Latest Entries »

Russia’s Message on Jet: Conciliation and Bluster

President Vladimir V. Putin visited an aerospace center in Samara, Russia, on Monday.
MOSCOW — Russia presented a combination of conciliation and bluster on Monday over its handling of the downed Malaysia Airlines jet, with President Vladimir V. Putin seemingly probing for a way out of the crisis without appearing to compromise with the West.

On one hand, he offered conciliatory words in a video statement, oddly released in the middle of the night, while the separatists allied with Moscow in southeastern Ukraine released the bodies of the victims and turned over the black box flight recorders from the doomed aircraft to Malaysian officials.

However, two senior military officers forcefully demanded that the United States show publicly any proof that rebels fired the fatal missile, and again suggested that the Ukrainian military shot down the Malaysia Airlines jet despite the fact that Ukraine has not used antiaircraft weapons in the fight along its eastern border.

Pro-Russian militiamen keep watch as Dutch forensic investigators prepare to inspect bodies.Journey Home Finally Begins for the Victims of Malaysia Airlines FlightJULY 21, 2014
Obama Denounces Russia and Separatists for Obstructing Crash SiteJULY 21, 2014
Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak announces that two black boxes from the downed Malaysia Airlines flight will be handed over by Ukrainian rebels.Malaysia Premier Brokers Deal to Recover Black BoxesJULY 21, 2014
A piece of wreckage from the Malaysia Airlines jet downed over eastern Ukraine last week shows damage, including shrapnel holes and blistered paint, that is consistent with a hit from a fragmenting warhead, according to consultants with IHS-Jane’s.Jet Wreckage Bears Signs of Impact by Supersonic Missile, Analysis ShowsJULY 21, 2014
Times Topic: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
Mr. Putin seemed to respond to the outraged international demands growing daily that he intervene personally to rein in the rebels — particularly to halt the degrading chaos surrounding the recovery of the remains. But at the same time, Moscow did not concede that it was at fault.

In the investigation of the Malaysia Airlines crash in Ukraine and urged Russia to push separatist rebels for access to the wreckage site. Publish Date July 21, 2014. Image CreditGabriella Demczuk/The New York Times

“Putin is trying to find his own variation of a twin-track decision, because he does not have a clear exit,” said Gleb O. Pavlovsky, a political consultant who once worked for the Kremlin.

The pressure continued to expand. President Obama delivered yet another personal rebuke to Mr. Putin from the White House lawn over the intransigence of the rebels toward the international investigation, hours before they agreed to more cooperation. In addition, an initial expert analysis of photographs of the airplane’s fuselage found that the damage was consistent with being struck by the type of missile that U.S. officials said was used.

On Tuesday, Russia faces the threat of far more serious sanctions from its main trading partners in Western Europe.

“Of course this is a strong blow to him, a strong blow to his strategy,” said Mr. Pavlovsky, referring to the fact that Russian separatists fighting in eastern Ukraine have been discredited globally, due to suspicions that they shot down the aircraft and their handling of the crash site.

“It touches him too,” Mr. Pavlovsky said, “He wants to get out, but to get out without having lost.”

Mr. Obama called for Mr. Putin to “pivot away” from the rebels, linking him directly to their abuse of the crash site.

Continue reading the main story
Where the Wreckage Fell UPDATED JULY 21
Satellite imagery captured by DigitalGlobe on July 20 shows debris and burned ground within the area where witnesses say wreckage from the plane is most concentrated. The wreckage was strewn across farmland over an area estimated to be as large as 13 square miles. Related Maps »

“Russia, and President Putin in particular, has direct responsibility to compel them to cooperate with the investigation,” he said in brief remarks. “President Putin says that he supports a full and fair investigation and I appreciate those words, but they have to be supported by actions.”

Mr. Putin’s statement was issued on the Kremlin website at 1:40 a.m. Monday on video, with analysts suggesting the timing was aimed more at Washington than Russia.

The world’s leaders have no real ability, nor the stomach for significant action against Russia’s current strongman. Nothing will be forgiven, but all will be soon forgotten. I
His usual swagger seemed absent; instead he looked pasty and unsure, avoiding talking into the camera directly and leaning on a desk.

The statement did not break new ground, either. The Russian leader repeated his support for a thorough international investigation, and said Russia would pursue its efforts to move the fight over the future of southeastern Ukraine from the battlefield to the negotiating table. Mr. Putin did not address directly any accusations of Russian complicity in downing the aircraft.

By the end of the day there was one small diplomatic victory. The Malaysian government dealt directly with the leadership of the Russian-supported Donetsk People’s Republic, the breakaway faction in southeastern Ukraine, in negotiating the release of the bodies and the flight recorders.

Amid all the negotiating, the Ukrainian government pressed its attack on Donetsk, firing on rebel positions in the northwest of the city and killing at least three civilians. Ukraine denied that it hit civilian areas, but heavy damage in the city cast doubt on that assertion.

In his statement, Mr. Putin also warned that he was suspicious of all the criticism directed at the Kremlin. “No one should and no one has the right to use this tragedy to pursue their own political goals,” he said.

Mr. Putin often seethes with distrust and anger that the United States seeks to exploit any opening to weaken Russia, a widespread sentiment in Russia reflected in his high approval ratings. The entire Ukraine confrontation is rooted in his determination to stop the West from wrestling Ukraine out of Moscow’s orbit.

Russians, too, exhibited a certain defensive anger about the current accusations, convinced that the West leapt to condemn them no matter what the issue.

