Ameripac BlogFeatured BlogsLatest News!Written By Comment Count Comment Last Three May 13, 2013
AmeriPAC National
Obama claims there is no war on terror but it could be said US citizens are fighting a war on terror against themselves. A majority of US citizens don't want amnesty for illegal immigrants, the government is fighting to offer that and much more. And now we find out private, non-profit organizations are being targeted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) based on terms such as Tea Party, Patriots, Conservative and so on.
-
0
May 06, 2013
AmeriPAC National
Like rats abandoning a sinking ship, Senate Democrats are furiously fleeing the coming disaster that is "Obamacare." The exodus started quietly at first. Sen. Max Baucus said last month he fears the president's signature health care reform law is quickly turning into a "train wreck." How bad is it? The Montana Democrat, head of the Senate Finance Committee and an author of the law, has decided not to seek re-election
-
0
April 24, 2013
AmeriPAC National
The U.S. Senate is debating the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. It’s a bill that would result in the taxation of Internet sales, driving up costs for consumers. The legislation cleared a procedural hurdle Monday and could have a floor vote by Thursday.
The Foundry
By Rob Bluey and Kelsey Harris April 24,2013 The U.S. Senate is debating the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. It is a bill that would result in the taxation of Internet sales, driving up costs for consumers. The legislation cleared a procedural hurdle Monday and could have a floor vote by Thursday. This is a classic case of where the interests of big business and big government intersect. President Obama offered his support Monday after strong lobbying by state politicians and corporations like Amazon.com and Walmart. But not all businesses are signing on to this new scheme. Etsy, an e-commerce hub where individuals can sell handmade items such as arts and crafts, warned yesterday that the legislation would “unnecessarily burden small businesses. Most Etsy sellers work from home and don’t have the administrative resources to comply with the law.” According to the Tax Foundation, there are 9,646 tax jurisdictions in the United States, creating the kind of complexity that would frighten any small business. “How can we possibly know the tax rates in [those] jurisdictions?” said Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne. “In one jurisdiction, cotton candy is food; in another it’s entertainment or candy.” Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie interviewed Byrne in 2009 about why he’s opposed to the plan. Byrne said the Marketplace Fairness Act is anything but fair. Byrne argued that Internet merchants “put a lot lesser load on a local infrastructure” than a corporation like Target or Walmart. Big corporations not only have multiple storefronts, but they serve employees and their children with roads, sewers, schools, and other buildings. “We don’t impose nearly that load, so it isn’t fair that we should have to pay those taxes,” Byrne said. Overstock.com is not the only popular Internet retail company that opposes the bill. One of the biggest critics is eBay, which is attempting to drum up a grassroots rebellion against the Marketplace Fairness Act. These companies are members of NetChoice, a coalition of e-commerce companies. Executive Director Steve DelBianco said NetChoice opposes the bill because of its incredibly complex sales tax regimes that threaten a fragile economic recovery. “The bill has never been about helping Main Street, but about helping Big Box stores,” DelBianco said. Read Full Artilce Here -
0
February 21, 2013
AmeriPAC National
Sequestration, the name given to automatic budget cuts set to begin March 1, was the brainchild of the Obama administration back in 2011 when a deal was being sought to raise the debt ceiling. Now President Barack Obama is blaming Republicans in Congress for the fact the sequester may actually occur.
The Oklahoman
February 22,2013 Sequestration, the name given to automatic budget cuts set to begin March 1, was the brainchild of the Obama administration back in 2011 when a deal was being sought to raise the debt ceiling. Now President Barack Obama is blaming Republicans in Congress for the fact the sequester may actually occur. Obama touched on this during his State of the Union speech. He was at it again Tuesday, telling those assembled that if the sequester occurs, “people will lose their jobs.” No kidding! Under the sequester, the government would have to cut $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. The military would absorb more cuts than any other federal department. This would take a significant toll here in Oklahoma, home to three Air Force bases, an Army fort and an ammunition plant. Job losses and furloughs would be plentiful. Obama on Tuesday said he has proposed a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction — that is, more taxes on the rich. A plan by Democrats in the House and Senate, he said, seeks such balance by ensuring “that billionaires can't pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.” He never tires of using class envy as a cudgel; indeed, in the next breath he said Republican proposals “ask nothing of the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations, so the burden is all on first responders or seniors or middle-class families.” The GOP, Obama says, would “rather have these cuts go into effect than close a single tax loophole for the wealthiest Americans. Not one.” The Great Divider is banking on Republicans caving under his never-ending assault. No doubt, if the sequester goes into effect, the GOP will be painted as the reason why. Read Complete Article Here -
0
February 06, 2013
AmeriPAC National
Not only do these monthly massacres continue in the face of the strictest gun control laws in the country. But the murders Chicago is suffering are gang-related violence. All the guns used by gangs are already held in violation of the law. But that is not stopping the monthly Newtown massacres in Chicago. Nothing Obama is proposing will have any effect on these gangs. They have no respect for the law whatever it is.Chicago doesn’t have a gun problem; it has a father problem….When young men don’t have fathers, they don’t learn to control their masculine impulses. They don’t have fathers to teach them how to channel their masculine impulses in productive ways. When young men don’t have fathers, those men will seek out masculine love — masculine acceptance — where they can find it. Often, they find it in gangs.
