Obama's Inner Dictator Promises More Executive Orders

Graphic by T. Mannis, Chicago News Bench
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

January 29, 2014 - Barack Obama revealed his elitist tendencies last night in his State of the Union address. By promising to make law single-handedly, without involving Congress, Obama has essentially declared that he will goose-step over the legislative process and rule by decree.

Obama vowed to use executive orders to go around the wishes of voters and their elected representatives in Congress to achieve goals that have so far eluded him. Obama specifically promised to sign an executive order that would raise the minimum wage for some Americans by requiring federal contractors to pay their employees at least $10.10 per hour.

Urging a “year of action,” he pitched what he called “concrete, practical proposals” to boost the middle class and build “new ladders of opportunity” for others to enter it. “Some require congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you,” Obama said. “But America does not stand still – and neither will I.  So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.” ~ Fox News

Obama issued 166 executive orders between 2009 and 2013 (Source: Federal Register).

Also See:

• Ed Rollins: Obama's Executive Order Moves 'Very Dangerous' Newsmax
• Obama To Double-Down On Executive Orders WND
• Obama vows to act without Congress in 2014, amid second-term woes Fox News
• Transcripts: President Obama's 2014 State of the Union address, GOP rebuttal CNN
• State of the Union: What Obama can and can't do by executive order LA Times
• Obama ‘won’t be waiting on Congress,’ plans more executive orders... Washington Times
• Obama's Plan To Seize Control Of Our Economy And Our Lives Forbes
• Martial Law by Executive Order Huffington Post

Department of Defense Visits Chicago News Bench and Moonbattery

April 3, 2012 - I just wanted say a quick "Thank you" to the hard working employees at the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) for visiting Chicago News Bench. Seems one of their urgent national defense tasks is to investigate my post about the  "Arrest Eric Holder" t-shirts.

Yep, someone at the DOD Network Information Center (IP 207.132.245.129) at 7:36 a.m. today, and someone else at the Department of Defense Network (140.194.140.55) at 5:57 a.m. visite Chicago News Bench.

Both visitors found that post via Moonbattery, where they linked to me. The first DOD employee, at 5:57 a.m. was using Internet Explorer 8.0 in Windows XP. The second one, at 7:36 a.m., was using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP.

This raises questions:

• Why are DOD employees using the outdated Windows XP?
• Although Moonbattery is a fine blog, why are DOD employees surfing the web on company time?
• If these employees were on break, and not on company time, were they using the company's laptops? Or using DOD computers? 
• If they used personal laptops, why are they allowed to use the DOD's connection to surf the Internet if it is not work related?
• Suppose their web surfing was work related: Why is the DOD busy surfing conservative blog sites?
• If the DOD is monitoring conservative bloggers (they are, of course), is it a neutral kind of observation or something nefarious?
• Will these employees buy an Arrest Eric Holder t-shirt, or the new Arrest Eric Holder coffee mug?

I hope the DOD employees bookmarked Moonbattery and Chicago News Bench. Hopefully, too, did they tweet our posts, or recommend them to Facebook?

Stimulus Sign Seems Lost, Misplaced in Chicago's Loop

January 27, 2011 - This sign in downtown Chicago was erected to let everyone know that there is work being done here. But -- where's the work? It advertises that the American Recovery and Reinvestment is "Putting America to Work," but there is no work being done anywhere in sight. Not the kind that the sign refers to, anyway. (Click images to enlarge.) The sign sits on a median strip in front of Harold Washington Library at 400 S. State Street in the Loop. As with so many of these signs across the country, it indicates work being done where this is none. For that matter, it implies that there is some kind of recovery happening. That can't be seen anywhere nearby, either.

