MEDIA BIAS

July 31, 2014

Throwing American Foster Kids Under the Obama Bus

Immigrant Sign 2My article as originally published in American Thinker:    

Breitbart recently reported that the federal government is offering (through a Southern California charity) up to $6,000.00 per month (tax free) to house illegal immigrant children.  This should come as no surprise to those who recognize that the rainbow hovering over President Obama’s Utopia contains nothing but a full spectrum of stupidity and a pot of gold at the end in D.C.  Given this latest revelation in Obama’s growing immigration crisis, any adoption agencies currently struggling with the daunting task of placing American foster kids into good homes may wish to take heed of these developments.

Benswann.com offers some additional details:

Benswann.com called Crittenton FFA, which is located in Orange County and provides services for Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, and found that for those willing to a take in a child under the age of 16, you can receive up to $854.00 tax free per month. For those taking in a child over 16, the total is $1,008.00 per month in reimbursement. If you have a 5 bedroom house and can take in as many as 6 children, you can receive reimbursement of up to $6,054.00 per month tax free.

Perhaps not by tomorrow, but like everything else this administration touches, you can bet your bottom dollar that if expanded, this policy will eventually be met with undesirable consequences.  According to adoptuskids.org, there are currently 104,000 American kids waiting to be placed into homes.  So how will flooding the foster system with illegal immigrant children and offering a high monthly stipend to house them alter the chances of all these American children finding homes?

For the answer, just contrast the above advertised rates for illegal kids with the 2013/14 statewide foster rates for American children in California.  By housing a child 0-4, a household will be reimbursed $657.00 per month, and for children over fifteen, the rate jumps to $820.00 per month.  Those who house six older children would be reimbursed $4,920.00 per month.  So choosing to house American children instead of illegal immigrants would result in $1,134.00 of lost potential income – or, to put it another way, the monthly payments for two very nice automobiles. 

Just as misguided rent control laws result in housing shortages followed by higher rents and minimum wage laws cause surpluses of unskilled workers followed by higher unemployment rates, the laws of economics will find equilibrium here as well.  By doing this, the Obama administration is giving illegal “dreamers” the upper hand over deserving American children who are dreaming of being placed into loving homes. 

The Obama administration’s latest “solution” to an illegal immigrant crisis it created merely throws American foster kids under the Obama bus.  Unfortunately, it’s becoming crystal-clear that the underside of Obama’s bus still has room for millions more.

 

 

 


A Model Town for ‘Gun Safety’

Chicago photoMy article as originally published in American Thinker:   

Michael Bloomberg’s group “Everytown for Gun Safety” recently released a map claiming there have been 74 school shootings in the U.S. since the horrifying Sandy Hook shooting in 2012.  The map was widely (and without hesitation) displayed by newsrooms all across America.  The only problem is the map turns out to be a fraud and has been thoroughly debunked:

The saga of the fraudulent map of “school shootings” pumped out by Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” group is fascinating, especially given how quickly the fraud was exposed and destroyed.  This group was caught in a lie, pure and simple… and the lie went down so hard that CNN got in on the act.

Let’s forget about “Everytown” for a moment and instead focus on just one town – Chicago.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, yet in 2012 it had the distinct honor of being named the murder capital of the United States.  In Chicago, one needn’t ask, If a gun spontaneously goes off in a forest, is within five miles of a school and no one is around to get shot, can the data still be used in an Everytown map?  There’s just no need go back two years and torture data to make it look like there were 74 school shootings – that same number can be achieved by going back less than two months (April 19th through June 15th), where there were 74 actual homicides (not just manufactured school shootings) using a gun within the city, as chronicled by a Chicago Tribune-owned website that keeps track of such data.

I’ve taken the liberty of creating a similar map utilizing this appalling data from Chicago (do take the time to zoom-in and read the names of the victims): 

 

By blatantly fabricating data and making false promises of safety while attempting to restrict the rights of those who obey the law, all the while ignoring the root cause of violence from those who fail to obey any laws, Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” does a tremendous disservice to the families of the 74 names highlighted on the above map, as well as to all freedom-loving Americans. 