February 06, 2013, 08:49 AM
American Spectator By Peter Ferrera February 6,2013 If Obama & Co. are helpless to prevent gang warfare, what are they doing trying to disarm the law-abiding? Aside from a few, brave, truth-tellers, all of the discussion in Washington boils down to one theme — Why More Power and Money Should Be Transferred from You to Me. Of course, the sophists never say that directly. They always say it is for the children, or the poor, or the middle class, or the elderly, or the sick. But watch what they do, not what they say. In the end, every Washington Establishment initiative, proposal, or campaign is always aimed at the same result — power and money taken from you, to be given to them. The money doesn’t have to go to them to be spent by them. It enhances their power if the money goes to them to distribute, and so determine who spends it. They will siphon off money enough for themselves in the process. But all the talk in Washington is really about who gets the power. And so it is with Barack Obama’s traveling gun control salvation tour. The Limits of Barack Obama’s Power Whenever Barack Obama talks, he tells us that whatever he believes is just common sense. And what anyone who disagrees with him says is just politics. That’s actually the open communist Saul Alinsky talking, worshipped by every true Democrat (see, e.g., Hillary Clinton). It is just more sophistry and deception. President Obama could just be talking Marxist trash, which the whole 20th century was devoted to proving hopelessly foolish, at the cost of hundreds of millions of lives. But if Barack Obama says it, it is just plain common sense. And if you disagree with his Marxist precepts, you are just talking politics. But let me give you some actual common sense about gun control. Barack Obama, and the entire federal government, and all the state governments, and all the city and county governments, COMBINED, do not even have the power to take guns away from criminals. That includes so-called “assault weapons” (more sophistry and deception, go into a gun store and ask to see the “assault weapons”). All that government, and Barack Obama, even have the power to do is take guns away from the victims of criminals. Is that common sense? To disarm the victims of crime, but not the criminals? The same applies to government policies to limit the number of shots in gun magazines. Government, even Obama the Magnificent himself, does not even have the power to limit the number of shots available to the criminals. They can only limit the number of shots available to the victims of crime. Is that common sense? To leave the criminals with unlimited shots, but limit the shots available to the victims of crime? Can liberals and Democrats even reason? The answer is yes, they can reason. Because what we are talking about here is not gun violence and how to limit it. What we are talking about here is the power of Barack Obama. It increases his power and the power of the government to disarm the citizenry. That is why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution, to protect the power of the people. Fatherlessness and the Roots of Gun Violence As everyone knows, in the tragedy of Newtown, Conn., 20 children and 6 adults were slaughtered in a hail of bullets. But as Lee Habeeb brilliantly explained in National Review Online on January 17 (“The War Against Black Men”), in Barack Obama’s Chicago, which suffers the strictest gun control laws in the country, the same tragedy happens every month! Habeeb writes, “In the first few weeks of January in Chicago, 25 people have already been murdered. Most were young black and Hispanic men, murdered by other young black and Hispanic men.” He adds, “You don’t know their names because the real racism that exists in the media is this: A young black male’s life is not worth reporting when it is taken by another black male.” That is because such gun violence cannot be used as an excuse to increase the power of government, yet. When it is, you will hear all about it. Quite to the contrary, the monthly Chicago tragedy just further illustrates the fallacy of the assault weapons ban that Obama is promoting nationally to counter gun violence, and the limits of government power. Read Article In Full Here -
0
January 30, 2013
AmeriPAC National
Reports are now incoming regarding a petulant Barack Obama, upset over a bi-partisan effort in the Senate to come up with a resolution on the immigration issue, that did so with little to no input from the Obama White House. Obama demanded he be given the spotlight, flying to Las Vegas to give another empty political grandstanding speech that said nothing the day after the Senate announced it was already moving forward on the very same issue. Oh – and the cost to taxpayers for that unnecessary trip was hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Ulserman Report
Jan 30,2013 Reports are now incoming regarding a petulant Barack Obama, upset over a bi-partisan effort in the Senate to come up with a resolution on the immigration issue, that did so with little to no input from the Obama White House. Obama demanded he be given the spotlight, flying to Las Vegas to give another empty political grandstanding speech that said nothing the day after the Senate announced it was already moving forward on the very same issue. Oh – and the cost to taxpayers for that unnecessary trip was hundreds of thousands of dollars. As one of our Insiders stated a few weeks ago, Barack Obama is already entering Lame Duck status. It’s not full blown Lame Duckery by any means – he still wields the considerable and influential support of an adoring media, (while polls once again confirm America as a whole remains lukewarm to both him and his policies) and the bully pulpit of the White House – but Democrats are already starting to pull away from The Man Calling Himself Obama. And why shouldn’t they? What has Barack Obama done for other Democrats? He has helped push the party so far left that once his celebrity is removed from the already limited attention span of the American public, the party faces the daunting task of trying to repair itself in the wake of the destruction Obama is leaving behind. Their only hope, and that is what was underway with this most recent bi-partisan effort in the Senate, is to already begin the work of mending the proverbial political fences with their Republican counterparts. Ah – and that brings us to the Republicans of course. Just as the eight years of G.W. Bush harmed the GOP’s general brand-name appeal to the public (not entirely deserved by the way – the media slammed the Bush presidency 24/7 for much of those eight