Obama's Progressive Duck Walk

Should Comrade President Obama be bragging about how "progressive" he is? Investors Business Daily (IBD) has a must-read editorial today that asks that question - and answers it, too. Excerpts from IBD's August 18 editorial, "Obama's 'Progressive' Failures": At a fundraiser Monday, the president boasted to Hollywood celebrities and deal makers about enacting "the most progressive legislative agenda" in decades. That may be true, but it's hardly something to be proud of. Why, you might be wondering, is being "progressive" not something to be proud of? What is it, and why is it shameful? IBD goes on: Much of the left today calls itself "progressive." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton does, and Democrats too numerous to name. It's part of an old tradition. In addition to many well-known activists, writers and philosophers, progressivism can claim many presidents — ranging from Woodrow Wilson, both Roosevelts and Herbert Hoover, to Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and, of course, Obama himself. Here's the kicker (with my emphasis added): So what is progressivism, you ask? Many things. But as a creed, it stresses the importance of centralized government control over Americans' lives as paramount. It actively seeks to diminish the constitutional limits on what government can — and can't — do. That's a nice, concise and scary desciption of progressivism. It's all about control. Power. The State (Big Brother) comes first and individualism is to be downplayed. A slightly longer description of progressivism comes from the Ludwig von Mises Institute (http://mises.org/). They describe themselves as "the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory." Here's an excerpt from "The Legacy of Progressivism" by William L. Anderson (with my emphasis added), in which he analyzes Progressivism in the United States: Without Progressivism, the New Deal would and never could have come into existence. The vast expansion of the state apparatus that occurred during the 1930s moved along tracks already laid by politicians like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. By the mid-1930s, the New Deal, far from being a legislative aberration, naturally followed the economic crisis that Progressivism had caused. Just what was Progressivism, what were its causes, and what followed from the Progressive Movement? Historians refer to it as an influential social movement that began in the late 1800s and ended with the United State’s 1917 entry into World War I. Among the many "successes" of Progressivism were antitrust laws, state and national income taxes, increased business regulation, minimum wage laws, direct election of U.S. senators, creation of the Federal Reserve System, and prohibition of alcoholic beverages. Are progressives exclusively Democrats? They haven't always been, explains Anderson (emphasis added): Nor was Progressivism the domain of just one political party, as both Republicans and Democrats vied with each other to see who could more thoroughly expand the state. Republicans, led by Theodore Roosevelt and Sen. Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, pushed for high tariffs, government ownership of natural resources, antitrust legislation, and imperialistic adventures abroad. Democrats, on the other hand, led by William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson, pushed the income tax, inflation through debasement of the money supply, and the internal protectionist device known as Jim Crow laws, which attempted to shield white workers from competition from blacks. Both parties favored expansion of voting rights to women. What is clear is that neither party had any intention of honoring the U.S. Constitution. In fact, the Progressive Era would not have had its social and legal effect had it not been for its reworking of the Constitution through the amendment process. The 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th amendments reworked the political landscape and greatly expanded the scope of the central government, one of the main goals of progressives. The 16th Amendment was probably the worst, as it authorized Congress for the first time to levy an income tax that would not be struck down by the Supreme Court. The Investors Business Daily editorial noted that the American Progressivism movement was "Influenced heavily by European social theorists and American Utilitarian thought" and "took root after the Civil War. Adherents understood that the idea of limited government based on individualism, natural rights and property rights — as defined by the Founding Fathers — had to be discredited." IBD lists some of Obama's progressive "accomplishments," with a touch of sarcasm: • The epic $862 billion "stimulus," which has led to record long-term joblessness while bailing out Obama's union supporters and the most irresponsible states while punishing taxpayers and their heirs for decades to come. • The $700 billion TARP program, which we were told would be used to give securities markets a boost but instead was used, essentially, to take over the auto industry, bail out friends of Obama and continue meddling in the markets. • The massive medical care overhaul known as Obama- Care, which will eventually supplant the best medical system in the world with a government-run system modeled after the substandard contraptions found in Canada and Britain. The Tea Party movement is driven primarily by a desire to bring back "limited government based on individualism, natural rights and property rights." Time after time in recent years, we have seen many examples of the "progressives" mocking and attempting to discredit the Tea Party people and those who sympathize with them. Let's get back to Barack Obama boasting about how progressive he and his regime have been. Obama certainly fits the definition of "progessive," sort of, but many self-described progressives laughably argue that he's really "a center-right Democrat." It's all a matter of perspective, of course, and if you're sitting far enough on left end of the political ideology spectrum even Obama could look center-right, I suppose. Semantics are fun, but let's get down to objective fact: Whether or not Obama the man is "progressive," the government actions that he has initiated, pushed and supported certainly are. The duck might not be a duck, but by means of its walk and its quack it has shown that it aspires to be one. Obama has every right to be proud of his level of progressivism, whether he personally fits the definition or not. After all, Obama and his followers are true believers, and true believers are always proud of that in which they believe - even if what they believe in is evil cloaked in a false robe of goodness. That non-duck duck is undoubtedly proud of it's behavior. He's worked hard to fake that duck walk. RELATED: A Spectre Is Haunting America: An Interpretation of Progressivism - pdf mises.org Glenn Beck Exposes the Progressive Movements Fascist Agenda YouTube Matt Spalding on Progressivism's Assault on America's Founding YouTube The Dawn of Liberalism: Progressivism University of Wisconsin-Madison Great Myths of the Great Depression YouTube Barack Obama's Progressive Cannibalism Huffington Post The Century of Statism - William L. Anderson mises.org The Liberal-Fascist Axis World Net Daily Is Obama Progressive? Seeing The Forest Left-wing roots of the Nazis YouTube Marxism vs. the Majority mises.org Creeping Progressivism RedState Obama No The Progressive

