One Edward Snowden (29) has stepped forth and admitted he leaked the NSA documents to the British press. Snowden is former CIA employee and NSA contractor.
Snowden went public with a warning to all Americans about the dangers of the “surveillance state.” For these actions Snowden faces the possibility of life in prison and I am sure that there are many in D.C. who would prefer to see him floating in the Potomac belly up.
There is no question he violated the law and deserves to be punished but should his punishment not equate to the IRS violations of the law?
For all practical purposes the IRS rigged a Presidential election in 2012. That’s a pretty serious crime in itself and for that the chief culprit Lois Lerner was put on administrative leave with pay.
Former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice was the front mouthpiece that spun the false tail about Benghazi cover up to the American people and she was rewarded with promotion to National Security advisor.
So who says that crime doesn’t pay?
When you can’t debate the issue, then you attack the whistleblower.
Among the most insidious of ruses perpetrated on the American people is the notion that while ideas on the political left and right are starkly different, all are equally valid from one perspective or another. All too often, “Establishment” Republicans in Washington who have accepted such thinking are primarily focused on “reaching across the aisle” and promoting “bipartisanship” rather than digging in their heels and contending for the conservative ideals for which their party ostensibly stands. And in the process, liberalism is advanced and the nation suffers.
Of course this scenario plays well into the hands of the liberal Democrats, whose agenda has predominated with abhorrent consistency, regardless of which party is in power. It was no random coincidence that John McCain’s onerous campaign finance “reform” legislation and the onset of socialized prescription drugs known as “Medicare Part D” were implemented on the watch of George W. Bush, a Republican president, with both houses of Congress held by Republican majorities.
These days, it is taboo among career politicians on both sides of the aisle to even suggest that some politicians and their agendas are worthwhile, while the motives and intentions of others are not. And in typical fashion, even in the midst of several burgeoning scandals, few on the right are willing to properly characterize the methods and goals of the Obama Administration. Far from being a subtle deviation from the nation’s prior course, they represent a concerted effort to eradicate the Great America of the past two and a half centuries, and reinvent it as a statist monstrosity where the “pursuit of happiness” is supplanted by mere subsistence on terms dictated by the government.
But rather than sounding a clarion call that an all-out assault on the nation is underway, the attempt is made to mollify the American people with assurances that although Barack Obama leans in the direction of bigger government, his ultimate concern is the wellbeing of the nation. In a June 7 fundraising speech in Palo Alto California, he echoed this platitude, mustering as much sincerity as possible and assuring the audience that he and his cohorts “Don’t want to tax all businesses out of business.”
Over time however, the pattern has become too purposeful to be a matter of chance, and its noxious effects on the national character too consistent and unmistakable to be the result of sheer bad luck. This government is at odds with the America we knew and loved, and is daily setting the stage for its destruction. Forsaking its once glorious founding principles, the nation’s current direction is being forcibly changed by means that all too often exceed constitutional boundaries. And this degenerating course will get worse for as long as the American people allow it to do so.
The outrage of a $17 trillion dollar national debt, a federal leviathan cloaked in fraud that relentlessly grows itself at the expense of the freedoms and prosperity of the people, and the continually encroaching specter of its Orwellian tactics which seek to suppress all opposition, clearly portends a monumental change in the fundamental character of America. And only by erasing any recollection of what the nation once was can such a bleak transformation be implemented. It is essential to the left that the American people be systematically divorced from their roots and heritage. Otherwise, the yearning for the former ways and limitless opportunities that were once accessible to an industrious people might overpower the empty promises of socialist utopia.
It is crucial at this time for those on the right to understand where the real battle lines are drawn. Although the Democrat Party and liberalism are joined at the hip, it does not follow that the conservative movement enjoys a corresponding relationship with the Republicans. Admittedly, it is a favorite tactic of liberals to make such a presumption, and then project the insipid posturing of GOP “moderates” onto conservatism in general. Nevertheless, the mere presence of an “R” by the name of an office holder does not a conservative make.
In the ongoing debate over amnesty for possibly twenty million illegal aliens, the wholesale collaboration of Senator Marco Rubio (R.-FL) has been touted by liberals on Capitol Hill, and in the media, as “proof” that conservatives are in agreement with the likes of Chuck Schumer (D.-NY). Rubio has descended to the point of accepting Democrat opposition to securing the border until after amnesty is implemented, which means that border security has been completely discarded. Once thought to be a rising star in the GOP, Rubio so completely betrayed the conservative base that, many on the right would find it impossible to ever again support him. At best, he might follow in the shoes of John McCain or Bob Dole, and rise quickly as the Republican Party’s “presumptive” nominee for the presidency, only to be trounced in the general election.
This situation is another sad example of a potential leader on the right who has been enticed into believing that he could establish common ground with a political movement that has, as its end goal, the cultural obliteration of the nation. Marco Rubio is certainly not the first conservative-leaning Republican Senator to accept the notion that his Democrat opponents are sincerely motivated towards the best interests of the country. However, his lapse into this mire has been among the most grimly spectacular.
Just as Marco Rubio’s allegiances are increasingly jaded, so are the actual motives and convictions of others claiming to be on the “right,” but who regularly recoil and retreat from direct confrontation with the liberal political apparatus. Americans are fully cognizant of the menacing presence of the Internal Revenue Service, and of the looming threat of government agencies meddling with their most private information. And in light of the recent scandals, they will not accept empty assurances from either side of the aisle that nothing bad actually occurred.