years), the Party of Lincoln has just recently started to repair its own damaged operating system. Election 2008 was a near-throw away effort with but one bright spot and a clear marker of where the party should find its strongest base of support, and that was in the candidate for Vice President, Sarah Palin. (Liberals will now scoff at that last line – like well trained harpies they have learned to instantly react negatively to any mention of Palin) But it was Sarah Palin’s appeal to both fiscal and social conservatives that soon after the 2008 election formed into the considerable force dubbed The Tea Party that swept aside Democrats during the 2010 Midterm Election in the most lopsided national election in a generation. The Old Guard of the Republican Party soon viewed this Tea Party movement with increasing suspicion, due in great part to the simple fact it could not entirely control it. House Speaker John Boehner, who was made Speaker because of the Tea Party, has spent the last two years attempting to compromise between them and his own Republican establishment. The result has been a fractured and somewhat incompetent party that has more often than not, been outplayed by both Barack Obama and his Mainstream Media support system. In 2012 voters voted celebrity over common sense. Celebrity though is fleeting – and Democrats are now increasingly viewing the president through that prism. The political dynamics of the last four years are starting to shift now though, and this week’s odd Obama speech in Las Vegas is one of the first real signals of that reality. That was Senate leadership telling the president – We Don’t Need You. The fact is, that has been how things have run since Barack Obama entered the White House. Obama enjoys giving speeches but little else. Democrats have long voiced concern over how little Barack Obama engages in the actual forming of policy. As president, Obama rarely speaks to members of Congress, or even members of his own cabinet. Much of what reaches him comes through the filter of powerful figures such as Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett – whose second floor office is just a short walk from the upstairs study where the president spends so much of his time during his days at the White House. And it is Jarrett who keeps her hand atop the heads of the many Czar appointments of Barack Obama – those shadow figures given access to the policy powers of the Executive Branch with no Congressional oversight. President Obama’s speech yesterday on immigration policy was little more than a hissy fit. Upset at having even a bit of attention taken away from himself, he flew to Las Vegas despite some Democrats suggesting he not do so for fear of interrupting the still forming agreement between Democrat and Republican leaders. Barack Obama ignored that request – as he has ignored Democrats all along, and flew to Vegas regardless. The teleprompter was loaded up, and by God, he was going to give that speech because HE is more important than any issue – immigration included. Read Article Here -
0
January 03, 2013
AmeriPAC National
The start of the New Year means ObamaCare tax hikes for many and the countdown to the health reform law’s official inauguration on Jan. 1, 2014. Twelve months from now, most Americans will face a “tax” via the individual mandate.
Breitbart
By Dr.Susan Berry Jan 3, 2013 The start of the New Year means ObamaCare tax hikes for many and the countdown to the health reform law’s official inauguration on Jan. 1, 2014. Twelve months from now, most Americans will face a “tax” via the individual mandate. There will supposedly be new online insurance marketplaces called “exchanges,” and American companies and businesses with at least 50 workers will owe penalties if they don’t cover full-time employees. Oh, and one more thing: Did you know that “full-time” means working at least 30 hours per week? For American employers, the magic number of “50” will mean the coming year will be spent exploring options to comply with the new regulation while keeping costs down so as not to infringe on profits. To make things even more difficult, a brand new ObamaCare regulation, released by the administration last week, requires employers to extend health insurance coverage, as well, to their workers’ children who are under the age of 26. Interestingly, the new regulation does not require that employees’ spouses be covered, yet another curiosity that suggests an administration that does not recognize the traditional family unit. Nevertheless, beginning in 2014, employers that do not offer coverage to their “full-time” employees will pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker, per year. Smaller businesses with at least 50 full-time employees may choose to opt out of providing health insurance completely, since the penalties are less costly than the insurance itself. Many employers, however, will likely choose to fire some full-time workers and/or drop workers to permanent “part-time” status, in order to be under the magic number of "50" full-timers. In fact, some economists believe that the health reform law will create a high level of competition among part-time workers. In addition, the cuts of entire full-time positions and reductions to part-time will likely produce some significant negative effects. First, those full-time employees whose positions have been entirely cut will be unemployed and in need of unemployment benefits. Unless you are Nancy Pelosi and believe that unemployment benefits are a great economic stimulus, suffice it to say that more people on unemployment means less economic growth and less tax revenues paid on income. Those workers reduced to part-time status will obviously have less income and, therefore, be able to spend less, and perhaps not be able to keep their homes. These workers will then also be among the “underemployed,” Americans who never seem to be considered when the unemployment rate is published. As the number of part-timers increases, the unemployment rate stays the same. Funny how that works. Finally, in the ObamaCare scheme of things, those who are not insured at work will be insured in the exchanges; that is, if and when the exchanges are set up. So far, ObamaCare looks like a long road to nowhere. Read Article Here -
0
December 28, 2012
AmeriPAC National
The school shooting atrocity in Newtown, Connecticut has, predictably, touched off another round of the perennial gun-control debate. Especially for parents of young children (my youngest is the same age as most of the victims), the horror of the shootings is almost beyond description, and tends to make rational discussion impossible.