Chicago’s gun woes are no surprise to anyone who has taken the time to read the work of John Lott, including his excellent book More Guns, Less Crime.  And speaking of less crime, as bad as things still are, after recently being forced to issue concealed carry permits, Chicago saw its murder rate drop significantly, according to first-quarter statistics.

Like Detroit, Chicago has lived under Democrat rule for many decades and as such is a wonderful Petri dish for all things progressive.  Detroit is the end-stage result of such progressive policy, and Chicago is clearly on a similar path.  This highly toxic mix of strict gun control laws combined with long-term Democrat control of the city has turned out to be a very deadly combination.

Bloomberg naming his group “Everytown” may be truly fitting, because if the group does reach its goals, every town may eventually look strikingly similar to Chicago and Detroit.


When will daily ObamaCare body count reporting begin?

My article as originally published in American Thinker:   

Even before the last tidbits of silver and gold confetti could be swept away following New Year’s Eve celebrations, Americans were already starting off the year with fresh ObamaCare surprises.  Some of the new “enrollees” in President Obama’s signature law are showing up at hospitals in parts of the U.S. and are being met with confusion as to whether or not they’re actually insured.  Because of this, some are just leaving without needed treatment to avoid the enormous out-of-pocket expenses that would be incurred (which they would most likely pay anyway due to ObamaCare’s high deductibles), as Rick Moran discussed in this AT piece highlighting a Northern Virginia hospital.

And in Chicago, a doctor decided to move forward with a patient’s scheduled surgery not knowing if the costs would be covered by insurance:

Paperwork problems almost delayed suburban Chicago resident Sheri Zajcew’s scheduled surgery Thursday, but Dr. John Venetos decided to operate without a routine go-ahead from the insurance company. That was after Venetos’ office manager spent two hours on hold with the insurer Thursday, trying to get an answer about whether the patient needed prior authorization for the surgery. The office manager finally gave up.

[snip]

Venetos, a Chicago digestive system specialist, described “tremendous uncertainty and anxiety” among patients calling his office recently. Some thought they’d signed up for coverage but hadn’t received insurance cards yet. Others had insurance policies that were canceled and weren’t sure if their coverage had been reinstated after Gov. Pat Quinn decided to allow one-year extensions of canceled plans.

Venetos said he has decided to take a risk and provide care for these patients, at least until there’s less confusion about coverage.

So what exactly will happen once tens of millions of Americans start losing their employer-sponsored health plans due to ObamaCare, thus adding even more confusion to a once-working system?  This is serious stuff, and if it continues, people will start dying in sizable numbers.

Just imagine if this disaster known as ObamaCare were instead BushCare under the previous administration.  Rest assured, if people were to begin dying due to these same disastrous policies under George W. Bush, Americans would be reminded daily of the body count, just as they were during the Iraq War when he was commander and chief.  Of course, not only would we be hearing about the daily BushCare body counts (along with his dwindling poll numbers); we would also be glued to the TV watching simultaneous impeachment hearings.

Don’t hold your breath while waiting for the mainstream media to provide any real tally of future ObamaCare-caused carnage.

By the end of 2014, perhaps Americans will be singing “Auld Lang Syne” while reminiscing about what once was the greatest health care system in the world

 


A Few ObamaCare Questions for the President

Obama3My article as originally published in American Thinker:           

Hey  Mr. President — if ObamaCare (ironically named the “Affordable” Care Act) is  such a wonderful thing for the American people, why aren’t they treating it like  the perquisite you claim it to be?

I  ask this because you’ve been out there claiming that Republicans are willing to “harm” the American  people by defunding ObamaCare and are trying to do so only to “stick it” to you.  (Why do you always think everything is about you?) Also, your ally, Debbie  Wasserman Schultz, is saying that once Americans really start experiencing it  (the “Affordable” Care Act), they just won’t want to let it  go.

But  the American people are starting to experience ObamaCare and they surely just  want to regain the freedom to “let it go.” Due to this law’s costly  burdens, thousands are being laid off, having their work weeks  reduced to less than 30 hours or are being thrown out of their current health plans. And for the privilege  of all of this, Americans will be stuck paying much more than before this monstrosity was  enacted.

