Watch As Hillary Clinton Unbelievably Compare Republican Americans To “Terrorist Groups”

imageedit_2_4679910797August 27, 2015

By Lorra B.

At a campaign event on Thursday Hillary Clinton took the opportunity to bash Republicans by comparing them to “some terrorist groups” with “extreme views about women.” Her strong words were in response to the Republican Party searching for different avenues to discontinue federal funding of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics.

Clinton Stated, “I would like these Republican candidates to look the mom in the eye who caught her breast cancer early because she was able to get a screening for cancer, or the teenager who didn’t get pregnant because she had access to contraception, or anyone who’s ever been protected by an HIV test. Now, extreme views about women? We expect that from some of the terrorist groups. We expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world, but it’s a little hard to take coming from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States, yet they espouse out-of-date and out-of-touch policies. They are dead wrong for 21st-century America. We’re going forward. We’re not going back.”

As of yet, I have found no evidence to support her absurd accusation. I have not heard or read about any Republican using terrorism in the pursuit of political aims. Not once have I heard or read that any candidate has used violence or threats to intimidate or coerce women nor selling women as sex slaves or asking them to be accompanied by a male chaperon at all times. These, of course, are just a couple examples of a terrorist.

But Hillary, if I do hear one of your opponents using terrorist methods against women I’ll be the first to apologize to you for doubting your judgment.

By Lorra B.


dApril 22, 2015

Desert Musings:

What has been the Republicans number one nemesis since 2009? It’s been Obamacare, without a doubt. It’s what gave them the House of Representatives in 2010…and it’s been partly to blame for giving them the Senate in 2014. So, here we are, less than 10 weeks away from the United States Supreme Court ready to rule on whether or not states that use the website can actually give out subsidies. And the wise money says that the court will vote 5-4 that they can’t.

That is going to throw Obamacare into a tizzy. The White House has not made any contingency plans in the even that happens. Of course, if they did, they’d be saying to the world that they felt all along they’d get their hands slapped again. They don’t want that public perception to take place. But in the real world scenario of what’s going to be happening, millions of people who got healthcare thru the website could end up losing it because they can’t pay for it.

To make matters worse, they could have to pay back to the government all of the subsidies that they have already received!

dBut wait…here comes the GOP ready to claim defeat from the jaws of victory. The party that has sworn that Obamacare is the worst thing in the world…worse than being attacked by ISIS…is putting together a plan that would actually SAVE Obamacare. You heard right. It’s going on right now. Quietly. On the hill, there is a move a foot to save Obamacare by giving tax credits to the people who lose their subsidies should the Supreme Court decide to go against Obamacare.

I’m sorry folks. I just don’t get it. You’ve fought for 6 years to get rid of this turkey, and now you want to try to save it? That makes no sense. Oh, they’ll spin it to be something like, you’re going to get tax credits that allow you to buy insurance in the open market, so it’s not the same thing. Let me ask you this. If Obama will sign it…do you think it’s going to be a good deal for we the people? Not a snowball’s chance in my back yard!

If the GOP were deadly serious, they’d come up with their own insurance overhaul plan. One that allowed you to shop across state lines. One where you could sue your insurance company if you were denied coverage. One that still allowed the couple of good things Obamacare did (like doing away with pre-existing conditions, and keeping kids on your policy until age 26). But to keep stuff like an individual mandate? A corporate mandate? To keep all of the arcane and idiotic rules that HHS put in there? Like making me be insured so my mammograms and pap smears are covered? Sorry. I don’t need either. And I don’t need pregnancy coverage. Come to think of it, neither does my wife. But in order to make it cost-effective for People who DO need it, we also have to pay for it.

Time to get serious GOP! If the Supreme Court cans Obamacare’s subsidies, you and I are going to have to bombard our congressmen and senators and flood them with protest letters. It’s the only way to make sure they stand up to this lunacy!

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

More at Desert Musings

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.


dApril 11, 2015

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper, Patriot and Infidel

You will notice that no one in our government is very interested in opposing them, even though the UN keeps condemning their violence, torture and murder of innocents: a complete and unadulterated joke.

Of course “The boy who would be king has vowed to put U.S. troops on the ground in Pakistan if terrorists go after Pakistani nukes.  I’m sure he must have used the words “Enemy combatants, as Islam and Islamic terrorist are still not recognized by him and the laughable goons in his administration.

Obama has spent his entire career “Leading” from behind and would have a clue about the nature of the conflicts if he were carpet bombed with them.

