Jun 27 2013

“New American Revolution” Called For

Kokesh’s anti-war and pro-drug views are obviously repulsive to most veterans, but he does at least realize the government has become a soft tyranny.  They no longer follow their own rules, the unelected dictators in black robes reenforce unconstitutional law as legitimate constitutional law.

————————–

Imprisoned activist demands march on governors of 50 states

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
May 24, 2013

Imprisoned activist and former Marine Adam Kokesh – arrested last Saturday for exercising his First Amendment right at a protest – has called for a “new American revolution” to begin on July 4 with a march on all 50 state capitols.

Adam Kokesh

Kokesh remains in a federal prison in Philadelphia on what many of his supporters claim are trumped up charges of assaulting a police officer and has been denied bail.

The former Iraq war veteran was already planning to lead a controversial armed march on Washington DC on Independence Day, but has rapidly expanded the scope of his plans, calling on an, “American Revolutionary Army (that) will march on each state capital to demand that the governors of these 50 states immediately initiate the process of an orderly dissolution of the federal government through secession and reclamation of federally held property.”

DC police responded to Kokesh’s plan for an armed march by vowing to arrest Kokesh and any other armed demonstrators who take part. Continue reading


Jun 14 2013

Why You Should Be Anti-Amnesty

Anti-Amnesty

Did you know there are over 4 million people waiting to enter this country legally? The Amnesty bills in Congress would reward 11.5 million others to cut into that line. Simply put, the amnesty bill is unfair, too costly and encourages more illegal behavior.

There’s a better way to strengthen the immigration system that focuses on the things that are supported by the majority of Americans:

  • Fix our slow, broken, lawful immigration system through step-by-step legislation that is simple, clear, and transparent. This creates opportunities for legislative victories that make it hard to hide loopholes or sweetheart deals for special interests.
  • Congress should keep the promises they made when they granted amnesty “for only this one time” in 1986.
  • Enforce our existing laws by imposing stiff fines on those who hire illegal immigrants.
  • Secure our borders – It is a top priority for Americans.

Don’t put up with the costly, bureaucratic, special interest-loving approach to immigration reform. Know what’s really going on in Washington and get information on the better way of fair, firm, and consistent immigration reform.

FREE e-newsletter to stay informed.


Jun 14 2013

The Cost Of Amnesty

Congressional Budget Office Should Forecast Long-Term Cost of Amnesty

With the Congressional Budget Office preparing to release a cost estimate for the Senate’s Gang of Eight bill in the coming days, a key Republican lawmaker yesterday insisted that any projection look beyond the 10-year budget window to fully understand the magnitude of granting amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), ranking member on the Budget Committee, wrote to CBO Director Doug Elmendorf that it was crucial to have a long-term fiscal and economic analysis given the implementation timetable included in the Gang of Eight amnesty bill.

Not only is a longer forecast period required because the legislation contains phase-in periods that differ by visa classification, but the fiscal and economic effects will likely develop across the lifespan of those immigrants immediately affected by S. 744. I would strongly urge you to consider using your long-term fiscal and economic models. The Global Insight U.S. Macroeconomic Model, which I understand you license, comes in a long-term version with baseline forecasts extending just beyond 2040. I believe you are capable of adapting this model’s baseline to one that incorporates your economic assumptions.

Given the long time period over which the key elements of this bill are implemented, I cannot imagine a circumstance in which a 10-year scoring of S. 744 would be deemed adequate for guiding the policy decisions that Congress will confront. Thus, I would stress in the strongest possible terms that you should produce a fiscal score that extends beyond the current 10-year budget window. Continue reading


Jun 11 2013

Governor Brewer (AZ) Caves To Liberlaism

Once feted by grassroots conservatives nationwide, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer moved radically to the left in 2013. In her State of the State address, she surprised many by embracing Obamacare, calling for a massive expansion of Medicaid.

Like many state politicians, she claims the multi-billion dollar expansion would be largely funded by “free” federal money. Of course, the funding dries up in the out years and comes with strings attached that will tie up the state for years. And then there’s that tiny problem of the federal government having no money in the first place.

The GOP-controlled statehouse isn’t making it easy for Gov. Brewer, killing the expansion in committee yesterday. But all the Democrats, along with a few squishy Republicans, plan to reintroduce the issue on the floor — perhaps as early as today. Adding to the pressure, Brewer has promised to sign no legislation until Obama’s Medicaid expansion is sent to her desk. To prove her point, she quickly vetoed five bills.

