The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free
markets and individual liberty
"There is but
one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
To
subscribe, see note below
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Want
to guess that the real estate agents stay away from these facts: Half of
the housing loans are for investors, 60 subprime lenders are in operation, 90
percent of family income-tax filers are single parents, and 90 percent of the
jobs are held by non-residents. That’s all from Milwaukee’s Zip Code 53206, a
key component of what’s been described as Wisconsin’s welfare magnet. The
details from this neighborhood, and its city, aren’t what you’d find on a
chamber of commerce brochure either. An official report from the Milwaukee police
department reveals more: In the city, the homicide rate for black residents is
27.9 per 100,000 compared to 9.7 for Latinos and 1.7 per 100,000 white
residents. Of known 2011 homicide suspects in Milwaukee,
93 percent are black, while 4 percent are white and Latino. The city itself is
40 percent black, 17 percent Latino, and 37 percent white, according to Census figures. University of
Wisconsin Milwaukee sociology professor Aki Roberts shared his view of these
troubling patterns with WND.
“Milwaukee’s discrepancy does appear to be
larger than the national average. Part of the reason may be that Milwaukee is
one of most racially segregated cities in the United States,” he says. Roberts
added, “In 2011, the black unemployment rate in Milwaukee was 22.4 percent
compared to 9.6 percent for whites and 16.7 percent for Hispanics,” which
“parallels the racial disparity in homicide rates in Milwaukee.”
However,
as the homicide report shows, the black murder rate is 14 times the white
murder rate, while the black unemployment rate is double the white unemployment
rate. From a different angle, Hispanics and blacks have a similar
unemployment rate, yet the Hispanic murder rate is one third of the black rate.
The relationship between unemployment and crime is murky at best.
Harvard sociologist Christopher Winship tells WND, “Research on the
relationship between unemployment and crime, although considerable in quantity,
has produced ambiguous results, with some work showing a positive relationship
and other work a negative relationship.” There have been times when
severe unemployment has occurred while crime rates drop. “Most surprising,
crime rates went down during the Great Depression. In the current recession
they have been at 40-year lows,” Winship points out. Milwaukee is among
the 20 most violent cities in the country. By far, the largest number
of homicides in Milwaukee occurred in one much-discussed Zip Code, 53206. A
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee project says, “The 53206 Zip Code
neighborhood serves as a bellwether for poverty changes in
Milwaukee and nationally.” The report also notes, “In the 1990s
prior to welfare reform in Wisconsin it had the largest
number of families receiving AFDC.” In 2011, 17 of the 86 homicides
in Milwaukee occurred in 53206. Between 2005-2009, there were 95 homicides in
this Zip Code out of 473 in the city as a whole. That’s 20 percent of all
homicides, occurring in a Zip Code with less than 5 percent (28,210) of the
city’s 594,833 population. Blacks comprise 96 percent of the Zip Code, Latinos are 2.1 percent, and
whites are 1.6 percent
~~~~~~
Obama
makes U.S. Marine break military rules
This
just shows the utter contempt that Obama has for the military. Even though he
is the commander in chief, there are some orders that even President Obama
cannot give – as he found out today, much to the mirth of a put-upon U.S.
Marine. Hosting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the Rose Garden
today, the president requested a standing Marine to open an umbrella and
protect his head from the light rain that was falling. However, according
to Marine Corps regulations, not even the President of the United States can
request a serving officer to carry an umbrella without the express permission
of the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The Marine Corp Manual, which is the
bible for all soldiers serving, specifically states that a soldier's uniform dress
code does not allow the carrying of an umbrella and 'no officer or official
shall issue instructions which conflict with, alter, or amend any provision
without the approval of the Commandant of the Marine Corps.' Indeed, male Marines
are informed never to carry an umbrella from the earliest phases of training.
Regulation MCO P1020.34F of the Marine Corps Uniform Regulations chapter 3,
rules out any use or carrying of an umbrella while a Marine is in uniform.