ISIS is expanding into Pakistan. It now has its marauding throat slashing troops in Africa, Syria, Iraq and God knows where else.

You will also notice that the Republicans are snorting and pawing the ground over Iran, with its Shia sect, which does not call for murdering Christians.

On the other hand, we are bosom pals with Saudi Arabia, which aids and abets ISIS and the Taliban, as you can read in reputable news outlets, like here,  and here

So why is the US so lenient with the Saudis, who adhere to the Sunni Wahhabist sect, the most violent sect by far in the ME, while baring its fangs against Iran, who are Shia, a sect that does not call for death to Christians (Iran has 600 Christian churches and allows Bibles in its territory, while the Saudis have zero churches or Bibles)?

That question has a disarmingly easy answer, and you can read about it here.

Read the story of ISIS in Pakistan is at the next link, which shows that, while everyone is in hysterics over the possibility of the less violent Iran possibly getting nukes, the Pakistanis, which already HAVE nukes, may eventually fall to ISIS, which is crazy enough to blow up the world. Have you noticed that US foreign policy is insane and possibly suicidal?

Other reports indicating the Saudis aid ISIS: The Saudis are creating a monster within the Islamic State.

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

TERRIFYING Statement Obama Made About His Agenda Means Trouble For U.S.

dMarch 23, 2015

Mad World News:

In a recent interview, Barack Obama made several concerning statements about his agenda that let us know exactly where he stands in relation to the views of the American people, and they likely mean trouble for the country.

While Obama has consistently governed out of line with American values, undermining the Constitution at nearly every pass, now he’s going to push his limits as president as far as he can for the remainder of his term to continue his massive expansion of government, according to TheBlaze. During an interview with the Huffington Post, a liberal media outlet that’s considered “friendly” grounds for Democrats, he said that even in the face of Republican opposition, he’ll advance his agenda “by hook or by crook,” which means we’re in for a rough ride.

“Where [elected Republicans in Congress] are not willing to work with us, we will do it administratively or we will convene the private sector,” he said during the softball interview.

“By hook or by crook,” Obama added. “We’re going to make sure that when I leave this office, that the country is more prosperous, more people have opportunity, kids have a better education, we’re more competitive, climate change is being taken more seriously than it was, and we are actually trying to do something about it.”

As we’re all aware, Obama’s agenda is nothing more than a massive expansion of government into the lives of the people, despite the fact we don’t want it. In fact, democracy seems to be nothing more than a speedbump in the road for the advancement of his progresso-socialist agenda. In November we delivered a powerful message to him and the rest of his party by giving conservatives sweeping victories across Congress, yet he seems to have dug his heels in deeper and refuses to budge on any of his so-called “signature issues.”

Unfortunately, Obama’s stubbornness has been met with little resistance from the GOP, who has done next to nothing to stop his power grabs in the health, energy, and education sectors. They’ve also done little to stop Obama’s executive amnesty and barely made a peep when he had his FCC take over the Internet, but none of this should surprise anybody.

The GOP seems to be split down the middle with half of them wanting the small government we once had, which stays out of our private affairs and allows us to live as the free people our founders intended, while the other half is made up of the establishment, who holds the passwords to the GOP bank accounts and seemingly has the same big government goals as the progressive left, but uses social issues to reel in support.

As the Daily Caller perfectly explained:

“…the GOP leadership, plus a large chunk of legislators, most lobbyists and campaign donors, are reluctant to rally voters against Obama’s big-government agenda. Instead, they prefer to make deals that provide short-term economic benefits to business groups and to wealthy donors.”

With all of this in mind, it’s unlikely we’ll be able to look to the GOP to stop Obama’s ever-expanding power grabs from the private sector, since many of them appear to support government meddling in private affairs. After all, it’s far more profitable to pander to mega-corporations and lobbyists than it is to give the taxpayers what we want – small government and a return to our constitutional principles.

Hold onto your seats, folks, it looks like it’s going to be a long two years until we get the next president in office. Although, I will give Obama credit for one thing – he finally told the truth for once.

More at Mad World News

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Congress Is Downsizing The IRS, So It Must Downsize The Tax Code

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

March 19, 2015

Merill Matthews , Rare Contributor

Remember when IRS commissioners, both former and current, smirked when House Republicans tried to get to the bottom of Lois Lerner’s efforts to harass conservative groups applying for nonprofit status? Here’s a little free advice for them: Don’t deceive and diss the people who decide your budget.

Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen complained to Congress Wednesday that cuts to the IRS budget explain the agency’s poor customer service. The Washington Times reports the comish said that just 43 percent of taxpayer phone calls are being answered.

So how does he explain the previous 150 years of bad IRS customer service?

Koskinen said he’s had to cut 3,000 positions, leaving him with only … wait for it … 87,000 employees.

Oh, and he says Congress hasn’t provided him with any funding to implement his Obamacare duties—thank you, Republicans—and so he has had to yank at least $100 million from user-fee funding so the IRS can slap penalties on Americans who can’t afford to buy Obama’s overly expensive health insurance, or who just decide they won’t be cowed into obeying the government mandate to have coverage.

And yet Koskinen has the nerve to tell Politico the IRS will go forward with its efforts to harass nonprofit “social welfare” organizations—known as 501(c)(4) organizations—engaged in education and raising political awareness. The only concession he now makes is that the IRS will be “fair” about that harassment instead of almost exclusively targeting conservative groups. “If it’s going to be a fair system, it needs to apply across the board,” Koskinen told Politico.

But if he puts political partisans like Lois Lerner in charge, yet again, it won’t be fair.

Republican downsizing of the IRS budget is the right thing to do, but Koskinen has a point about the public’s need for guidance. However, that need is a result of the ridiculously complicated U.S. tax code.

Koskinen wants more money so he can hire more people to answer taxpayers’ questions. The better solution is to radically simplify the tax code so taxpayers have fewer questions. Reduce the number of tax brackets to two or three, dramatically lower the rates and eliminate most if not all tax deductions and credits. Ronald Reagan did it, and he had bipartisan support.

Koskinen also says that without more IRS employees more taxpayers will cheat on their taxes, costing the government money. But a simplified, streamlined income tax would make it harder to cheat and easier to catch those who do—requiring fewer IRS employees.

Both parties recognize the need for fundamental tax reform. President Obama wants to reform the tax code so he can take more money; Republicans want to simplify the system because that spurs economic growth.

Republicans are on the right path. Tax reform and simplification needs to be one of their top priorities. In the meantime, they should continue cutting the IRS budget until it hits … well, zero may not be realistic, but it would be a nice goal.
Read more Rare

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Capitol Hill Buzz: Who Has Time To Read These Bills We Pass?

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

March 14, 2015

Associated Press: H/T Rare:

WASHINGTON — Congress can get so busy that senators and their staffs don’t always have time to scrutinize bills they pass and letters they sign — or so it seemed this week, anyway.

Two episodes left Democrats blushing, some Republicans muttering under their breath, and taxpayers perhaps wondering what those well-educated people do on Capitol Hill.

First, Republicans ridiculed Democrats for claiming they somehow missed a key provision in a bill filed two months ago. The bill, unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would combat human sex trafficking.

Democrats suddenly blocked it this week because it would bar the use of fines, paid by convicted traffickers, to pay for abortions in most cases.

Congress has attached similar language to spending bills for years. But Senate Democrats say this provision goes further, and they didn’t realize it was in the trafficking bill.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said some think it got there by “sleight of hand.” He blamed Republicans for not flagging it.

“Democratic senators who had been working in good faith on this critical legislation for years assumed that their Republican partners were being forthright when they provided a list of changes” that didn’t include the abortion language, Reid said. “Republicans are now saying that trusting them was a mistake.”

Republicans could hardly suppress their laughter.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it was astonishing to see Democrats balk at a provision “they claim somehow they missed, after it being in there for two months.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas suggested Democrats knew about the abortion language long ago, but decided only this week to oppose it.

To buy the Democrats’ argument, Cornyn said, “you’d have to suppose that all of the professional staff for all the Senate Judiciary Committee didn’t read the bill” and “didn’t advise their senators” of its contents.

“I don’t believe that Senate Democrats didn’t read the legislation,” Cornyn said. The abortion provision, he said, “was as plain as the nose on your face.”

Democrats preferred to change the subject Thursday. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota discussed the trafficking bill with reporters, but when asked if she knew about the abortion language, she said, “I’ve got to get going.”

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said top Democratic staffers read the bill, but the abortion language was “obscure,” and “we missed it.”

“I asked my staff, the ones I was about to fire, and they said, ‘No, it didn’t say that explicitly,’” Durbin said.

While Republicans snickered at the Democrats’ trafficking jam, Democrats howled at the 47 GOP senators who warned Iran’s leaders in a letter that any nuclear agreement made with President Barack Obama might be short-lived.

Editorial writers, think tanks and some conservative pundits have denounced the letter, calling it a dangerous undermining of any president’s ability to set foreign policy.

Prominent GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona initially laughed off the criticism, calling it “a tempest in a teapot.” But he and others were more somber Thursday, suggesting they may have acted a tad hastily.

McCain, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, said many of the 47 senators signed the letter in a hurried gathering this month, as a major snowstorm approached Washington.

“They were in a hurry to get out,” McCain told reporters. But Obama “said that he would veto any legislation that went through Congress that required ratification, and that’s what triggered the letter, and I totally agree with it,” he said.

Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who faces re-election next year, said Friday: “If there was any regret, tactically, it probably would have been better just to have it be an open letter addressed to no one.”

Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas defended the letter, but said he also might do things a little differently if given the chance.

“It could have been addressed to other folks and gotten the message out,” Roberts said. “But I think the message is more important than who we send it to.”

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky introduced a bill to allow more time to scrutinize amendments and bills. “It is imperative we pay close attention to the legislation we pass,” he said.

Now that’s a goal the 114th Congress can aspire to.


Associated Press writers Alan Fram, Erica Werner and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Copyright The Associated Press

Disclaimer: Not written by Lorra B.

Iran deal: A treaty Or Not A Treaty, That Is The Question

dMarch 12, 2015

CNN: by, Stephen Collinson

Should Republicans have sent a letter to Iran?

Washington (CNN)If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?

According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.

That’s infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.

“This is clearly a treaty,” Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. “They can call it a banana, but it’s a treaty.”

Kerry denounces GOP letter to Iran leaders

The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party’s newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.

It’s that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a “nonbinding agreement” rather than a “treaty,” which the Constitution requires Senate “advice and consent” on.

Can the White House avoid Congress?

The distinction — and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress — turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.

Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.

“We’ve been clear from the beginning. We’re not negotiating a ‘legally binding plan.’ We’re negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement,” he said at a Senate hearing.

That doesn’t sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate’s constitutional role is being bypassed.

Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration’s argument: “Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It’s a treaty and should be treated as such.”

Did 47 Republican senators break the law in plain sight?

Republicans see criticism of the administration’s maneuver as a way to gum up the works on the current deal, and to push their larger assault on the White House’s exercise of power.

At the Senate hearing Wednesday, Kentucky Republican Rand Paul explicitly tied the administration’s bid to keep the deal away from Congress to other accusations of White House overreach.

“This is an administration that seeks to legislate when that is not in their purview, whether it be immigration, whether it be health care,” he charged, noting that he had joined 46 other GOP senators in signing a letter to the Islamic Republic informing them of Congress’s role in approving binding agreements.

“I signed the letter to Iran. But you know what? The message I was sending was to you,” he told Kerry. “I signed it to an administration that doesn’t listen, to an administration that, every turn, tries to go around Congress because you think you can’t get your way.”

But legal experts say that though a court challenge along the lines of pending GOP cases on immigration and health care is possible in theory, it would be a long shot.

Legal challenges

There is no currently no suit on the issue being discussed on Capitol Hill, and it’s far from clear that Republicans would be standing on firm legal ground with such a challenge. The debate, rumbling for decades, has yet to be definitively resolved in case law.

“It is a very interesting question,” said Nicholas Burns, a former senior U.S. diplomat, arguing that it is essentially up to the administration to decide whether it is negotiating an agreement that formally binds the United States to commitments under international law; i.e., a treaty, or a less stringent arrangement.

More at CNN:

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

THANK YOU SPEAKER BOEHNER AND THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS. Daily News Briefing: Congratulations, taxpayers. You’re about to give $1.7 Billion to illegal immigrants!


March 7, 2015

tomfernandez28’s Blog: By 

– President Obama’s November amnesty will give $1.7 billion in taxpayers’ cash to illegal immigrants, according to a congressional study.

  • The news emerged two days after top Republican leaders overcame GOP opposition to a 2015 budget bill that allows Obama to fund his unpopular amnesty for roughly 5 million illegals.
  • “The program could cost taxpayers $1.7 billion over 10 years, almost all of it in the first five years,” according to a report by the McClatchy Washington Bureau. The rebates are allowed by the IRS’ interpretation of existing laws governing the Earned Income Tax Credit program, which was designed to subsidize low-wage employment in the United States.
  • Meanwhile, on Tuesday, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials revealed that the agency processed nearly seven million immigration-related applications in just one year alone (fiscal year 2014).
  • Because the agency does not have the resources to conduct in-person interviews with every applicant, officials noted that applicants for President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood (DACA) program did not have to go through face-to-face interviews before being granted temporary amnesty.
  • Potential applicants for President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty program for the illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens will also not be given in-person interviews if the federal government is allowed to proceed with its implementation after the court case against it is resolved.

More at tomfernandez28’s Blog:

Disclosure: This was not written by Lorra B.


(Screenshot Credit, Tomfernandez28's Blog)

(Screenshot Credit, Tomfernandez28’s Blog)

March 7, 2015

By Dan Lamothe / Washington Post

H/T tomfernandez28’s Blog

Capt. Mathew L. Golsteyn is congratulated by fellow soldiers after receiving the Silver Star for heroism in Afghanistan on Jan. 4, 2011. (The Fayetteville Observer/James Robinson)

By Dan Lamothe / Washington Post

The secretary of the Army is defending his decision to strip awards for heroism from a former Green Beret officer, saying the soldier demonstrated a “lack of honorable conduct” after he earned the medals.

Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn received the Silver Star in 2011 for valor in Afghanistan on Feb. 20, 2010, and was later approved for an upgrade to the even more prestigious Distinguished Service Cross. That award is considered second only to the Medal of Honor in recognizing heroism in combat.

Golsteyn was later investigated for an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat — a violation related to the killing of a known enemy bombmaker, according to officials familiar with the case. The investigation closed in 2014 without Golsteyn’s being charged with a crime, but Army Secretary John M. McHugh made the rare decision to strip him of both awards anyway.

The move has been scrutinized by the media and criticized by Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.), a Marine veteran who has advocated on Golsteyn’s behalf. But McHugh stood by his decision in a new letter to Hunter, saying that the senior officer who initially approved Golsteyn’s Silver Star, Gen. David M. Rodriguez, agreed with his decision.

“Every step in the process of investigating Major Golsteyn’s actions, and reviewing and subsequently revoking his valor awards has been thorough, objective and justified,” McHugh wrote in the Feb. 26 letter, obtained by The Washington Post. “The Army’s investigation demonstrated that Major Golsteyn’s service during or at the time of the distinguished act, achievement or meritorious service was not honorable, which led to the revocation of the Distinguished Service Cross.”

So, this hero is being stripped of his awards for killing an ENEMY BOMB MAKER? By killing this scumbag he saved countless lives! This is completely insane!

more at tomfernandez28’s Blog

Disclaimer: This was not written by Lorra B.

Jeb Bush Has A Fancy New Video Out Trying To Prove He’s A Conservative

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

(Screenshot Credit, Rare)

March 7, 2015

Rare:  by W. James Antle III

Jeb Bush has a new video out trying to show he is a conservative.

It’s filled with snippets from his remarks to the Conservative Political Action Conference — where he won a little over 8 percent of the vote in the straw poll — as well as praise for his record as governor of Florida.

In case you might have missed the point, the pro-Bush Right to Rise PAC titled the video “Conservative.”

The ad comes as the Des Moines Register, the most important newspaper in Iowa, asked, “Jeb Bush: barely a Republican or ‘conservative’ hero.”

After all, Jeb is refusing to sign a pledge not to raise taxes; defending Common Core (though denying he favors a federal role in developing curricula); supporting amnesty; and advocating a Wilsonian foreign policy that has in the not-too-distant past led to $1 trillion wars.

Let’s stipulate that Bush has some conservative accomplishments as governor, when some thought he was more conservative than his father or brother (though obviously he isn’t bonding as well with conservatives as George W. now).

The same could be said of his brother as governor of Texas. In fact, if you just went down a conservative checklist and weighted all issues equally, both Dubya and Jeb would probably fair pretty well.

But ask yourself about Dubya’s presidency. Did the federal government get smaller or more? Did it comply more with the Constitution or less? Did the debt shrink or grow? Did the unfunded liabilities of our major entitlement programs become less or more? Did we become freer or less free?

George W. Bush did some conservative things. But what did his presidency really conserve?

Jeb seems to combine his father’s domestic policy with his brother’s foreign policy. Not only has that left the country in the hands of liberal Democratic presidents and Congresses in the past — Bush family success has usually proved costly for the Republican Party as a whole — but the net result of the Bush presidencies hasn’t been very conservative.

Bush 41 gave us higher taxes and more regulation. Bush 43 delivered higher spending, the biggest new entitlement program since LBJ was president, a doubling of Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education, a new Cabinet-level department and large deficits.

Read more at Rare:

Disclaimer: This was not written by Lorra B.