Arizona’s current Medicaid system, called AHCCCS, is actually better than most states’ programs. A big reason for this is that the state held out for several years to get a better deal with the feds. As a result, AHCCCS is better at controlling costs while providing more options for the truly needy.

This time around, Gov. Brewer quickly caved to the Obama administration’s strong-arm tactics — an administration that has repeatedly sued and demonized both her and the state she claims to represent.

As usual, expansion supporters are insisting they are only doing this for the poor. But several studies suggest that Medicaid may actually hurt its supposed beneficiaries. A recent Oregon study showed that there is zero evidence that Medicaid saved any lives or made any improvements in several objective health markers.

The last time Arizona expanded AHCCCS, proponents insisted it would save money. Some legislators didn’t buy that claim and projected it would cost about $400 million, eight years later. The actual cost was more than $1.6 billion, four times as expensive as projected.

Far-left outlets like ThinkProgress are praising the governor for “sticking by her convictions.” Meanwhile, conservative publications like National Review are excoriating her for betraying her party, her state and basic economics:

Under law, the states cannot be forced to accept the Medicaid expansion. It is up to them. Some Republicans have stood strong against it, and some are rolling over for the Obama administration. Governor Brewer is for the moment unique in that she is throwing a gubernatorial temper tantrum on behalf of expanding government-run health care. Our hope is that Arizona’s legislators will keep the Medicaid expansion out of the budget and, for the good of the state, pass the budget over the governor’s veto. Governor Brewer may not be around to see the bill for the Medicaid expansion when it comes due, but Arizona taxpayers will.

For the people of Arizona, let’s hope state legislators stand firm so that Brewer’s tantrum isn’t rewarded.

Jon Gabriel on June 11, 2013

 


Jun 8 2013

The ‘Gay Pride’ Merit Badge – Boy Scouts Will End

“[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.” –George Washington (1790)

2013-06-06-alexander-1

“On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.” (Oath, Boy Scouts of America)

Six months ago, in a letter to an Eagle Scout, my son, I responded to his dismay over a proposal by the Boy Scouts of America National Board to remove the membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. As a long-time BSA Council member, Troop leader and father of another young man about to attain his Eagle rank, I shared my older son’s dismay — to put it mildly.

Two weeks ago, the Left’s relentless campaign of cultural degradation and devolution, specifically their crusade to undermine the “third pillar of Liberty,” faith and family, succeeded in a decade-long strategy to do to the uniformed ranks of the BSA what Barack Hussein Obama has done to the uniformed ranks of the U.S. military (and the rest of the nation).

As you might recall, one of Obama’s earliest campaign promises was to repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” proscription against open homosexuality in the military ranks. On December 22, 2010, Obama signed that repeal after it had been passed by his outgoing NeoCom House majority. This occurred just weeks before Tea Party Republicans, who decimated the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, took over the House.

Earlier this year, consistent with his assault on the moral fiber of our military, Obama quickly gave this verbatim endorsement of homosexuals scouts and leaders in the BSA: “I think that, uh, you know, my attitude is, is that gays and lesbians should have, uh, access, and, and, opportunity, uh, the same way everybody else does, uh, in every institution and walk of life, and, um, you know, the, the Scouts are a great institution, uh, that, are, uh, promoting, uh, young people and exposing them to, uh, you know, opportunities, and, and…” ad nauseam.

As dictated by the laws of gravity, the political effluent from Obama’s pathological narcissism, and the most faith-intolerant administration in the history of our Republic, flows downhill. On May 23, it swamped the BSA with its fetid waste.

At the 2013 annual meeting, the BSA’s National Board, under the “leadership” of wealthy corporate-types completely out of touch with grassroots Scouting values, promoted and implemented a national policy to invite open homosexuals into Scout troops. In doing so, they intentionally opened the door for a much broader “gay agenda.” Many of those elitist BSA board members have already implemented that agenda within their own corporations, so they fully understand and eagerly anticipate the consequences of this BSA policy change.

For two decades, the BSA has been stacking its national board with elitist execs, because they hobnob around in wealthy circles and can collect money for national BSA projects. While most BSA regional Councils like the one I serve are self-supporting, and in fact send a small percentage of locally raised funds to support the BSA corporate office, the national BSA board has obligated itself to major real estate developments that are seriously underfunded — thus, the pursuit of affluent board members as the solution.