And  how do the politically-connected Americans you surround yourself with feel about  ObamaCare? Surely if your health care law  is so beneficial, those with the most political capital must be running to the front of the line to cut in front of everyone  else and climb on  board?

To  the contrary, your friends in high places are asking for (more like demanding)  protection from ObamaCare. You’ve exempted Congress and most of its staff from this law. You’ve given  thousands of waivers to a select few. Even some of your biggest  supporters, the labor unions, now realize how harmful this law is to its members  and are demanding special treatment — I’m sure they’ll get it even though they  haven’t as of yet.

So  let me see if I’ve got all this straight: you say that the Republicans in  Congress are trying to “harm” the American people by attempting to legally  exempt everyone from this law that they didn’t want in the first place. So does  this mean that you are intentionally “harming” or attempting to “harm” Congress,  unions and all of your favorite crony donors by illegally giving them exemptions  from ObamaCare? I didn’t think so.

So,  Mr. President, If ObamaCare is the panacea that you and your administration  claim it to be, I have one more question. If you had a son, would his health  plan look like ObamaCare?

 


Some Clown

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

Some  clown heads an administration plagued by numerous scandals including: IRSgate, Benghazigate, Fast and  Furiousgate, Pressgate and Pigfordgate to name just a few.

Some  clown claims the above mentioned are nothing but “phony  scandals.”

Some  clown fails to comprehend that raising the minimum wage would be a disaster.

Some clown claims the United States needs to be “fundamentally  transformed.”

Some  clown continues to do an end run around the Constitution in order to protect a chosen few from the  harmful effects of ObamaCare.

Some  clown’s economic policy is (predictably) failing.

Some  clown has overseen the lowest labor participation rate since  1979.

Some  clown has been charge while food stamp usage has reached an all time high, all  while the USDA attempts to recruit even more users into the system.

Some  clown continues to get a free pass from the mainstream media.

I  could go on and on because this clown’s resume contains even more  highlights.
Unfortunately, this happens to be this particular clown’s  first non-theoretical rodeo.

So does anyone  really give a rat’s behind what the skin color of the above mentioned clown is?

Meanwhile,  a rodeo clown has been banned for life for carrying on the comedic tradition of having a little bit of fun (even if in bad taste)  at the expense of a certain president.

 


Trayvon Could Have Been Me Too, Mr. President

My article as originally published in American Thinker:

In  what appears to me as an attempt to keep the IRS and other Administration scandals out of the  headlines, President Obama once again commented on the Zimmerman case and went a step further this  time by saying: “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.” In one sense  the President is correct and I suppose Trayvon could have been me as well — 27  years ago. No, I’m not a black American, but since there’s no evidence that the Trayvon case had anything to do with race,  why is it that President Obama and the usual suspects continue to bring it up as  if it did? The reason I say Trayvon could have been me is because I was  seventeen once and truth be told, sometimes seventeen-year-olds make really,  really stupid decisions. And sometimes those decisions are met with dire  consequences.

Last  week was the 27th anniversary of my 17th birthday. Back then a few close friends  and I had decided to celebrate my 17th by going cruising in the  urban-assault-vehicle (Mom’s tan station wagon) for the evening. That act alone  had the propensity for trouble but to make matters worse, we made the foolish  decision to bring along some water balloons for the ride.

After  a few laughs, the fun came to a grinding halt when one of my friends tossed a  water balloon at the town’s well known Pizza Peddler truck. Unfortunately, the  driver had the window down and found no humor in the event. A long high-speed  chase ensued across town, through a forty-acre field and ultimately ended with us backed into the end of a  residential cul-de-sac. After a few moments of headlights facing one another it  was clear the other driver wasn’t going to get out and face a car load of young  men so I decided to slowly drive around the truck. A quick notation of our  license plate number could have ended the event right there for the pizza truck  driver, but his ego wouldn’t allow that and he instead chose to deliberately ram  his truck into our car. Frightened, I stepped on the gas to get away and when  bumpers locked, his truck spun around and flipped over.

A  series of bad decisions on the part of all involved ended in disaster, yet  remarkably no one was hurt or killed in this event. The police decided that all  shared some blame and no charges were filed. These kinds of events unfold every  day in America and sadly, sometimes the end result is serious injury or  death.

