THE TRUE COST OF OBAMA CARE

Yesterday the SCOTUS heard the King vs. Burwell case concerning the legality of ObamaCare subsidies in states which did not establish individual coops. While the judges questioning and commentary doesn't lend itself to an indication of how they will rule in June, it was an interesting case ion which the justices went to what I consider extremes to justify their seemingly preconceived positions.

Regardless of the outcome, the bottom line is that ObamaCare is EXTREMELY BAD law EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and doesn't begin to cut costs or solve the issue of the uninsured. Because of this it should be repealed immediately.

Here is a true estimation of the costs involved...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/…/04/damaging-effects-obamacare/

Another act of lawless deception by President Obama...

The President is now using an executive order to attempt a back door method of gun control by banning "green tipped" .223 bullets commonly used in the AR-15 rifles for target practice.  His reasoning is that there have been variations of the AR created recently which are pistol versions of the firearm, that these "pistols" fire the Green tipped bullets which are "armor piercing" and will penetrate police body armor killing cops.  As any AR-15 target shooter knows, the Green tip signifies that the bullet is 62 grains rather than the lower weight 55 grain version.  These bullets are lead filled and not of the solid core, armor piercing variety as claimed by the President.  Further, every high powered handgun or long gun (rifle) is capable of piercing most of the lower grade types of body armor worn by police while on every day patrol.

This is just another example of the most outrageous of lies being fed to the pulp fiction supporters of President Obama. IE...those who are so willing to accept anything he says without another thought that they become zombies to his anti-American agenda.

Let's examine the facts of Obama's claim...Police officer murders. The best method of examining this claim is to review the actual number of police officer murders.  We can then review the actual ability of pretty much any centerfire rifle and even most high powered handguns to shoot through soft body armor generally worn by police. 

The best resource for understanding the threat to police officers is the annual FBI report on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. A look that this report shows that in 2013 (the most recent data available), 27 police officers were murdered in the United States with firearms. Of those, the table of types of weapon used shows that ALL RIFLES COMBINED accounted for 5 murders. Eighteen officers were murdered with handguns, and three with shotguns. In the other case the type of firearm was not listed.

Of the five officers murdered with rifles, two were murdered with .223 rifles of any type. 

Table 41 of the report reveals exactly zero deaths occurred in 2013 because the victim's body armor was penetrated. To reiterate, not a single officer died in 2013 from having her/his vest penetrated by any caliber firearm. Regardless of the fact that the vast majority of officers wear Class III or lower grade body armor which won’t stop a bullet fired at close range from a large caliber handgun.

In fact, the same table shows that only 3 officers have been killed since 2004 by any .223 or 5.56x45mm round penetrating any type of vest. One death occurred in 2004, one in 2008, and one in 2011. There is no indication that any of those involved M855 or higher than class III, rifle-resistant armor. During the same period between 2004 and 2013, 7 police were murdered through their vests from hunting caliber rifle shots (.30-30 Winchester, 7mm, .308, or .30-06), 5 were murdered through their vests using 7.62x39mm the caliber used in the AK-47 Russian military rifle, and 385 were murdered with ordinary pistols and revolvers, almost all of which involved hits to unprotected areas of police who were not wearing body armor. 

After actually analyzing the data, it is obvious that the number of annual police officer deaths that would be averted by banning M855 "Green Tipped" ammo is zero. The .223 round is rarely used to murder police officers, and in the rare event it is, it rarely involves vest penetration, ie... where the body armor of any kind is worn.

The consideration is to look at murder in general. The best source for this information is the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, particularly Table 20, Murder by State and Type of Weapon. According to the UCR, there were 12,253 murders reported to the FBI in 2013 across the entire United States. According to Table 20, all rifles combined accounted for 285 of these murders. That is less than 3% of the total number of murders, and it includes all the cops murdered.  It also includes all the murders committed with the AR-15 type rifles as a part of the whole.  So considering that the number of police officers murdered by a rifle is a subset of the 3% of those murdered by rifle and that the AR-15 type rifle is a subset of the number of murders by rifle and that the number of AR-15 rifles firing “green tipped” bullets at during the commission of a police homicide is a subset of the police killed by AR-15 type firearms and we then apply this small subset to Obamas claim of AR-15 pistol conversions being used to kill cops, the odds of a police officer being killed by a “Green Tipped” .223 bullet shot from an AR-15 type firearm converted to a pistol are about as long as that same police officer winning the Powerball lottery.

