Top 8 stories the media have buried...just since last week

So many newsworthy things happened just in the past couple of weeks, that it'd be difficult to focus on just one. So here's a round-up from InsiderOnline.org with links to further reading, in case you're interested:

In his second inaugural address last week, President Obama presented a vision for our country that is radically different from what our Founding Fathers intended. Rather than focus on the individual's inalienable rights, and encourage the individual pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, Obama is focusing on things like redefining the marriage and global warming. Read "Obama's Radicalism Revealed", by Matthew Spalding.

Californians will end up paying about 13 percent more for their electricity in 2020 because of their renewable energy standards. That’s on top of an expected increase of nearly 20 percent that will happen because of other new regulations on the energy sector, including a cap-and-trade program. Read “The Looming Rate Bomb: The 33 Percent Renewable Electricity Mandate and Electric Prices in California,” by Benjmain Zycher, Pacific Research Institute.

In her testimony on what went wrong in Benghazi , Libya, on Sept. 12, 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” She further said she couldn’t have been aware of the embassy’s own warnings about its deteriorating security, because she receives: “1.43 million cables" addressed to her. Yet she claims she takes full responsibility. Read “Clinton on Benghazi: Protest, Terrorist Attack—What Difference Does It Make?” by Helle Dale, The Foundry; and “Clinton Takes One for Her Team,” by Morgan Lorraine Roach, The Foundry.

As both Congress and the Obama administration contemplate new federal money for infrastructure, they might notice what the rest of the world seems to have noticed: private funding for infrastructure works better than public funding. Read “Infrastructure Investment: A State, Local, and Private Responsibility,” by Chris Edwards, Cato Institute.

Despite President Obama’s pro-labor policies, unions have lost more members during Obama’s four years in office so far than they did during President Bush’s eight. Read “Why the Unions Are Shrinking,” by Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Washington Examiner.

Technically, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research Business Cycle Dating Committee, the most recent recession ended in June 2009. In theory, the rationale for deficit spending ended on that date as well. But if it is necessary to run deficits whenever conditions are ‘not very satisfactory,’ when will we not run deficits? Read “16 Tons of Keynesian Economics,” by Arnold Kling, The American.

Average hourly wages adjusted for inflation might be liberals’ favorite statistic; but if you understand what it’s really measuring, then you understand that it doesn’t tell the story of middle class stagnation that liberals think it does. Read “The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class,” by Donald Boudreaux and Mark Perry, Wall Street Journal.

Part time professors, like part time workers at Taco Bell, are feeling the pinch of ObamaCare mandates, too. Some schools are trying to make sure their part-time teachers do not work more than 30 hours per week, so that they can avoid ObamaCare’s mandate to provide them with health insurance. Read “Confused Professors Shocked Schools Are Cutting Their Hours to Avoid Obamacare Penalties,” by Marc Thiessen, AEIdeas.

I hope you find these articles interesting...and when my own crazy work schedule slows down a bit, I'll get back to my regular blog posts. Thanks for understanding!

Roe v Wade anniversary: President Obama's pro-life speech

Today marks a very tragic anniversary in America's history. On this day in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that children still in the womb do not have a right to their own lives. In other words, according to the Roe v Wade ruling, they have no rights at all.

Later this week, hundreds of thousands of people will march in Washington, DC, to stand up as a witness for the sanctity of all life, from conception to natural death. Every year the crowds get bigger - and remarkably younger - because more people every day are waking up and seeing through the lies that the pro-abortion advocates would have us believe: that human life is nothing but a pawn in the battle for "women's freedom", and that choosing to end that life is something to celebrate as a litmus test of women's equality; the lie that human life is meaningless if it cannot be held and cuddled in person, if it is seen as an inconvenience, or if, by euthanasia standards - it cannot fend for itself completely.
Yesterday, President Barack Obama - the most rabidly pro-abortion president in our nation's history - was sworn in for his second term. While in yesterday's inauguration speech he strongly advocated for gay rights (whose lives are not being snuffed out "just because") he never mentioned the sanctity of human life in all its forms. That's probably because he spent his first term in office surrounding himself with pro-abortion militants determined to help him carry out his war against the unborn. I imagine we can expect more of the same in his second term.

But imagine something else for a moment: what if the president did have a change of heart and one day came to realize that we cannot fully claim to value human life unless we value human life in all its forms - including the unborn? What would he say to defend life?

Well, he'd probably say exactly what he said in the wake of the tragic massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, CT. Take a moment to watch the video below. It's interesting to observe that, if Mr. Obama were speaking about the value of all life - including the unborn, his words would be precisely the same.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2JpOyM5d88

Now if only the 55 million people whose lives have been ended through abortion could be here to hear his words, and if only his words were expressing compassion for these unborn people as well.

As John Paul II once said, "A nation that kills its children has no future." To all those who have lost their lives to abortion, to the countless women who suffer and hurt because of past abortions, and for all those who will brave the cold to stand up for life in Washington, DC, later this week, may those in the rest of the world who embrace the lie of abortion consider you, and ultimately, for the sake of our future, have a change of heart.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

WH defends Piers Morgan's free speech rights, while using others as scapegoats for exercising theirs

By now many of you have probably heard about the heated exchanges between Piers Morgan and pro-gun advocates -- which took place on Morgan's CNN show recently. In the exchange Piers Morgan called one of the advocates a "stupid man" for his views that a legally armed citizenry would reduce gun violence rather than increase it, and Morgan went on to question whether the Second Amendment itself should even be upheld as is.