The  encounter between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman is one such story that  sadly ended in tragedy. A neighborhood watchman, doing his job, saw someone he  thought looked suspicious, reported it, followed the individual, was ultimately  attacked and then defended his life. Was getting out of the  car the best decision Zimmerman could have made? Perhaps not, but he  broke no laws in doing so. Attacking Zimmerman was a terrible (and illegal)  decision and evidence that Trayvon wasn’t the innocent boy portrayed by the  media.

Obama  also said: “If Trayvon Martin was of his age and armed, could he have stood his  ground on that sidewalk?” But this was not a stand-your-ground case. This was  instead a pound-his-head-into-the-ground case and if Trayvon were being attacked  in the same manner as Zimmerman was, Trayvon would have every right to defend his life  in the same way Zimmerman did. After all, doesn’t concrete being used in this way qualify as a deadly weapon?

Attorney  General Eric Holder said the Martin case forced him to have “the talk” with his 15-year-old son, again fanning racial  flames by implying that Trayvon’s death was somehow about race. It would have  been just as logical for Holder to talk with his son about child molesters in  this case but doing so clearly wouldn’t serve his political objectives. One  would hope that an Attorney General of the United States would use the  opportunity of an event such as this to talk with his son about the consequences  of one’s actions and emphasize that if you try to inflict a “whoop ass” on someone, they not only have the legal right to  defend themselves but you just might get your “ass” killed during the  process.

The  mainstream media and a host of politicians have tried to exploit the Trayvon  Martin tragedy as being about racism and guns, but in the end it’s just another  story about youthful bad decisions gone awry. Trayvon Martin was a troubled  young man who certainly didn’t deserve to die but as young men often do, he  ended up making a terrible decision that cost him his life. America can do  without the postscript of political opportunism.

 


World’s First Nanoassault Rifle (Updated)

ar15My article as originally published in American Thinker:

The crafting of imaginary weaponry by children out of various objects is a phenomenon that has been occurring worldwide for many centuries. The traditional stick or finger has always been one of the more popular “weapons” of choice, but today’s high-tech child is much more imaginative, bringing about such dangerous treats as the Pop-Tart assault weapon. Unfortunately though, in today’s PC world, it appears to no longer be acceptable for kids to have a little fun and act like — you know — kids.

I’ve always had a love for science and an extreme dislike (to be politically correct) for political correctness, so my son’s latest science project presented an opportunity to have a little bit of fun tinkering within both arenas.

I still remember back more than twenty years ago when IBM scientist Don Eigler became the first person to manipulate individual atoms and create Big Blue’s logo, using thirty-five Xenon atoms. His work was the inspiration for my son’s latest school science project — the nanoassault rifle.

Due to the sensitive nature of the inanimate object we chose to replicate, the AR-15, I thought it safest to construct it out of a recently discovered, highly toxic and difficult to contain element known as Obamium (doing so only partially caves to political correctness). Thus far, nothing seems to stick to Obamium and no matter what form it takes, it has the miraculous ability to remain stable within the press.

Our AR-15 replica (as highlighted below) was meticulously constructed from 56 individual Obamium atoms and the addition of a spare thirty-round magazine took a total of 18 Obamium atoms to complete. In support of a close friend of my son’s who recently found himself in a little hot water after using the phrase “pocket knife” at school (you would be wise believe this portion of the story), we also decided to construct an open pocket knife, which only set us back an additional 13 Obamium atoms.

Unfortunately we don’t possess the technology to provide a magnified image of the actual final products, so it’s difficult to prove the “deadly” nature of what we actually constructed. But if my son does end up getting in trouble over this, his punishment will hopefully adhere to the proper scale of the project. If so, he should only be looking at a suspension of no more than two or three nanoseconds for his “crimes.”

Update: 

For those who noticed a lack of bullets in this project, the original plan was to use a rapidly decaying element, Bidenium, for the ammunition but it proved to be much too dense and unstable.  The velocity and direction at which it would just start poppin’ off wasn’t predictable enough for use in this project. 