But the BSA is, first and foremost, a faith-based organization, and the idolatry of wealth inevitably repels faith as oil does water. Consequently, stacking the national board with corporate elitists has resulted in the same decay in the BSA that it has in other once-great institutions across the nation. Indeed, “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” And that evil is greatly amplified when such men are in positions of power, because, in the words of Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

2013-06-06-alexander-2

In a national survey conducted earlier this year, tens of thousands of BSA leaders registered their objection to a BSA policy change on homosexuals, by a 61 percent majority. While I would rather the majority have been larger, in political terms, that’s known as a landslide. Now, my moral compass is not determined by popular opinion, but this national polling did reflect the grassroots moral compass of the BSA. It’s interesting to note that the more experienced the Scout leaders were (e.g., Boy Scout leaders compared to Cub Scout leaders), the greater was the opposition to the BSA board’s proposed change.

But at the national meeting in May, a much smaller group of 1,200 delegates voted to approve the policy change. That change would have been resoundingly defeated but for one person: Wayne Perry, the National Board President. Perry, a Mormon, convinced many of his fellow LDS Church members — one of the larger voting blocks of Scout Troop chartering organizations — to support the policy change, suggesting that it would be better to bring young homosexuals into the tent to surround them with sound moral and ethical teaching than to exclude them.

That sounds marginally logical on its face, but two decades ago, I fought a losing battle against a detached elite at the helm of the Episcopal Church USA, which promoted the acceptance of homosexuals under a similar doctrine, “love the sinner.” However, no sooner had the first homosexual bishop, Vicky Imogene Robinson, been seated than the old doctrine was converted to “love the sin,” which has undermined the moral foundation of the Church. The result has been the World Anglican Communion’s condemnation as apostate what’s left of ECUSA. The USA church is wealthy, however, and it can sustain itself materially if not spiritually.

For the record, the same foundational principals provoke my objection to the “gay agenda” infiltration of the BSA as that agenda in the Episcopal Church. I do not stand in judgment of what consenting adults want to do with each other behind closed doors, but I do object to the institutionalization of sexual behavior, which violates the most basic tenets of nature, and nature’s God. The tragic irony is that many of the loudest voices promoting the “normalization” of sexual deviation, including homosexual adults in “leadership roles” with young boys, are the voices of those who were subjected to sexual predation when they were young.

For the BSA, the misguided Mormon vote, combined with large representative voting blocs from the left coast and New England states, provided majority support for the homosexual policy change and the overturning of the “morally straight” clause of the Scout Oath. Many of those regional Scout Councils are, like the Episcopal Church USA, wealthy enough to be self-sustaining, but when this policy takes effect on January 1, 2014, the net effect will likely be similar to Canada Scouting. In that country, membership dropped more than 50 percent in the decade after a similar policy was adopted.

This week, the Southern Baptist Convention, a major BSA faith-based chartering group, announced that it plans to cut ties to the BSA. In addition, one of the nation’s largest churches, Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, announced that it will not renew its Troop charter. Additionally, the first Scout Council Executive, Rob Green, submitted his letter of resignation, with others to follow.

And if you have any doubt that the “gay agenda” has far greater aspirations for infiltrating the Boy Scouts, look no further than the California State Senate, which this week passed a bill to revoke the tax-exempt status of the state’s BSA councils, accusing them of discrimination against homosexual adults — “gay” Scout leaders.

Obama once again proclaimed the month of June “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month,” as he has done in each of the last four years of his abominable administration.

Obama declared, “For more than two centuries, our Nation has struggled to transform the ideals of liberty and equality from founding promise into lasting reality. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans and their allies have been hard at work on the next great chapter of that history — from the patrons of The Stonewall Inn who sparked a movement to service members who can finally be honest about who they love to brave young people who come out and speak out every day. … We have a long way to go, but if we continue on this path together, I am confident that one day soon, from coast to coast, all of our young people will look to the future with the same sense of promise and possibility. I am confident because I have seen the talent, passion, and commitment of LGBT advocates and their allies, and I know that when voices are joined in common purpose, they cannot be stopped.”

Apparently, according to Obama’s American history text, our Founders’ fight for Liberty, and that of generations since, was all about “gay rights.”

Obama’s civilian controllers at the Department of Defense also dutifully recognized June as LGBT Pride Month, and they released a statement noting “the LGBT community has written a proud chapter in this fundamentally American story by reminding us that integrity and respect remain corner stones of our military and civilian culture.”

“Gay Pride” is an oxymoron.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is debating whether to overturn provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act and whether to overturn California’s Proposition 8, the voter-approved measure outlawing so-called “gay marriage.”