However,
female Marines 'may carry an all-black, plain standard or collapsible umbrella
at their option during inclement weather with the service and dress uniforms. It
will be carried in the left hand so that the hand salute can be properly
rendered.'
~~~~~~
Obama
Administration: “It’s Actually Closer To Us Being Idiots” - CBS News
Every
now and then a spark of truth is told. Obama administration officials who
were in key positions on Sept. 11, 2012, acknowledge that a range of mistakes
were made the night of the attacks on the U.S. missions in Benghazi, and in
messaging to Congress and the public in the aftermath. The officials spoke to
CBS News in a series of interviews and communications under the condition of
anonymity so that they could be more frank in their assessments. They do not
all agree on the list of mistakes and it’s important to note that they
universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives and reflect
incompetence rather than malice or cover up.” Nonetheless, in the eight months
since the attacks, this is the most sweeping and detailed discussion by key
players of what might have been done differently.
“We’re
portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots,” said one Obama
administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. “It’s actually
closer to us being idiots.”
~~~~~~
42%
Think Justice Department Trying to Bully Media in AP Case
Voters
are closely divided over whether the U.S. Justice Department’s secret seizure
of telephone records from the Associated Press was an effort to protect
national security or an attempt to bully the media.
The
latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% think the
Justice Department’s actions were chiefly an effort to intimidate the media.
But nearly as many (38%) think Justice was primarily acting out of a concern
for national security. Twenty percent (20%) are not sure.
~~~~~~~
ABC
Analysis: Poor Big Government Is Not Trusted By Voters by Mark Horne
If
you think Obama is humbled by the public exposure of a few of his many sins,
think again:
“‘I genuinely believe that there are actually
Republicans out there who would like to work with us but they’re fearful of
their base and they’re concerned about what Rush Limbaugh might say about
them,’ Obama said. ‘And as a consequence, we get the kind of gridlock that
makes people cynical about government and inhibits our progress.’”
Wow.
Is that what is making people cynical about government?—Their inability to roll
more laws off the legislative assembly line? I would think that questions
about Benghazi, Fast and Furious, spying on a major media group so that every
potential whistle blower knows the government might be gathering data about
them, or using the IRS to burden political non-profits or harass any enemy with
an audit, might all have something to do with that. After all, every single one
of those things (except Fast and Furious, tragically) is in the news right now.
People aren’t scared of Rush Limbaugh; they’re scared of Barack Obama and
it won’t be fixed until the fear runs the other way.
~~~~~~
The
Thrill is Gone: Chris Matthews Craps on Obama
President Obama ”obviously
likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch,” Chris Matthews
said tonight. Yes, you read that right: The MSNBC host who in 2008 felt a
“thrill going up my leg” after hearing Obama speak has grown disenchanted.
Tonight’s episode of Hardball saw Matthews delivering a rare, unforgiving
grilling of the president as severe as anything that might appear on Fox News.
“What part of the presidency does Obama
like? He doesn’t like dealing with other politicians — that means his own
cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn’t
particularly like the press…. He likes to write the speeches, likes to rewrite
what Favreau and the others wrote for the first draft,” Matthews said. “So
what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning, visiting
businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or somewhere,”
Matthews continued. “But what part does he like? He doesn’t like lobbying for
the bills he cares about. He doesn’t like selling to the press. He doesn’t like
giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn’t seem to
like being an executive.”
~~~~~~
Crisis,
Scandal and Tyranny
"If the federal
government should ... make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people ... must
appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the
injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence
justify."
--Alexander Hamilton
It
was a bad week for the president. Of course, opposition to his agenda is
nothing new, and neither is his history of using scandal and crisis to maintain
his perpetual campaign. What made this week especially bad is that his
Leftmedia sycophants suddenly got a dose of his medicine. The IRS
targeting groups with "Patriot" or "Tea Party" in their
name was the big news of the week, but we've endured four-and-a-half years of
this kind of scandal and crisis exploitation by Barack Obama -- Benghazi,
Operation Fast and Furious, Newtown, the BP oil spill, crony
"stimulus" deals, EPA political favoritism (more on that below) and
HHS fundraising (also more below), just to name a few. For the IRS, Obama
tells us that no special prosecutor is needed. He's got it; no worries.
