow. In his long-awaited speech at the United Nations, the Russian president fiercely attacked American policy in Syria and around the world and criticized the West for “exporting social experiments” in the form of democratic revolutions, which he blamed for the Middle East crisis. He said he had called for a new Syrian peace conference to be attended by a “contact group” of outside powers including Russia and the United States, as well as regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Iran. SPECIAL: We must stop America’s Fraud President NOW! Force the hand of Congress to oust him. Pull out all the stops. Give it everything you’ve got. Send an IMPEACH OBAMA fax, an IMPEACH OBAMA petition, and a PINK SLIP WARNING to every member of Congress—all 535 members of the House and Senate—for a donation of just $50 or more. Despite the fact that Russia is not among the countries led by the US currently conducting operations against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), Mr Putin followed up reports that it was co-ordinating intelligence sharing between Iran, Iraq and Syria by putting Moscow at the centre of the world’s “war on terror”. He went so far as to compare his plans to the alliance that fought Hitler in the Second World War. “We must address the problems that we are all facing and create a broad anti-terror coalition,” he said. After meeting Mr Obama, Mr Putin expanded on his theme, suggesting that countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey could join Iran in a new coalition together backed by a fresh UN resolution. He could not “exclude” Russia co-operating with the US in such a coalition, he said. But he insisted that he would not send Russian ground forces in against Isil, raising questions as to whether the key to his new strategy was the fight against the terror group or to help the regime in its broader war against an armed opposition of all stripes. Mr Putin’s gambit – which had been much briefed in advance – sets up Russia as a competitor with the US for leadership in the Syrian crisis and in the Middle East in general. It also makes clear that Mr. Putin is going to stand by his ally President Bashar al-Assad. Earlier, Mr. Obama had conceded that the US’s previous insistence that Iran, Syria’s principal regional backer, should have no part in peace talks was a mistake. “The United States is prepared to work with any nation, including Russia and Iran, to resolve the conflict,” he said. He also indicated that he remained unwilling to try to restore order in Syria using America’s military might – citing his own army’s failures in Iraq.

Russia in Syria

Russia is Greatly Expanding Its Presence in This Critical Country
With tensions rising in the Middle East, now come reports that Russia is drastically increasing its presence in Syria. According to The Blaze:
Russian forces are expanding the tarmac of a major airport in Syria’s coastal province of Latakia, a stronghold of President Bashar Assad and his minority sect, a prominent Syrian monitoring group said Sunday.
The report comes amid rising concern among U.S. officials of increased Russian military activity in Syria.
President Barack Obama cast the buildup as an effort to prop up the country’s embattled leader, warning Moscow against doubling down on Assad.
Russia, a longtime backer of Syria’s government, denies it’s trying to bolster Assad and says its increased military activity is part of the international effort to defeat the Islamic State group which has wreaked havoc in Syria and Iraq.
On Sunday, the Russian foreign minister called for the international community to include the Syrian government in efforts to fight IS.
Syria has been the center of a middle-east struggle for the last several years. Many thought the US and its allies might invade by now. With Russia building a more permanent airbase, the stakes are raised.
Invading Syria and just the Syrian army is one thing the allies could do – think Iraq. Sure, they could conquer quickly, but holding the country for any period of time would be costly in both blood and treasure.
Now, with Russia, invading Syria raises the specter of world war. Tension is high, now the stakes have gotten even higher.
What do you think? Is Russia’s move provocative or defensive? Leave a comment with your thoughts below.