Bottom line, this is just another case of an outlaw president believing he is above the law and pushing his illegal usurpation of his office to the extreme.  If we, the American people don't push back in the most strenuous terms, he will continue to take our freedom until we have none left.  At least some in the legislature understand this and are standing up for the Patriots, the rule of law and the good of America!

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=884434358246018&fref=nf

Obama speaks at the National Prayer Breakfast

Earlier this week, Obama went to and addressed the National CHRISTIAN prayer breakfast. One item on the agenda was to pray for the over 1 Million Armenian Christians murdered by Muslim Turks in the early 20th Century...yes in 1915, the 20th century. Yet Obama acknowledges this atrocity by choosing an historical factoid from 1000 years ago to hector and besmirch the christians to whom he was speaking. He didn't use a reference by christians during the 20th century, he went back 1000 years to find fault. And he ignored the reason the prayers for those murdered in the 20th century were being offered.

Rather than supporting Christians at a christian faith event, rather than discussing the good works of the christian denominations to which he spoke, rather than make an attempt to unite, he chose to use the platform to pick a point in christian history 1000 years past as a comparison to justify the atrocities being perpetrated by Islamists today.  Obama didn't choose to be uplifting, he chose to castigate the religion of the people to whom he was speaking, 

If this were a one time faux pax, perhaps there would not be much justification for making this an issue, but from the time that Obama began running for the presidency, he has been pursuing this false flag notion of positive Islamic contribution. This is the recurring theme of the Obama narrative. Remember, when he was running for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama, during his Cairo speech, said: "I know, too, that Islam has always been a positive part of America 's history." Later, after his election, speaking at a dinner celebrating Ramadan, Obama stated, "Throughout our history, Islam has contributed to the character of our country, and Muslim Americans, and their good works, have helped to build our nation -- and we've seen the results. We've seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants -- farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities. Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped to unlock the secrets of our universe."  In 2014, Obama made a speech to a muslim group thanking Muslim Americans for their many “achievements and contributions… to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.” When in 2009, when discussing the slaughter of American soldiers at Fort Hood by a radical Muslim major who is a doctor and a psychiatrist supposedly counseling soldiers returning from battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama claimed this was not an act of terrorism, but a case of workplace violence.  Even today, when asked to directly address the atrocities being committed by ISIS and al Qaida, our president cannot being himself to refer to them as terrorists, yet he has no issue with referring to Americans who oppose his views as "Domestic Terrorists"

I could go on, with many more examples and I could offer many examples of muslim atrocities committed against Americas citizens but Obama's attempts to uplift the muslim adherents is such a juxtaposition to his denigrating of Christians at a christian event that he is blatantly transparent.

The point is, rather than unite, rather than lead, rather than to unify, Obama willfully chooses to use his bully pulpit to divide the citizens he represents. His speech, while perhaps factually correct was improper for the venue, completely unwarranted, out of place and wholly inappropriate. At best his lecturing of christians is a stretch, and shows just how ridiculously out of touch he really is. At worst it shows diabolical intent. This is not American leadership and it is why there is so much blowback against his speech.

Snowden Interview #2

I recently wrote a piece about the first Snowden interview.   after I posted it to a number of different sites, I was surprised to receive more than 2500 responses.  I was even  more amazed that the response was more than 90% in favor of snowden. 

Recently I was forwarded the second Snowden interview:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jul/17/edward-snowden-video-interview

Along with the link was the following comment by an admitted NEOCON (ie...one characterized by their support of extremely hawkish policies) who spent the final years of his career as a government service bureaucrat at one of the alphabet agencies:

"I couldn't watch this crap.  The guy is a criminal, a felon.  He stole info from his own country.  He is therefore guilty under the espionage act.  If he was such a GD patriot why didn't he just go to the media?  Hell's bells if Major Andrea was hanged on Washington's orders for carrying a letter in his boot, then why not hang Snowden for what he did?  The German-Americans who didn't even get off the beach in WWll were shot, then why don't we do the same with Snowden?  No matter what you may think of what he said he stole, he is still a traitor in any sense of the word.  He was evidently a low grade contract employee - probably a help desk weenie who wanted his 15 minutes of fame.  Even the Russians don't want him and are trying to get rid of him.  He could not have known too much or the Chinese and Russians would have wanted him to stay.  He is a liability to the Russians now.  He serves no useful or political purpose.  I say let the little bastard rot with Russian help."