Nor will reasonable people on Main Street interpret assertions of Barack Obama’s “innocence” in the present cavalcade of scandal as anything but an unwillingness of fellow career politicians to hold him accountable. This is the man who regularly sat in the pews under the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright for twenty two years, and yet claims never to have heard any of the venomous anti-Americanism which Wright incessantly spews. Whether his professed disassociation from all of the outrages coming to light in D.C. is excused by his accomplices on the left as mere naive ineptitude, or as detachment from his responsibilities, as asserted by some on the right, his past governing practices demonstrate a clear and purposeful intention to overcome annoying obstacles, including the Constitution, by any means necessary.
In certain ways, he has done the conservative movement an enormous favor by delineating between left and right with such stark clarity that the people can no longer be lulled into believing that “me too” Republicans have their interests at heart. From this time forward, the only Republicans whose voices will resonate in the Heartland are those willing to brave the firestorm of the D.C. establishment while courageously maintaining their conservative values.
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, as has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, an advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.
Economy: The recession ended four years ago. So how’s that Obama recovery going? Still rather poorly, if jobs are the standard by which it is measured.
The number of job openings as a share of the number of unemployed lags painfully in construction and manufacturing, and in the wholesale and retail trades.
There are also far fewer job openings than unemployed workers in the transportation and utilities, and leisure and hospitality industries. Only in professional and business services, education and health services are the number of job openings even close to half the number of unemployed.
But the jobs haven’t materialized. In the previous nine recessions before this last one, it took an average of just 24 months to regain all the jobs lost. However, it will take about 80 months — almost seven years — for the country to regain all the jobs lost in the last recession if we continue at Obama’s crawling job-creation pace.
In short, don’t blame this jobless recovery on bad luck. Blame White House policies.
While our corrupt media has done its best to turn the page on Barack Obama’s myriad of scandals, the deep-dive numbers in a new Fox News poll are absolutely devastating for the president. These numbers also reflect what we are seeing in other polls and Obama’s overall approval ratings — though the media are willfully ignoring reporting on both.
In a Fox News column looking at the public’s growing distrust of Obama, Chris Stirewalt extrapolated these brutal numbers:
– 56 percent of voters believe Obama did not try to rescue the doomed garrison in Benghazi, Libya because he didn’t want to risk his re-election.
– 62 percent agree that Obama’s NSA phone surveillance constitutes “an unacceptable and alarming invasion of privacy rights.”
– 63 percent believe that Obama’s Justice Department seized reporter’s records for political reasons, compared to 29 percent who take the administration’s national security argument to be true.
– 68 percent believe that the White House isn’t telling the truth about the targeting of the president’s political enemies by the IRS. Just 24 percent believe the White House line that Team Obama neither directed nor was aware of the targeting.
– 74 percent said that when it comes to openness and transparency, the Obama administration is either the same or worse than George W. Bush’s administration.
The first number, showing a full 56% believe Obama ignored the pleas for help from our diplomats in Libya for political purposes, is a mind-blower. It also proves that the mainstream media’s attempt to downplay the scandal, and to vigorously fight against the truth getting out, is simply not working.
On Sept. 22, 2011 in a speech to business executives Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, “Debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security.” When the leader of the people famous for $800 hammers and $640 toilet seats has to lecture business leaders about the perils of deficit spending we know capitalism in America has jumped the track.
After World War I the world’s monetary system was in disarray. The victorious Allies sought to revive the gold standard. However the structure which had been put in place after 1918 collapsed during the Great Depression. Some economists believe that the world’s attempt to remain on the gold standard prevented central banks from expanding the money supply enough to revive the world’s economies.
After World War II, representatives of the once again victorious allies met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to create a new international monetary system. At the time the United States accounted for more than 50% of the world’s manufacturing capacity and also held most of the world’s gold. Since America was the uncontested economic Superpower these leaders decided to tie world currencies to the dollar. The value of the dollar would in turn be controlled and supported by the fact that the dollar would be tied to gold at $35 per ounce.
While the Bretton Woods System was in force the central banks were given the task of maintaining fixed exchange rates. This was accomplished by massive and continuous intervention in foreign exchange markets. When a country’s currency became too expensive in relation to the dollar, that country’s central bank would sell its currency for dollars thus driving down the value of its currency. And if the value of a country’s money became too low, that country would then aggressively buy its own currency to drive the price up.
This Bretton Woods System worked well until 1971.
A recent Congressional Budget Office report reveals that Social Security ran a $55 billion deficit in 2012, its third straight year of red ink. In fact, if things remain unchanged and Social Security isn’t overhauled soon, it will never run in the black again. In 2010, Social Security began taking in less money through payroll tax revenues than it paid out in benefits. While its year-to-year deficit hasn’t increased substantially, the overall program is facing a 75-year unfunded liability of $12.3 trillion. That liability is $1 trillion greater than projected just last year.
The program is expected to remain “solvent” until 2033, but after that point, benefits will decline sharply by 25 percent, and continue declining thereafter. Among the reforms that could save the program, if implemented immediately, are raising the retirement age to reflect a healthier population, indexing the cost-of-living adjustment to the Consumer Price Index and means testing for benefits.
h/t Patriot Post
“The ordinary man is passive. Within a narrow circle, home life, and perhaps the trade unions or local politics, he feels himself master of his fate. But otherwise he simply lies down and lets things happen to him.” – English writer George Orwell (1903-1950)