dailycaller_logoLarge

Piers Morgan Writes Hit Piece On President Obama

Former newspaper editor Piers Morgan takes his seat in the stand before Arsenal play Tottenham Hotspur in their English Premier League soccer match at White Hart Lane in London, March 16, 2014. REUTERS/Eddie Keogh (BRITAIN - Tags: SPORT SOCCER MEDIA) FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY. NOT FOR SALE FOR MARKETING OR ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS. NO USE WITH UNAUTHORIZED AUDIO, VIDEO, DATA, FIXTURE LISTS, CLUB/LEAGUE LOGOS OR "LIVE" SERVICES. ONLINE IN-MATCH USE LIMITED TO 45 IMAGES, NO VIDEO EMULATION. NO USE IN BETTING, GAMES OR SINGLE CLUB/LEAGUE/PLAYER PUBLICATIONS - RTR3HB6H  

For starters, Piers Morgan can write? Who knew?

On Wednesday, the ex-CNN talk show host wrote his first story as editor-at-large for the Daily Mail.

While the content is vicious, angry and sure to tickle conservative journalists and pols, the writing is colorful, even entertaining.

“A slapdash Secret Service detail isn’t what’s wrong with the White House — the real scandal is a President who is so complacent about protecting Americans,” the headline blares.

Piers predicts that now that President Obama went on “60 Minutes” and distanced himself from U.S. national intelligence agencies on the rapid spread of ISIS, he’s guaranteed himself leaks to the media for the remainder of his presidency.

“A more shameless, reprehensible display of buck-passing it would be hard to find from a sitting President,” he wrote.

The most damning lines: “The truth is that Obama is the one who underestimated ISIS, plunging his head ostrich-like into the sand and hoping they would go away without having to do anything to actually make them go away… Hardly surprising when we discover yesterday that he has only attended 42.1 percent of his Presidential Daily intelligence briefings. No wonder the Secret Service gets complacent when The Boss exudes complacency from every pore.”

Piers went on a rampage, the kind he once reserved for gun enthusiasts. He blasted the president for how he behaved after the beheading of journalist James Foley and ridiculed him for playing so much golf.

2014 election-800x500

(MCT) — Just over a month before the midterm election, control of the U.S. Senate remains surprisingly up for grabs as Democrats parlay a financial edge and other advantages to battle history and a strong anti-Obama tide.

Republicans still enjoy the more secure position. The GOP is almost certain to win open-seat contests in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia, getting them halfway to the six seats needed to win a majority and gain control.

But the party’s candidates have yet to put away any of the 10 or so most competitive Senate races, buoying Democratic hopes they can hang on to at least one chamber of Congress despite what appeared, at the start of this election year, to be long odds.

In Louisiana, Arkansas and Alaska, where President Barack Obama’s approval ratings are particularly low, Democratic incumbents have kept their uphill races within striking distance. It helps that the candidates — Mary L. Landrieu, Mark Pryor and Mark Begich — come from prominent political families, making them familiar brand names in their respective states. But even in North Carolina, first-term Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, a prime Republican target, has clung to a small but consistent lead in recent voter surveys.

Part of the reason is money. Democrats, unexpectedly, have had more of it this year than Republicans. And part of it is mechanics — allocating resources, targeting voters, getting them to the polls — which national Democrats have excelled at over the past decade.

In that time, Democrats have defeated 12 sitting Republican senators. Republicans have ousted just three Democratic incumbents, two of them in the last midterm election under Obama, in 2010.

Historically, the midterm vote has been a referendum on the president, and this one appears to be no exception. There are three typical outcomes for the party in the White House, said Charlie Cook, a longtime nonpartisan campaign analyst: “Bad; really bad; and really, really bad.”

To a great extent Democrats are simply fighting for the least bad result, which would be clinging to the Senate by the narrowest of margins. (Republicans are expected to modestly pad their majority in the House and could lose a handful of governors’ seats.)