Importing Terrorists

Obama brings 1,500 terrorists to U.S. Crimes allegedly done 'under duress', by Leo Hohmann, 9/29/15, WND 
The Obama administration allowed 1,519 terror-stained foreign refugees into the U.S. last year because their crimes were allegedly committed “while under duress.”
The administration last year eased federal restrictions against terrorist activity for refugees and asylum seekers. Under the old rules, these 1,519 foreign nationals would have been banned from entering the country because they supported terrorist causes.
But under the new rules for vetting refugees, the secretary of Homeland Security has “discretionary authority” to waive certain cases of inadmissibility relating to terrorist activity.
A person could have provided shelter or sold a weapon to a terrorist, for instance, then claimed he did not know that the person being helped was a terrorist or that he was forced to provide the aid under duress.
“We’ve seen this discretionary authority abused in the last few years and, in fact, the administration has eliminated a zero-tolerance policy for granting asylum or residency to individuals who have provided any sort of terrorism-related support,” said a release from Judicial Watch Tuesday.
The watchdog agency said the federal government’s latest available figures for granting asylum or residency to foreigners participating in terrorist causes are “incredibly disturbing, especially since the agency charged with keeping the nation safe, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), appears to downplay the seriousness of the crimes.”
Judicial Watch obtained the numbers from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services annual report to Congress on the DHS secretary’s application of discretionary authority.
The biggest chunk of exemptions was processed for refugee applicants and lawful permanent resident status with 806 and 614, respectively.
The U.S. took in 70,000 foreign refugees in fiscal 2015, which ends Sept. 30, and Obama has decided to increase that number to 85,000 in 2016 and 100,000 in 2017. In addition to the refugees, the U.S. takes in about 25,000 asylees every year.
The remainder of the terror-connected persons were processed under other DHS programs such as temporary protected status, or TPS, which allows foreign persons here as students, tourists or other reasons to stay beyond their visa expirations due to natural disasters or wars in their homelands.
“The bottom line is that the U.S. government is allowing them all to stay in the country with rights and benefits afforded to legal residents despite their terrorist connections and associations,” said Judicial Watch.
More than half of the candidates rewarded by DHS last year provided material support to terrorist organizations, according to the DHS report. The others received military-type training from a terrorist organization, voluntarily provided medical care to members of a terrorist group and solicited funds or individuals for membership in a terrorist organization.
After a case-by-case review, Obama DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson determined that the recently admitted terrorists only participated in these activities “while under duress.”
This effort was officially launched last year when the administration quietly changed the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INS, implemented decades ago to govern immigration and citizenship in the United States.
The law includes a ban on admitting refugees and asylum seekers who may have provided terrorists with any sort of material support, even the kind that may be considered trivial by some.
“In other words, the federal law rightfully had a zero tolerance for any kind of involvement with terrorist elements,” Judicial Watch reported. “But a joint effort by DHS and the State Department created an ‘Exercise of Authority’ that allows ‘an alien who provided limited material support’ to a terrorist organization to stay in the U.S. if the powers that be in our government believe they pose no threat.”
“The administration seems to have a soft spot for terrorists,” Judicial Watch concluded. “A few months after the INS change was exposed, a frustrated U.S. senator revealed that the administration appears to have a terrorist ‘hands off’ list that permits individuals with extremist ties to enter the country.
“The lawmaker obtained the information from internal DHS documents that include communication between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) asking whether to admit an individual with ties to various terrorist groups. The suspect had scheduled an upcoming flight into the U.S. and was believed to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a close associate and supporter Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”


Wrecking the Internet

BREAKING: Obama to Bypass Congress, Push to ‘Internationalize’ Internet, by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, 9/29/15
The GAO will delay and distract while they are looking for a way around the Constitution and maybe, just maybe they will come up with some emergency that would justify them handing the US-founded and based Internet over to globalists. Maybe they’ll redefine it as a treaty, which still has to get Congressional approval by the way. Count on the GAO trying to find some way by next summer to hand over the Internet to foreign entities before Obama leaves office. It won’t happen if Ted Cruz gets his way and he’s working on this unconstitutional theft of intellectual and structural property. Cruz is right – this is absolutely an unconstitutional move that aims to bypass Congress once again.
From the Washington Examiner:
President Obama’s plan to “internationalize” the Internet may be unconstitutional, key members of Congress are claiming.
The group of lawmakers sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office last week, saying the plan to relinquish oversight of Internet domain name functions to a global, multi-stakeholder body raised questions about the administration’s “authority to transfer possession and control of critical components of the Internet’s infrastructure to a third party.”
The letter was signed by the chairmen of both congressional judiciary committees, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va; presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif. Issa is also a former chairman of the House Oversight Committee.
The lawmakers point out that the Constitution says “Congress has the exclusive power ‘to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'”
The Internet’s root zone file was developed by a grant from the United States, and since 1997, it has been operated by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration under contract with the Department of Commerce. The department had planned to transfer its management rights to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, an international agency, by this Wednesday, but announced this summer that the date would be postponed until roughly June 30 next year.
In their letter, the lawmakers asked the GAO whether transferring ownership of the Internet domain name functions would cause government property to be transferred to ICANN, whether the root zone file constituted U.S. property, and whether it was constitutional for that property to be transferred to any non-federal entity.
The lawmakers did not provide a deadline for answers, saying that the GAO would need to “conduct both significant audit work and complex legal analysis” in order to respond.
Notice how a small number of patriots are constantly the only ones thwarting the dictatorial and unconstitutional moves of Barack Obama. Ted Cruz is hated by the Washington Cartel because he is honest, ethical and does the right thing. He’s not afraid to take the fight to the corruptocrats and duke it out with them. Some say that Cruz can’t get anything done and says things that are akin to falsehoods and can’t be accomplished. That’s not true. Virtually everything Cruz has proposed can be done and is constitutional. The fact that he is feared and hated is one of the things that qualifies him for the presidency. The Internet must stay under US control. We dare not let dictators and despots gain control of the largest communications and commerce engine in the world. Obama knows his time is running short and wants that power in the hands of the globalists at all costs. Ted Cruz is the man who will stop him.


Trump Card

Donald Trump has been quick to criticize the US “free trade” and foreign policies for some time. See the video of the Donald Trump interview 25 years ago at:
Now, 25 years later, in 2015, Trump addresses his audience in New Hampshire.  Trump criticizes our decline and rightly blames the US federal government for getting us in this mess.  Trump wants fair trade, the strongest military on the planet and a smarter government. Trump criticizes the $2 trillion we wasted on Iraq, leaving 2500 Humvees to Iraq who lost them to ISIS, our failure to make the deal with the Arabs to take 25% of their oil in return for defending them. Trump criticizes the US allowing China’s currency devaluations to suck out jobs and money from the US and the US failure to maintain our infrastructure and criticizes our debt. Trump wants to end the healthcare insurance monopoly in the states to reduce costs to consumers. Trump would charge a 35% tariff to companies who want to relocate their manufacturing plants to other countries.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Climate Change Hoax