Viewers took exception to the fact that Morgan, while a legal US resident, is not a US citizen, and in their mind, had no right to insult our Second Amendment rights. To back up this complaint, about 100,000 petition signatures were collected demanding that Morgan be deported back to Britain on grounds he tried to "undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.”

Whether you agree with this demand for deportation or not is beside the point for now. What stands out as the real issue is that the White House is staunchly defending Morgan's right to free speech under the First Amendment, while US resident Mark Basseley Youssef (aka Sam Bacile) -- the man who made the video that mocks Islam - sits in jail ostensibly for a “probation violation.”

Youssef's video was used as the reason for the violence in Libya that lead to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on our U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four US citizens, including an ambassador, dead.  The US Justice Department immediately dispatched federal agents to Youssef’s home in the dark of night to arrest him, but if Youssef's only crime was probation violation, since when do the Feds pursue such transgressions with such a vengeance?

The answer lies in the fact that after the terrorist attack in Libya, reports soon surfaced that showed Obama knew the attack was being planned as a terrorist attack, yet he did nothing about it, then upon learning the attacks were underway, he went to bed. The next morning he learned about the murders of our fellow citizens, and simply hopped a flight to Vegas for a fundraiser party in his honor. Since then he and his cronies have been desperately trying to cover their tracks, using the most convenient scapegoat they could find: a little-known filmmaker who made an impossibly ridiculous YouTube video depicting Islam in an unflattering light. 

In court, the assistant US attorney leading the persecution said Youssef was “not here because of the content of the movie.” But the same lawyer also told told the judge at the sentencing hearing that Youssef “betrayed” the actors in his movie by not telling them about his criminal record, and by dubbing over some of their lines.

In other words, a federal prosecutor (plus the DOJ and the judge in this case) have decided that the feds can dictate what a movie maker can say and do with his work. Youssef may be no angel, but if this is not a violation of free-speech rights, then what is? 

Piers Morgan's right to free speech is defended by the White House, but Youssef is used as a scapegoat for exercising his. This hypocrisy can only be interpreted as the White House playing politics with the Constitution by playing favoritism to those who share its views and ideologies, while using people like Youssef as scapegoats to cover their backs. 

Perhaps it's ironic that, while most of us would fear being on a target list of radical Muslims, apparently offending President Obama's sensitivities to Muslims is dangerous too. Why else would he allow the the Justice Department to pursue Youssef and demand his silence? The president seems to care more about offending Islamists in the Middle East than he does about protecting the First Amendment here. 

Essentially, Piers Morgan is given a national outlet to spew his hatred for American's Constitutional rights and is defended by the Administration in the exercise of that freedom, while another US resident sits in jail as a scapegoat so the same Administration can save its own skin. That's pretty nauseating. If this is preview of what we we can expect from Obama's second term, we have good reason to be afraid.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

 

Should an anti-Israel pacifist be the U.S. Secretary of Defense?

President Obama has nominated Senator Chuck Hagel -- an anti-Israel former Senator -- to be Secretary of Defense. Part of Senator Hagel's record includes blaming American support for Israel on the "Jewish lobby." He also refused to sign a letter supporting Israel, and opposed labeling Hezbollah a "terrorist organization."

But it doesn't stop there. Senator Hagel also supported direct dialogue with Hamas – a terrorist group that launches near-daily attacks on Israeli civilians – and refused to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as terrorists. Even more disturbing, Iran has publicly welcomed Hagel's nomination, while Israel has stated, "We are worried." That should tell you a lot.

On top of this, Hagel supports dangerous cuts to our military as unrest grows in the Middle East. Even some in the mainstream media agree that Senator Chuck Hagel's radical views make him "not the right choice."

Should a former senator with this reord of appeasement be second in command of our Armed Forces? I don't think so. Do you? If not, contact your senators and urge them to vote against Obama's nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

 

Fiscal cliff "deal" a bad deal for all taxpayers

The Republicans' compromise - a.k.a. capitulation - has left Americans with a measly $1 in tax cuts for every $41 in tax increases all to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" that was created by Congress itself.

Now, thanks to this "compromise" 77 percent of all American households will pay higher taxes, including more than 80 percent of households with incomes of $50,000 or higher.

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. said "this legislation is the best we could do for taxpayers and job seekers." Really? The top personal income-tax rate goes from 35 percent to 41 percent (when deduction "reform" is included). The death tax goes from 35 percent to 40 percent. The capital gains tax rises from 15 percent to 23.8 percent (as does the tax on dividends). How does any of this help tax payers?

Small businesses - the largest job providers in America - will be particularly hard hit. As The Wall Street Journal reported, "the real marginal tax rate on a dollar of investment income from bank savings or money-market accounts will be about 46 percent (and more like 55 percent or higher when state taxes are figured in)."

When combined with the spending plans of those in control of the purse strings (e.g., $4 million for electric motorcycle makers, $59 million for algae growers) we're going to see an additional $4 trillion added to the deficit over the next decade.

Real spending cuts and "reform" will come later, Republicans insist. I personally don't believe them. Basically we just got the largest tax increase in a generation without so much as a passing glance at the real issue: government's spending problem.

How can we stop this madness? Our country is at stake and nobody in Washington seems to realize that - or even care.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.