The Daily Pamphlet

It is Time You Left!

Daniel Osborn — Sun, 19 May 2013 19:27:03 +0000

A Knights of Columbus sign at the March For Life. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the epic film “Gandhi” there is a line which fits today’s situation concerning abortion. The character of Gandhi, played by Ben Kingsley, is attending a meeting with British authorities following a horrific massacre where aver 1000 unarmed Indian protestors were killed by British soldiers. The British wish to put the incident behind them and negotiate with Gandhi and his followers concerning new legislation. Gandhi utters the following, “Excuse me but it is our view that things have gone beyond legislation. …It is time you left!”

If I could speak to the abortion advocates in our nation I would say the same; “It is time you left!” It’s time for Planned Parenthood to leave. It’s time for NARAL to leave. It is time for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights to leave (yes there is a ‘coalition’ of liberal churches who promote legal abortion on demand). It is time for abortion clinics to pack up their instruments of torture and leave. It is time for Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton to leave. Far too many of two generations now who should be grown and productive members of society have been exterminated. Far too many women have been coerced, forced, pressured by family, so-called friends, clergy and even “fathers” into agreeing to be the other, maimed victims of this perversity.

I have been active in the Pro-Life movement for about four decades now. I have marched, picketed, prayed and counseled in front of abortion clinics. I have helped begin a crisis pregnancy center in our town. I have preached numerous pro-life sermons and given public speeches opposing abortion. I state this not to “toot my own horn” for there are many more who have given much more in effort and material aid to the pro-life cause than I. I state my meager efforts to highlight the fact that I have seen this struggle and participated in it hoping beyond hope and praying that our opponents will finally see just how destructive to humanity abortion is. But now, “It is time you left!”

Why now? Because, of course, of the famous Kermit Gosnell trial in PA. Oh you mean… you haven’t heard of it? I don’t get it. How could you have missed the coverage from all three of the reporters who attended the trial? Allow me to summarize. This trial revealed a scene rivaling any horrific vision in history including the Nazi death camps. This man, I will not call him a doctor, killed babies who survived late term abortion attempts and were born. By law, conscience, and basic morality these babies should have been treated!

He snuffed out their lives as if they were insects.

Testimony revealed literally blood, bodies, and body parts everywhere in a filthy clinic where he employed a 15 year old! To top it off, he killed at least one woman by negligence, just letting her bleed, and failing to call 911 until the next day! The trial ended with Gosnell being found guilty of first degree murder on three counts of killing the babies, and manslaughter for killing the woman. There were more than 250 counts against him. As it turns out, he had been slaughtering like this for many years. It also turns out that he isn’t the only one.

These examples are only the logical result of having legalized abortion. If the view of the human being in the womb is that he or she has no right to live, it is a logical that human life overall is devalued. When the culture devalues human life, it is but a matter of time until some begin to act on that belief. The results are a tragic culture of hopelessness whose only considered solution to problems in life is to snuff out life. Any organization or movement which devalues life to the point where chimpanzees are given moral standing over human infants needs to go. So to all the abortion advocates out there here’s what should happen. Admit you were wrong and leave. Remove yourself from the societal conversation and let sanity and compassion come to the fore. Stop pretending you are trying to “help women.” Face the true nature of your convictions. Understand that all you are doing is killing children and women and destroying the lives of the women who survive. Really, no kidding..”It is time you left.”

Logic and Gun “Control” – Part 2

Daniel Osborn — Sun, 19 May 2013 18:54:25 +0000

English: August 26: Congressman Rahm Emanuel announces the Juvenile Gun Crime Reporting Act at a meeting with youth and staff from the Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network upon the release of their annual Teen Gun Survey. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In part one of this series I looked at two of the possible reasons the administration would advocate a gun control method such as strengthening background checks, considering that these will do nothing to curb the tide of gun crime and will create more such crime. One of the primary reasons such checks would not work is that current background check failures are not even being investigated. A lax enforcement policy now ensures the same would continue when there are even more laws to enforce.

The first two possible reasons for current lack of enforcement were that either the administration was overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem, or they were simply incompetent. The third possible reason is that this administration is deliberately not enforcing the law. It could be asserted that there is a fourth possibility which is that the government is both incompetent and is deliberately not enforcing the law. Incompetence could be a large part of what is wrong, but it would largely surface on the lower levels of authority. Because if there is a deliberate attempt to not enforce current gun law, it would certainly rest with those in the highest seats of authority. Such a large amount of non-enforcement would have to be driven and directed from those in high station. So to the extent that this is deliberate, it would be directed from higher ranks which effectively makes this the third possibility. If that is not the case, we fall back to gross incompetence on behalf of the administration.