Australia PM adviser says climate change is 'UN-led ruse to establish new world order', Tony Abbott's business adviser says global warming a fallacy supported by United Nations to 'create a new authoritarian world order under its control'
By Jonathan Pearlman, Sydney, 5/8/15
Climate change is a hoax developed as part of a secret plot by the United Nations to undermine democracies and takeover the world, a top adviser to Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister, has warned.
Maurice Newman, the chief business adviser to the prime minister, said the science showing links between human activity and the warming climate was wrong but was being used as a “hook” by the UN to expand its global control.
“This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN,” he wrote in The Australian.
“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.” Born in Ilford, England, and educated in Australia, Mr Newman, a staunch conservative and former chairman of the Australian Stock Exchange, has long been an outspoken critic of climate change science.
He was appointed chairman of the government’s business advisory council by Mr Abbott, who himself is something of a climate change sceptic and once famously described climate change as “absolute cr**” – a comment he later recanted.
In his comment piece – described by critics as “whacko” – Mr Newman said the world has been “subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years”.
“It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error,” he wrote.
“The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook. Eco-catastrophists [ ...] have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House.”
Environmental groups and scientists described Mr Newman as a 'crazed’ conspiracy theorist and some called on him to resign.
“His anti-science, fringe views are indistinguishable from those made by angry trolls on conspiracy theory forums,” said the Climate Change Council.
Professor Will Steffen, a climate change scientist, told The Australian Financial Review: “These are bizarre comments that would be funny if they did not come from Mr. Abbott’s chief business adviser.” Mr. Abbott’s office did not respond but his environment minister said he did not agree with Mr. Newman’s comments.
The article was written by Mr. Newman to coincide with a visit by Christiana Figueres, the UN climate change negotiation, who has urged Australia to reduce its reliance on coal. Australia is one of the world’s biggest emitters of carbon emissions per capita.
Since his election in 2013, Mr. Abbott has abolished Labor’s carbon tax, scaled back renewable energy targets and appointed sceptics to several significant government positions.