So, I ask a few simple questions"

1, Is it wrong for a citizen to "steal" information about illegal government activities and make the citizenry aware of such actions or is it his responsibility as a citizen?  

2, is it OK for the government to steal from the citizenry, store the largess of said theft to use against us at a later date for other nefarious actions against its own citizens?  

3, Think they don't, that they are above board, honest and honorable men who are just trying to protect us?  Well, I have a "bridge to nowhere" I'm willing to sell you which was was built with Federal dollars. .

Read this and think again:  http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/whistleblower-irs-in-cahoots-with-nsa/

Personally, I think, as evidenced by the single largest building owned by the government being the NSA data gathering and storage facility and the second largest being the HSA campus, that  the intelligence gathering apparatus of the Federal government is completely out of hand and it is the ALPHABET agencies who are criminal.

Of course I have watched the interviews, I have thoroughly researched the "theft" and what was released. I have discussed the "theft" with a number of people with current "top secret" clearances, who also have the same knee jerk reaction expressed here and I have discussed the issue with a current congressman and a former US senator.  The most interesting take away is that all of the parties expressed anger, which is reasonable, but none have expressed any method that Snowden would be allowed to act as a whistleblower due to "national security" concerns, not one has been able to offer a single instance of released information which has compromised national security except the revelation that the NSA is tapping the German Prime Ministers phone, an admission which they agree she knew but was embarrassed to have publicized.

I believe those who claim that Snowden no longer has any value to the Russians, are correct, but not for the same reason.  As Snowden and his attorney both have stated unequivocally, he did not have the data when he traveled to Hong Kong and then through Russia where he was forced to remain due to the US state department revoking his passport. So he was not an asset to Russia because he had secrets to offer, he was an asset because Putin saw him and his temporary political asylum  as a black eye for Obama.  Now that Obama and Secretary of 

State Clinton were made to look the fools, Snowden has no more value to Putin.

The fact is that there have been no, I repeat, NO national secrets revealed except that the government is collecting information on it's own citizens in complete and total violation of the 4th amendment of the US Constitution.  And to those who suggest that Mr. Snowden be summarily executed, without a trial by a jury of his peers, are you not advocating another violation of the US Constitution?  Doesn't Due Process mean anything to you when you are offended by the actions of a fellow citizen?

I recently read a biography of a "low level" bureaucrat who served the Brits during World War I.  He admittedly gave away secrets he was entrusted with in direct violation of a superiors orders.  He did so as a matter of conscience, under the same condition for which Snowden is being excoriated.  Should this man have been defined as a traitor to his country especially considering his actions took place during a time of war no less?  Did his action harm England, some say yes, some say no.  Did it embarrass England?  Absolutely because they were exposed as underhanded double dealing. In the past, I have listened to the same neocon quoted above hail him as a hero.

That man was T.E. Lawrence, otherwise known as "Lawrence of Arabia".  As history shows, he was not tried for treason and in fact, as a man of good conscious, resigned his commission and reenlisted as a private doing the most menial work in an infantry regiment where he continued serving his country during the war.  Do people, his countrymen and history condemn him as a traitor?  Did his government try him as a traitor?  He admittedly gave away state secrets in violation of a direct order. Did they try to murder him without a trial?  No, they didn't, they gave him a stipend, wrote books about his heroic efforts and made an Oscar winning movie about his exploits.  In fact, today many historians opine that if the English government had listened to him rather than carry on their underhanded double dealing political land grab, we wouldn't be suffering the complete degeneration of the middle east we are currently experiencing.