READ MORE…

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND DANGEROUS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL EDUCATION.

APPLE GIF

When: Monday, August 18, 2014 @ 7 pm

Where: The Palazzo Grande Banquet Hall

54660 Van Dyke (South of 25 Mile Road)

Shelby Township, Michigan 48316

Romeo Area Tea Party

Presents:

Debbie DeBacker

Discussing:

COMMON CORE CURRICULUM

The Romeo Area Tea Party invites you to attend this meeting on Monday, August 18, 2014 to learn more about common core. Slowly but surely, there is a push back to Common Core happening around the country. Some states have already opted out of this new curriculum and others are in the process of doing so.

If you are concerned about this issue , please invite your family members, friends and people in your neighborhood who have children in the public AND Catholic schools.

Relevant Career Highlights: Debbie is a livelong Michigan resident , a CPA and mother of three adult sons.

More than 20 years ago, Debbie saw the dramatic changes taking place in the education her children were obtaining, not for the better. This pushed her into doing extensive research on education reform and spirited her interest and involvement in the political system. Debbie is a former member of the State Republican Executive committee, has held other positions in the party and has been a candidate for office, all focused on the central issue of education.

She has testified in Lansing, assisted and lobbied our legislators to better understand the education reform process, helped draft legislation and has made many presentations on various education topics. Today she is going to give up an udpate on the federal government initiative called Common Core.

Personal Libert Digest New

Median Wealth Of U.S. Households Plummeted By One-Third In The Past 10 Years

Median Wealth Of U.S. Households Plummeted By One-Third In The Past 10 Years

THINKSTOCK

In the past decade, the wealth of the median household in the United States has dropped by an average of one-third, according to a recent study published by the Russell Sage Foundation, a New York-based nonprofit research organization.

The group concluded that the median worth of American households has declined from a high of $98,972 in 2007 to $56,335 in 2013. For the 10-year period between 2003 and 2013, that figure dropped from $87,992 to $56,335 — about a one-third decrease.

The brunt of the loss has occurred since 2007, and it’s hit the bottom economic demographic the hardest.

From the study summary:

Through at least 2013, there are very few signs of significant recovery from the losses in wealth experienced by American families during the Great Recession. Declines in net worth from 2007 to 2009 were large, and the declines continued through 2013. These wealth losses, however, were not distributed equally. While large absolute amounts of wealth were destroyed at the top of the wealth distribution, households at the bottom of the wealth distribution lost the largest share of their total wealth.

Net worth is a measure of the value of a household’s assets against its debts: stocks, land and homes compared with what a household owes to own these assets free and clear. Home values, which are closely tied to the net worth of middle-class families, have been particularly affected over the past decade.

“While stock prices rebounded relatively quickly after the collapse in 2007, housing prices did not,” the report states. “As a result, the median of wealth not held in real estate declined by about only $6,900 between 2007 and 2013, compared to a decline in median total net worth of about $42,500. Affluent households are more likely than other households to hold stocks and have large portfolios, which allowed them to benefit from the gains in the stock market.”

dailycaller_logoLarge

“A Perilous Hour” Sen. Sessions Rails Against Obama’s Impending Unlawful Immigration Order

Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions warned his colleagues they are fast approaching “a perilous hour” for the separation of powers between the president and Congress, delivering an impassioned denunciation of President Barack Obama’s plan to ignore Congress and grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants despite opposition from lawmakers.

Sessions spoke on the Senate floor Monday about the slew of reports indicating the White House is only days away from a major executive action on immigration.

Most reports — including some from Democratic members of Congress — claim Obama will grant some form of amnesty to vast swathes of people now living in the country illegal. According to Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez, that number could be as high as 5 million.

“We are entering a momentous week,” Sessions began, “as Congress must face the reality that President Obama is moving towards a decision whereby he would issue executive orders in direct contravention of long-established American law . . . This after Congress has explicitly refused demands to change the law to suit his desire.”