Pope Francis Ideology

What I Wrote About Pope Francis When He Was Elected
by Jerry Bowyer, 9/29/15,
When Pope Francis was first elected, there was a lot of initial speculation about what his political/economic/cultural views would be. I wrote the following article at the time and I think it has held up fairly well, except the Pope has been a little less conservative on moral issues than I expected. I was viciously attacked almost immediately by the Jesuit Magazine, America, but I’ll share with you my response to that later. Read what I wrote at the time and tell me if you think it holds up pretty well…
I remember when Cardinal Ratzinger was announced as Pope. It happened while I was on live TV, on CNBC with Larry Kudlow. They cut away from me and the other pundits to a live correspondent, who announced that the former Cardinal Ratzinger had decided to call himself Benedict XVI.
Larry said something like “I wonder what the significance of that is.” I turned my head away from the camera and said to my wife “It means he’s not giving up on Europe.” I wondered whether to try to get the attention of the line producer to inform him that I had something to say about the choice of name, but decided not to. I was there as an market pundit, not a church pundit (if there even is such a thing). But I’d always regretted not saying something, because subsequent events really did show that Pope Benedict XVI had in fact, chosen that name partly to evoke the memory of Saint Benedict who could reasonably lay hold to the claim that he was the father of Europe. His Benedictine monks, through great learning, and with great courage preserved the learning of the ancient world, mixed with piety, and used it to lay the foundation of what eventually became Europe.
So today, while on an investment committee conference call, when the white smoke appeared and shortly thereafter we learned that an Argentinian Cardinal named Jorge Bergoglio had been elected and had chosen for himself the name Pope Francis, I decided that this time I was going to share my first thought with friends and colleagues on the call. Here it is: the Pope will probably move the Church culturally to the right, and more likely move it economically to the left.
In other words, the age old answer to the question, “Is the Pope Catholic?” is, “Yes.” But the answer to the question, “Is the Pope capitalist?” is, “Probably not.”
First, there’s the basic biographical particulars: He’s a Jesuit from South America, Argentina in particular. Both facts on their own represent intellectual and ideological milieus which are decidedly unconducive to creating appreciation for the virtues of the market system. The movement known as ‘liberation theology’ , which splices Marxist economic theory onto Christian vocabulary, has strong roots both among Jesuits and Argentinians. This is not to say that Cardinal Bergoglio was in any sense a liberation theologian, let alone a Marxist. He resisted that tendency, and was often criticized by the hard left. Then again, entering fully into liberation theology would have been a bridge too far, outside of the good graces of the Church entirely. But one can be a fierce critic of the market system and still remain within orthodox Roman Catholicism.
And that appears to be the case with Cardinal Bergoglio. Although he’s been criticized by the hard left, his biographer, Sergio Rubin (who no doubt is a very happy man right now), says that such complaints should be put in context:
This kind of demonization is unfair, says Rubin, who wrote Bergoglio’s authorized biography, “The Jesuit.”
“Is Bergoglio a progressive — a liberation theologist even? No. He’s no third-world priest. Does he criticize the International Monetary Fund, and neoliberalism? Yes.
Neo-liberalism is a term used by the left to describe the modern school of economics which attempts to move the world towards free-markets (classical liberalism) and away from various forms of central control. But the Argentine political debate tends to take place between two statist camps: Peronism on the ‘right’ and Marxism on the left.
According to the Catholic Herald the former Cardinal’s ideological orientation is more from the anti-market right than from the anti-market left:
“Where do his political sympathies lie? Certainly not on the Left. Those who know him best would consider him on the moderate Right, close to that strand of popular Peronism which is hostile to liberal capitalism. In the economic crisis of 2001-2002, when Argentina defaulted on its debt, people came out on to the streets and supermarkets were looted, Bergoglio was quick to denounce the neo-liberal banking system which had left Argentina with an unpayable debt.”
The liberal National Catholic Reporter says that “Bergoglio has supported the social justice ethos of Latin American Catholicism, including a robust defense of the poor…” and approvingly quotes him as saying,
“We live in the most unequal part of the world, which has grown the most yet reduced misery the least. The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers.”
The former Cardinal placed a strong emphasis on the distribution of wealth, not the creation of it. Spiritually he places emphasis on identification with the poor and the spiritual benefits of living a life of poverty. His decision to choose the name Francis squares well with that. Conflicting press reports claim that he either chose the name to honor Francis Xavier, the founder of his order, or to honor Saint Francis. I think probably the latter is true. Francis built a monastic movement on vows of poverty, recruiting men, many of them wealthy nobles, to imitate Jesus’ life without property. Resisting the Albigensian heresy which held that poverty is morally obligatory and that private property is immoral, the Franciscans stayed within orthodox Church teaching. Nevertheless, Francis has become a revered figure among the Catholic left partly because of his practice of voluntary poverty.
There is nothing remotely untoward in St. Francis’ simple lifestyle. There is nothing remotely untoward in Cardinal Bergoglio’s simple life, cooking his own food, living in a modest home, using public transit, spending time in the slums. In fact, both men are wonderfully admirable for this choice.
But let’s not ignore the fact that the poor profoundly benefit when the economy grows; more so, even than when the church offers them a soup kitchen to visit. Neither the rightist Peron, nor the current leftist administration of Argentina has done much good for the poor. A century ago it was one of the world’s more prosperous countries, but it’s repeated rejection of both classical liberalism and (later) neo-liberalism, caused its prosperity to plummet compared with much of the rest of the world.
It is no coincidence that Argentina’s score of 47 on the Index of Economic Freedom (placing it as a miserable 160th of the freest counties in the world) accompanies its terrible poverty. Even mild attempts at ‘austerity’ were criticized by the Cardinal and much of the Argentine Church, but when austerity was abandoned and the currency devalued and debt reneged upon, the lot of Argentina’s poor became even poorer.
In his Te Deum homily, Cardinal Bergoglio told the story of Zaccheus from the Gospels:
“At the celebration of the Te Deum at the most recent national feast, last May 25th, there was a record audience for Cardinal Bergoglio´s homily. The cardinal asked the people of Argentina to do as Zacchaeus had done in the Gospel. Here was a sinister loan shark. But, taking account of his moral lowliness, he climbed up into a sycamore tree, to see Jesus and let himself be seen and converted by him.”
For a country that is in an almost constant state of conflict with investors who have loaned money to it, and who actually have the “nerve” to insist that the funds be repaid according to contract, the image of a ‘sinister loan shark’ is, well, sinister, and politically charged.
The problem is that this is not actually what the gospel says about him.
“Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy.”
Not a lender, but a tax collector. Seems like Argentina with its appallingly low score of 52 out of 100 on controlling its government spending, and its craterously low 30 out of 100 on investment spending, might want to turn its attention away from the alleged loan sharks of the international investment community and the bogeyman of excessive neo-liberal deregulation, and towards its own Zacchaeus’s in its bloated government sector.
The new pope seems like a wonderful man. Humble, simple, decent. But if he is going to help the Church do as much as it possibly can for the poor, he’d do well, not just to look to the wonderful St. Francis, who became poor to serve the poor, but also to the John Paul the Great who, having lived under socialism in its most virulent form, embraced the market economy for its ability to liberate the poor.
Originally posted on

No More Uranium for US

The Obama administration plans to close the last remaining, 9/29/15
American-owned uranium enrichment facility in the United States, even as it moves forward on a controversial nuclear deal with Iran that permits the Islamic Republic to conduct ongoing and significant uranium enrichment.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has informed Centrus Energy it will end the American Centrifuge project in Piketon, Ohio, on Sept. 30. Notices have been issued to some 235 workers that their jobs are in jeopardy.

"We have concluded that continued support from the federal government for additional data from Piketon operations has limited remaining value," a joint DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration statement said, reports the
Chillicothe Gazette.

"This is beyond belief," Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, responded in a statement. "While this administration is greenlighting uranium enrichment in Iran and legitimizing 6,000 Iranian centrifuges, they're shutting down domestic production here in America."

Wenstrup called the closure decision "a dangerous threat to our national security."