So, ask yourselves. when the government runs amok and it's bureaucracies become so large and powerful that they can trample on the rights of the citizens is it wrong to make the citizenry aware?  Or should those who are aware of the egregious law breaking of the government use whatever means available to inform and educate, especially when all other means have been attempted and have been thwarted by the law breaking entities in control?  Those who have actually watched the interviews and reviewed the history of the Snowden issue, know that he tried to go through the channels but was told to keep quiet.  They also know that he didn't try to stop in Russia, but was forced there by US State department actions

Finally, a quick and simple study of the issue will inform those who are really interested that his attorneys have been negotiating with the government to have him return and stand trail, but will not be allowed to present evidence defend him in the interest of "National Security".  I try to keep an open mind about these things, but it seems pretty damn obvious that the government is gaming the system in order to avoid exposing the truth to the citizens it is supposed to represent.  Until further evidence is presented, at this point I agree with Snowden when he states that if he were allowed to come home, stand trial and present evidence to defend himself at trial, it is highly unlikely that a jury of 12 peers would convict him. 

VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO

Last weekend there was a protest on the southside of Chicago.  Interestingly, the residents were protesting the violence in their community and much of the anger was directed at President Obama and Mayor Rahm Emanuel.  Seems as though the bloom may finally be falling off the rose and the the thorny nature of our President is being exposed.

Some will claim it is due to the lax gun control, but we all know that Chicago has some of the most stringent gon control laws in the country.  Others will claim the source of the report is a conservative and therefore suspect, yet we know that this is nothing morte than a false flag effort to shoot the messenger for carrying the message.  Fact is, all of this can be traced directly back to President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" welfare program which has encouraged generations of single parent/female head of household/absent fathers in the urban black communities.  You may not want to accept this, but it remains the truth nonetheless.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/black-outrage-obamas-actions-spreads-chicago-video/

THE PRESIDENTS ATTEMPT TO REWRITE HISTORY

In an attempt to justify his violation of the requirement to inform Congress before undertaking any prisoner trades, President Obama and his syncopathic aides came up with numerous reasons why they were forced to undertake the trade without notification in spite of congress requiring  30 days notice and their approval.  when these feeble and spurious attempts were less than successful, Obama himself made the claim that this was an ordinary action by all past presidents at the end of wars in which America was involved.  He claimed that Washington, Lincoln and FDR had each used executive privilege to release POWs at the end of the wars in which they were president.

Well my friends, either the liberals "most brilliant man alive" is either really not very bright or he is so ignorant that he thinks the American public is so stupid that he can say anything and get away with it, no matter how false.  

As my friend Sheldon outlines below, even the president can't rewrite history when the facts don't add up.

  

You may recall that a few weeks ago, our illustrious president spoke of past presidents making prisoner swaps at the end of wars

that took place on their watch, much like his swap he said convincingly.  

 CNSNews.com carried this quote,  “This is what happens at the end of wars,” President Barack Obama said Tuesday when he was asked about swapping American Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban terrorists.  "That was true for George Washington, that was true for Abraham Lincoln, that was true for FDR. That’s been true of every combat situation, that at some point, you make sure that you try to get your folks back.  And that’s the right thing to do.”

While that sounds good, let's check our historical facts- 

•     the Revolutionary War ended in 1783 and Washington did not become president until 1789. 
•     Lincoln was assassinated in mid April, 1865 and the war didn't end until May, the month following. 
•     As for FDR, he died of a stroke before the end of WWII. Truman was president when the war concluded.

    So there you have it, none of these presidents were in office at the ends of those wars, making it impossible for them to make any prisoner swaps.

    So much for our historically illiterate president.  You would think that someone on his staff would keep him from making these foolish blunders, but speaking half truths and telling whole lies has become his pattern of speech when it comes to the American public.

My overriding question, when will rank and file Democrats as well as those in the House and Senate call him out for his egregious abuse of the executive power and his outright lies?  My guess is never because they are afraid of being labeled as racist.  So, while America burns, Obama fiddles because he knows he has the Democratic party held hostage.  

WASHINGTON REDSKINS NAME CONTROVERSY

Ok, I am really getting tired of the whining about the name of the Washing NFL club.  The Redskins are a proud team with a very respectful name of which they are very respectful  So, let me add another example of the stupidity of brain dead Harry Reid and the concern about the naming of the Washington Football team the REDSKINS.