Anastasia Lukina, 30, a sales manager in Moscow, said either side might have shot down the plane. “So the West says it wants a full investigation, but they’ve already accused us of killing those people?” she said. “We all know what the conclusion to that investigation will be. So why even bother pretending? Russia is the world’s scapegoat.”

That is the theme of much of coverage on state-run television, which has also aired all manner of theories lifted from the dark corners of the web.

One such theory holds that whoever shot down the plane was actually gunning for Mr. Putin, whose plane was over Eastern Europe at the time, returning from Latin America, for example

What Happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17
An updated summary of what is known and not known about the crash.

Another argues that the bodies were actually from the Malaysia Airlines jet that disappeared four months ago — dumped only now to make the separatists look bad.

“In Russia, no one thinks that Russia is guilty,” said Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist who specializes in studying Russia’s political elite.

The Kremlin actually spent months using state-run television to build the case that the Kiev government are a pack of “fascists,” bent on killing the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. It has softened that message somewhat in recent weeks, but not abandoned it.

Hence two senior Russian military commanders, sitting in a vast briefing room and dwarfed by the giant electronic screens overhead, used various satellite images and charts to raise a series of rhetorical questions that suggested that Ukraine and the United States deliberately plotted to shoot down the passenger jet. The unusual bilingual briefing was broadcast live on state-run television.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
“According to U.S. declarations, they have satellite images that confirm that the missile was launched by the rebels, said Lt. Gen. Andrei Kartopolov, of the Russian General Staff. “But nobody has seen these images.”

He called for them to be released, hinting that they were taken by an experimental military satellite that was orbiting over eastern Ukraine on Thursday because Washington knew what it would photograph.

Among other accusations, the Russians said a Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 fighter jet that was airborne at the time briefly approached the same 33,000-feet altitude as the Boeing 777 and was within range to bring it down with an air-to-air missile.

As for Russia, it had nothing to do with arming the militiamen, General Kartopolov said. “I would like to emphasize that the Russian Federation did not deliver to the militiamen Buk antiaircraft missile systems, nor any other types of weapons or military equipment,” he said.

Ultimately, Russian policy might actually tilt according to what emerges from the investigation. If there is even a hint of doubt, Moscow might cling to both its support for the rebels and claims of its own virtue, analysts suggested.

“If there is not 100 percent proof, then Russia will continue to say” that they are not at fault, said Alexei V. Makarkin, an analyst at the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow. “If there is 95 or even 99 percent, then Russia will not agree with it. They can continue to support the insurgents in the east.”

Correction: July 22, 2014
Reporting was contributed by Andrew Roth and Alexandra Odynova from Moscow; David M. Herszenhorn from Kiev; Sabrina Tavernise and Noah Sneider from Torez, Ukraine; and Keith Bradsher and Chris Buckley from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.


The power to destroy

Big court victory for government watchdog group
Published: 7 days ago
author-image GARTH KANT About | Email | Archive

WASHINGTON – The IRS will have to explain exactly what happened to Lois Lerner’s missing emails to a judge and under oath.

Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan ordered the IRS to make a sworn declaration in writing describing how Lerner could have lost all the emails she sent to other departments from mid-2009 to mid-2011. The declaration is due by August 10.

The judge also assigned federal magistrate John Facciola, an expert in e-discovery, to find out if there is another way to retrieve the emails.

Lerner claims her emails were lost when her hard drive crashed on July 13, 2011. The IRS claims her hard drive was then recycled and destroyed.

The missing emails were sent during the very period in which Lerner, the former tax-exempt division chief, improperly targeted conservative groups.

The judge’s ruling was a significant victory for Judicial Watch, the non-profit government watchdog group which had filed a Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, request for Lerner’s emails from 2010 to the present.

Judicial Watch has been seeking the emails since May 2013 and requested today’s hearing to have the IRS explain what happened to Lerner’s emails, and to explain why the group was never informed they were missing.

Judicial lawyer Ramona Cotca said the IRS never informed the group or the court about the lost emails, even though, she noted, the judge had ordered the department to produce requested documents monthly.

Representing the IRS, Justice Department attorney Geoffery Klimas cited a series of precedents to argue the agency was not legally obligated to inform Judicial Watch about the missing emails because they had disappeared before the group requested them.

Judicial Watch grew so frustrated with the IRS it filed a lawsuit in October, stating the agency had produced no documents related to the group’s request.

Judge Sullivan did not grant a request from Cotca to conduct a limited discovery into what happened to Lerner’s emails, which could have compelled IRS officials to testify, saying that would be premature.

However, the judge did authorize Judicial Watch to submit a request for limited discovery into the missing IRS records after September 10.

Klimas revealed that the Treasury Department’s inspector general has begun an investigation into the missing emails, and has asked the IRS not to question witnesses, so as not to interfere with the investigation.

Lerner is not the only IRS employee under investigation whose emails are missing.

Incredibly, the IRS says the hard drives of six other employees also lost their emails due to hard drive crashes.

When Judge Sullivan asked the IRS attorney if they had all lost their emails at the same time, a smattering of laughter rippled through the courtroom.

The judge isn’t the only one who may be skeptical about the extraordinary timing of the lost emails.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said after the hearing, “In our view, there has been a cover-up that has been going on.”

“The Department of Justice, the IRS, had an obligation, an absolute obligation … to alert the court and alert Judicial Watch as soon as they knew when these records were supposedly lost.”