RedState
By Dan Mc Laughlin December 28,2012 The school shooting atrocity in Newtown, Connecticut has, predictably, touched off another round of the perennial gun-control debate. Especially for parents of young children (my youngest is the same age as most of the victims), the horror of the shootings is almost beyond description, and tends to make rational discussion impossible. And also unseemly, as Jonah Goldberg has explained. More to the point, this is one of those issues where the public demands foolproof solutions that remain elusive: we keep saying “never again” after mass shootings, terrorist attacks, and all sorts of other manmade and supposedly preventable disasters, but there’s never a perfect answer that guarantees that any such thing will never happen again (this is, for example, why anti-terrorism policies are best focused on terrorist organizations rather than lone nuts). We can only and always base public policy proposals on what will reasonably improve the situation without imposing costs we can’t live with. The reality of no perfect or costless solutions lends both a hysterical quality to the gun debate as well as a one-sided burden of proof. Gun control advocates suggest a goal (the complete non-existence of firearms) that is not politically, legally or practically possible, and argue that opponents of any gun control measure show how their alternative would be 100% effective by comparison to a gun control utopia that doesn’t and never will exist. In a more rational, realistic debate, you would compare the actual proposed gun controls to a world without those proposals – and in that rational world, the first question for gun control advocates after Newtown is why gun control in Connecticut didn’t work after the Brady Campaign hailed the state’s tough gun laws as a model of public safety. Gun control – complete with an “assault weapons ban,” waiting periods, background checks, “gun free school zone” laws and the rest – was already tried in Connecticut, and it failed to make a difference. If Newtown means anything in the gun debate, it’s that gun control doesn’t work. The trenches are long-since dug on both sides; if you can find clips of Archie Bunker discussing an issue on YouTube, chances are that we have already had a “national conversation” about that issue. Of course, changing the culture can be at least as important as changing the law, so it is certainly helpful to look again at how we handle things like responsible gun ownership and mental illness (besides the shooter himself, his mother bears responsibility for having firearms under the same roof with such a mentally unbalanced young man). If there’s one valuable service the NRA could provide in this debate – and Wayne LaPierre’s ham-handed press conference failed to provide – it is stepping up the cultural battle to engage responsible gun owners outside of government. But both advocates and opponents of gun control tend to fall too easily into knee-jerk slogans that go too far. It is no less true for being a truism, for example, that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and that we don’t get nearly as many calls for controlling, say, knives or baseball bats when they are misused. But it is also true that guns are the most efficient, portable, and cost-effective killing tools we have: that’s exactly why they remain the weapon of choice for soldiers, cops, criminals, and hunters all over the world (and why the right to own a gun matters). There’s a strong case that good people with guns can be a more effective answer to armed criminals than gun control; gun control advocates are almost invariably willfully blind to the value of this. But that doesn’t mean that proposals to arm everyone, everywhere are a good idea with no costs or a perfect, foolproof solution. It does no good for defenders of gun rights to overstate their arguments, any more than it helps proponents of gun control to ignore the costs and limitations of gun control or to react with incredulity to the idea that the Constitution means what it says. Frankly, if your approach to the Second Amendment is to laugh and ignore it, I’m not going to trust you to take the rest of the Bill of Rights seriously either. Read More Here -
0
December 17, 2012
AmeriPAC National
President Barack Obama used the Sunday evening memorial service for the murdered kindergartners and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School to launch a partisan campaign that could expand government intrusion into parenting and gun control.
The Daily Caller
By Neil Munro December 17,2012 President Barack Obama used the Sunday evening memorial service for the murdered kindergartners and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School to launch a partisan campaign that could expand government intrusion into parenting and gun control. “[The] job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors … and the help of a nation,” Obama said at the vigil, which was held only a short distance from the Connecticut school where 20 children and six adults were murdered on Friday. “We will have to change. … If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief … then surely we have an obligation to try.” It is not clear if Obama actually will develop a national anti-violence crusade that would reshape families’ ability to raise their children. He may simply be using the Sandy Hook shooting to paint Democrats as defenders of the nation’s children from the GOP-backed gun industry. But Obama promised imminent action via Democratic-affiliated lobbies, such as the mental-health sector and the teachers’ unions. (RELATED VIDEO — MSNBC guest: Sandy Hook aftermath would have been uglier if shooter hadn’t been white) “In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this,” he declared. Through his 18-minute speech, Obama’s language promised a partisan and divisive project. For example, he suggested the voters’ only choices are either to do nothing, or to follow his yet-to-be-described plan to combat gun violence in schools and street corners throughout the U.S. “We can’t accept events like this as routine,” he said. “Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children — all of them — safe from harm?” he added. “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?” “Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” he asked. Obama’s rhetoric ignored many measures that could reduce gun violence without further increasing government’s role. Read More -
0
December 04, 2012
AmeriPAC National
It took the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 159 pages to explain one new Obamacare tax on investments that will be used to pay for Obamacare.
Breitbart
December 4, 2012 By Tony Lee It took the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 159 pages to explain one new Obamacare tax on investments that will be used to pay for Obamacare. Only individuals and families making more than $200,000 and $250,000, respectively, will be impacted by the tax, which “applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging from stocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.” According to the IRS, if a person makes $180,000 in wages and earns $90,000 from investment income for a modified adjusted gross income of $270,000, the 3.8% tax would apply to the $70,000 and the taxpayer would pay $2,660 in surtaxes." This is just one of many Obamacare taxes and rules that will require an army of new IRS officials to be hired to explain, enforce, and collect the various taxes. Read More -
0
November 27, 2012
AmeriPAC National
Next week the United Nations' International Telecommunications Union will meet in Dubai to figure out how to control the Internet. Representatives from 193 nations will attend the nearly two week long meeting, according to news reports.
The Weekly Standard "Having the Internet rewired by bureaucrats would be like handing a Stradivarius to a gorilla. The Internet is made up of 40,000 networks that interconnect among 425,000 global routes, cheaply and efficiently delivering messages and other digital content among more than two billion people around the world, with some 500,000 new users a day. ... -
0
November 16, 2012
AmeriPAC National
Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified Friday that the spy agency’s first talking points called the Sept. 11 Libya attacks an Al-Qaeda-linked terrorist act, but that that language was removed for the final version ultimately used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, lawmakers said. Petraeus testified that the CIA’s initial response referred to militant groups Ansar al-Shariah and Al-Qaeda, the Associated Press reported, but that those names were replaced with the word “extremist” during an inter-agency process to come up with a final draft. Petraeus did not know which federal agency made the change.