In
every case, plausible deniability is the name of the game. Obama is always
careful to use bureaucratic managers who act as cutouts to take the perceived
fall for his misdeeds -- those "low-level employees" in Cincinnati,
for example -- but the community organizer in chief has cultivated corruption
in government since 2009. You can take the politician out of Chicago, but you
can't take Chicago out of the politician.
Former
adviser David Axelrod offered his explanation of the problem: "Part of
being president is there's so much beneath you that you can't know because the
government's so vast." Yes, he said this in defense of the
president. In reality, that's the best case anyone could make for
constitutionally limited government. As Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) observed,
"The more power any government has, the more power it will abuse."
In
related news, another IRS scandal is brewing. A HIPAA-covered data
management company is suing the IRS after agents seized the personal and
confidential medical records of more than 10 million patients in 2011. The IRS
had a search warrant to obtain financial information of a former employee of
the data management company, but according to the legal complaint, "It did
not authorize any seizure of any healthcare or medical record of any persons,
least of all third parties completely unrelated to the matter. This is an action
involving the corruption and abuse of power... No search warrant authorized the
seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records;
none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil
investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS
search."
By
the way, we learned yesterday that Sarah Hall Ingram, who headed up Obama's IRS
office in charge of tax-exempt groups during its period of conservative
persecution and was paid $103,390 just in bonuses during that time, is now in
charge of enforcing ObamaCare at the IRS. And we're supposed to trust this
government with our health care or with background checks for gun purchases or
with countless other unconstitutional encroachments in our daily lives?
The
Leftmedia finally began to understand -- or at least to feel the brunt of --
the problem when the Justice Department seized phone records on more than 20
separate lines used by the Associated Press in April and May of last year. Trafficking guns to
Mexico that result in the deaths of two federal agents and hundreds of Mexican
citizens? Not interested. Leaving four Americans to die in a terrorist attack
in Benghazi and then lying about what happened to ensure re-election? Got
better things to do. Listening in on AP phone calls? Outrageous!
Yet
the AP investigation is entirely different from the other issues, except that
it appears, as was the case with the Benghazi cover up, to be yet another
attempt to promote Obama as having conquered al-Qa'ida. According to Fox News,
"The government would not say why it sought the records. Officials
have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington
is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained
in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed
details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an Al Qaeda plot in the spring
of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States."
It's likely that cover was blown for an inside source as a result.
Those who leak information that is classified or that exposes intel methods
should be caught and prosecuted, notwithstanding the general media belief that
they're above the law. Perhaps now the Leftmedia will shake off their
Stockholm Syndrome and begin to take seriously this administration's habitual
abuse of power. Finally, we note again that it's no small irony that Obama
delivered a commencement address at Ohio State University two weeks ago, where
he counseled graduates, "Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices
that incessantly warn ... that tyranny is always lurking just around the
corner. You should reject these voices." Reject
them, he says -- because they're telling the truth.
~~~~~~
Oops,
maybe government is tyrannical By Marta H. Mossburg
Less than two weeks ago President Obama stood in front of graduates from The Ohio State University and told them to reject those who warn of government tyranny. "Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems," he said. To young, idealistic people his words likely sounded insightful -- until last week. That's when it became officially impossible to deny that the government abuses its power for political gain. Practically overnight people labeled conspiracy theorists by the elite were proven prescient interpreters of how big government operates when news broke last Friday that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny in their tax-exempt applications. The media pile on against the administration is so ferocious Fox News could run live feeds from its competitors without losing a beat. It should be so because the partisan treatment of hundreds of groups is stunning. Ginny Rapini saw the IRS in action firsthand. The volunteer coordinator for the NorCal Tea Party applied for 501(c)(4) status for her group in July 2009. In the spring of 2010 the IRS asked for more information. She sent in the information immediately but didn't hear from the IRS again until January 2012, she said. At that point the agency sent the group a list of 19 questions, including a request for the names of donors, every email the group sent and minutes of each board meeting, with the requirement that everything be returned within two weeks or the agency would consider the application void, she said. She sent the IRS 3,000 pages of information prior to the deadline – but did not include the names of donors. "I think they wanted to intimidate me, but instead they made me mad," said Rapini. The government promises, "Protecting the privacy of individuals remains the highest priority." But after the last week, Americans should know there is no guarantee of personal privacy with the government or impartiality in how their information is used. It should also put Americans on notice that their political party could determine the quality of their health care. Welcome to the real world, Ohio State graduates.