Fitton said Judicial watch attorneys were encouraged and very pleased with the judge’s actions, and call the assignment of a magistrate, “extraordinary.”

When a reporter asked if it were not better to let Congress continue its investigations before taking legal action against the IRS, Fitton noted that Congress had only learned of numerous emails crucial to the investigation because of FOIA requests made by Judicial Watch.

Just one month ago, the IRS belatedly informed congressional committees that Lerner’s emails were missing.

The IRS then informed Congress that Lerner’s computer hard drive was recycled and apparently destroyed.

The IRS also then informed Congress that it did not keep backup copies of emails for more than six months, because they were stored on a on old-fashioned tape that is re-used every six months.

Members of Congress were incredulous that the IRS, which requires tax-payers to save records going back seven years, did not save emails for more than six months.

As WND reported, when asked by members of the House Oversight Committee on June 23 why the IRS used such an antiquated system, IRS Comissioner John Kokinen testified that the estimated cost of $10-to-30 million was too much.

Expressing disbelief, Chairman Darrell Issa,R-Calif., said, given the IRS’s $1.8 billion IT budget, should that not have been a priority?

“If we had the right resources, there would be a lot of priorities,” testily retorted Koskinen.

However, Rep. Scott Desjarlais, R-Tenn. pointed out that $10-to-30 million was not much compared to the $89 million the IRS paid in bonuses last year, including $1 million to employees who actually owed back taxes.

Lerner has admitted the IRS improperly targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, and testimony from others has revealed the agency asked such as invasive questions as what books their members read and what prayers they said.

However, Lerner refused to testify before Congress, twice invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

After she pleaded the fifth a second time, Issa told WND that without Lerner’s testimony, investigators might never find out who ordered the IRS to target conservatives.

Investigators had hoped Lerner’s emails might reveal that information.

IRS chief Koskinen testified he’d learned of a problem with Lerner’s computer in February but didn’t learn of the missing emails until April.

Members of the Oversight committee were livid that not only did the IRS not inform Congress about the missing emails until June, someone at the IRS informed the White House in April.

GOP lawmakers demanded that Koskinen find out who at the IRS leaked the information to the White House.

Thursday’s court action follows Wednesday’s revelation of more key emails from Lerner, during an Oversight hearing, unrelated to the IRS scandal, that was actually called to look at improper government payments.

An email Lerner sent on April 9, 2013, warned colleagues to be careful about what they wrote in emails because Congress could end up reading them.

The IRS first became aware that Congress was looking into potential targeting of conservatives on Jun 3, 2011, when chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., sent a letter to the IRS.

“I was cautioning folks about email and how we have had several occasions where Congress has asked for emails and there has been an electronic search for responsive emails — so we need to be cautious about what we say in emails,” Lerner wrote in April.

She also asked whether the IRS instant message communications were stored automatically.

When a tech staffer said they were not unless employees copied them, she replied, “Perfect.”

Less than a month later, Lerner would use a planted question at a conference event to admit the IRS had improperly targeted conservatives.

Oversight committee members were yet again incensed it took so long for them to learn about Lerner emails requested for more than a year.


Food Prices Are Soaring And Washington Doesn’t Care
JULY 8, 2014 By Ben Domenech
Today’s economy is driven by Washington in more than just determining the location of Maserati dealerships. We see the ramifications of current government policies in numerous obvious ways. Make full-time employment more expensive with required benefits, and suddenly there are more part-time jobs; provide ample benefits and low eligibility standards for defining disabled workers, and suddenly there are more long-term unemployed going on SSDI; keep interest rates at zero, and suddenly there are more elderly workers; end unemployment insurance, and suddenly you see people accepting jobs they were reluctant to take; and as we’ve seen at the state and local level, raise the minimum wage, and suddenly teens are struggling to find work.

In all the debates over these policies, interested parties go back and forth over how and when to use the knobs and levers of government to achieve certain ends, concerning mobility and inequality and job growth and a host of other goals. But lost in these debates over statistics and trendlines are the ramifications of government policy when it comes to the (less politically sexy) burdens faced by most middle and working class Americans. In these arenas, policy debates are almost completely divorced from the experiences of most Americans – particularly on the right, where Republicans talk over and over again about the burdens of taxes without addressing the costs of energy, food, and health care, all of which are squeezing household budgets.

We have a perfect example of this within the current debate over rising food prices, where a bunch of policy elites are currently debating the question: when is food inflation real?

U.S. food prices are on the rise, raising a sensitive question: When the cost of a hamburger patty soars, does it count as inflation? It does to everyone who eats and especially poorer Americans, whose food costs absorb a larger portion of their income. But central bankers take a more nuanced view. They sometimes look past food-price increases that appear temporary or isolated while trying to control broad and long-term inflation trends, not blips that might soon reverse…

The consumer price of ground beef in May rose 10.4% from a year earlier while pork chop prices climbed 12.7%. The price of fresh fruit rose 7.3% and oranges 17.1%. But prices for cereals and bakery products were up just 0.1% and vegetable prices inched up only 0.5%. The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts overall food prices will increase 2.5% to 3.5% this year after rising 1.4% in 2013, as measured by the Labor Department’s consumer-price index. In a typical supermarket, shoppers are seeing higher prices around the store’s periphery, in the produce section and at the meat counter.
Now, a rational person might conclude that measuring food inflation without counting meat, fruit, and vegetables is like measuring the unemployment rate without counting men. Here are the increases in a number of food costs, as well as the average hourly earnings, since the end of the recession (June 2009) through May 2014.