What would be the reason for deliberate non-enforcement of current laws? In order to discover the most likely reason we must make a few reasonable assumptions. First, we assume that the administration knows about the lax enforcement. Second, we assume they are also aware that current gun laws, including background checks have not helped reduce gun crime and the numbers show that in fact gun crime has increased. Third, we assume that their immediate goal is a reduction in gun crime. With these in mind there is one logical course of action which will reduce gun crime. That is confiscation of all guns from Americans.

One of the features of background check law is that the details of the purchase, including the name and address of the purchaser, are recorded. The proposed change in strength and scope in the new law would record many more of those details. Together, along with information already obtained about current gun owners, these could be compiled into a national registry of gun owners. This registry would enable federal officials to commence confiscation of guns nationwide. This would reduce at least one large portion of current gun crime, suicide. It would also create a situation where only the authorities, and other criminals, would have firearms and the populace would be helpless. When the state owns the effective and powerful weapons, it is inevitable that the state will “own” us as well. Could it be that this is the real, long term goal of the administration? I do not claim that is the case. I do claim that it is a likely possibility. I base this on the fact that actual confiscation of guns from law-abiding Americans has already taken place, back in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina. Police went house to house in areas not affected by the flooding and confiscated guns without any warning at all. The state was not hesitant to do this as soon as opportunity provided a chance. I do not think they will hesitate to attempt confiscation if justified by the failure of a new, supposedly better set of gun restrictions such as increased background checks. A look at recent comments by three Democratic senators will offer more evidence.

Second Amendment rights advocates are fuming today over words from three Democratic state senators caught on tape after Thursday’s hearing on the upper chamber’s gun control package. The three female senators, who sound from the recording to be Sen. Loretta Weinberg, Sen. Sandy Cunningham and Sen. Linda Greenstein, are heard discussing the just-closed hearing. “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate,” said an unknown voice.

I believe there is a kind of ‘logic’ being employed by the administration in this situation. It is the logic of deception and slight of hand. The logic that says while we the people are occupied with the fear of mass shootings and violent gun crime, the administration will use this fear to push through restrictive gun control which will eventually be used to justify gun confiscation. The proposed increased background checks law is a key part of this strategy. That is why proper logic on the behalf of supporters of the 2nd Amendment dictates we vigorously oppose even these so-called ‘sensible’ new gun restrictions.

The End of a Road “Paved With Good Intentions” – Part 3

Daniel Osborn — Sun, 19 May 2013 18:36:59 +0000

English: The United Nations Security Council Chamber in New York, also known as the Norwegian Room Français: La Salle de réunion du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies à New York Nederlands: De Zaal van de Veiligheidsraad van de Verenigde Naties in New York (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The United States provides far more funds to the U.N. than any other of the 193 member nations. The latest figures show at least a $5 billion dollar investment in “peacekeeping” and a provision of 22% of the U.N. budget. The United States also provides the U.N. with building space in New York for it’s headquarters. The United States is one of the permanent members of the Security Counsel, the most powerful council in the U.N., as well as one of the founding members. How has our nation, and the nations of the world, benefited from such a large investment? We haven’t. In fact, we have essentially paid the U.N. to make things worse for us and the world.

I mentioned the power of the Security Council in the U.N. They have authority to veto any proposal. There are 5 permanent members and a veto can come from any Security Council member. Resolutions proposed by the Security Council generally carry the greatest weight and have the greatest chance of passing the General Assembly. However the huge problem with all of this authority is there are no real consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.

An early example of this was the Bangladesh liberation war and the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities committed by the Pakistan Army on Bengali Hindus…the UN was completely ineffective in preventing the genocide and military intervention by India was the only thing to stop the mass murder. In the 21st century, the most prominent …example is the Darfur crisis, in which Arab militias, supported by the Sudanese government, committed repeated acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the indigenous population. Thus far, an estimated 300,000 civilians have been killed in what is the largest case of mass murder in the history of the region, yet the UN has continuously failed to act against this …ongoing human rights issue.

What about the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East. This is arguably the hottest of hot spots for violence in the world. Here is a prime chance for effective, peaceful involvement by the U.N. Yet the U.N. has regularly and solely taken to criticizing Israel and supporting the Arab/PLO side in any conflict.

According to Robert S. Wistrich, “a third of all critical resolutions passed by [the UN] Human Rights Commission during the past forty years have been directed exclusively at Israel. By way of comparison, there has not been a single resolution even mentioning the massive violations of human rights in China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Zimbabwe.”

Can anyone actually believe that Israel is worse concerning human rights than North Korea?

The UN has also regularly criticized its biggest benefactor, the United States, for “human rights” violations all the while having nations such as Libya, a real rights violator, as the head of their Human Rights Commission. A recent example of this is from a UN adviser to the Human Rights Commission who blamed the Boston bombings on America.

What is even worse is what has happened when the UN intervenes with “peacekeeping” forces.