In its announcement that it will shutter American Centrifuge, the DOE announced the enrichment technologies developed at Piketon may be transferred to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

As recently as 20 years ago, the United States produced nearly 50 percent of the global supply of enriched uranium. Today, however, U.S. production accounts for only about 10 percent of the global supply, with Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Holland producing the bulk of the world's enriched uranium.


End the One-Party System

McConnell being pushed to resign: Fake Republican leaders should ‘find jobs at McD’s’, by Steve Berman, 9/28/15
With House Speaker John Boehner’s resignation, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell finds himself in the crosshairs with a top Republican Party executive calling for his resignation and Gov. Bobby Jindal saying “it is now your turn.”

Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Roger Villere, minced no words on Facebook, posting “McConnell needs to resign!”
Villere has served as chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party for 12 years, longer than any other state chairman.
Presidential hopeful Jindal, who has been suffering in the polls and languishing in the “second tier” in the debates, told attendees at the Value Voters Summit on Friday, “Here’s what I say in response to Speaker Boehner stepping down: Mitch McConnell, it is now your turn.”
For Villere, McConnell’s support of a deal with Democrats to avoid a government shutdown and continue funding of Planned Parenthood appeared to be the final straw.  Others commenting on his post agreed, one writing “hang him by the ankles & use him for a birthday piƱata.”
One commenter thought McConnell’s resignation would only scratch the surface.  “I agree but he’s not the only Republican that needs to resign from their positions. A ton at the roots who feel themselves to be leaders of this, that, and the other should also find jobs at McD’s.”
Villere told The Washington Times Sunday that the base is leaving the Republican Party.  “I’m out in the field all the time and we have all our elections this year for state offices, and it’s hurting us tremendously with our elections.”
In addition to failing to stop funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood, Villere cites McConnell’s failure to act on President Obama’s unconstitutional executive actions on illegal immigration, and his surrender on Obamacare.
“Not trying to repeal Obamacare, not defunding Planned Parenthood, not trying to stop illegal immigration,” he said. “That is what Republicans ran on and once they were elected they did not follow up with their promises.”
Jindal echoed that frustration, even flirting with a third party in his remarks at the last debate on September 16.  “If we can’t defund Planned Parenthood now—if we can’t stand for innocent human life after these barbaric videos—it is time to be done with the Republican Party,” he said.
“If we can’t win on that issue, there’s no point for being cheaper Democrats, no point for having a second liberal party, it is time to get rid of the Republican Party, start over with a new one that is at least conservative,” said Jindal.

Rand Paul Opposed Continuing Resolution

Rand Paul wants to let spending expire and then pass budgets with the cuts included.  This would require Democrats to have 60 votes in the Senate to override the cuts. See videos:
Rand Paul is absolutely right and if Republicans would listen and do what he says, it would work.  Rand Paul is a leader of the 20% in Congress who are actually Constitutional Republicans.  The other 80% of Republicans in the Congress are actually Liberal Democrats who ran as Republicans.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Carl Icahn Endorses Trump

Carl Icahn: Trump can save America, Billionaire investor endorses 'brash' GOP front-runner, by Cheryl Chumley, 9/29/15, WND
Wall Street wonder Carl Icahn, 79, who’s made a name for himself in business, investing and philanthropy, had nothing but praise for the man he’s just endorsed for president, Donald Trump, saying his fellow billionaire businessman is the only candidate out there who can save America.
“I would say it’s an endorsement. I think at this moment in time, he’s the only candidate that speaks out about the country’s problems,” Icahn told Bloomberg on Tuesday. “I’m behind Trump.”
Icahn says that while he disagrees with Trump on “certain issues,” he believes America “needs somebody to wake it up.”
“Maybe he’s brash, but he’s willing to say what he believes and he’s willing to say, ‘Hey, this is complete bulls—,’” Icahn said in the video, which is posted on his website.
“The middle class guy who’s making $50,000 a year realizes ‘I’m being taken advantage of.’ He can read, he can understand. Ya know, in czarist Russia, they had to have a revolution. And then the czars would bring out the machine guns and mow them down. All these guys have to do is vote.”
Trump had publicly courted Icahn since launching his campaign, repeatedly naming him to his wish-list of Treasury secretaries – something Icahn at first seemed reluctant to embrace. But he’s since come around to the idea.
As CNN reported, Icahn sent out a tweet in early August that read: “After last night’s debate, I decided to accept @realDonaldTrump offer for Secretary of Treasury.”
Icahn added “we are in dire need of a breath of fresh air,” but later rescinded the offer to serve in a Trump administration while still singing Trump’s praises.
 “His ego permits him to – where a lot of these other presidents don’t – surround himself with really good people,” Icahn told Reuters. “Not just me, but others.”
Icahn, to Reuters, said one of Trump’s characteristics that sets him apart from the other candidates, and makes him the best man for the White House job, is his willingness and skill to hand pick excellent advisers with reputations as the best of the best.
“He needs as many good people as he can get in this environment today,” Icahn said. “We certainly don’t see that in many of these presidents.”
Like Trump, Icahn is known for his outspoken views and has similar roots in New York City.
“I want to speak out now because, I know this may sound corny but I grew up in the streets of Queens,” Icahn said in his video. “I love this country and I feel so strongly abut the dysfunction that is going on both in Washington and the boardrooms of corporate America.”
Icahn said one problem facing the country is the carried interest loophole, which allows earnings of hedge-fund managers and other private-equity firms to be taxed at a lower rate than normal income. Trump said he wants to eliminate the tax break.
“People on Wall Street, they’re good friends of mine,” Icahn said. “I like them. But not having to pay full taxes on money that you’re earning is an absurdity.”
The Wall Street guru also said U.S. companies have been doing a great disservice to the economy by camping profits in overseas’ ventures, via complicated tax schemes.
“If we don’t really allow these companies to bring the money back that they are making [overseas], they are just going to move out of this country,” he said. “It’s going to happen more quickly than they think. While Congress is sort of fiddling around, this thing is being done. The country is burning and they’re fiddling.”
Trump’s just-released tax plan shows his intent to bring companies back to domestic soil. He has campaigned on the idea that China takes too much advantage of America’s economy and U.S. businesses ought to have a restructured tax code to allow them to better compete and grow.