Any amnesty without congressional approval, the senator warned, “would be in contravention of his duty and his oath to see that the United States are faithfully enforced — and it would be a direct challenge to the clear powers of Congress to make laws!”

“The president’s actions are astonishing,” he continued, “[and] they’re taking our nation into exceedingly-dangerous waters . . . Such calculated action strains the constitutional structure of our republic.”

Sessions called for the president to “pull back” and cease promising action to special interest groups. “Simply put, that which you desire is beyond your lawful reach!” he admonished.

“Mr. President, you work for the American people,” he continued. “They don’t work for you! And they will not accept nullification of their law passed by their elected representatives. The American people are not going to accept it. They’re going to fight this. They will resist.”

Sessions called on his fellow lawmakers to immediately pass a provision expressly forbidding Obama from taking unilateral action on amnesty.

“I’m calling on every person in this body and in the House of Representatives to stand up and be counted in this perilous hour,” he declared. “I think it is a perilous hour. I don’t think I’ve seen a situation in which a president, weeks in advanced, have announced he’s going to take action that violates law.”

Personal Libert Digest New

Liberty Movement Rising

April 15, 2014 by 

Liberty Movement Rising

SCREENSHOT
Last week, protesters and Bureau of Land Management officers faced off.

The label of “fringe” is a common one used by statists, bureaucrats and paid shills in order to marginalize those who would stand against government corruption. The primary assertion being sold is that the “majority” joyously supports the establishment; and the majority, of course, is always right.

The liberty movement, which is a collection of numerous freedom organizations and political activists brought together by a shared philosophical bond, has been accused of “fringe” status for quite some time. With corporatist dominance over the mainstream media for decades backing an elitist machine in Washington and a global banking cartel footing the bill with money created from thin air, any such accusation can be made to seem “real” to those who are unaware.

The problem has always been a matter of physical action giving rise to an acknowledgment of numbers.

We have all heard the old story of the debate within the ancient Roman government over the idea of forcing the slave population to wear distinct armbands so that they could be more easily identified among the regular population. The concept was rejected on the realization that if the slaves were given a visual confirmation of their considerable numbers and strength, they would be encouraged to revolt against the Roman tyrants. That is to say, as long as the slaves felt isolated, they would remain apathetic and powerless. Of course, that was not always the case. Sometimes, a small group would stand up despite their supposed isolation, and the rest of the world, wide-eyed and astonished, would take notice.

The liberty movement has just experienced one of its first great moments of realization and empowerment in Clark County, Nev., and millions of past naysayers have been shell-shocked.

I covered my views in detail on the Bundy Ranch saga in Nevada in my article“Real Americans Are Ready To Snap,” amid the usual choir of disinformation agents and nihilists desperate to convince Web audiences that the liberty movement would do nothing to stop the Bureau of Land Management’s militant assault on Cliven Bundy’s cattle farm. This assault included hundreds of Federal agents, helicopters, contractors hired essentially as cattle rustlers and even teams of snipers.

The statists and socialists were certainly out in force to misrepresent the Bundy issue and frighten anyone who might consider taking a stand for the family. The Southern Poverty Law Center, not surprisingly, was hard at work spreading lies and disinformation about the confrontation in Nevada, painting a picture of fractured patriot groups and militiamen with “little training” going to face Federal BLM agents and likely “ending up dead.” The SPLC insinuated that the movement was ineffective and in over its head.

The reality was much the opposite. Liberty groups arrived in droves and were staunchly unified — not by a centralized leadership, but in defense of the basic moral principles outlined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sources on the ground at the Bundy ranching operation relayed to me that at least 1,000 activists and militia members arrived over the weekend, with many more on the way. This one event proved certain points:

  1. The liberty movement is not afraid to put itself in harm’s way for the right cause — even if this means facing off against highly armed government thugs.
  2. The liberty movement has the ability to field a response team or even an army anywhere in the country at any time within a couple of days.
  3. The liberty movement has the ability to change the course of events, even to the point of removing Federal agents from a region who are acting in an unConstitutional manner.
  4. The Federal government is not invincible, nor is it unfazed by liberty movement opposition. They worry about our strength and ability.