In the 1996 UN study The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children, former first lady of Mozambique Graça Machel documented: “In 6 out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children in situations of armed conflict prepared for the present report, the arrival of peacekeeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution.” …In 2011, a United Nations spokesman confirmed 16 Beninese peacekeepers were barred from serving with them because they failed to maintain an environment that prevents sexual exploitation and abuse. Sexual misconduct by United Nations troops had earlier been reported in Congo, Cambodia and Haiti, as well as in an earlier incident involving Moroccan peacekeepers in Côte d’Ivoire.

The final nail in the metaphorical “coffin” of the U.N. is found in what they envision for the future of our world, the infamous Agenda 21. This is a global plan to achieve what they call “sustainable development” throughout the world. In order to achieve this it will mean that humanity, especially the United States, severely reduce their consumption of energy and resources. In order for that to happen, we would need to have our very form of government fundamentally changed so that individual and family rights be ceded to the U.N.

The better path is to withdraw our membership from this corrupt and harmful organization. The U.N. should then be evicted from the building and it should be rented out for prime office space. At least then something productive might come from that location, which would be a huge improvement over the performance of the U.N.

Obamacare and the Droogies

James Dick — Sun, 19 May 2013 17:58:05 +0000

Celebration as House passes Obamacare.

On January 1, 2014, America comes to grips with Obamacare full force. That is the date when the most odious parts of the law become fully in force and enforced, with the imposition of fines and penalties for non-compliance.

Even after all of the President’s carnival side shows to try and drum up support, the majority of Americans still line up against the program, seeing it as a violation of their rights and privacy as well as degrading medical services despite a much higher cost. These things in themselves have generated call for repeal or major change but thus far nothing has been done to improve things.

Now a new wrinkle enters and we have to come to grips with an even more ominous detail. The IRS, the agency currently under scrutiny for its illegal use of its powers to harass and punish conservative groups, will shortly begin the funding support aspects of the program.

These powers have been incorporated into the tax code, adding another bureaucratic burden on each of us. This should bring chills and fear to every freedom loving American. For make no mistake about it, the IRS is nothing more than an enforcement tool for a far left President.

And for those Americans under the yoke of Medicare, of which I am one, the $750B funds reduction in the program, supported by the AARP as a good thing, will result in much denied care and service and, ultimately, unnecessary and premature death. I’m sure the IRS will be playing a major role with the “death panels” in rationing medical care and, I fear, helping good doctors make the decision to retire early.

Just imagine the following scenario:

You visit the doctor with a medical complaint, are examined, and told that you have a serious situation which requires surgery. Your doctor tells you that they will schedule it and let you know. A month later you have heard nothing and, calling the doctor’s office, find out that it has not yet been scheduled due to availability issues but a date is expected soon.

Then here comes the “kicker.” A man in a dark suit comes to the door, identifies himself as an IRS agent, and tells you that he is here to ask you some questions preparatory to your medical surgery. You notice that most of the questions are political, questions like the following. What political party do you belong to? Have you contributed to any political causes and if so, which ones, and how much? Finally, did you vote for the President?

You tell him that you think the questions are personal and you shouldn’t be compelled to answer. His response: These are routine questions that are needed as part of the determination review. We can’t approve the surgery without asking them.

Don’t think this is possible America? Well, this is just what happened to Tea Party type groups over the last three years regarding their rights and freedom and now it will only get more prevalent. And all of these questions were handled by the IRS.

Each of us needs to decide right now whether or not we will sit silently by and accept this soft tyranny or fight for freedom by both the written and spoken word. It’s a free will choice to make; just make sure that you are happy with your decision. It will, very soon, impact you directly. Think about it, pray on it, and you will know what to do.

Perhaps the following prayer will help:

Oh Heavenly Father: We are truly troubled by things being done in America today that do not live up to our standards of freedom and justice. Some would have us give up our divinely given free will to a Godless state which wants to make all decisions for us. And many among us are fearful that to stand up to this onslaught will cause us great pain and suffering.

Help us, Lord, to understand that everything that we face on Earth has a reason and a purpose according to thy master plan. And help us to also understand that the pain and suffering of this world is finite and mild compared to the pain of losing our opportunity to spend eternity with thee.

Give us the strength, courage and, above all, the faith in thee to stand up for what is right and true and to know in our hearts that you are watching and waiting for us. Let us be comforted in this knowledge. In thy name we pray, Amen.

Be of heart, Americans. We can fight this tyranny and win the struggle. But we can only do this with God’s help.

The End Of An Error

Matthew S. Harrison — Tue, 14 May 2013 02:58:51 +0000

“Uh oh, I don’t think they’re buying this song and dance anymore”

Well, you can’t say I didn’t tell you so. I may be a couple years late, but it is happening. The unraveling in grand, public fashion of the Obama Regime. The thing that criminals always forget is this: You can’t continue to break the law and not get caught-either by the authorities, or by your own people. At some point, all the planning gives way to greed, and mistakes get made.