Perhaps a majority of the justices will recall these words from the Father of our Country, George Washington: “Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Mark Alexander · June 6, 2013


May 25 2013

Barack Obama’s Scandals Confirm That He’s Not A CEO

From Forbes, by Carl Schramm:

Every CEO is a politician.  Not every politician is a CEO. The current set of messes that President Obama faces makes the point.  They are as much management failures as they are political/legal nightmares.  There is a price for having no market-facing executive experience. Indeed, Mr. Obama’s first cabinet had almost no private sector management experience.

Most of our better presidents have had business or military leadership experience.  This is of tremendous value when running the world’s largest organization.  Those who haven’t, like Bill Clinton, himself tested by failure as a politician and familiar with the executive role governor’s play, knew that private sector executives have a different view of what successful management is and kept a few close at hand.

Every CEO deals with crisis — the storms that customers, suppliers, regulators, and investors present.  They deal with a faceless market that can’t be manipulated hoping the next news cycle will make the numbers of a bad quarter go away.  The political side of being a CEO: get a big decision wrong you lose your job — tomorrow!  Manage a crisis well and your  “decision wisdom” grows and so does your market value.

Successful executives understand their organizations intimately – they have a sense of the talent level, culture, and the values that drive their companies.  They are always trying to improve all three.  No chief executive trying to improve performance would just “trust” the firm’s bureaucracy. Private sector presidents know “Bureaucracy eats strategy for lunch.”  President Obama seems to value bureaucracy; he’s made it bigger and paid it better even when taxpayers have lost jobs, income and substantial household wealth.  But, as he might be discovering, just as in private sector companies an unmanaged bureaucracy eventually will bite its boss.

Had the president sought counsel from some CEOs who weren’t cozying up as members of his advisory panels, most of whose companies enjoy larger federal subsidies from his administration, his political life might be a lot better.

For starters, none of these crises had to happen! CEOs read history.  They know the “why” of the steel industry reinventing itself in micro-mills, the Tylenol crisis story, what went wrong inside Enron.  They put themselves into such stories to understand how success and failure happened and to test what they would do.  The point: crises will happen — prevent as many as you can.  There was trouble afoot in Benghazi; 9-11 coming up prompted caution.  A CEO would have said to his NSC chief: “No incidents on the anniversary.”

The activity of lower level IRS agents was known by people one degree away from the president.  An executive office staff that saw their boss as vulnerable, as every CEO is, would have made sure that he was aware and prompted an early and public intervention.

Likewise the AP story; instead of going outside, a route any CEO would instinctively know held danger, focus inside.  Before tramping on constitutional rights, especially those the press holds sacrosanct, work the White House information chain backwards — who knew leaked facts? Federal employees with secret clearance know that lie detector testing comes with the job.

Mr. Obama’s political talent is nonpareil.  His path to being a CEO is one of learning by doing.  First, get back into grace with your bosses – the voters!  Hollow rhetoric – “holding accountable” — isn’t working.  He should apologize loudly and repeatedly, taking responsibility and actions that matter.  The CEO’s script: “I can’t believe federal servants didn’t protect diplomats, spied on the press, and singled out conservative groups using the tax code.  It seems the apparatus of Washington forgets who has the ultimate authority – not aides, deputies, and not bureau chiefs. It’s mine; I’m President.”

Then, “I mean to run government in a way that inspires trust.” “I am firing the Attorney General, the head of the NSC, the Chief of the Joint Staff, and my White House counsel. I don’t know what the Attorney General did.  It really doesn’t matter. Justice so abused the 1st Amendment I have no choice.  NSC and Defense misjudged the potential in Benghazi badly and failed to save American personnel in ongoing danger — I can’t tolerate such bad management.  My White House counsel knew of the IRS investigations for weeks without telling me.”  He appoints some esteemed former judge of the Tax Court to clean up the IRS.  Then the president preempts the Congress by saying that he wants them to reconsider Obamacare taking away any role for the IRS.

President Obama will have his mojo back instantly.  Republicans will be flummoxed. As a CEO he can really shape his legacy.  He can focus on getting the economy growing again.  After 4 plus years of stimulus, taxes, expensive initiatives, and regulation we still have no real job growth.  If he proposes material revisions to Obamacare the economy will jump on the news. Endorsing Keystone makes the economy leap.  And, if like JFK he rejects his economists’ advice, cuts taxes and spending, he’d leave office with GDP at 6+ percent!  The nation’s affection for Bill Clinton will look like puppy love.  What private sector CEOs know and do is an unrecognized national asset that might be of enormous help to the President and the nation just now.