Limbaugh: Boehner Ouster Is Just the Beginning
(Rush Limbaugh) – BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: This is at the Value Voters Summit in Washington. It’s held every year toward the end of September. Marco Rubio was speaking, and actually made the announcement to the crowd. This is how it sounded… RUBIO: How can it be that we sent a Republican majority to Congress and yet they’re still not able to stop our country from sliding in the wrong direction? And we’ll see how things progress. Just a few minutes ago Speaker Boehner announced that he will be resigning. AUDIENCE: (wild applause) RUSH: Now, that (applause) went on and on and on and on and on. It was over the top. And this is something that a number of people have been attempting to make happen for months now going into years. And as is the usual case in the aftermath of something like this, there are all kinds of stories, and they run the gamut from who made it happen, who gets credit for it, who engineered it, why did it happen, what does it mean going forward, and all of that.
The most important aspect this has, to me, is that whoever is responsible for this is not through. They are actually now going to target Mitch McConnell on the same basis. Now, from what I understand, Ted Cruz was deeply involved in this. To tell a long story very short, Cruz became aware very soon upon arriving at the Senate that he was gonna have a tough time making a difference there because he was so outnumbered, because the leadership was so entrenched. SPECIAL: If you’re as sick and tired of big government corruption, lies and cover-ups then JOIN THE TEA PARTY UPRISING NOW BY SIGNING THE PLEDGE—then give a donation to support our fight in Washington. And the leadership in the Senate, just like the leadership in the House — we’ve been through all the reasons (I mean, I could take the time and list them again) — just was not gonna stop Obama. They weren’t even gonna try to make it look like they were gonna stop Obama, except to people they were not telling the truth to at election time: Us. They were apparently very willing to tell us that they were gonna do everything they could to stop Obamacare, repeal Obamacare. You know the drill. But never once did anything serious ever happen to derail, stop, slow down any aspect of the Obama agenda. Now, the reasons for that are also multifaceted, and we’ve been through all of them. But, folks, the big reason for all of this is money. At the end of the day, it’s always about money. It always has been about money in politics. It’s just more prevalent now than ever. Do you know why we did the Iran deal, just for example? You know why the Corker Bill exists as it does, why there’s never any serious effort to stop Obama in making the Iran deal? Do you have any idea? It was money. There was a news story, I think it was the UK Daily Mail. If not, it was something similar. The Iranian national airline, such as it is, is falling apart. Their aircraft are old and dilapidated, and because the sanctions have been in place, they’ve been unable to buy new aircraft, replacement aircraft or parts to repair what they have now. So basically their national airline is a joke. They in Iran, the mullahs, have ordered a number of replacement aircraft, made by Boeing. Boeing therefore wants the deal. But in order for the deal to happen $150 billion in frozen Iranian assets needs to be unfrozen. Now, Boeing is a contributor to the Republican Party. I wish I could remember what newspaper I read this in. Off the top of my head, I think it’s the Daily Mail, but it might very easily could be something else. But the bottom line was that Republican politicians, elected officials basically had to please a very well-to-do donor or series of donors that were going to be able to engage in new business with Iran if the sanctions were lifted. If you look at the Corker Bill, all it was about was lifting the sanctions by statute. Now, this is very important. The Corker Bill secured the sanctions being lifted by statute. You know I was watching the last Republican debate.
It was an exchange between Ted Cruz and I think it was Kasich. They were having an argument on what you do if Iran cheats on the deal, and Cruz was making it very clear that we were never gonna find out if Iran cheated because they were in total control of the inspection process. And they are. If we want to lodge a complaint, it’s 24 days before we can take action, and they have to grant us permission to come in. But they, the Iranians, by virtue of this deal, do their own inspection first. So it’s a joke. There is no inspection process. There is no verification whatsoever. And Kasich was saying to Cruz, “Look if they violate it, we just slap the sanctions back on!” And I’m yelling at the TV, “No, we can’t ‘slap the sanctions back on’ ‘em. They have been lifted by statute.” The sanctions have not been lifted temporarily, and they’ve not been lifted per se as part of the deal. They have been lifted by virtue of the Corker Bill which is a statutory law. The statutes have thus maintained that the Iranians are gonna get their $150 billion whether they cheat or not. So the Iranian nuclear deal, when it comes to the debate in Washington, never really was about Iran and nuclear weapons. It was about money, economic news. It is about American corporations. And Boeing’s not the only one that want to do business with Iran. And when Iran’s got $150 billion freed up that’s been frozen, they can buy enough terrorism with that and have some left over to revamp their airline. I’m gonna have to find out what… It was Bloomberg that had this story. It was Bloomberg News that had the story that it was Boeing and Airbus combined that wanted to make a deal with Iran on new aircraft for this dilapidated Iranian airline. Now, all the while this debate’s raging, we’re treated to story after story that the parameters of the