Today, the pile of mistakes mounts, as Mr. Obama actually cried at a presser, after having to answer for the first two of his career-ending mistakes; Benghazi, and IRS targeting of conservative PACs and Jewish organizations. One of those two scandals would have forced “W” to resign in shame, as the media would have hounded him to the ends of the earth. Now, add to that, the revelation that the Department of Justice, run by Obama appointee, Attorney General, Eric Holder, has been tapping the phones of a major international media organization.

Correct me if I am wrong, but even the “Teflon Don” Obama can’t come back from this. In fact, no one could. And I mean no one. Not even the master escape artist Slick Willie himself who after molesting multiple women, using cigars on his intern’s private parts, and um…leaving a “deposit” on a certain blue dress still managed to hang on to the Presidency. But not Obama.

So, here I sit, gloating to every Obamabot I know, and loving every minute of it. So, let’s look at the carnage from a slightly more level headed, non-gloating point of reference and put this in perspective, shall we?

First, Mr. Obama went to bed, after being told that our Ambassador and his staff were being slaughtered by Islamo-fascists, probably Al Qaeda, only to wake up the next morning and fly off to Vegas to beg for campaign finance, and whereby, he also compared his campaign staff to the murdered Ambassador and his staff (yes, he really did that). According to Obama and Clinton, the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an “anti-Islam” video, which no one had ever seen, but for the continued publishing of it by MMFA “Fellow” Eric Boehlert, and of course Hillary Clinton herself. These actions alone probably incensed the islamo-robots, which was obviously their intent, so as to whip them into a frenzy and run cover for the Regime-and hiding the true reason for the attack in Benghazi. Not only that, but during the days/weeks/months after these lies, it has come out that Hillary lied to Congress, Hillary and Obama lied to the nation-and most embarrassing, Hillary ultimately called the President of Libya, a friend in the region, a liar. All not good.

Obama crusher number two is even worse-in fact, it is outright tyranny-and that is Mr. Obama ordering the IRS to target non-profit organizations which would most certainly have raised funds for his competition, Mitt Romney, for audits, and for outright blocking their granting of 501 status. This type of “enemies list” building was perfected by Richard Nixon, and he paid for it with his presidency, having resigned in shame, albeit to spare the Republican Party the black eye of a full-blown impeachment. Now, for perspective, Mr. Obama is a certifiable Narcissist, so his resignation would have been doubtful if this were the only other black eye for his Presidency. But, alas, there’s one more-thus my gloating!

We find out today, on the Monday after the Mainstream Media finally started to ask some questions about Benghazi, that there aren’t two scandals surrounding Obama, but a third has reared its beautiful head, and it has legs-big legs-legs that will take it all the way to the House for impeachment and the Senate for conviction. This little gem is another trampling of civil rights. But its different than NDAA, or Exit Tax, or Drone Killing by Obama-a truly different civil rights violation, as it violates the civil rights of one of Mr. Obama’s staunchest support groups-JOURNALISTS! It turns out, Obama’s Department of Justice has been spying on The Associated Press. Yes, they have had the AP’s phones tapped for months.

Those of you who read me regularly have heard me mention Elijah Lovejoy-a name every journalist learned about in “J School.” Of course, you’ve also heard me state that Mr. Lovejoy is spinning at 5,000 RPM in his grave, due to the total lack of journalistic integrity left in America. But, the phone taps at AP are going to change that. In fact, they will change a lot in America.

I think the “journalists” so bereft of integrity, and so bought into their ideology will finally take a step back and look at themselves in the mirror. It is a good time for them to rethink the idea they thought was good, and go back to reporting the news, objectively, no matter the effect it has on the candidate(s) they voted for. In the end, they have put us in the position of having a massive constitutional crisis, a potential impeachment, and the seating of a vice president in the Oval Office who is neither prepared to be president, or a fry cook at “The Crusty Crab.”

It is time for change all right, and that change starts with Mainstream Media “Journalists” going back to doing their jobs. Stop choosing sides at the expense of America and Americans. And these three Obama blunders, which will definitely scuttle his political career, will be the catalyst we have been waiting for to speed the process of putting America back where it should be, on top-projecting and leading by example with a moral and decent society, where truly anything is possible if you are willing to obey our laws.

This is what we have all been waiting for. A forced reexamination of our system, our media system, and those we trust to represent us in government, and those we trust to keep an eye on elected officials. The ball is in your court Journalists. Don’t make us come for you because we will, and we are, and we are not happy that you put us in this position. Sorry about the gloating, but I was right-Obama is done. And it is by his own hand, and because of his criminal intent that his career will end with a whimper, and a tear running down his cheek, as he realizes it is all in tatters. His reign of terror is over and I told you it would be, before his time was up!