The Blaze
November 16,2012 By Maeleine Morgenstern Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified Friday that the spy agency’s first talking points called the Sept. 11 Libya attacks an Al-Qaeda-linked terrorist act, but that that language was removed for the final version ultimately used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, lawmakers said. Petraeus testified that the CIA’s initial response referred to militant groups Ansar al-Shariah and Al-Qaeda, the Associated Press reported, but that those names were replaced with the word “extremist” during an inter-agency process to come up with a final draft. Petraeus did not know which federal agency made the change. “No one knows yet exactly who came up with the final version of the talking points,” Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) told reporters after the closed-door House Intelligence Committee hearing. Rice’s CIA talking points for a series of television appearances on Sept. 16 also called Benghazi “spontaneously inspired” by the anti-video protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and “evolved into a direct assault,” despite Petraeus’ testimony Friday that he believed from the start that terrorists were involved. “The fact is, the reference to al-Qaida was taken out somewhere along the line by someone outside the intelligence community,” King said, according to the AP. “We need to find out who did it and why.” But Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) said Petraeus testified that the CIA’s draft points were circulated to other intelligence and federal agencies for review. Udall told the AP that Petraeus said all agency leaders, including Petraeus himself, were presented with the final document and all signed off on it. “The assessment that was publicly shared in unclassified talking points went through a process of editing,” Udall said. “The extremist description was put in because in an unclassified document you want to be careful who you identify as being involved.” Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the Benghazi assault. Read More Here -
0
November 08, 2012
AmeriPAC National
Now that President Obama will never face re-election again, it is time for the campaigning to end. Perpetual political rhetoric and promises do not matter any more. Action—and leadership—are sorely needed on pressing issues that threaten the United States. America’s people are under threats to their livelihoods, their protection, and their freedom. For some of these, deadlines for action have already come and gone, making them more dire than ever.
The Foundry By Amy Payne November 8, 2012 Now that President Obama will never face re-election again, it is time for the campaigning to end. Perpetual political rhetoric and promises do not matter any more. Action—and leadership—are sorely needed on pressing issues that threaten the United States. America’s people are under threats to their livelihoods, their protection, and their freedom. For some of these, deadlines for action have already come and gone, making them more dire than ever. Here are the top five problems that require the President’s immediate attention. 1. Massive Tax Increases Scheduled When the chairman of the Federal Reserve says the nation is headed over a cliff, the President should take notice. A total of nearly $500 billion in tax increases—old tax policies expiring and new ones taking effect—is scheduled to hit on January 1. This “Taxmageddon” fiscal-end-of-days scenario will hit individuals and their families, struggling small businesses and investors alike. So much for creating jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, which does not normally forecast recessions, has said that without some action to change our direction, the country is heading straight for another recession in 2013. As Heritage’s J.D. Foster wrote, “If a slowdown or even a recession unfolds as CBO predicts, the blame will lie with President Obama.” 2. Cuts to the U.S. Military Through a legislative process called sequestration, the President and his allies in Congress thought they could secure tax increases by holding America’s military hostage. So they programmed massive cuts to our defenses to take effect in January. Using the military as a political weapon is wrong, and nothing has been done to prevent these harmful cuts. While our enemies build up their weapons programs and terrorists target Americans around the globe, the U.S. is preparing to radically downsize the military—all because the President and liberals in Congress want to raise taxes. So far, the President hasn’t achieved his tax hike goal. If the military cuts are allowed to go forward, it will devastate our defenses. Contrary to the political rhetoric, Washington leaders could fix this without raising taxes. 3. The Middle East It’s easy in a campaign to say you’d rather focus on “nation building here at home.” But the Middle East is ablaze with conflict, and that is not going to be put on hold for the President to focus on other issues. According to some reports, Iran could be able to arm a nuclear bomb within the next few months. Read More Here -
0
November 06, 2012
AmeriPAC National
With the electoral contest still in doubt, new polling data continue to receive considerable media attention. The presidential election will likely come down to a handful of states. These states – all of which Obama won in 2008 – will determine the election.
WND
By Albert Thompson November 6,2012 There are a variety of tools you can use online to create your own electoral maps, such as 270towin_com and electoralmap-_net. I encourage readers to have some fun on what is sure to be a long day. Could the United States have a tie election? This seems increasingly unlikely, but in the interest of Election Day fun I’ll speculate. With the electoral contest still in doubt, new polling data continue to receive considerable media attention. The presidential election will likely come down to a handful of states. These states – all of which Obama won in 2008 – will determine the election. We are a large country, but pollsters continue to rely on unbelievably small samples. Groups of 1,000 are used to gauge the opinion of 130 million voters. There is a great risk of underrepresentation, especially among media wary conservative voters. Conventional wisdom is that Romney will win if he carries Ohio and Florida. Obama wins if he carries either Ohio or Florida, as the margin of a Romney victory is believed to be around 15 electoral votes. Ohio has eighteen and Florida 29. Romney’s path to victory lies through the states carried by George W. Bush in the 2000 election. Due to population changes, the Bush v. Gore map is more favorable to the GOP in 2012. The states that produced a slim 271-267 victory for Bush over Gore would produce a safer 285-253 victory for Romney over Obama. With Bush 2000 as the model, Romney could still win the election if Obama were to take Virginia, where the population of the government-employee-heavy D.C. suburbs have grown, or if Romney if were lose a smaller state like New Hampshire. But there is potential for a tie if Romney fails to carry particular Bush 2000 states. For example, if Obama wins in Virginia but loses Florida, and Romney wins Ohio but loses in Colorado, we could be headed for a 269-a-piece split. If the race is that close, then Romney will have to watch Nebraska to ensure that it does not split its electors and award one to Obama as it did in 2008. Obama will have to ensure that Maine does not award an elector to Romney, but that seems far less likely to occur. Maine and Nebraska are the only states to award electors based on the results in individual congressional districts. In this case, the Congress will choose the president and vice president. This could be a major cause of concern should partisans decide to take to the streets. Protests could spiral out of control. Hopefully the nation’s governors have security plans in place. Read More -
0
October 23, 2012
AmeriPAC National
James Biden isn’t a big name in the business of residential housing development, so what exactly qualifies him to work at a construction company and share in the winnings of a $1.5 billion project to build affordable homes in Iraq? If you said it has something to do with his last name, the one shared by his older brother Vice President Joe Biden, you wouldn’t be far off.