debate center on whether or not it makes sense that Iran permitted to get a nuclear weapon. It was never what this was about. And all of us were incredulous about the Corker Bill. Why even do it? If you’re the Senate and you oppose Obama and you oppose Iran having nukes, just insist on the treaty clause, just insist on this being a treaty. If you just do that, you solve the problem. Then you need two-thirds of it Senate to ratify it, and it’s not automatic. But the Corker Bill went into action and reversed the whole procedure for the treaty and basically turned this into nothing more than a statutory elimination or lifting of the sanctions. So all the while these elected officials are telling us they’re gonna stop Obama and Obamacare and they’re gonna stop Obama on amnesty and illegal immigration. That’s not what’s going on. What’s going on is that their donors are demanding that they get this and that from the Republicans in term of policy and votes. And that’s who the Republican officials in Washington, elected officials are loyal to. So you can call that political system being corrupted or what have you.
The point is, Ted Cruz was aware of all of this, and he decided there was no way since he’s so vastly outnumbered in the Senate that what he instead did was work with the conservative members in the House to strength them, to focus them. Not that they needed it, but just to form some unity and have a coordinated effort that was aimed at Boehner’s resignation, since Cruz was not gonna be able to engineer a similar thing in the Senate because he was basically a party of one.
So there’s any number of people who you might… If you want to consider this in a doling-out-of-credit sense, Cruz is right there at the top. But then, you could also say that Mitch McConnell deserves a lot of credit, not because he wanted to get rid of Boehner, but because of what he did, just because constantly bottling up anything that would stop Obama, never taking on the Democrats, the fear of the government shutdown. Even this morning I see some analysts on television, “The worst thing that could happen is if there’s a government shutdown!”
It is what it is.
The Republicans just have this irrational fear of a government shutdown that is gonna be the end of them and their 2016 presidential aspirations, and you talk about blind? There’s an entire presidential campaign being waged out there and a bunch of outsiders who’ve never been in politics before are leading the whole process. The insider experts, career politicians? You need a telescope to see ‘em, their poll numbers are so low.
It’s very clear what Republican voters and a lot of Americans want, and it’s exact opposite of what has been happening. So it was a fait accompli at some point, and I think Boehner holding on until Pope Francis’ visited, that was a big deal to Boehner, check that one off of his bucket list. But he’s still got some time left, and he’s insisting that he’s gonna make the most of it, just like Obama is with whatever time left that he has.
RUSH:  You know, it’s funny here, the New York Times has a story, you know, all this time they’ve been telling us that Boehner was the reason there was gridlock, right?  So now the New York Times has a story worried about what Boehner leaving is going to mean for gridlock.  So they’re now admitting, indirectly, but they’re admitting that Boehner was not responsible for the gridlock.  But that’s not totally true, either.  But again, folks, there’s nothing wrong with gridlock, especially now.
RUSH: The Washington Times has a story here that the headline is, “Top GOP Official Seeks McConnell Ouster as Senate Leader. ‘GOP Brand Is Being Damaged,’” and this is no less than a Republican National Committee vice-chairman.  He is the Louisiana Republican chairman Roger Villere and he wrote in a Facebook post that McConnell needs to resign.
“‘Mitch is a good and honorable guy, but the base is leaving our party,’ Mr. Villere said in an interview with The Washington Times. ‘I’m out in the field all the time and we have all our elections this year for state offices, and it’s hurting us tremendously with our elections,” ’cause the base is not showing up.  He said, “‘If we lose the battle, we will never win the presidency again in my lifetime,’ said Mr. Villere, who is 66. ‘I’ve worked for 12 years as chairman to build this party, and I just don’t want to see it all go down the drain because they aren’t willing to fight for what we believe in. Our base is demanding we do something or they’re going to leave us.’
“‘The GOP brand is being damaged. We’re having to work from scratch to do all the groundwork we’ve already done with elections of Republicans to Congress and in the state because everybody is so furious at the leadership,’ Mr. Villere said,” and that’s exactly right, and the leadership has always been aware of it, folks.  The leadership has been well aware of what the voters that elected them want.  They’ve been well aware they have not come through.  And their attitude is, “Tough toenails! You guys don’t understand the jobs we have.
“You don’t understand what it takes to get things done here.  You guys don’t understand that it takes compromise.  You guys don’t understand that you have to build coalitions.  You guys…” This is McConnell and Boehner talking to us.  “You guys don’t understand that we have to work with people on the other side to get anything done.” No, no, no.  That’s not what we don’t understand.  What we see is you doing exactly that, and getting snookered every time you go in to battle with ‘em.  You’re literally getting snookered.