This was sent to me by someone who is sane enough to see through the garbage, but I added my own observation at the end. be sure to read through completely.

Incorrect Team Names

I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.

Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians.

If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.

The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to the white folk.

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men’s lives.

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates! Don't forget the Oklahoma Sooners.

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.

The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.

The Milwaukee Brewers---well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing congress loves.

With all of this in mind, it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic team to something other than "the Beavers.”

My observation: If anyone really wants to go in the direction of correcting politically sensitive names which are considered derogatory towards Native Americans, forget about the Oklahoma Sooners team name, eliminate the name of the state itself.for it, by the definition of the politically correct progressive name police, is more "racist" than the term Redskins and it is condoned by the Federal Government as well as brain dead Harry. Funny how we never hear brain dead Harry state that he will neither vist or pass through Oklahoma until they change their name. Funny how we don't hear from a group of Native Americans from upstate NY screaming about how offended they are by the name of one of our 50 states. Where is the class action lawsuit to change the name of Oklahoma? Where is the television commercial during a championship sporting event discussing the atrocity speaking the name of our 46th state? You see, Oklahoma is the Choctaw (a Native American tribe, in case you didn't know) word for "Red People", ie...Okla = people and humma = red, so if the politically correct progressive name police are going to get all bent over and claim racism in the name of a sports team, perhaps first they should sue the Federal government to change  the name of our 46th state.

The IRS and why we never see Tax Reform

There is little doubt that we in America, now have the most repressive and burdensome tax system in the world.  It is used by politicians to engineer social policy and as a Garrot around the necks of those who oppose their positions.  This is why there is so much resistance from politicians of both established parties to reforming it.  Question...Why do we need more than 70,000 pages of tax regulations in order to collect the FEDERAL income tax?  Does anyone doubt that it is necessary in order for politicians to punish those who oppose their pet projects and policies?  Senator Chuck Schumer stated, “It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies – we must redouble those efforts immediately.”

Schumer’s rant was centered on his war to annihilate the Tea Party. But here’s a thought provoking question from a friend, if there was never any IRS or government agency actions against conservative groups, what exactly is being redoubled?

Read more at:
http://allenbwest.com/2014/01/message-schumer-progressive-pals/#xz6MZ4JkYKOFUVH4.99

Why I support the TEA Party

Recently I was asked why I don’t go all in with support for the Republican Party and their candidates because this is the party which more closely defines my values and that the TEA Party is not helping the cause.  They stated that the “purpose of political parties is to win elections.  Unless a political party can attract voters, it can not win.  In a multi-racial, and often bi-lingual society, winning usually requires some give and take.  Otherwise, it isn't a choice for governing, but for war”.  This assumes I support either of the established parties.  I don't, however, I truly believed that Mitt Romney was the right man for the Presidency at the right time in our history so I supported him and voted for him.  In 2008, I had no interest in seeing either of the established party candidates sitting in the WH so I didn't vote for either, opting instead for Ralph Nader who actually put up a platform I could support.

There does come a time when one has to stand up and be counted for their beliefs.  Standing up for a candidate just because he is the lesser of two evils is the reason why our two party political system is destroying the country, IMO.  The generational trend of having the government offer subsidies to the citizens in the form of entitlement programs and corporate donors in the form of tax benefits and huge government contracts has created a nation of dependency and it occurs through the acts of both established parties.

Ted Cruz stood up for principle.  The ObamaCare program is a travesty and he was right to stand up against it.  Was it the best way to proceed, I believe that it wasn't because it was an attempt to combine the cost of ObamaCare with the overall budget and the looming debt limit.  There were better ways to address the budgetary issues and not give Obama the upper hand, but at the time, Senator Cruz didn't know just how bad the ObamaCare rollout would be, so he was acting in good faith.

So now let’s address the issue of the TEA Party and it's growing pains.  Certainly there are mistakes being made, some of which have been outlined.  Having a group of idealistic citizens go up against the entrenched parties will always be met with resistance and having those citizens be marginalized is par for the course, in the short term. But I do believe that as the old saying goes, all politics is local and I honestly believe the majority of the citizens when it gets down to the local grassroots level, agree with Senator Cruz and the TEA Party platform.  I see it every day in the local coffee shops,in  the beer halls and at the local barber shops.  I see it with the college students I speak with when I return to my college campus for seminars and business support gatherings.  I witness it when I attend small business development conferences and conventions. Certainly there are naysayers, but when specifics are discussed, the majority agree with what the TEA Party represents.