Benghazi Hearings Needed Sam Irvin

Robert Garner — Sun, 12 May 2013 14:09:42 +0000

English: President of the United States Richard M. Nixon’s Resignation Letter, 08/09/1974 (August 9th 1974) (ARC Identifier: 302035). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Where is Senator Sam Irvin when you need him? The Watergate (where no one died) hearings brought the Nixon Presidency to an end when Senator Sam Irvin asked the simple question, “What did the President know and when did he know it?” Contrast that simple question with the hours of questions by Republicans and talking point recitations by the Democrats during the Bengazhi hearings. Sadly the “elephant in the room” question was never asked. Was the fear of reprisal from the Obama White House so great that not one Senator had the testicular strength to simply ask “Where was the President during the Bengazhi terror attacks and what were his responses?” Despite the fact that the main needed question was never asked, or answered, several truths did emerge from the hearings that require further investigation. Both the authors of the Accountability Review Board Report, and key administration officials including Secretary Clinton and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills need to be placed under oath again in front of the committee.

Despite the liberal establishment efforts to frame the hearing as:

1. Republicans on a political witch hunt

2. Nothing new was learned

3. No major questions remain

4. There was nothing that could have been done to save lives

5. The ARB Report is the final word

6. Bengazhi happened a long time ago

several revelations are damning to the Obama Administration and the Clinton State Department.

To me the most damning allegation was against Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff Mills (one must assume acting at the behest of the Secretary) who instructed witness Gregory Hicks not to speak to Congressional Investigators after Hicks voiced objections to the administration’s inaccurate talking points. Understand Mr. Hicks is a:

1. Career diplomat with 22 years of service under three different administrations.

2. Has an impeccable record of service.

3. Was praised by Obama & Clinton for his performance during Benghazi attacks.

The praise of his performance came before he would not fall in line with the administrations “internet video” lie that was a direct contradiction of the facts and essentially called the President of Libya a liar. When Mr. Hicks would not go along with the lies, the State Department sent an attorney to sit in on all his meetings with Congress and Beth Jones launched into an attack of Hicks’ leadership. He has been subsequently demoted. If that is not an attempted Cover-up then a new definition of Cover-up needs to be written.

Another damning fact is that an armed US force in Tripoli, which could have been to Benghazi within an hour, was told to stand down twice. Why? We now know that the troops were furious that they were not employed. It raises three questions:

1. Who ordered the stand down?

2. Did the order come from the Commander-In-Chief? (that is Obama for the uniformed voter)

3. When was the stand down order given and why?

The Administration’s excuse that a military response could have not arrived in time to make a difference begs the question, how did they know how long the attack would go on? Additionally the Obama Administration did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace. How did they know that aircraft flying over the scene would not have had a positive effect. Why did they not send troops that were available? Doing neither buoys the fact that Obama never had a desire to rush help to Benghazi. What ever happened to America’s Commander-In-Chief protecting Americans? When will President Obama be required to answer these questions. Don’t hold your breath expecting the sycophant media to ask.

The Democrats on the committee repeated the talking points (now proven false) asked leading questions, attempted to smear witnesses and provided clowning facial expressions of disgust rather than seeking the truth. The Democrats embarrassed themselves by attempting to blame reduced funding, which under previous testimony supported by the Clinton State Department and the ARB had absolutely nothing to do with the inadequate security presence in Benghazi. What were Democrats doing going after proven lies and deceptions? It was all they had since the truth goes to the incompetence of their Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State.

More embarrassing to the Democrats were their attempts to cast doubt on the credibility of the witnesses. They tried to cast doubt on the credibility of witness Mark Thompson by stating that he had declined to participate in the ARB investigation. Thompson took little time to correct the record stating that he had offered his service to the investigators and it was the ARB that did not have him testify. Perhaps this is an early example of the ARB working to protect the Obama narrative rather than seeking the truth. The Democrats also tried to proclaim that the hearings were a Republican witch-hunt because the leaders of the ARB investigation were not invited to participate in the hearings. Embarrassment number two as Chairman Issa explicitly invited them, in writing, to participate. They chose not to participate, most likely because much of their ARB has been proven to be incorrect. Every attempt the Democrats made to diminish the hearing blew up in their faces.

In addition to the new factual information provided by the witnesses, their response to Secretary Clinton was precise and emotional. During her Congressional testimony on Benghazi, Sec. Clinton pounded her fists and defiantly asked, “what difference does it make?” Both witness Eric Nordstrom and Hicks answered the question. Hicks precisely explained how the false talking points developed a rift between the US and Libyan governments. It was the main reason the FBI was not allowed to investigate on the ground for weeks. Nordstrom was more emotional and nailed the Secretary with it matters because “we lost friends; the truth matters.”