Ouch. The increases since June 2009 are: Beef and veal: +35.2%, Pork: +27%, Fish and seafood: +20.1%, Eggs: +33.1%, Dairy: +16.1%, Fresh Fruits: +13.8%. At the same time, Average Hourly Earnings have increased by 10.1%.


So why aren’t politicians talking about this? It’s absolutely clear that Fed, farm, energy, and trade policy have all served to drive up these costs. Well, tearing down those policies runs contrary to the interests of Washington interest groups heavily invested in controlling those knobs and levers. But a bigger part of the problem is priorities driven by a linguistic trap. Politicians who are small businessmen or attorneys by training talk about the marketplace as a place full of entrepreneurs, and talk about government in terms of its size and tax burdens and barriers to job growth. They’re caught in the trap of viewing all these things in aggregate.

But that’s not how the middle or working class think about the economy. A politician talking about “creating new jobs” or “spurring investment” of “increasing exports” sounds nice, but that’s all it is – nice-sounding. Most Americans worry generally about the lack of jobs and growth, sure, but they are far more worried about what they perceive as a higher cost of living at a time of stagnant wages. They have expectations for the life they can provide for their families and children, and they’re worried they won’t be able to meet those expectations. This is all about delivering the life they want to those they care for. But when they look to government, they don’t see interest in that. Politicians insist that inflation is under control, just so long as you don’t include food, education, health care, housing, or energy, so it’s time to start focusing on More Important Things. You wanted cheeseburgers? Well, the Fed thinks it’s fine if you settle for chicken.

The opportunity is there to change the conversation. In so many of the areas where we’re seeing price inflation, government policy is contributing to the trendline, raising the costs not just of food, but of education, health care, energy, and housing, and putting pressure which multiplies for those with kids. All it takes is a willingness to go after those policies, and for a few smart politicians to start rejecting the priorities of the boardroom table in favor of the kitchen table.

Subscribe to Ben’s daily newsletter, The Transom.

» Birthright Citizenship is Flatly Unconstitutional » Fresh Ink — GOPUSA

constitutionBecause the current policy is that any child who is born here, even to an illegal alien, is automatically a citizen of the United States, pregnant illegal aliens by the thousands commit criminal trespass in order to give birth on U.S. soil. There is also a bustling business in birth tourism, where pregnant foreigners on tourist visas are hosted by a growing hospitality industry devoted to their comfort until the day of delivery – and U.S. citizenship – arrives.

All this has led to calls to amend our Constitution to bring this misguided and misdirected practice to an end.

But we do not need to amend the Constitution to fix this problem; a correct reading of the Constitution indicates that such children born on our soil are specifically excluded from citizenship.

The clause at issue is found in the 14th Amendment, which reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United Statesand subject to the jurisdiction thereofare citizens of the United States…”

A plain reading clearly indicates that birthright citizenship is granted only to those who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States when they are born on American soil. Illegal aliens and their children, by definition, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. That’s why they can be deported. Their children are no more subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. than their parents are, and as little entitled to citizenship.

The “jurisdiction” clause was added to the 14th Amendment only after a lengthy debate. According to NumbersUSA, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan proposed the amendment because he wanted to make it clear that the simple accident of birth on U.S. soil was not in fact enough to confer citizenship.

Sen. Howard said the jurisdiction requirement is “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” an apparent reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, about which more in a moment.

In his debate, Sen. Howard said, “[T]his will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States…”

The logic is inescapable. If the children of foreign diplomats, who are in this country legally, are not U.S. citizens by birth, how is it possible that children of illegal aliens could be?

The only Democrat to participate in the debate was Sen. Reverdy Johnson of Maryland. In debate, he said this about the meaning of this particular clause: “[A]ll persons born in the United Statesand not subject to some foreign Power– for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before — shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

The 14th Amendment was passed in order to elevate the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to constitutionally protected status and insulate it from legal challenge. The CRA of 1866 has a virtually identical clause in it, which reads, “[A]ll persons born in the United Statesand not subject to any foreign power,excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

This makes it particularly clear, for the children of those in Indian tribes were born on U.S. soil, but were not considered citizens under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 because they were subject to a foreign power, the sovereign Indian nation to which they belonged.

As George Beck writes, “‘[T]ribal’ Indians were purposefully excluded from citizenship. The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly defined ‘tribal’ Indians as ‘Indians not taxed,’ as not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.”

Ken Kuklowski puts it this way, “[T]he Civil Rights Act’s parallel language, ‘and not subject to any foreign power,’ instead shows the Jurisdiction Clause excludes all citizens of any foreign country. The Citizenship Clause was intended to overrule the most infamous Supreme Court case in American history—the 1857Dred Scottcase—and ensure free blacks born in America could not be denied citizenship. It was never designed to make a citizen of every child born to a foreigner.”

Since 1795, aliens have been required to renounce allegiance to any foreign power and declare allegiance to the U.S. Constitution to become a naturalized citizen. They are required to do so because such allegiance was never assumed or taken for granted for an alien born on American soil. For instance, our family has a framed copy of my great-grandfather’s renunciation of his allegiance to the Czar of Russia hanging on the wall of our living room. It was a prerequisite to his being granted full citizenship in the United States.

Anyone born here, on U.S. soil, whose parents owed allegiance to some foreign power, were not considered citizens of the U.S. by birth and should not be today.

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. He hosts “Focal Point with Bryan Fischer” every weekday on AFR Talk from 1:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Central).