MUST-SEE VIDEO - Health Care Bill Ripped Point by Painful Point

On April 27, 2010, U.S. Senator Johnn Barrasso (R-Wyoming) ripped apart the recently passed health care bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He did not shy away from rubbing Democrat noses in the stinking heap of lies and failures.

xx

"A month after the health care bill was signed into law, Americans continue to learn the impacts of this bad legislation. On April 22, 2010, the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released a report that confirms that the law will increase health care costs, raise federal spending, threaten access to care for our seniors and result in higher premiums for Americans." ~ U.S. Sen. John Barrasso web site

Barrasso gave a shocking and concise diagnosis of the health care bill, detailing its major failures in the clearest critique I've heard yet. Barrasso is also an orthopaedic surgeon and knows medicine like Comrade Barack Obama never will. He cited specific provisions of the bill and used quotes and figures from the Obama Regime's own agencies to show just how the bill falls short of living up to Comrade Obama's false promises and lies.

The Hartford Courrant sums it up well:

"The government's own Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has reported that health care costs will rise under President Barack Obama's health care bill. The unpopular law passed just a month ago through one of the most twisted and corrupt legislative processes the American people have ever seen. And now the government is admitting it will fail in one of its primary objectives: to reduce health care costs for the American people. The president and the Democrats are spending $1 trillion that we do not have and our costs will still go up."

Do you still like that "change" thing, Democrats?  We tried to warn you. You didn't listen.

Best Live Streaming of Health Care Vote in Congress

Watch it LIVE NOW on C-SPAN: http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed

Please Help the Crow Creek Sioux Fight Washington and the IRS

Please help the Crow Creek Sioux in their struggle against an unusual land grab by Washington D.C. Have a look at the petition below, and please sign it. The Sioux made a video that explains their desperate situation, with the long but appropriate title, "As Obama promises 100 billion a year for UN Climate Scam, Our people live like this!!!" A summary of the landgrab situation here, from USA Today: SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — About 7,112 acres of land on a poverty-stricken South Dakota Indian reservation was auctioned Thursday by the Internal Revenue Service but the buyer's identity is a mystery. The IRS auctioned the land on one of America's poorest Indian reservations after efforts Wednesday to block the sale in U.S. District Court failed. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe had gone to court to try and stop the IRS auction to settle overdue employment taxes it claims are owed by the tribe. But the auction went ahead, with a winning bid of $2,577,210, IRS spokeswoman Carrie Resch said "It's the first time I've ever heard of the IRS moving against tribally owned property in this manner," said Robert Williams Jr., a law professor and director of the Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy Program at the University of Arizona. (Source, and full story: USA Today, IRS to auction land on Indian reservation, by Jeff Martin, Dec. 3, 2009, accessed Dec. 22, 2009) An excerpt from the petition reads as follows: On December 3, 2009 the Internal Revenue Service unlawfully auctioned off 7100 acres located on Crow Creek Sioux Tribal land. The land is owned by Crow Creek Tribal Farms, Inc. a Tribal corporation and distinct legal entity from the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. According to the recent motion for temporary restraining order, filed by the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, the IRS seized and auctioned the land to recover $3,123,789.73 dollars in unpaid employment taxes. The document states, Because of erroneous tax advice received from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe became delinquent in the payment of employment taxes collected by the IRS beginning in 2003. The BIA had informed the Tribe that, because it was a federally recognized Tribe, it was not necessary to pay federal employment taxes. The Crow Creek Indian Reservation was created by the 1868 Treaty, Act of April 29, 1868, 15 Stat. 635, and by Section 6, Act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 888. "Taxes collectd by the IRS?" Wait a minute. By treaty, the Indian nations are - nations. For Washington to tax any of the reservations created by treaty is illegal. Imagine Canada trying to tax Illinois, Michigan or North Dakota. It's long past time for Washington to live up to the treaties that it made with the Sioux and other Indian nations within our borders. RELATED: Crow Creek gains support of Calif. tribe IRS sells SD Indian tribe's land to settle debt Obama Administration Agrees to Settle 13-Year-Old Indian Lawsuit for $3.4 Billion Crow Creek: Stolen Lands, Wind Farms and Taking a Stand for the People South Dakota Office of Tribal Government Relations -- Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Video: Native American Rights Under Assault Video: Crow Creek Indian Tribe on The Power Hour, 1/9: Government land theft Leave a Comment * Conservative T-Shirts * Follow CNB on Twitter * RSS Feed

Latino Farmers be Damned, Save the Minnow!

The environmentalists again prove how insane they are. Comedian Paul Rodriquez is very serious about this issue. He is the chair of the California Latino Water Coalition, and he's ticked off big time about the Federal Government shutting off water to farmers in order to save a two-inch fish that's not even endangered. Environmental insanity has caused a man-made drought, destroying crops, jobs and families. As Rodriquez says, "this is not the change we voted for." Are YOU a citizen of the United STRAIGHTS of America? Leave a Comment... Chicago News Bench RSS Feed We're on Twitter...

The Obama Experiment (Explosive Video)

Watch this powerful video. WOW! Huge hat tip to Right Not Wrong. Leave a Comment... See Our Online Store Chicago News Bench RSS Feed We're on Twitter...

$2 Billion More for Failed "Cars for Cash"

In a knee-jerk reaction to spectacular failure, Congress has just approved an additional $2 Billion for the "Cash for Cars" program. That's the program that ran out of money after much less than a month of operation. It's intended purpose is to stimulate new car sales by giving customers a rebate of up to $4,500 when they trade in an old car for a new one. Let's do some math.... The program ran out of its original $1 Billion in a matter of days. So, how many more days will it be before the additional $2 Billion runs out? The program, officially known as CARS (Car Allowance Rebate System), is a bureaucratic nightmare full of red tape. In other words, business as usual for a federal program. Rather than actually fixing the confusing program (see video report, WTNH), Congress simply threw more money at it. RELATED: US House approves $2 billion more for 'clunkers' - The Detroit News McCaskill says no mas on “Cash for Clunkers” - Columbia Business Times How Government Health Care Would Work (see Cash for Clunkers) - CNB Let Ford Recycle Your Ride - Find out if you qualify! - Ford Leave a Comment... See Our Online Store Chicago News Bench RSS Feed We're on Twitter...

How Government Health Care Would Work (see Cash for Clunkers)