New York Post
October 23,2012 By -Charles Gasparino James Biden isn’t a big name in the business of residential housing development, so what exactly qualifies him to work at a construction company and share in the winnings of a $1.5 billion project to build affordable homes in Iraq? If you said it has something to do with his last name, the one shared by his older brother Vice President Joe Biden, you wouldn’t be far off. At least that’s the guess of some Wall Street analysts who cover the Marlton, NJ-based company Hill International and think they’ve seen yet another sordid tale of crony capitalism. Hill has been around for decades; its main business is managing construction projects in the Middle East and here in America. It’s built a good reputation over the years, as has the father-son team who run it, Irv and David Richter. But the bursting of the real-estate bubble took its toll; Hill shares are down 80 percent since 2008. Since 2011, the company has reported losses. Its Middle East business has also been stymied by the Arab Spring uprisings; in Libya alone, Hill is out $60 million in payments that it’s still trying to recover. But it got some good news not long after its housing subsidiary hired James Biden as an executive vice president in late 2010. Just six months later, Hill won one of its biggest contracts ever, a $1.5 billion deal to build at least 100,000 affordable homes in Iraq. A good deal for Hill, a relative newcomer to building homes — and for James Biden, who as one partner will get a good share of that $1.5 billion. The deal is contingent on the Iraqi government providing financing, which it has yet to do, but Hill execs tell analysts the money could start flowing by the end of the year. That’s when everyone involved, James Biden included, will start collecting on tens of millions of dollars in profits. One friend of James Biden’s estimates his net worth at around $7 million, yet he seems to have a remarkable lack of concrete business experience. An attorney who’s done work for him called him a “serial entrepreneur,” but didn’t name the startups he was responsible for. Hill chief Irv Richter called Biden a “good salesman” and the firm’s Web site describes “40 years of experience dealing with principals in business, political, legal and financial circles across the nation and internationally.” (James Biden also had a relatively short and somewhat controversial run as a co-owner of a hedge-fund company with Joe’s son Hunter. The company, as it turns out, was marketed by companies controlled by now convicted Ponzi schemer Allen Stanford. Neither Biden was charged, but the fund company is now winding down its operations.) No, James Biden’s obvious value comes from his connection to the Obama administration. Richter assures me that James’ ties to Joe played no part in landing the plum assignment in Iraq or any of the other government-related jobs Hill has received recently. Really? Connect these dots: Both the Iraqi government and the Obama State Department played roles in helping Hill win the assignment, Richter concedes. And Joe Biden is President Obama’s point man on Iraq — a country where people expect politicians’ families to be “taken care of.” Also key is TRAC Development, a South Korean firm that won the master contract for the Iraq work. And — huh! — James Biden and his wife were guests of President Obama and Michelle for last October’s state dinner honoring the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak. All one big coincidence? Well, Richter insists that, while Biden’s name and connections might open doors when government business is on the line, that doesn’t guarantee success. “If he had the name Obama, he would get in the door easier,” Richter joked. Read More Here -
0
October 03, 2012
AmeriPAC National
Is there yet any room for hope, or are we utterly doomed? Well, there are still honest reporters in America, or else I never would have been able to find those disturbing facts.........
Did you know that one-third of children in Ohio are enrolled in Medicaid? Neither did I, until last week when I picked up a copy of the Bucyrus (Ohio) Telegraph-Forum and read down to the seventh paragraph of a story headlined, "Study says more children have health insurance."
The positive spin in the headline was undercut by the statistical facts of the story: "The increase in children on insurance comes as median incomes across the state were relatively flat, and the percentage of families in poverty -- especially those with children -- rose slightly." An increase in poverty, in other words, actually reduced the number of uninsured children by qualifying them for coverage under a government program for the poor. Such was the substance of the explanation by Angela Krile, spokeswoman for the Ohio Children's Hospital Association, who said: "Really, this just shows the importance of Medicaid in our state for children." Americans have become accustomed to this sort of "good news" in the Obama era, and there was more of it in that small-town Ohio paper. "Unemployment remains the same," declared the headline across the top of the front page. The story explained that, although the official unemployment rate in Crawford County, Ohio (population 43,389) declined from 9 percent in July to 8 percent in August, it wasn't because more people were working. "Since the number of employed stayed the same, 200 people went off of unemployment because their time limit is up and they have not found work yet," Dave Williamson, director of the Crawford County Economic Development Partnership, told the Bucyrus paper. "We have no more people working than we did last month." Extrapolate such statistical hocus-pocus at the local level across the entire state of Ohio, or nationwide, and you understand how some people might be deceived into believing that the Obama administration has actually produced an economic recovery. Yet it doesn't take much effort to discover how grim the situation really is. Right there on the same front page of the same newspaper was another headline that made this unfortunately clear. "Local children are going hungry," was the headline on the story about a local charitable effort to help feed the shockingly large number of poor children in Bucyrus. A spokeswoman for the project said "more than 70 percent of our students require assistance with food by receiving free or reduced lunches." That percentage has risen in recent years, and this evidence of increasing poverty in a small Ohio town (Bucyrus has a population of 12,253) may come as a shock to anyone who has bought into the Obama administration's claims that the president's policies have meaningfully improved the economy in Ohio or anywhere else. Convincing voters that President Obama's economic policies have been an abject failure -- and that another four years would only make this failure worse -- is the primary task Mitt Romney must accomplish in tonight's debate. Conservatives who have opposed the Obama agenda all along are understandably exasperated by recent polls indicating that most Americans either think the economy is improving or else don't blame the president for the continuing malaise. How could it be, for example, that Obama has led the 14 most recent polls included in the Real Clear Politics average? How could a Roanoke College poll show Obama ahead 47-39 -- eight points! -- in Virginia? How could a Columbus Dispatch poll show Obama leading 51-42 -- nine points! -- in Ohio? Skeptics who detect evidence of bias in these polls have been denounced by Jonathan Chait as "poll denialists," one of those accusations, like "homophobia," by which those who disagree with liberals are casually diagnosed as mentally ill. If the polls are not biased, however, conservatives must confront the question: Who's really crazy here? Us, or the surprisingly large percentage of people who think it's a good idea to re-elect this miserable failure of a president? One alternative to what might be called the Mass Insanity Theory of Obama's mysterious poll advantage is to fault Romney