Proud to Be an American?
Patriotism and Contemporary Politics
By Mark Alexander · July 9, 2014 Print

“Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families.” –Benjamin Rush (1773)

To celebrate Independence Day last week, American Apparel, a company that supports a plethora of left-wing causes, posted a patriotic fireworks image to its social media feed. Unfortunately, the image was a retouched photo of the Challenger Shuttle explosion, which the company says was posted “in error by one of our social media employees who was born after the Challenger tragedy and was unaware of the context.”

Yeah, right.

By extension, can we assume, given that all the employees of American Apparel were born after 1776, they have equally little understanding of the context for Independence Day?

The irony of this “error” is an appropriate metaphor for why American patriotism is on a slippery slope, and Americans’ sense of their freedoms is following close behind.

According to a new Pew Research study, 60% of “solid liberals” (those who support big government, are skeptical of free enterprise and support liberal social policies) say they do not “feel proud to be American,” a far cry from the 72% of “steadfast conservatives” and 81% of “business conservatives” who feel that way.

Admittedly, research findings such as these fall into the “keen sense of the obvious” category.

Pew also noted that only 28% of Americans now believe the U.S. is exceptional — a decline of 10% since 2011. That makes sense, given that in 2009, Barack Hussein Obama declared, “I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” As political analyst Jonah Goldberg observed, Obama dismissed “American exceptionalism as an empty platitude … a vague and meaningless form of national self-esteem, rather than a complex concept describing the uniqueness of the American founding and American character.”


In his farewell address to the nation in 1989, Ronald Reagan said, “An informed patriotism is what we want.”

But under Obama’s oppressive (a.k.a., progressive) regime, a generation of “useful idiots” is on the rise, and under the tutelage of their Community Organizer in Chief, they are becoming progressively more ignorant of the their most rudimentary civic duties and responsibilities. For that reason, and because they don’t understand the fundamental context of Essential Liberty, they have little patriotic pride in America.

Further, according to a recent Gallup survey on Liberty, the percentage of Americans satisfied with their level of freedom has plunged more than 10 points since Obama rose to power. The U.S. now ranks an appalling 36th among countries where citizens express confidence in their freedoms, and we have the dubious distinction of being one of only 10 nations where citizens say their freedoms have sharply declined. Others in that woeful group include Venezuela, Pakistan, Egypt, Greece and Yemen.

Of note, that survey also found that 11% of Americans would like to take up residence in another country … and may the door hit them in the arse on the way out!

Another recent Gallup survey showed that Congress’s approval rating is now just 7%, and the executive branch’s approval is just 29% — a six-year low. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans believing government corruption is widespread has risen dramatically to 79%.

Anticipating this slide in patriotic pride was predictable, given that, for more than five years, the largest soapbox in the world has been occupied by an ideological socialist whose every endeavor and utterance seems to make our nation weaker and less exceptional, inside and out.

Back in 2008, in a series on then-presidential candidate Obama’s pathos, I noted that Obama was a “disciple of hate” as the protégé of his longtime “pastor” and friend, Jeremiah Wright.

Fellow Marxists, Ayers and Wright
Of greater political significance, in the third part of that series, “Another Marx Brother,” I named the Marxist mentors who shaped Obama’s political views from his earliest years to the launch of his presidential aspirations. I noted that his first political fundraiser back in 1995 was hosted by his friend and neighbor, Bill Ayers, cofounder of the Weather Underground, a communist revolutionary terrorist group which bombed public buildings in the 1960s and 1970s, including police stations, the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol Building.

Not only were Obama and Ayers friends, but they also actively worked together for leftist organizations. And Ayers’s terrorist wife, Bernardine Dohrn, was a close friend and law partner with Michelle Obama.

In a rare interview last week, Ayers proclaimed, “I’m not proud to be an American and I don’t buy the American exceptionalism at all.”

Ayers, who recently retired as a professor of elementary education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, posted this note on his blog last week: “On this July 4, we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols: its flags, its pledges of allegiance, its anthems, its insistence in song that God must single out America to be blessed.”

Sound like anyone else you know?

In the second of his autobiographies, penned just before he began his presidential campaign in earnest, Obama wrote, “I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

In other words, he is a charismatic master of “The BIG Lie,” a smooth-talking pathological narcissist who duped a narrow majority of Americans into voting for him — twice. Unfortunately, the consequences of his subterfuge have now significantly undermined American exceptionalism, both in perception and fact.

In 1998, one of The Patriot Post’s early and enthusiastic supporters, William F. Buckley Jr., pondered the topic of patriotism. He noted that 18th century conservative philosopher Edmund Burke “said it definitively, that a society, to be loved, must be lovely.” But, Buckley warned, “[S]ome probationary signs are flying.”

Those signs have now been codified by the Socialist Democratic Party, but they can be torn down as readily as they were erected. To that end, Burke also wrote, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men do nothing.”

Indeed, for millions of American Patriots across our nation, we have not lost faith in our Founders’ assertion that “Liberty Is Eternal,” and we remain equally ready to fight for the same. Are we still proud to be Americans? That’s a sure bet!

Fortunately, Obama’s façade is now fracturing, and according to the latest Quinnipiac University survey he now leads the pack as the worst president since World War II.


Hobby Lobby Does Want Bosses Out of the Bedroom. Why Are These Liberal Senators Against That?