While new facts were revealed, the fact that the media continues to protect Obama and Clinton makes one wonder if this hearing will be the last. If future hearings are, as they should be, scheduled, we have to hope that there is a Republican Sam Irvin somewhere on the committee to ask “Where was the President during the Benghazi terror attacks and what were his responses?”

Journalism In America

Matthew S. Harrison — Sun, 12 May 2013 13:47:42 +0000

English: Jay Carney, American journalist (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As I sit here today, watching Jay Carney talk around in circles, I am most stunned by the room full of “journalists,” all with college degrees, many from highly touted schools, like Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Northwestern, all of whom couldn’t ask a real question to save their lives.

Journalism isn’t a science. It is a logical profession which revolves around, or used to revolve around one simple concept: Providing the truth to the masses, even though, and especially when, politicians are making every attempt to hide it. Simple right? Not so much for the sycophants and ideologues who carry press passes these days.

Jay Carney (#JayCarnivalBarker) has one job, and that is to run cover for the “President.” His entire life revolves around turning the truth into an ethereal concept that is difficult to decipher, impossible to conceive for the masses, so that Mr. Obama can continue to break the law, hide his intent, and trample on the Constitution. Many presidents in the past have had similar goals, but this one has one goal, and that is to “fundamentally change the United States.” So, Carney’s job is unique, and not necessarily the same as Press Secretaries for past Presidents of The United States of America.

So, lets consider the Benghazi issue. Lets talk about the questions that should be asked-the LOGICAL questions that anyone with a journalism degree would ask, were they not blinded by their allegiance to Obama, not frightened by potential consequences that come with exposing the true intent and/or the criminal enterprise that is The Obama Regime. Lets think collectively about what should be done today, and every day, in the White House Briefing Room.

First, as they ask questions about Benghazi-they are fixated on the “Talking Points Memo” that purportedly came from CIA. It is odd that CIA released a memo on Benghazi, considering it was a Diplomatic Mission. Thus, all talking points should have come from State. So, right there, we know that CIA was doing something in Benghazi that they don’t want the world, Congress, or American Citizens knowing about. If you were a journalist, wouldn’t you ask why CIA oversaw that memo authoring?

Secondly, if the memo that came from CIA had all the references to Al Qaeda, Ansar Al Islam, et al, and those data points were taken out by other agencies in the chain of custodianship of the memo, then who exactly took them out? Carney did not answer that question-he simply said a bunch of people-NOT THE WHITE HOUSE-touched it, and he didn’t know. Demand to know who did! Wouldn’t you ask for that information if you were a journalist in that room?

Thirdly, Carney claims that the only change the White House made to the infamous memo was to call the Benghazi mission a mission and not an Embassy. Seriously? The White House made no other changes? Why would the White House stand by and allow the lie of this attack being caused by a video, and only change the definition of the Diplomatic Mission? No one asked that question-NO ONE. These Journalists don’t want to know the truth.

Fourth, and foremost-in Congress this week, we saw three career diplomats state with zero uncertainty that they were specifically told that SOF guys were on the runway and ready to ride to the rescue but were not allowed to do so. WHO GAVE THE STAND DOWN ORDER?

I know that in this day and age, with a Chicago Mobster in the White House, it is probably pretty frightening to have a press pass. I’m pretty sure that all of these “journalists” have been told they will lose their careers if they dare report on the law breaking, the Constitution shredding, or the obfuscation of the truth by Obama. I am sure they are told that by their ideologue bosses, and in no uncertain terms by operatives of Obama.

Elijah Lovejoy died fighting for freedom of the press. He died in Alton, Illinois, and is buried there. These “journalists” read about him in journalism school. They also know about all the war correspondents around the world who have died delivering truth to the masses, covering combat. Yet, they desecrate the memory of these brave individuals. And they do so for what? To get invites to Obama hip-hop concerts at the White House-for cocktail party invites at State? The sick ignorance of their duties is disheartening and smacks of the propaganda machines of tyrants of old, who murdered and/or jailed those who spoke against their tyranny, who murdered hundreds of millions of their own citizens, with the help of the propagandists (“journalists”) whom they had in their pockets. It is just difficult to imagine all of those brave, dead, real journalists, looking down at them, and regretting their sacrifice, given the death of Journalism in America.

Logic and Gun ‘Control’ – Part 1

Daniel Osborn — Sun, 05 May 2013 17:29:42 +0000

Summer’s End. Lexington Green, 11 September 2002. Photo taken in Minute Man National Historical Park. Sculpture : “Minuteman” by sculptor Henry Hudson Kitson (1863-1947), dedicated April 19, 1900. Erected 1899 : SIRIS (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let’s see if a little logic can be injected into the current debate concerning so-called ‘gun control.’ What is the stated goal of the anti-gun, aka ‘gun control,’ crowd? Is it not to reduce the level of gun crime? Let’s ignore for the moment that the actual reason for the Second Amendment is far more than simply protection from personal attacks. If we take the gun control advocates at their word, a small problem immediately presents itself.