himself for having failed to attack the incumbent with sufficient stridency. The "Blame Mitt" school of thought is fairly sizeable among conservatives with less-than-fond memories of 2008 Republican nominee John McCain's kid-gloves approach to his Democratic opponent. However, having attended several rallies at which both Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan slammed the president pretty hard in their speeches, I am reluctant to believe that the GOP candidates are guilty of being too nice to Obama. As much as some of our friends may wish to hear the president excoriated as a lying Marxist who is deliberately trying to destroy the American constitutional republic, it's unrealistic to expect that kind of accusation to be made directly by his Republican challenger. If these theories -- biased polls, mass insanity, or a "too nice" GOP candidate -- are all inadequate to explain why Obama appears to be taking a substantial lead into tonight's debate, what's left? Ah, yes: The damned liberal media! This was the topic of a remarkable open letter last week from the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell III and other conservatives who charged that the media "are rigging this election and taking sides in order to pre-determine the outcome," and that, in doing so, biased journalists "have breached the public trust by willfully turning a blind eye to the government's public policy failures, both domestic and foreign." What could explain such a dereliction of professional duty except partisan loyalty? A number of studies have shown that Democrats in the press corps outnumber Republicans by margins of at least 4-to-1 and perhaps as much as 12-to-1. One of the best-known of these studies, based on a survey of Washington-based reporters after the 1992 election, found that 89 percent voted for Bill Clinton, more than twice the 43 percent vote Clinton got from the electorate at large. Citing particular proofs of this bias (we all have our favorite examples, including Nina Burleigh's infamously lascivious praise of Clinton) seems at this point redundant, and efforts to counteract this bias by exposing it seem futile. The reporters and editors whom former CBS newsman Bernard Goldberg accused of a "slobbering love affair" with Obama four years ago have no sense of shame about serving as stenographers for the Democrat's re-election campaign, and liberal journalists tend to reject all conservative criticism as "whining" from disgruntled wingnuts.Read More Here -
0
September 25, 2012
AmeriPAC National
The Obama campaign against America’s ability to defend herself – a campaign that will culminate in the Obama-created sequester in January 2013, which will slash the military budget dramatically – is reaping very real consequences. No wonder Iran is happy to fire off small missiles even as the President of the United States takes to the UN podium.
Breitbart
By Ben Shapiro September 25, 2012 Today, as President Barack Obama spoke at the United Nations, Iran test-fired a series of four missiles specifically created to hit warships in the Strait of Hormuz. According to the Iranian government, the missiles hit a target the size of a ship, sinking it within 50 seconds. Iranian media also reported that the military exercise was designed to occur coincident with US naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf. The Iranian military stated that their navy would be holding a “massive” maneuver shortly. Meanwhile, the only anti-missile system in development by the United States is under fire from the Obama Defense Department. The Defense Department has requested reallocation of funds from the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS), which the military has spent $2 billion developing since 2005. According to the Committee on Present Danger:JLENS is the latest and most advanced Army system to detect, identify, track and engage multiple and potentially hostile targets, including low-flying cruise missiles, large caliber battlefield missiles, air and land vehicles, ships and small boats. The Obama campaign against America’s ability to defend herself – a campaign that will culminate in the Obama-created sequester in January 2013, which will slash the military budget dramatically – is reaping very real consequences. No wonder Iran is happy to fire off small missiles even as the President of the United States takes to the UN podium. Read Article Here -
0
September 17, 2012
AmeriPAC National
The defense cuts include $21.5 billion from operations and maintenance for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and the reserves and National Guard, and nearly $1.4 billion from military aid to Afghanistan, with tens of billions of dollars coming from procurement and other Pentagon accounts. “The report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions,”
The Washington Times
By Stpehen Dinan September 17,2012 With excruciating detail, the White House’s budget office has laid out exactly where it will have to cut $109 billion from federal spending in January, including $11.1 billion from Medicare and $54.7 billion from defense spending. The defense cuts include $21.5 billion from operations and maintenance for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and the reserves and National Guard, and nearly $1.4 billion from military aid to Afghanistan, with tens of billions of dollars coming from procurement and other Pentagon accounts. “The report leaves no question that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments, and core government functions,” the White House budget office said in the report released Friday. Also on the chopping block are various items including fencing and technology along the U.S.-Mexico border, the government’s internal watchdogs and local environmental programs. The cuts fall particularly heavy on the federal civilian workforce, where staffing levels and salaries would be docked more than 8 percent almost across the board. The National Institutes of Health would face cuts of $2.5 billion, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would have to trim $464 million, according to the 394-page report, issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget. The cuts are set up by the terms of last year’s debt deal, which requires the automatic “sequesters” in exchange for granting the administration the borrowing authority to go deeper into debt. The bipartisan deficit supercommittee was supposed to come up with replacements for the sequesters, but left the automatic cuts in place. They are due to take effect Jan. 2. The White House budget office took pains to say that it didn’t have any discretion and didn’t support the cuts. “The percentage cuts in this report, and the identification of exempt and non-exempt accounts, reflect the requirements of the laws that the administration is applying,” the report said. “With the single exception of military personnel accounts, the administration cannot choose which programs to exempt, or what percentage cuts to apply.” Administration officials said the numbers are preliminary and will be updated based on 2013 spending levels that Congress is addressing this month. While military personnel were specifically exempted, other parts of the Pentagon will have to cut nearly 10 percent. The Army is slated to lose nearly $7 billion in operations and maintenance funding, and the Navy and Air Force will lose $4.3 billion each in operations money. Border fencing and technology would take a $33 million hit, and salaries and staffing for the U.S. Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also would be cut. At a time when embassy security is a concern in the aftermath of attacks, that account would be cut by $129 million. Read Original Article Here -
0
September 07, 2012
AmeriPAC National
Government is the only thing we all belong to -- but, don't worry, you won't have to pay for any of it. That about sums up the Democratic National Convention's case to America, a place where whatever isn't handed to you is actually just being taken away.