UPDATE 7/31/2009: $2 Billion More for Failed "Cars for Cash" The federal government wants to help you buy a new car. They just don't know how to do that efficiently. How typical. A program called "Cash for Clunkers," which started on July 1, has already burned its $1 Billion in funding, and members of Congress are making a confused rush to "fix" the program. The program is officially called CARS (Car Allowance Rebate System) (see the website here). The CARS website makes no mention of the program's funding crisis. A PDF document there says, "The estimated funds remaining shown on the gauge to the right are estimated funds only. This page will be updated daily for informational purposes only. This is not official fund balancedealers should refer to when entering in their transactions." Problem is, there is no guage shown and they are not updating it daily as stated. At 10:40 am (CDT) on July 31, the PDF stated that the document was "Last updated 7/28/2009 at 9am EST." The idea behind Cash for Clunkers was to give hefty rebates to people for trading in their old cars. "Under the plan as enacted," reports CNN, "vehicles purchased after July 1 will be eligible for refund vouchers worth $3,500 to $4,500 on traded-in gas guzzlers. The trade-in vehicle has to get combined city and highway fuel economy ratings of 18 miles per gallon or less." Poorly funded, poorly administrated, poorly planned to begin with, Cash for Clunkers serves as a precursor of how government run health care would work. Moe Lane wrote a good summary of the situation on July 30, which noted the following (emphasis added): "...the program started on July 1, they only published the actual rules Friday, and they’re still working out how to get the dealers their money. If you’re shrugging over that, consider this: what’s essentially happening here is that car dealerships are giving $4,500 interest-free, unguaranteed loans to the federal government… and the determination of whether or not those loans get paid off is more or less going to be at the discretion of mid-level bureaucrats at the NHTSA. Even if they do repay every loan, it’s apparently going to take time for the system to smooth out; it’s an open question whether it’ll straighten out before the official end of the program in November. And the car dealerships - the only producers of goods in this particular equation, and the ones that the government is ostensibly trying to help - get all the headaches." How would you like health care to be run like that? You wouldn't, of course, but remember that the same fools who cobbled together Cash for Cars are the same fools who slammed together the 1,018 page health care legislation that just failed to pass in Congress. How many members of Congress have actually read the entire 1,018 page document, let alone actually understand it? The Cars for Cash legislation was far fewer pages and far less complicated, yet it collapsed in spectacular failure within a month of beginning. In typical government fashion, more money is being sought to extend the horrible program. According to CNN, "One of the program's main champions in Congress, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., told CNN that the Michigan, Ohio and Indiana congressional delegations are working on a $2 billion extension of Clunkers program." It is the stupidity and mad inefficiency of programs like Cash for Clunkers that has so many Americans leary of any government run health care. People are right to question how well an extremely complicated system such as health care - which directly affects life and death medical decisions - when a simple used car program is so badly screwed up by the very people who want to control your medical care. RELATED: Government's 'Cash for Clunkers' Program Runs Out of Gas Early ... - Wall Street Journal Congress rushing to further fund cash for clunkers - Baltimore Sun Cash For Clunkers Funds Gone in One Week? - autoloandaily.com US Launches 'Cash For Clunkers' Initiative - Voice of America Poll: More Americans wary of Barack Obama's health care plan ... CSMonitor.com Leave a Comment... See Our Online Store Chicago News Bench RSS Feed We're on Twitter...

Mary Mitchell, Posse Comitatus and Black on Black Love

The Posse Comitatus Act - Prohibits search, seizure, or arrest powers to US military personnel. Amended in 1981 under Public Law 97-86 to permit increased Department of Defense support of drug interdiction and other law enforcement activities. (Title 18, "Use of Army and Air Force as Posse Comitatus" - United States Code, Section 1385) DoD Dictionary of Military Terms, 2006

"We have got to teach black people to stop beating each other to pieces right in their own living rooms." - Dr. Carl C. Bell, M.D., F.A.P.A., FA.C.P. President & CEO Community Mental Health Center of Chicago