Logic dictates that if there is a problem one wishes to solve, and the remedy which has so far been tried is not successful in solving that problem, trying even more of the same won’t help. Further if the solution implemented in the past has not only failed to help but has actually increased the size of the problem, would it not be reasonable to abandon that solution? If that is the case, what would the motivation be to continue to apply that same solution which has demonstrably failed?

Specifically, I am referring to the one application of ‘gun control’ proposed as a key part of the solution to an increase in gun crime, as highlighted in the recent terrible mass shootings in Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona and various other places. It is the proposal for a strengthening of background checks. Here is a recent quote from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service:

“According to a National Criminal Justice Reference Service study, of more than 76,000 people failing to pass their instant background checks when attempting to purchase a gun in 2010, only 4,700 investigations ensued, resulting in only 44 prosecutions.”

If the numbers are run here we find the following to be true. In 2010, only 1 of every 16 people who fail an instant background check were even investigated, and only 1 of every 1,727 people were prosecuted! In the case of a law where 15 out of 16 offenders are not even investigated it is reasonable to conclude that enforcement is seriously lacking. There are three likely explanations for such a lack of enforcement of already existing laws.

One is that the government is simply overwhelmed.

Two is that the government is incompetent.

Three is that the government does not desire to actually reduce gun crime.

Of those choices, number one is the most unlikely considering the large number of employees the government currently has to do the job. The second choice, incompetence, is indeed a likely choice given the record the government has running, well…just about anything! The third choice, deception, is the least palatable choice, yet it is unfortunately one that also could easily apply. After all, everyone knows that our government does not tell us everything they do or are planning to do, and deception has been found to be a strong factor in government operations in the past.

If all these alternatives are examined and analyzed with logic and reason, perhaps a truly workable solution to the grave problem of gun crime can be found.

The first alternative of the government being overwhelmed is worthy of examination even if it is the least likely of the causes for lax enforcement. It still remains in the area of possibility. Whether or not this potential cause of the problem could be adequately addressed by our government is very unlikely at this point. However, even if enforcement could be improved by increasing the amount of people working on it, the real question remains. How is adding more laws to this area going to reduce the problem especially if there are severe difficulties addressing enforcement of the laws we already have?

The second alternative cause for the lack of enforcement problem is government incompetence. As I have noted, this seems far more likely to be the case than the government being overwhelmed by the size of the task. Incompetence can take many forms. Waste, duplication, and miscommunication are all traits our government has exhibited before in more areas than I can count. Worse, it wouldn’t be the first time negligence and plain fraud and theft have been involved in tasks the government was charged with accomplishing, whatever the department or branch of government involved.

In the concluding article we will continue on to the third alternative cause for lack of enforcement concerning the proposed “strengthening” of background checks, and what possibly might be done to actually make headway against rampant gun crime in our land.

Marriage Equality – A Simple Solution – Part 2

Daniel Osborn — Sun, 05 May 2013 17:14:02 +0000

Pro and anti-Proposition 8 protesters rally in front of the San Francisco City Hall as the California Supreme Court holds a session in the to determine the definition of marriage (Strauss v. Horton cases). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mat 19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’

Jesus gave a definition of marriage in this passage as a response to the question about the ‘legality’ of divorce, and thus the legality of marriage itself. At the time, there was a problem with the growing divorce rate within the religious community. The reason for this was due to human rules added to the sacred definition of marriage. The answer our LORD gave went back to the very beginning of marriage in Genesis to find the definition as it was then. He went on to scold the religious leaders for both their lack of understanding about what marriage should have been, and for changing the rules concerning marriage. As a solution, Jesus simply re-stated the idea of marriage as a sacred institution.

In the first installment of this series, I proposed that a solution to the changing legal “definition” of marriage in society would be to remove marriage from the realm of the state altogether and allow the institution to return to its status as a sacred institution alone. As you can see from the previous paragraph, this idea is not original with me. It is, however, not only what Jesus would do, it is what He did! This simple, straightforward way of looking at what marriage is would take our culture back to the traditional, historical view that marriage is a sacred event, and thus should be entered into on a sacred basis, and the state should have no legal authority over it. That authority is manifested today in the instrument of the marriage license, issued by the state as a legal requirement in addition to, or in lieu of a marriage conducted in a sacred setting such as a church. So virtually all that needs be done to solve the question of what is or isn’t a marriage is to just do away with the marriage license requirement. Simple, isn’t it? Not quite.