Real Clear Politics
By David Harsanyi September 7,2012 Government is the only thing we all belong to -- but, don't worry, you won't have to pay for any of it. That about sums up the Democratic National Convention's case to America, a place where whatever isn't handed to you is actually just being taken away. Democrats like to claim that Ronald Reagan and William Buckley would be simply horrified if they saw the modern-day GOP; but please take a moment to ponder the spectacular display of bonkers in Charlotte, N.C., this week. Here you're free to imply or even say that a Republican is unpatriotic (I'm old enough to remember when that sort of thing was frowned upon) for conducting business outside the country. Here politicians celebrate the president's courageous ability to use taxpayer funds to bail out a company that can only avoid another bankruptcy (barely) on the strength of foreign sales. This is called "economic patriotism" or, more familiarly, protectionism or, maybe, Hooverism -- the kind of ism Democrats once rejected. Forward! At the DNC, the head of NARAL argues that being allowed to have free abortions on demand is the high point of the American dream. And a woman whose only claim to fame is demanding free condoms is celebrated as a hero. Julian Castro, who I am assured is the charismatic mayor of San Antonio and a serious person, mocks the "magical" free markets that gave Bill Clinton the soaring economy he bragged about Wednesday night and America 25 years of unmatched prosperity. Fortunately, Barack Obama evolved on gay marriage a couple of weeks back, or a slew of enlightened speakers would have seemed less so. But we know that Democrats have a monopoly on caring and a solid grip on a larger moral truth. It frees them up to offer some, um, poetic truths. You know, like, Mitt Romney opposes poor people's owning homes or Paul Ryan wants seniors to be denied medical care and he's all for allowing pregnant women to die in the emergency room. In your hearts, you know it's true. Outright lies? There were many. For example, the claim that the auto bailout was paid back. Or the claim that Romney-Ryan's Medicare plan would cost seniors $6,400 per year and force them into voucher programs. There is no study -- not even one authored by an Obama aide -- that backs such an assertion. Ryan's plan allows seniors to stay on the traditional Medicare program if they choose -- but we all know that choice only works in tandem with government guidance. Read Original Article Here -
0
August 28, 2012
AmeriPAC National
No matter how hard some people try to spin the numbers, the U.S. economy just isn’t on the “right track” for many Americans. Consider, for example, the fact that U.S. household median annual incomes have dropped from $53,508 to $50,964 since June 2009, according to new report from Sentier Research.
The Blaze
By Becket Adams August 28., 2012 No matter how hard some people try to spin the numbers, the U.S. economy just isn’t on the “right track” for many Americans. Consider, for example, the fact that U.S. household median annual incomes have dropped from $53,508 to $50,964 since June 2009, according to new report from Sentier Research. That’s a decline of 4.8 percent over a three-year period. And that’s not all: As Business Insider’s Jill Krasny notes, “several types of households fared much worse than that.” “[A]lmost every group is worse off now than it was three years ago, with the exception of households with householders 65-years-old and over,” said Sentier Research’s Gordon Green. Well, at least we got that, right? Based on a closer inspection of the report, Business Insider put together the following list of who’s “falling behind”: Non-family households: This group saw its real median annual income decline by 7.5 percent, from $33,002 to $30,512. Family households declined a little less than that by 4.7 percent. Single households: Men living alone saw their real median income drop by 9.4 percent, while women’s dropped by 4.5 percent. Black households: Compared to white and Hispanic households, Black householders’ income declined the most by 11.1 percent, from $35,567 to $32,498. Householders without a college degree: People with some education but no degree saw their real median annual income slide by 9.3 percent, from $50,948 to $46,200. Associates degree holders saw theirs taper off by 8.6 percent, from $60,602 to $55,374. Self-employed households: This group’s annual income fell 9.4 percent, from $73,695 to $66,752. Private sector workers fared only a little bit better, with a decline of 4.5 percent. Households in the West: In contrast to households in the Midwest region which barely saw a decline, households in the West felt their yearly incomes decrease by 8.5 percent, from $59,065 to $54,071. Households with householders between 55 and 66: Compared to millennials who saw their real median household income drop 8.9 percent, boomers’ declined by 9.7 percent, from $61,716 to $55,748. Read Article Here -
0
|
|
||||||||||||||

Benghazi Ambassador Stevens Beaten and Killed 

.gif)