Federal troops to fight violence in the cities? Ah, that's a problem, as we'll see in a moment, but first, thanks to Gapers Block for alerting us to yet another piece of idiocy from Mary Mitchell. Writer and good friend Levois noted on GB that he "normally likes Mary Mitchell," but he doesn't always "think to check out her columns anymore. Not sure why, but this column from last month was pretty good." I usually avoid Mary Mitchell's column because she's a racist and an idiot who writes nonsense most of the time, as in the aforementioned article from March 31 (emphasis added): Obviously, President Obama can't read the tons of mail he receives. But there's one letter floating around the White House that I hope he reads. That letter is from Edward G. Gardner, a prominent Chicago businessman and the founder of Black on Black Love, the city's pioneering anti-violence campaign. Gardner is asking Obama to send federal troops to urban areas that are now under siege by domestic terrorists fighting gang wars. Full Column, Chicago Sun-Times... Mr. Gardner lives in Chicago and is the founder of Soft Sheen Products. He has been very useful to Barack Obama's political career for many years. Soft Sheen (now called "Soft Sheen Carson") promotes "the Celebration of Black." Ironically, his request to Barack Obama to send in the troops is due to the fact that black-on-black murder is out of control. Some celebration. (And by the way, try to imagine a Revlon "celebration of white.") Nowhere in Mitchell's column is the phrase "posse comitatus" mentioned. That's the problem. Mr. Gardner's proposal to use federal troops (i.e., Army, etc.) would be unconstitutional and violate United States Code, Section 1385. Mitchell should know this. After Hurricane Katrina, she and other race baiters screamed that President Bush was slow to act because he didn't rush federal troops to Louisiana. Bush offered; he phoned then-Governor Blanco and urged to her to allow him to send federal troops in to help keep the peace. Blanco refused. Colonel John R. Brinkerhoff, US Army Retired explains that "posse comitatus doctrine comes from English common law. Posse comitatus means, literally, the 'force of the county'; the posse comitatus is that body of men above the age of 15 whom the sheriff may summon or raise to repress a riot or for other purposes." (Source) Brinkerhoff notes that posse commitatus, and U.S. Code, Section 1385, are often misunderstood. Posse comitatus, he notes, "does not prevent the President from using federal troops in riots or civil disorders. Federal troops were used for domestic operations more than 200 times in the two centuries from 1795 to 1995." Under the Constitution, a President cannot send federal troops to a state for purposes other than training or quelling riots, however, unless they are specifically invited by that state's governor. In addition, however, § 1385 of the US Code, "Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus," states that "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." (Source: Cornell University Law School, U.S. Code Collection) Mary Mitchell ignores the U.S. Code. Instead of looking at federal law and its application in the case of punks killing people in cities, she tugs at our heartstrings with passages like these:

• The number of CPS students who have been killed so far this year has surpassed the number of students killed in the previous school year.
• "We are trying to let the president know we respect the full plate he has, but this is something that has not been addressed by the administration," Leak said.
• What Gardner proposes is indeed controversial. But how many children have to die before we acknowledge that we are at war in our own country?

Perhaps Mr. Gardner and Ms. Mitchell should be more concerned with lousy parenting and an overall American culture that glorifies violence and thuggery. It would seem that they prefer a toxic "cure" to the disease of gangs, prostitution, and criminals to actually examining the cause of the disease. If fewer 14 year old black girls were giving birth to children in poverty, if more black parents would actually act like parents, if courts were not as lenient with violent offenders, if local police were not handcuffed by ACLU-inspired laws that make enforcement difficult, and if imbeciles like Mary Mitchell would stop diverting blame and proposing Band-Aids instead of the required regimen of curative measures, we wouldn't need requests for the president to send troops into our city streets. Dr. Carl Bell, quoted at the top of this post, is a Chicago psychiatrist and former gang member. He once said the following to a Bible study class at Chicago's all-black Messiah-St. Bartholomew Church (emphasis added): "If you have a loaded gun in your home, that gun is 118 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than a burglar. But for every murder, there are 100 other acts of black-on-black violence—sexual molestations, rapes, robberies and physical assaults. And do you know what sends more black mothers to the emergency room than all the auto accidents, muggings and rapes combined? Husbands, that's who. We have got to teach black people to stop beating each other to pieces right in their own living rooms." Dr. Bell said those words in 1988. He still practices psychiatry and still works on violence issues. Those words still ring true. It is ironic as hell that the likes of Mary Mitchell scream about the local police when they get a bit heavy handed in dealing with murderous thugs. Yet there she is, giving support to Gardner's proposal of sending in the Army. Sure, fine, Mary, send in the cavalry. But don't write another whiny, heart-tugging column when you find that the US military cannot make bad parents good, cannot change the culture of violence-promoting rap music, or employ a velvet glove any better than the Chicago Police Department can. Federal troops would not be able to make black people stop beating each other to pieces right in their own living rooms. RELATED: Terrorism - Posse Comitatus: Caution is Necessary § 1385. — Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus... Posse Comitatus (good links here) Where's the outrage over black-on-black killings? In Philadelphia, a 'disturbing' black murder rate csmonitor.com Self Destruction, Stop our black boys from killing one another ... When Brother Kills Brother - TIME CommieBama Hats and More Chicago News Bench RSS Feed Follow ChiNewsBench on Twitter!