Additionally, there is one more element which comes into play and is a real threat to the established parties.  This new element is the instantaneous communication afforded by access to the internet.  10 years ago, we could not use the FaceBook or the blogosphere to discuss our discontent, we could not Tweet the whereabouts of a TEA Party meeting in our local communities, we could not mount an instant effort to advise our "representatives" of the fact that we do not support a bill  they are willing to vote in favor of and most importantly, we could not immediately let them know that we were watching when they voted for that bill anyway and that as a result, we will be looking for someone else to support.

As we have seen over the past 3 national election cycles, the TEA Party candidates, although working through the Republican Party, are gaining ground and the quality of the candidates seeking office is showing dramatic improvement while the quality of the upcoming Democratic and incumbent Republican candidates remains incredibly self absorbed and dismal.   We as a nation need more of the self reliant American spirit to reach the surface and the TEA Party members bring the true ideals of the American spirit to the office. It may take some more time and it won't happen without additional scars and/or lost elections, but I do believe the TEA Party will become the dominant political party in our nation or the nation as we knew it will not survive. 

Obama's Budgetary Discipline

Does anyone remember that Obama said he would cut the deficit in half in his first three years as president?

Interesting point is that at the time he said it, the deficit was "only" 400 billion and he was blaming Bush for his overzealous spending. I can only assume that Obama was a student of new math because he has more than DOUBLED the deficit every year he has been in office and this is along with directing the use of TARP funds and the STIMULUS program of a TRILLION each.

Of course all this was accomplished with the promise that unemployment would not rise above 8%. I would like to see it get back down to 8%. Hell, he could have given all that money to individual American taxpayers if they were willing to start a business and hire someone and we would have been much better off. Oh wait, that would be like cutting taxes and this wouldn't be "fair" would it?

Remember this in November when you are in the voting booth.

The latest Rushbo Controversy

I don't agree with the mandate forcing contraception as a part of all health care plans. My reason is very simple -- I don't agree that the government or employers either, should be involved in the management of an individuals health care. But the issue has really gotten out of hand with all the back and forth rhetoric.

Earlier this week a Law student at Georgetown University complained that her school, operated by a religious organization should be required to provide her with free contraception as part of her health care plan.

At the end of this week, Nationally syndicated radio show host rush Limbaugh spoke out against the lady in question because of her views. Here is the quote from his radio show.

"What does it say about the college co-ed [Sandra] Fluke who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. [. . .]

If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."- Rush Limbaugh

I don't care what the reason, this is not acceptable as far as I'm concerned. Whether you agree with her position or not, she doesn't deserve to be called vulgar names on a public show. Just additional validation of why I stopped listening to Rush back during the early years of the Clinton administration.

THE PRESIDENTS “LONG VIEW” OF GAS PRICING

On Thursday the President flew down to deliver a speech on why gas prices have been rising so much. The jist of his comments can be boiled down to two words spoken by the President -- “it’s complicated”. Well, yes Mr. President it actually is complicated. It is complicated by this administration and the Federal Government in general. Mr. President, the economics of oil and gas are not a relationship status on the Facebook, they are a real life issue which is having a truly negative affect on the pocketbooks of every American citizen.

The President then made the statement that the price of gas and oil was not controlled by the United States, but by the world market. Well hell yes, sure took long enough to figure this out. Seems funny that the President is finally getting around to recognizing and speaking out about this when for the past three SOTU speeches, as oil prices rose, he claimed it was the fault of others such as the big oil companies and anyone else he could vilify.

The President made an effort to blunt his failings in this area by making the statement that we should all be prepared for the Republicans coming comments that they have the solution and it is based on three words - Drill, Drill and Drill. He said anyone saying that we can see “immediate lower gas prices are either uninformed or dishonest”. Yes he actually said those who say that we have to drill more are being dishonest. Of course in the next sentence he stated that we were in fact drilling more today than we were before the Gulf Oil disaster in April of 2010 because of the policies of his administration. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide who is being dishonest.