Republicans Should ‘Raise’ Tax Rates Now

2+2=5My article as originally published in American Thinker:         

It turns out that the Obama Administration is deliberately making these sequestration “cuts” as painful as possible for the American people. And no matter what Bob Woodward says, Obama and the rest of the MSM will continue to blame the sequestration and any subsequent unrelated negative economic news on Republicans. So perhaps Republicans should just throw in the towel and hold a press conference to announce that they are now all in favor of Obama’s “balanced” approach which includes more tax revenue. Please hear me out before throwing the nearest heavy object at your computer screen.

Those who get their “news” from NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR and the rest of the administration’s propaganda wing may think (“feel” would be a better word) that sequestration has brought about actual cuts in government spending. But these so-called “cuts” are nothing more than reductions in the rate of spending growth. If some department was going to receive a 10% increase in spending but will now only get a 3% increase, this is called a 7% “cut” (by axe no less) in Washington-speak. In other words, all this “misery” is being manufactured over the government spending more money than was spent in the previous year but just not quite as much more as was originally anticipated.

By that same token, Republicans should first propose a plan amongst themselves for an across-the-board tax rate cut of 30% but then ultimately settle for just a 15% rate cut. This is where Republicans would need to grow a pair and use the Left’s own tactics against them. Using the very same logic as the Democrats, this plan would then be presented to the American people as a 15% tax rate increase and not a cut at all. If Republicans announced that they would be proposing a tax rate “increase,” with details to follow, they would surely have the full attention of an elated news media.

So how could anyone possibly present this kind of plan with a straight face as it would clearly constitute an actual tax rate cut? The truth is, thanks to the Democrat/media spin machine, much of America already believes the exact equivalent when it comes to these so-called budget “cuts,” so we already know it can be done. The very same people who believe what the Democrats and MSM are telling them about budget “cuts” would also believe the exact same thing about so-called tax “increases” if the Democrat Party and MSM were to suddenly change its tune on taxes. Of course I don’t really expect the Democrats or the MSM to do this.

The whole point of this exercise would be to place fictional budget “cuts” side by side with fictional tax rate “increases” in order to bring attention to the Left’s own demagoguery. If Republicans were really feeling brave they could even point out the enormous spending increases under Obama and the fact that 2013 is projected to yield a record bumper crop of tax revenue for the Treasury, proving that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem.

And if the Republicans were really, really feeling brave, while they have the media’s attention, they could attempt to articulate the historical fact that real tax rate cuts coupled with real spending restraint (cuts) would create real prosperity for the American people. After all, Democrats do claim that they want more revenue.


Obama Works For Us

Kurt Schlichter explains over at Townhall:

The grotesque spectacle of the State of the Union address, with its lengthy receiving line of adoring sycophants, demonstrates why the President is operating under the delusion that he is more than just our President. Like him, many people seem to fundamentally misunderstand his role. He’s not our “leader,” or our “ruler,” or our national “daddy,” no matter what his adoring fan, comic Chris Rock, thinks.

Let’s clarify things for those folks with the unseemly desire to offer up their personal sovereignty to some government hack. Unlike Hollywood geniuses better known for exposing their breasts than exposing their brains, I’ll never pledge to be a servant of any politician.

Read the rest at Townhall:            

Back to our Homepage


Feds Finally Make Profitable Investment

hollow-pointMy article as originally published in American Thinker:       

Many people are concerned about the two-billion plus rounds of ammo purchased by non-military Federal agencies as of late. Considering some of the radical people Obama has surrounded himself with, and his goal of “fundamentally transforming” the United States, is it any wonder conspiracy theories abound?

But what if the Obama administration isn’t quite as economically illiterate as it appears to be on the surface? What if these purchases are really just about getting a great return on investment for the taxpayer?

By hoarding billions of rounds of ammo and bashing the Second Amendment at the same time, the Administration is both reducing supply and increasing demand. This perfect storm has ammunition prices skyrocketing.

If the Obama Administration keeps up this gun-bashing-bullet-buying spree, within a few years, the profits from selling off all these ammo stockpiles may be enough to pay off a significant portion of our national debt.

Actually, I’m sure this Administration would still find a way to turn this ‘easy money’ into a loss for the taxpayer.