Less than two weeks ago President Obama stood in front of graduates from The Ohio State University and told them to reject those who warn of government tyranny. "Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems," he said. To young, idealistic people his words likely sounded insightful -- until last week. That's when it became officially impossible to deny that the government abuses its power for political gain. Practically overnight people labeled conspiracy theorists by the elite were proven prescient interpreters of how big government operates when news broke last Friday that the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups for special scrutiny in their tax-exempt applications. The media pile on against the administration is so ferocious Fox News could run live feeds from its competitors without losing a beat. It should be so because the partisan treatment of hundreds of groups is stunning. Ginny Rapini saw the IRS in action firsthand. The volunteer coordinator for the NorCal Tea Party applied for 501(c)(4) status for her group in July 2009. In the spring of 2010 the IRS asked for more information. She sent in the information immediately but didn't hear from the IRS again until January 2012, she said. At that point the agency sent the group a list of 19 questions, including a request for the names of donors, every email the group sent and minutes of each board meeting, with the requirement that everything be returned within two weeks or the agency would consider the application void, she said. She sent the IRS 3,000 pages of information prior to the deadline – but did not include the names of donors. "I think they wanted to intimidate me, but instead they made me mad," said Rapini. The government promises, "Protecting the privacy of individuals remains the highest priority." But after the last week, Americans should know there is no guarantee of personal privacy with the government or impartiality in how their information is used. It should also put Americans on notice that their political party could determine the quality of their health care. Welcome to the real world, Ohio State graduates.
~~~~~~
Controversies
Doom Obama's Effort to Restore Faith in Government By Scott
Rasmussen
It's
impossible to predict the lasting impact of the controversies now besetting the
Obama administration, but the risks to the president's agenda are
sizable. On the legislative front, they could doom the already
cloudy prospects for comprehensive immigration reform. The implementation of
President Obama's health care law is also likely to be a bit more challenging.
It's possible, too, that this week's controversies could provide a big boost
for Republicans heading into the 2014 midterm elections. But it might not be
that clear-cut. Americans are somewhat unhappy with the president's
explanations of what happened in Benghazi last September when the U.S.
ambassador to Libya was murdered, but they still give him overall good marks
for his handling of national security. The recent congressional hearings on
Benghazi did nothing to change that reality.
Voters are clearly upset by the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups. Fifty-seven percent believe that those responsible should be either fired or jailed. But it's not clear whether the president or his top aides were involved, although many suspect they were. The Department of Justice's seizure of telephone records from a major news organization as part of an investigation into news leaks of national security secrets is more nuanced. Many voters think the press has too much freedom already and that there is not enough done to protect national security. But while the public is not up in arms over this issue, journalists are. So there is likely to be more aggressive reporting on some of the other challenges facing the White House. The key to measuring the impact over the coming months will be the president's job approval ratings. He's been hovering around the 50 percent mark for much of his second term. Those numbers are not likely to sink rapidly because of the partisan reality behind the numbers. Among Republicans, the president's ratings can't go much lower. That means any change will have to come from unaffiliated voters or Democrats.