Here’s what he didn’t say, the increased drilling and production is not coming from public lands, but from private lands where the Federal government cannot stop the recovery process. What he did not say is that the EPA in conjunction with the Department of Energy and the Executive branch are not issuing permits for the recovery of oil and Natural Gas on public lands. So the increased production the President takes credit for and that he claims isn’t really solving the problem is actually occurring in spite of, not because of the Federal Government.

The President barely mentioned the fact that he turned down the Keystone XL pipeline, but in the few statements made, he defended his position. The President knows as well as anyone who studies the situation, or at least he should, that with increased oil production coming from the Bakken fields of N. Dakota and Montana, the Keystone XL is a necessary step to get the oil to the refineries expeditiously and at the most reasonable cost. He knows that the Keystone XL has been approved by ALL the states over which it will cross. He knows that there are literally hundreds of pipelines already crossing the “environmentally sensitive” Nebraska aquifers and that the Keystone XL will be the best designed and built pipeline in the history of the world. Further, he knows that turning down the construction of the pipeline is one of the causes of gas price increases. Yet he still feels the need, even in spite of the rising gas prices, to defend this failing on his part.

The President, didn’t mention Natural Gas in his speech yesterday in spite of how he made it a major part of his SOTU address in January. I assume the reason he didn’t mention it on Thursday is because the EPA hasn’t actually lessened the regulatory restrictions on its development and use that the President promised. Let me make a point here, there has been growing criticism about the use of the drilling technique called “fracking” in the recovery of Natural Gas. This may be the reason the EPA isn’t moving very fast, but the fact is, the fracking process has been used for more than 40 years in more than 1 MILLION, yes over a MILLION wells without one incident of underground water contamination due to the fracking process. Above ground disposal problems have occurred on rare occasions, but they can be eliminated with enhanced monitoring.

As he began to speak about his “Long View” of the President claimed that energy is “one of the major challenges of your generation” and that "anyone who tells you we can drill our way out of this problem doesn't know what they're talking about -- or just isn't telling you the truth." I will tell you the truth, we do need to drill, the economic life of our nation depends on it and we can drill our way out of it. I agree with the President that we can’t drill our way out of the looming crisis with oil, but we can drill our way out with Natural Gas. Natural Gas is the bridge to our future. Our immediately recoverable Natural Gas resources exceed the needs of our country for the next 10 generations. Far longer than it will take to commercially develop alternative sources of energy. Natural Gas can be used as it comes out of the ground. There are no requirements to refine it so the gas is more economical to use. There are currently existent, natural gas pipelines under more than 50% of all the roads in America so accessibility is not an issue. Personal use vehicles (cars and trucks) are very easily and cost effectively convertible to the use of Natural Gas and it burns much cleaner than gasoline or diesel fuel. Converting 35% of the personal transportation vehicles to the use of Natural Gas over the next 5 years will eliminate our need to import any oil or gasoline from sources outside the North America and at the same time cut the demand for oil so dramatically that gasoline prices will drop substantially. The President knows this, yet he chose not to make mention of it because it will shed light on the failings of the EPPA and this administration. So I have to ask, who is being dishonest when they say we can’t drill our way out of the rising gas price crisis?

The President then went on to make comments about his holistic approach to energy development and barely mentioned the solar alternative or the Solyndra and Fiskars fiascos except to say "Some technologies don't pan out, and some companies will fail," Obama said. "But as long as I'm president, I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy”. It is very wise to promote the development of all forms of alternative energy, I have been doing so for many years, but the development of such technology should not be at a cost to the American taxpayer, especially when the companies receiving the funds are “friends of the administration”. The Federal government SHOULD NOT pick and choose which companies should be promoted. This is not the responsibility of the Federal Government.