Sarah Torre / July 10, 2014

Obamacare has been on a collision course with Americans’ individual liberty and religious freedom from the beginning. Last week’s Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case prevented Obamacare’s Department of Health and Human Services mandate from careening into the religious freedom of family business owners, on the basis of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Now some liberals would like that religious freedom protection out of the way of Obamacare’s health care dictates.

Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash. and Mark Udall, D-Colo., introduced legislation yesterday that would essentially exempt all federal health care mandates from the protections afforded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The bill would force families like the Greens of Hobby Lobby and the Hahns of Conestoga Wood Specialties who run businesses and other American employers to provide coverage of abortion-inducing drugs and devices, contraception, and sterilization — regardless of religious objection. It would also prohibit employers from seeking relief from any federal health care mandate — no matter how coercive the rule or controversial the procedure.

The bill could also affect the freedom of non-profit employers like religious schools and charities.

Murray’s proposal would specifically prohibit employers from seeking relief from the HHS mandate under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – a law the senator voted for in 1993.

Passed by unanimous voice vote in the House and 97-3 in the Senate, the religious freedom law prohibits substantial burdens on religious exercise unless the government can show a compelling interest in burdening religious liberty and does so through the least restrictive way possible. Congress included religious organizations and businesses in the law’s protections and its delicate balancing test has served the country well for more than 20 years.

RFRA has not, like Murray and others claim, offered a blank check for religious believers to do whatever they want in the name of religion. Neither did the Court’s decision last week.

Nor did the Supreme Court’s decision strike down the HHS mandate, as Murray and others claim. Non-grandfathered health plans must still include coverage of all FDA-approved contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and devices, and sterilization. And all women remain free to make decisions about those drugs and devices for themselves. A handful of family businesses like the Greens’ Hobby Lobby and the Hahns’ Conestoga Wood Specialties simply want the freedom not to participate in those decisions in violation of their deeply held beliefs.

Murray, Planned Parenthood, and others would like to “get bosses out of the bedroom,” and these bosses – it turns out – would very much like to oblige, if only government bureaucrats weren’t blocking the doorway.

As the Supreme Court noted in its opinion last week, there were plenty of other ways for the government to provide no-cost contraception directly to women who wanted it – without hijacking employers’ health plans and trampling on religious freedom. Murray’s approach, however, takes none of those alternate routes, but would only accelerate the government’s running roughshod over fundamental freedoms.

Ironically, Murray hopes her efforts will “return the right of Americans to make their own decisions, about their own health care.” But that won’t happen while Obamacare is law of the land, since it gave government bureaucrats the authority to decide the details of insurance plans, dictating what employers must offer and individuals must purchase.

Employees, individuals and all Americans should be able to choose health care that best fits the needs of their families and respects their freedom. And employers should be able to build businesses in accordance with their values without threat of penalties.

Americans deserve a health-care system that increases access, helps keep costs down, and allows individuals and families to provide and choose health care coverage that respects their values. They shouldn’t have their healthcare dictated by unelected bureaucrats or their fundamental right to religious freedom disregarded.


Analysis: New Study Did Not Prove That Gay Parents Are Better

July 9, 2014|7:07 am

Several liberal media organizations are reporting the results of a new same-sex parenting study which suggests that gay parents do a better job of raising children than the general population. There are four imporant points to understand about that study, however.

Here are a few of the headlines:

CBS News: “Children of same-sex couples healthy, well-adjusted, study finds”

NBC News: “Children of Same-Sex Parents Are Healthier: Study”

The Huffington Post: “Children Of Gay Parents Are Happier And Healthier Than Their Peers, New Study Finds”

Vox: “Largest-ever study of same-sex couples’ kids finds they’re better off than other children”

The study, though, does not warrant the conclusions suggested by those titles.

“Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families: a cross-sectional survey,” by lead author Dr. Simon R. Crouch at The University of Melbourne in Australia, was published June 21 by the journal BMC Public Health. The co-authors were Elizabeth Waters, Ruth McNair, Jennifer Power and Elise Davis. Power is affiliated with La Trobe University. The rest of the authors are at The University of Melbourne.

The study found that children of same-sex parents scored higher on measures of general behavior, general health and family cohesion than the general population of Australia. The study also measured how often the parents felt stigmatized for being gay. A high number of stigmas was negatively correlated with measures of the children’s physical activity, mental health and family cohesion.

Here are four important points to understand about the study:

1) The study did not use a random sample.

To make a generalizable conclusion about a population, scientific studies need a large, probability sample of the population, sometimes called “random sample” or “representative sample.” A probability sample means that those surveyed are representative of the general population.

The Crouch study was based upon a convenience sample, or non-probability sample. Participants for the study were recruited through gay and lesbian community email lists and ads posted in gay and lesbian press. This means that the participants volunteered for the study and were not randomly chosen from the population.

The sample had 315 parents of 500 children. Most of the children, 80 percent, had a female parent complete the survey. Eighteen percent had a male parent, while the remaining parents described themselves as “other gendered.”

As stated in the study: “Every effort was made to recruit a representative sample, and from the limited data available about same-sex parent families it appears that the [study's] sample does reflect the general context of these families in contemporary Australia.”

Convenience samples can be an important research tool when probability samples are difficult to achieve. They can also help researchers design better studies and help them resolve issues with their research before conducting large scale studies. Social scientists understand, however, that conclusions about a general population should not be drawn based upon a convenience sample.

2) The study did not compare same-sex parents to biological parents.