Over the past weekend, we witnessed the true influence of the liberty movement. As thousands of activists and militia arrived in the area, the BLM finally began to understand what it was facing. The government agency that has been terrorized farming communities throughout the West for years, the agency armed with military-grade weaponry and hundreds of agents, ran away as freedom fighters descended on the region.

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie, two politicians who were deathly silent during the beginning of the Federal incursion on the Bundy ranch, have now suddenly become vocal in defense of Nevada ranchers against the BLM. It’s amazing how “inspired” politicians can become to do the right thing when they see an army of liberty activistsmarching against tyranny.

Not only was the BLM forced to remove itself from the area, but it was also forced to relinquish all the cattle it had stolen from Bundy over the course of the past week. Here, liberty groups close in on the cattle holding pens of the BLM and take back Bundy’s property.

Statists and socialists are indignant and furious over the surrender of the BLM. The same people who boasted that liberty activists would be slaughtered by Fed agents are now frothing at the mouth because they did not get their massacre. Not only that, but the bureaucracy they worship has shown itself to be impotent in the face of Constitutional champions. All I can say is nothing puts a bigger grin on my face than to see statists cry like babies when their delusions of grandeur are trampled on.

This was a major victory for the liberty movement. But let’s be clear; the fight is far from over.

I suspect that the Bundy event will be spun by news agencies and the government until it is unrecognizable. They will claim that the BLM left not because they were wrong, but because they were trying to keep people safe. They will claim that liberty movement protesters were the aggressors and the poor BLM agents were just trying to do their jobs. They will argue the so-called Federal legality of the raid itself, and paint Bundy as a “freeloader” who refuses to pay taxes and who is living off the American people. They will do everything in their power to destroy the image of the victory and soil the name of the Bundy family.

What they don’t seem to understand, though, is that the liberty movement does not care what the Federal government deems “legal” or “illegal.” Our only interest is what is Constitutional and what is moral. The dispute was never about the “legality” of Bundy’s use of the land, which his family used for grazing without interference for generations — until 1993, when the BLM used the absurd endangered species protection racket to put all of his neighbors out of business and threaten his ranch with invasion. Statists continually attempt to argue this issue from the standpoint of Federal legality, obviously because the Federal government has the legislative and bureaucratic power to make any despicable action legal (at least on paper) if it wishes. The liberty movement has no interest whatsoever in Federal interpretations of legal precedence. We care only about what is right. As the old saying goes, when injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

The liberty movement also fully understands that the Bundy victory was only one battle at the beginning of a long war.

The BLM may very well be waiting for activists to leave the area before attacking again. And even if that is not the case, tyrannical systems have a way of attempting to make up for signs of weakness by escalating violence during the next siege. That is to say, we should expect the next event involving the BLM or other government agencies to be even more vicious than the Bundy incident. It is simply the natural inclination of totalitarian systems to exaggerate their power when their failings have been exposed.

That said, it should be noted that corrupt leadership often crumbles in the face of steadfast resolve and courage. We have a long way to go before this Nation is once again truly free, but the liberty movement has proven its invaluable worth over the course of the past several days. We arrived at a crossroads, and we are now moving forward in the right direction — without fear and without regret. It is in these moments when history is made — when common men and women thwart the odds, defy the darkness and make good on their beliefs by risking everything in the name of freedom.

–Brandon Smith

Ayn Rand

The Only Path To Tomorrow

By Ayn Rand

Readers Digest, January 1944, pp. 88-90

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.´´

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing “the common good.´´ Napoleon “served the common good´´ of France. Hitler is “serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by “altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man’s right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man’s happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians’ first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen’s rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage’s whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the “New Order of Tomorrow.´´ It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man — the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.