Before I delve into the reasons why this is not such a simple task, let’s take a look at how the human legal addition of the marriage license came to be in our nation and how it took near universal use less than 100 years ago.

According to the North Carolina History project, in 1741, the state increased control over marriages, primarily to prohibit interracial marriages by issuing marriage licenses. By the 1920′s, some 38 other states had issued similar laws in an effort to keep the white race “pure.” Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act (RIA) of 1924 made it illegal for mixed-race couples to marry. The RIA remained law until 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage unconstitutional. History of Marriage Licenses.

There you have it in a nutshell. The bottom line was that in order to bolster the control of a racist state, the marriage license was created. Of course today we no longer have the legal problem with interracial marriage thanks to the Supreme Court. However, the fact that this is no longer a problem doesn’t mean that the Federal Government or the states will agree to just drop the requirement for a license. There is one other large factor involved, money. The fees for obtaining a license generate a significant amount of funds for cities, counties, and states. These entities are not about to simply give up that revenue and so will strongly oppose efforts to do away with the marriage license as a legal requirement. In addition, the fact that marriages can be performed in a strictly civil ceremony by a judge increases the state’s desire to hold on to as much control as possible via a license.

So is my suggestion wishful thinking, or is there a way it can be accomplished? In the final installment of this series we will examine at least one way to perhaps implement a re-privatizing of the institution of marriage.

The End of a Road “Paved With Good Intentions” – Part 2

Daniel Osborn — Sun, 05 May 2013 16:47:10 +0000

Humpty Dumpty and Alice. From Through the Looking-Glass. Illustration by John Tenniel. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. “All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, Couldn’t put Humpty together again.” – Samuel Arnold

The creation of the United Nations after the second World War was to be a signal to the world that the people of this planet were going to begin to cooperate in friendship and across national and ethnic lines. While it may not happen quickly, it seemed assured that with diligent effort and good will, peace in our world, and in our time would happen. The United Nations, like ‘Humpty Dumpty’ seemed secure on top of a global “wall” and ready to oversee the new age of peace and enlightenment which would surely follow.

In the intervening almost seven decades, the reality of what the U.N. has done and become has revealed a ‘great fall’ from the high perch of liberal aspirations into a ditch of moral relativism, multiculturalism, corruption and incompetence. In fact, the fall has been so great that it may be impossible to put “Humpty” together again even with “all the king’s men!”

In Part 1 of this article we examined two prominent cases of corruption at the U.N. However, the organization has had serious problems even from the beginning. The inclusion in the Security Counsel of permanent members China and the former U.S.S.R. signaled the beginning of woes for the U.N. Those who fashioned the U.N. had a fatal flaw in their own philosophy. They suffered from the same viewpoint disease that those on the left suffer from to this day, moral relativism. This is the disease that tries to make the case for all belief systems to be viewed as “equally moral,” despite the wide ranging differences between them. Morality is thus “relative.” It is to be understood that no one’s culture or religious belief (or lack of one) is more “moral” or good than anyone else’s. Naturally that means they believed that once every nation just got together to talk and understand one another, we would all realize the inherent goodness and “brotherhood” of all humanity and of course, we would all work for world peace. It wouldn’t matter what our different faiths taught, they were all morally right.

Thus a nation which has the belief that women are the ‘property’ of men and can be beaten at will or be subjected to genital mutilation was just as morally “right” as a nation which believed that women should have equal rights with a man. This liberal utopian vision of everyone working together and singing ’round the campfire disdains the demonstrable presence of evil in the human heart, and that is a very large mistake. For the one thing we should have learned from terrorism in this century alone is that not only does evil exist, it can and does breed and grow in the human heart.

In one way they were correct. Nations such as the U.S.S.R. did indeed desire world “peace.” However, their picture of world peace was of a subjugation of all nations as a union of communists dictated to by the all-powerful Soviet state. Once totalitarian nations were put on equal footing in the most powerful council of the U.N., the stage was set to guarantee that the U.N. itself would prove a very ineffectual instrument for peace in our time.

In the final installment of this series, we will examine attempts by the U.N. in recent history to settle disputes both between and within various nations around the globe. There, we will see the fruit that has come from the flawed foundations of the U.N. and why I believe the United States should withdraw both it’s support and presence from the organization.

The Daily Pamphlet

It is Time You Left!

Related articles

Logic and Gun “Control” – Part 2

Related articles

The End of a Road “Paved With Good Intentions” – Part 3

Obamacare and the Droogies

The End Of An Error

Related articles

Benghazi Hearings Needed Sam Irvin

Related articles

Journalism In America

Related articles

Logic and Gun ‘Control’ – Part 1

Related articles

Marriage Equality – A Simple Solution – Part 2

Related articles

The End of a Road “Paved With Good Intentions” – Part 2

Related articles