Other times, you’re not even playing and being just ramrodded right over.  You don’t need to repeat the drill.  You all get it.  About this Mr. Villere, he is a Republican National Committee co-chair.  He’s the Louisiana chairman.  From The Politico. They gave an op-ed space here to Michael Needham of Heritage Action for America. He’s the CEO.  “Boehner Betrayed His Party – Why the Speaker’s resignation is great news for conservatives,” and there’s three interesting pull quotes here.  “He ignored the hopes and dreams of those Republican voters who delivered the GOP control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 and instead pushed the agenda of Washington’s ruling class.”
Yep, no mistake there.
“Here’s the reality: In the past, politicians could afford to tell their constituents one thing and do something else entirely in office,” which happens, by the way.  What they’re doing is nothing new.  What is new about it?  Politicians lying is nothing new. Promising and not deliver is nothing new.  What’s different about it this time?  What do you think’s different about it, Mr. Snerdley?  (interruption)  Well, that.  They did put up the pretense.  They made it look like they were opposing.  What’s different now is they can’t hide.  There is simply too much news.
There is too much tech.  There is too much access.  They can’t hide behind what goes on behind closed doors, for example.  It’s all known.  They can’t hide behind any other barrier.  Everything they’re doing is right out in the open.  And it’s not being reported by the Drive-By Media.  The Drive-By Media is doing everything they can to shelter these guys and protect ‘em because it helps the Democrats to have Boehner and McConnell be doing what they’re doing.  So this is all being ferreted out by other members of Congress.
The conservative caucus, for example, or others who are able to get the news out on their own without having to go through a network.  So they don’t have any secrets.  Everything they’re doing has been exposed.  They can’t rely on, “You don’t know how it works up here,” because now everybody does. Everybody now knows how it works.  Do you realize what a monumental thing this is? Seriously now, folks. Stop and think of it. Do you realize what a pronounced…? Who was that I was…? Was that Bill Clinton I was just looking at? (interruption) Tell me that was on… (interruption) That wasn’t Clinton on Fox? (interruption)  Whew!  I was gonna say, “He looked like 95 years old.”
I said, “Oh, what happened.” (interruption)
That was a NASA guy?  Oh, they’re telling us about the flowing waters on Mars?  Yeah, you watch, that’s gonna be Martian… (interruption)  Five.  Oh, wow.  Wow, wow, wow.  Okay, cool.  My prediction has come true even before the program ends today.  If you’re on line five out there (and you know who you are), hang on.  If you’re in Wichita, hang on.  Don’t hang up the phone. (interruption) What is profound?  Do you realize how profound it is that practically every Republican voter now knows what has been a secret in Washington for a long time, and that is in Washington there really aren’t Republicans and Democrats?  There’s majority and minority.
But they’re all of the same insider or ruling class or whatever you call it elite mind-set.  Their agendas are identical.  And it is profound that the lid has been totally blown off of that.  For the longest time Republican voters actually believed that Republican elected officials were genuinely an opposition party and were pushing back and wanted to push back and opposed and disagreed with what the Democrats were doing, and the realization that’s not the case.  That’s why this explosion’s taken place.  Republican voters simply aren’t gonna put up with it.  I don’t care what the issue, amnesty, Obamacare, Keystone pipeline, you have a Democrat president as radical as Obama is for seven years and gets everything he wants. Sorry, you can’t fool people.  You can’t convince them.
McConnell, his fallback excuse is, “First is, we need the Senate.” Then we get the Senate and the fallback is, “We don’t have the White House. There’s still nothing we can do. Everything we do is gonna be vetoed.”  And so that has led to we’re not even gonna fight and you don’t understand, we can’t fight.  You want us to fight, but that would be a losing proposition. That would result in the government being shut down. We can’t have that.
They used to be able to get away with it, is the point.  They don’t any longer.  And I believe all these stories about McConnell being next.  People are serious about this.  This is the country we’re talking about here.
From Gerald Seib in the Wall Street Journal: “Boehner’s Exit Leaves GOP Establishment Shaking – Tea-party forces increase power and further loosen Republican establishment’s grip.”  Now, I’m not sure the establishment’s actually shaking, but this is a start.  I don’t know how long ago it was I said — I mean, it’s a long time now.  It would happen when people would call here and advance the notion that we had to go third party.
And that’s been going on for most of the 27 years, and each time somebody would call I’d say nope, nope, nope, what we need to do is take over the Republican Party.  Third party is not gonna get anybody anywhere.  Third party isn’t gonna win.  Third party isn’t gonna have any members of Congress in the Senate.  It may now be happening.  First step, but it may now be happening.
Source: utm_source=newsemail&utm_medium=email&utm _campaign=tpo-4978346
Rush is aware that we have had a one-party system for some time.  The difference between Republican and Democrat voters is that Republicans support the US Constitution (as written) and Democrats either don’t or they don’t even think about it.  You can see how “Republican” your elected Reps are by looking at their score on Conservative Review Scorecard.  You will find about 20% of Republicans actually vote for compliance with the Constitution and 80% don’t.  These are the Republicans who need to be replaced.  In some cases, they come from Democrat leaning districts where the voters already know that these RINOs are actually Democrats running as Republicans.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader