DNC member forced to resign over “shocking” anti-Israel emails

President Barack Obama’s Democratic party has been accused by many sources of being overly cozy with anti-Israel cranks. It is perhaps because of this reputation, fair or unfair though it may be, that the DNC ended up choosing the Jewish Floridian Debbie Wasserman Schultz to be its leader just in time for this year’s Presidential elections. Schultz is certainly loathed among the Democratic party’s anti-Israel base for her outward support of the Jewish state, perhaps best exemplified by this video:

However, noble though Schultz’s own convictions may be, they scarcely excuse those held by members of her own party. Indeed, they might even look suspect, especially if one of Schultz’s close longtime allies were shown to harbor extremist anti-Israel sentiments.

Oh, wait. One of her longtime allies does. Meet Evelyn Garcia, who until yesterday was the Palm Beach representative to the Democratic National Committee:

Garcia, who the Washington Free Beacon has already fingered as an ally of Wasserman-Schultz, sits at the center of a local scandal in Florida which is going nationwide due to her connections to the DNC Chair, and her abrupt resignation. The scandal originates with a series of emails between Garcia and several unnamed recipients, who express reservations with her decision to forward a Code Pink Email attacking AIPAC, a major pro-Israeli lobby organization. Garcia’s defense of Code Pink gets ugly very quickly. All screenshots of these emails are credited to Bizpacreview.

See the Emails HERE.

America’s Ability to Overcome Abuse

The history of America is one of overcoming abuse. Our nation began with a legal document, the Declaration of Independence, listing a “train of abuses,” which violated the colonists’ God-given rights and required them to found a new nation.

Whether it was during the Revolution War by defeating the lawless power exercised by the King and Parliament, or the Civil War ultimately correcting the abuse inherent in African American slavery, or the Women’s Suffrage Movement righting the wrong of keeping women as second class citizens, or World War II facing down fascist regimes intent on subjugating the world, America has consistently overcome tyranny and the abuse of power. Once again, there is a need to stand up for liberty and the rule of law.

One of America’s most fundamental beliefs, which Thomas Paine articulates so well in Common Sense (published January 1776, six months before the Declaration of Independence) is that we are a government of laws, grounded in God-given rights, and not of men. Paine writes, “But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve as monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.”

The United States followed Paine’s counsel and brought forth a founding charter, the Declaration of Independence, and a day was solemnly set apart for proclaiming it, the Fourth of July. The Declaration identified certain God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and laid out in the plainest of terms the list of abuses by the King and the Parliament. They included in addition to overt violent acts of war, imposing taxes on the colonies without their consent (a violation of one of the most basic tenets of being an English citizen), taking away the protections guaranteed in the colonies founding Charters, and perhaps most incredulous of all “declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.” Clearly the British government had taken upon itself authority it did not have.

The Tea Party rose up in 2009 as a response to government authority run amuck. Americans realized then, as now, their most basic rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness were being jeopardized by the reckless actions of the federal government. When Barack Obama and the Democratic majority set about to “fundamentally transform America,” they did so in one clearly measurable way: tripling the previous record deficit to $1.5 trillion. The National Debt will rise over $6 trillion dollars during Obama’s four years in office. During the entire history of the nation, the accumulated Debt prior his Presidency was only $9.98 trillion. Then came Obamacare with the takeover of one-sixth of the nation’s economy with vast new government agencies and bureaus, and yet another multi-trillion dollar entitlement program, which the United States can in no way afford.

Read more HERE.

New Zimmerman Evidence “Removes all Doubt”

Several months ago, after a review of the then-available evidence, I concluded that George Zimmerman was innocent. New evidence, recently released by the trial judge, supports the fact that George Zimmerman is the victim of a liberal racist lynch mob.

There is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman is the main victim here and that President Obama, Attorney General Holder, Al Sharpton, special prosecutor Angela Corey, Sanford detective Chris Serino, and a host of others are prominent members of this shameful multiracial lynch mob.

In my previous article, I pointed out that I have investigated many cases of racial violence and police brutality, and have documented, in official federal reports, that many such awful events have indeed taken place in this country. Yet Zimmerman’s case did not have any of the features of those other incidents of racial brutality.

Zimmerman’s recently released statements have no hint of bias or racial animosity on his part. It is significant that the first mention of race in the new evidence was brought up by Sanford detective Chris Serino. Initially Serino had been quite supportive of Zimmerman’s trauma, but then within a few days he started to openly doubt the reasons why Zimmerman decided that Martin was suspicious.

He asked, “Had this person been white would you have felt the same way?” Zimmerman responded, “Yes.”

Read more HERE.

PHOTO CREDIT: DonkeyHotey

Rep. Steve King: “Obama governing like a King”

Pointing to the Health and Human Services regulation that will require virtually all health care plans to cover sterilization, artificial contraception and abortifacients for free, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that President Barack Obama is governing like a “king.”

The mandate, which goes into effect on Aug. 1, requires nearly all health insurers to provide sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortifacients free of charge. President Obama announced the finalized rule on Feb. 10, during a press conference at the White House.

“The rule that was published by [HHS Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius directed even our religious institutions that are health care providers to provide abortifacients, sterilizations and contraceptives free of charge as part of every health care policy that they would offer, even though it violated the deep religious convictions, especially of the Catholic Church, but many others as well,” Rep. King told CNSNews.com.

“And when [President Obama] took two weeks of heat over that and realized that he had earned the enmity of the entire Catholic Church and many other faith organizations — when they read the letter of the bishops in my church, which said, ‘We cannot, we will not obey this unjust law’ — the president then held a press conference at noon on a Friday about two weeks from the time this rule was issued.”

“They didn’t change the rule at all,” he said. “Not a single letter, not an ‘I’ dot or a ‘T’ crossed differently, the same rule exists today that existed when they first ruled it out. The president then stepped up at noon on a Friday and he said, ‘I’m going to make an accommodation to the religious organizations and now I’m going to require the insurance companies to do this for free.’ And he repeated himself, ‘for free.’”

Read more HERE.

8,733,461: Workers on Federal ‘Disability’ Exceed Population of New York City

A record of 8,733,461 workers took federal disability insurance payments in June 2012, according to the Social Security Administration. That was up from 8,707,185 in May.

It also exceeds the entire population of New York City, which according to the Census Bureau’s latest estimate hit 8,244,910 in July 2011.

There has been a dramatic shrinkage in the United States over the past 20 years in the number of workers actually employed and earning paychecks per worker who is not employed and is taking federal disability insurance payments.

In June 1992, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 118,419,000 people employed in the United States, and, according to the Social Security Administration, there were 3,334,333 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 35.5 people actually working.

When President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, there were 142,187,000 people employed and 7,442,377 workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled about 1 person taking disability payments for each 19.1 people actually working.

Read more HERE.

Why did Roberts cheat to save Obamacare?

Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the specific language of Congress by claiming in his ObamaCare ruling that the penalty that the lawmakers had clearly attached to the individual mandate was actually a tax. It was the only way in which the Affordable Care Act could be saved; for the Court rejected the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clause defenses as constitutional grounds for the existence of the law.

By “penciling in” the tax language necessary to satisfy his own requirement of constitutionality, Roberts behaved no differently from any liberal, activist judge so often criticized by conservatives for judicial malfeasance; that is, he cheated rather than rule against a personally favored piece of legislation.

The question is WHY? WHY did the Chief Justice defraud the Court and the American public rather than rule ObamaCare unconstitutional?

In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote: “The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A (the individual mandate) is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

No, Mr. Chief Justice. Section 5000A may be reasonably re-written BY CONGRESS as a tax, but it may not be READ that way because that is NOT the way in which Congress WROTE it! A great many laws may be reasonably re-written into something they are not, thus bringing them into line with the personal views of justice, propriety, or constitutionality held by the judge preforming the artful edit. But that is not the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice.

Read more HERE.

Israeli Gov’t: Another Obama term, “nightmare” for Jewish State

I am traveling through Israel with the Young Jewish Conservatives—an emerging organization that is breaking the stereotype that all Jews (especially young ones) lean to the left.

Tonight we had the opportunity to speak with someone who shall remain anonymous, and who is a very credible source. He told us that there are those at the “highest levels of the Israeli Government” (possibly including Prime Minister Netanyahu himself) who have recently said that 4 more years of an Obama Presidency would be a “nightmarish scenario” for the Jewish State.

This Israeli fear of a second Obama term should surprise no one that has been following the disintegration of the Israel/American relationship during the last few years. After all, with regards to Israel’s greatest fear, a nuclear armed Iran, Obama has totally dropped the ball.

The only way Iran will peacefully abandon its nuclear weapons program is if it fears a credible military threat from America or Israel. Obama has seriously undermined this threat by giving in to endless “talks” with Iran, and for spending the bulk of his energy convincing Israel not to take pre-emptive military action. As a retired Israeli soldier told us yesterday, “Iran is laughing all the way to the bomb.”

Read more HERE.

Feds retaliate against Texas’ 10th Amendment efforts

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has spent much of the past three years loudly and defiantly fighting against what he views as Washington meddling in state affairs, often refusing to cooperate with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and becoming a leader in the battle against President Barack Obama’s health care plan.

Other Republican governors pursuing a similar tactic may want to take note of what’s happened in Texas amid Perry’s hard-fought battle: An obstinate refusal to cooperate has resulted in more, not less, federal oversight.

“We’re very conservative and we’re very stubborn,” said Bill Miller, a lobbyist in Austin for HillCo who has represented both Republicans and Democrats. He described the Texas mindset this way: “We’re not going to be smart. We’re going to be pure. It’s a point of pride and if there’s something else we’re proud of, it’s our pride.”

One area where Texas has fought ferociously with the feds has been on environmental regulations. Yet as the state challenged EPA rules in court over the past three years, the federal agency simply side-stepped the state to work directly with industry.

A similar scenario is playing out with Obama’s health care overhaul in Texas, where nearly a quarter of the population, or 6.2 million people, are uninsured. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has given the law the green light, it’s highly likely that Texas won’t have time to build a key program, forcing the federal government to design and manage it until the Lone Star State steps up.

Read more HERE.

World’s First Genetically Modified Babies Born in US; have three Parents

Last night’s disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics.

So far, two of the babies have been tested and have been found to contain genes from three ‘parents’.

Fifteen of the children were born in the past three years as a result of one experimental programme at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilised in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults –two women and one man.

Read more HERE.