Ted Nugent Hunts Porkosaurus

The Nuge smells blood: I’m on the track of ... a bigger more dangerous critter than I’ve ever hunted before: the Obama-Pelosi Porkosaurus. The Porkosaurus is plenty dangerous by itself. It subsidizes unemployment by increasing unemployment benefits. And, as the man said, when you subsidize something you get more of it. It doesn’t spend anything -- not one thin dime -- on the one thing that economists say is guaranteed to stimulate the economy, defense spending. And its whole purpose is to feed Fedzilla and make it grow even bigger, swallowing our economy whole. Full Column by Ted Nugent at Human Events... Also see Ted Nugent's hunting website. Hat tip to Cal Tech Girl CNB RSS Feed

FLASH: DASCHLE WITHDRAWS

After being heavily criticized for his massive tax problems, former Senator Tom Daschle has removed himself from consideration for a Cabinet position: BREAKING NEWS – Tom Daschle has withdrawn his nomination to be Health and Human Services secretary. That's according to a joint White House statement from President Barack Obama and his former nominee. Obama said Tuesday he accepted the withdrawal "with sadness and regret." Full Story... RELATED: What’s The Problem With Democrats Paying Taxes? (Features a video in which Sean Hannity says, "Why don’t liberals pay taxes? We kept hearing the Caroline Kennedy had a tax problem. Timothy Geithner has a tax problem. The committee that writes tax law, the House Ways and Means Committee, well their chairman Charlie Rangel, whoops sorry, he failed to report seventy-five thousand dollars in income. Oh it’s a hiccup, it’s not a problem, and of course we have I guess, the hero of every liberal is Al Franken and Al Franken didn’t pay his taxes in what, eighteen states or whatever it was at the time. I mean just absurd." CNB RSS Feed

McClatchy, Huff Post Wrong About Palin's First "Gaffe"

So, it's being reported today that GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin has made her "first major gaffe." In fact, it was NOT a gaffe at all. Both McClatchy Newspapers and the Huffington Post got it wrong. UPDATE: The Swamp Gets It Wrong, Too Sam Stein makes this erroneous report on the Huffington Post today: Speaking before voters in Colorado Springs, the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." The companies, as McClatchy [Newspapers] reported, "aren't taxpayer funded but operate as private companies. The takeover may result in a taxpayer bailout during reorganization." [Source: Huff Post] The McClatchy article referenced above IS WRONG. It was written by Kevin G. Hall, who apparently just took as a matter of faith the idea that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "aren't taxpayer funded." Hall is dead wrong. But Mr. Stein was slick. He wrote, "Gov. Sarah Palin made her first potentially major gaffe..." Notice the word "potentially." Perhaps Mr. Stein, even as he wrote his piece, suspected that there might be more to the story than met his eye. It's too bad he didn't let his eye scan just a few more Google searches. He would have found the following, from Rob Alford at the History News Network: The Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac, have operated since 1968 as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This means that, although the two companies are privately owned and operated by shareholders, they are protected financially by the support of the Federal Government. [Source] Let's translate that for Kevin G. Hall: "Protected financially by the support of the Federal Government" means that federal tax dollars - from taxpayers - support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Hall got it half right when he wrote that they "operate as private companies," but he missed the little details about (a) being protected financially by the US Government and (b) operating for 40 years as government sponsored enterprises. So, as to Sarah Palin's supposed "gaffe," we've just learned that it really was NOT a gaffe at all. NOTE TO McCLATCHY: Sit down with Mr. Hall and teach him how to do basic research. NOTE TO HUFF POST: Sit down with Mr. Stein and teach him how to do basic research.