President Obama went on to promote the development of Algae as a fuel source. This is a very responsible suggestion and one which I have been actively involved for the past 5 years. I wonder if the President and his advisors are aware that algae has more than 5000 distinctly different and identifiable strains and that more than 70% of these strains produce very little oil. I wonder as well if the President and Department of Energy Secretary Lu know that the microscopic spore of these algae strains fly throught eh air and easily invade the strains being used to produce oil rendering them unproductive. Many studies have been undertaken to determine the viability of the use of Algae as a feed stock for use as a biofuel. Almost all the studies have concluded that capital cost, labor cost and operational costs make the use of algae too expensive to be competitive with conventional fuels. Unless new, more efficient methods of growing and refining algae into biofuel are developed, their use may never be realized. This is not an area which the Federal Government should be investing money. I have been asking myself if the President and Secretary Lu have another crony company they either have or are preparing to provide development funding for.

He stated that "It's the easiest thing in the world to make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices". "What's harder is to make a serious, sustained commitment to tackle a problem. And it won't be solved in one year, it won't be solved in one term, it may not be solved in one decade. But that's the kind of commitment we need right now." I fully agree with the President on this and applaud him for making the statement so I am going to offer a solution which will solve the problem of rising gasoline prices in the near as well as the long term.

First, approve the Keystone XL pipeline. There is no environmental or economic reason for the delay. Denying approval is absolutely nothing more than a political move which is 180 degrees opposite his statement Thursday that "It's the easiest thing in the world to make phony election-year promises about lower gas prices,"

Second, issue permits for the recovery of oil from public land. ANWR should be the first place permits are issued, Off shore permits immediately following and the Barnett and Williston fields to come at the same time or shortly thereafter. The EPA should allow the permits on a bid basis with the only restriction being that 80% of the recovered oil must be refined and sold in the American marketplace.

Third, reduce the regulatory burden on the construction of new oil refineries. The regulatory hurdles are so enormous that the development and construction of refineries is almost impossible forcing the refining US recovered oil to off shore locations and driving up the cost of the finished product.

Fourth, eliminate all EPA restrictions on the use of Natural Gas as a fuel in personal use vehicles except one, that the exhaust emissions meet the same standards as gasoline and diesel fueled vehicles of the same class. If this is approved, the market will take over and you will see Nat Gas fueled vehicles invade the market immediately and as a result, the price of oil decrease in short order.

Finally, stay out of the energy business. It is fine to support and promote innovation, but it is not good to offer enhancements to preferred companies. Let the market develop paradigm shifting innovations at their own pace without governmental assistance or interference. The innovators will do a much better job this way. If this is not possible by the administration, it should at the very least, make the financial assistance be in the form of a post development success fee which is earned on a competitive basis rather than a handout to politically connected companies.

If the President is going to be honest during this election cycle, and really interested in long term solutions, he will follow this advice.

Recently I was asked to state my reasons why I "hated" president Obama so much. This was, of course, after I had been labeled a racist for objecting to the Federal mandate to provide contraception as part of all health insurance plans. I of course, don't "hate" our president, I just don't agree with his ideology and policy initiatives.

So, I started thinking about it and have responded as follows:

I will provide specifics for concern about President Obama from my perspective. While I'm sure many will consider this to be either hate speech or a racist comment, it is actually all true. If you don't agree, provide specifics of any statements which are not accurate.

Barack Obama says throughout his two autobiographies that at college he was drawn to and identified with the Marxist Professors and students. He identifies strongly with his father who was an openly and unbowed communist economist from Harvard in spite of the fact that he only met his father on one occasion when he was a pre teen. His mother was a radical hippie from the 60s who rejected America -- Obama's own writings.

This is not in the books but from other writings, we know that his grandparents were radical progressives who had him mentored in high school by a member of the US Communist Party, Franklin Marshal Davis.

He became a long time member of the Trinity whatever Church in Chicago which is dedicated to Marxist Black Liberation Theology and whose leader, repeatedly damned America in his sermons. Of course Obama denies that he ever heard those sermons, in spite of the fact that he sat in the front row for 17 years and was so close to the Reverend Wright that the Pastor officiated at the Obamas wedding.

He was an instructor for ACORN in the social manipulation methods of Marxist radical Saul Alinsky.

After becoming President, he in conjunction with Reid and (earlier) Pelosi, manipulated the legislative process to enable "continuing spending resolutions" without budgetary oversight which has resulted in more than 5 TRILLION dollars of increase in the debt.

Ultraliberal doesn't even begin to cut it. This is why I can't support the President for reelection. Comments anyone?