Previous studies have shown that kids do best when they are raised by their biological parents and those parents are married. The Crouch study, however, compares its convenience sample of children raised by same-sex parents to the general population, which includes those raised by single parents, step parents, foster parents and other same-sex parents.

The study cannot conclude, therefore, that children raised by gay parents have better or worse outcomes than children raised in two-parent heterosexual households.

3) The study relies upon parent-reported outcomes.

The health and well-being of the children are based upon what the parents say they are. While these measures are being compared to other parent-reported measures, there are reasons that gay and lesbian parents might overstate their outcomes at a greater rate than the general population.

The survey was conducted while Australia is debating redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Part of that debate deals with child-rearing. Government recognition of marriage should only be for a man and woman, proponents of traditional marriage argue, because this arrangement is best suited for the raising of children, which is a public good.

It is in the interests of gay marriage supporters, therefore, to show that gay couples can raise children just as well as straight couples. The gays and lesbians who volunteered to participate in the Crouch study likely understood the significance of the study. As a result, they may have inflated their results more than the average parent. Additionally, gays and lesbians who are raising children with poor outcomes may have been reluctant to participate in the study for similar reasons.

4) Studies using probability samples show poor outcomes for gay parents.

Two recent studies that did use probability samples showed some poor outcomes for children of gays and lesbians.

The New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas led by sociologist Mark Regnerus found, for instance, that those who reported that at least one parent had a same-sex relationship had poor outcomes along a range of variables. They were, for instance more likely to be depressed, unemployed, have more sex partners and report negative impressions of their childhood.

A study published last December by economist Douglas W. Allen looked at a 20 percent sample of the Canadian census and found that children from gay and lesbian families were less likely to graduate from high school than children raised by opposite sex couples and single parents.

The issue of gay parenting in highly politicized. In such an environment, liberal media tend to exaggerate the results of those studies that appear to confirm their biases and write hyper-critically about the studies showing different results. Conservative media have similarly focused more on reporting the research that confirms their biases.

There are some significant differences, though, between how Allen and Regnerus are presenting their findings compared to Crouch and other social scientists who say there are no differences between gay and straight parents. Unlike the “no differences” social scientists, Allen and Regnerus do not argue that their studies are conclusive.

Gay parenting is difficult to study because it is so new. In the history of human civilization, gay parenting has only recently become culturally accepted. To understand the effects on the children they raise, social scientists need more and larger samples and time — time for the kids raised by gays and lesbians to grow up and have outcomes that can be measured and compared to those raised by other family types. Allen and Regnerus point this out in their research and other reports.

For the time being, research has shown that biological, two-parent households provide, on average, the best outcomes for children compared to all other family types. Additional research has demonstrated the unique contributions of mothers and fathers to child development. (One study, for instance, found that fatherlessness harms the brain.) These studies should be sufficient to at least raise suspicion of the studies suggesting that kids raised by parents of the same gender have the same, or better outcomes as kids raised by both a mom and a dad.

The social scientists reporting “no differences,” on the other hand, make sweeping generalizations based only upon their small, non-random samples that confirm their liberal biases. Liberal media uncritically follow them.

Some of Regnerus’ liberal critics have also argued that his findings should be ignored because he is a conservative Catholic. Crouch, though, is a gay man raising two kids with his partner. Would these same critics suggest that Crouch’s study should be ignored because Crouch is personally invested in the results?

Contact:, @NappNazworth (Twitter)

The People’s Department…NOT

Part III in a series penned by a 29-year executive level veteran of the USDA that exposes the flawed underbelly of an Agency that is corrupted to the core by reverse racism and political correctness of the worst kind.

The first two articles exposed the racism, environmental excesses and unfairness to the farmers within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that is purported to serve under Obama (see the responsibility avoidance exposed below). Those essays also exposed the cronyism within the management ranks, the racial quotas disguised as affirmative action and the self-serving liberal leadership at the “People’s Department”, as USDA calls itself.

Now let’s discuss “Double the Pleasure”, aka “redundancy”. Only three percent of Americans receive most of their income from farming. So WHY does the government have a monstrous USDA with 105,000 employees? When you figure there are 1.2 million farmers and farm workers you get a ratio of 1 employee for every 11.4 farmers. The USDA has more than 20 sub agencies some of which house more than 11,000 employees. How is this possible?

For starters, we have the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Rural Development Agency (RD). All are under the USDA umbrella and are housed in every state and territory of the United States. These agencies have offices that serve every single county of the United States. Great service delivery one might suppose. However, this is not the case at all.

In any given county across the US and its Territories there is an office with these three agencies. That means New York City, Detroit, Chicago have USDA offices. Imagine that for a moment. To support this wasteful structure there are three Level 15 ($140K/Year) Directors; three Level 13 ($125K) administrative officers; three Level 12 ($80K) human resources officers and an assortment of support staff for each agency.

Wait…it gets worse!

That bloated staff tends to trip over themselves while serving the same clientele. Taxpayer money is misspent by paying for salaries, benefits and real estate. Then we add three Level 12 District Directors plus an assortment of GS 9, 8, and 7 employees serving a few farmers in every County. They also give money to other organizations such as the Soil and Water Conservation Districts to augment and hide the actual size of the workforce.

It should be obvious that a single agency would be more efficient and less expensive. The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is more than capable of supporting the needs the public and a consolidated agency would eliminate administrative redundancy and serve clients better.