Unaffiliated voters are not terribly enthusiastic about the president. His overall job approval rating among these voters has remained consistently in the 40s. If that begins to fall, so will prospects for the president's agenda and his party in 2014. Still, the president continues to enjoy solid support from Democrats. George W. Bush enjoyed similar support from Republicans until the sixth year of his tenure. At that point, Bush's ratings from within his own party fell as low as the high 60s. If that happens to Obama among Democrats, the GOP could win big in 2014. It also seems likely that this past week will make the president's biggest uphill battle impossible to achieve. He has spent his public career trying to build faith in the federal government. At times, his own belief in government appeared so strong that he seemed genuinely puzzled to encounter people who didn't share it. Even before the latest controversies, the president was fighting a losing battle. Following his re-election, just 34 percent of voters had a favorable opinion of the federal government. At the time, I wrote: "A successful second term for President Obama could convince others to abandon their historic American skepticism about government. A troubled second term could reinforce that skepticism." Over the past week, public skepticism has been reinforced in a big way.
Voters are clearly upset by the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups. Fifty-seven percent believe that those responsible should be either fired or jailed. But it's not clear whether the president or his top aides were involved, although many suspect they were. The Department of Justice's seizure of telephone records from a major news organization as part of an investigation into news leaks of national security secrets is more nuanced. Many voters think the press has too much freedom already and that there is not enough done to protect national security. But while the public is not up in arms over this issue, journalists are. So there is likely to be more aggressive reporting on some of the other challenges facing the White House. The key to measuring the impact over the coming months will be the president's job approval ratings. He's been hovering around the 50 percent mark for much of his second term. Those numbers are not likely to sink rapidly because of the partisan reality behind the numbers. Among Republicans, the president's ratings can't go much lower. That means any change will have to come from unaffiliated voters or Democrats.
Unaffiliated voters are not terribly enthusiastic about the president. His overall job approval rating among these voters has remained consistently in the 40s. If that begins to fall, so will prospects for the president's agenda and his party in 2014. Still, the president continues to enjoy solid support from Democrats. George W. Bush enjoyed similar support from Republicans until the sixth year of his tenure. At that point, Bush's ratings from within his own party fell as low as the high 60s. If that happens to Obama among Democrats, the GOP could win big in 2014. It also seems likely that this past week will make the president's biggest uphill battle impossible to achieve. He has spent his public career trying to build faith in the federal government. At times, his own belief in government appeared so strong that he seemed genuinely puzzled to encounter people who didn't share it. Even before the latest controversies, the president was fighting a losing battle. Following his re-election, just 34 percent of voters had a favorable opinion of the federal government. At the time, I wrote: "A successful second term for President Obama could convince others to abandon their historic American skepticism about government. A troubled second term could reinforce that skepticism." Over the past week, public skepticism has been reinforced in a big way.
~~~~~~
Obama
to Announce Major US Nuclear Force Cuts…by Executive Action?
President
Barack Obama is set to announce a new round of strategic nuclear warhead
reductions in the near future as part of a disarmament agenda that could reduce
U.S. strategic warheads to as few as 1,000 weapons. The next round of
U.S.-Russian arms talks would follow Obama’s expected announcement that the
United States’ arsenal of strategic warheads can be reduced unilaterally to
around 1,000 warheads. That position is expected as part of the Pentagon’s
long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review implementation study that Obama was
expected to sign earlier this year. Recent press reports have indicated
that President Obama may make the cuts — fully one-third of the nation’s
arsenal — by executive action and without Congressional authorization. Specialists
on nuclear deterrence say further cuts beyond the 1,550 deployed warheads
mandated by the 2010 New START arms treaty could undermine the United States’
ability to deter nuclear powers like Russia and China, who have significant
modernization programs for their nuclear arsenals underway. Further
cuts also are likely to embolden other non-nuclear states, including Japan, to
consider building their own nuclear arsenals, analysts say.
~~~~~~
"Tyranny, like hell, is not easily
conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict,
the more glorious the triumph." --Thomas
Paine, American Crisis, No. 1, 1776
No comments:
Post a Comment