Remember, NRCS serves environmental special interest groups like “Defenders of Wildlife” by diverting Congressional appropriations meant for all American farmers into “special” environmental areas. That leaves other farmers waiting a long time for technical and financial assistance. Every time there’s talk of merging NRCS and FSA, the Soil and Water Conservation District (a national organization of local volunteers funded by Federal and State agencies such as NRCS) send $1,000 “suits” (lobbyists) to Washington to stop any downsizing. The goal is to keep the standalone agencies with three monstrous administrative support systems. But this is an incestuous relationship because the lobbyists are indirectly paid by a USDA cooperative agreement (non-competitive) with various state organizations. Those state chapters are charged membership fees and the funds come from both State and Federal Funds. Find all this ridiculous?

And don’t be deceived by the Federal “Gobots”. There are Senior Executive Service government employees who are paid $200K to figure out how to keep the agency’s doors open. Innocent? Not so much when you ask how many government employees are really needed for the job. But these well-groomed “Gobots” speak and write in perfect grammar and impress Congressional Agriculture Committees whose “distinguished” members who know little to nothing about agriculture. I helped write the 2008 Farm Bill for Congressional Conference Committees. What an exercise in futility!

Would that be all? No! All of these agencies are full of employees who sue and ask for court settlements for frivolous equal opportunity and civil rights complaints. There are many USDA employees who are given consolation prizes for mismanagement or for violating laws by allowing them to work from home. Example: a State Director who was accused of misconduct is now working from home with pay as a GS 15 ($140K salary) instead of getting suspended or fired. In the meantime, honest taxpayers are working hard as employees or business owners while these incompetent USDA people retire with steady paychecks and public sector benefits.

Injustice for all!

“Wait! It’s not my fault! I didn’t know this was going on.” Sound familiar? Yes, President Obama’s response to his responsibility for Veterans Administration, Internal Revenue Service, and USDA scandals. In the meantime, your employer holds you responsible for the results of your area of work. But the President is avoiding responsibility and allows his Cabinet to do the same.

Will this continue under Clinton – Bush – Obama…Clinton?

The fourth article (Epilogue) will be very personal. Fear of eternal litigation, however, requires that I solemnly state that all the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Republicans and Democrats should be held equally responsible for cleaning up this fiscal mess.


H. Michael Hervey
Conservative Party USA
Twitter: @cpartyusa_01

We ran across something that greatly disturbed us as we were researching illegal immigration. U.S. District Judge Korman has decided that the border — the area 100 miles inland from the entire U.S. border — falls under a “border exemption” and is being called a “Constitutional Exemption Zone”… all in the name of “national security”. People that are in this area are subject to being stopped and searched at random. So, our Constitutional Rights are being SUSPENDED in the 100-mile Constitutional Exemption Zone? Does this affect EVERYONE? What does this all mean, and to what can it lead? What is being planned for all of us in this ‘exemption zone’?

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable search and seizure, including arbitrary and random stops and searches.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Within 100 miles of the U.S. border, however, these rules DO NOT apply.

Constitutional Exemption Zones are being implemented by the Department of Homeland Security. It appears that this federal agency isn’t really securing the borders but are extinguishing the Fourth Amendment Rights of over 197 million people within 100 miles of the border… and the ocean?

Secure The Republic is very concerned about this new “Constitutional Exemption Zone”. What is REALLY going on? Most of our metropolitan cities fall within this area. 2/3 of Americans (197.4 MILLION people) will be affected by this. These people could find themselves WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. If the 4th Amendment can be removed (the one which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures), so can the other amendments! It appears that our borders are being eliminated and the sovereignty of our country is under attack.

This map from the ACLU is hard to beat because it shows the 100-mile “Constitutional Exemption Zone” visually, including cities which will be affected. Take a look for yourself! Pay special attention to the GREAT LAKES area. We’ll comment more about that in the future…

Border search exception law and legal definition This is the Border Exception Law that is being implemented. The power to conduct warrantless search is referenced under 8 USCS § 1357. This is covered in the link.

Folks, this is not about border security. Our borders haven’t been secure in MANY years. This is about losing state sovereignty and our constitutional rights. This includes dropping national borders. Remember, it’s a well-orchestrated plan that has been slowly coming together and will strip us of our constitutional rights. You’ll find that proponents of these random searches and seizures make it sound good, but we need to know where their true motivation lies… It appears to us that we are in a type of police state.

Also, study your state constitution. You may find that it no longer describes the boundaries of your state, effectively abolishing your state. At last check, the only states that still lay out their boundaries in their constitutions are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Arkansas’ Constitution has been checked, and their boundary is found in Article I under “Boundaries”. The description of the boundary for your state may be found in a different location than Article I in your particular state’s constitution.

When the State borders are no longer in the State Constitution, it is the signal that the State has lost its sovereignty. WAKE UP AMERICA! Is your state boundary being abolished? Think about it another way: would you buy a piece of property that has no legal definition?
In order to better understand this, you will need to obtain a copy of your present state constitution to see if your state legislature has removed the boundaries of your state. The only way that these changes can be made is to change the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. The promoters of Regional Governance and a One-World Government know this. It looks like STATE BOUNDARIES WILL HAVE TO BE ABOLISHED BEFORE REGIONAL GOVERNANCE and a ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT CAN BE FULLY ENFORCED IN THE UNITED STATES. Once this happens, there will be a centralization of power. State boundaries have already been abolished in 33 of 50 states!

We wanted to make you aware of the dangers which we could face if we don’t abide by our U.S. Constitution, but you’ll need to do your own in-depth research on this topic.

Securing the blessings of liberty,

Secure the Republic


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 183 other followers