I have never been prouder

Mr. President, you caved in on the wall and I have never been prouder of you. The wall must be built. It is immoral not to have the wall.  The wall will be built.  So why am I saying that I am proud of Trump for caving on the wall?

All your enemies are parading right now and you are being ridiculed.  But I know the real story.  You did not lose or fail.

This will be the blog that I will get the most criticism for writing. However, I have never been so certain that I am speaking the truth. Please do not be lazy and judge me before you read this.

Look with me at 1 Kings 3: 16 Now two women who were harlots came to the king, and stood before him. 17 And one woman said, “O my lord, this woman and I dwell in the same house; and I gave birth while she was in the house. 18 Then it happened, the third day after I had given birth, that this woman also gave birth. And we were together; no one was with us in the house, except the two of us in the house. 19 And this woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on him. 20 So she arose in the middle of the night and took my son from my side, while your maidservant slept, and laid him in her bosom, and laid her dead child in my bosom. 21 And when I rose in the morning to nurse my son, there he was, dead. But when I had examined him in the morning, indeed, he was not my son whom I had borne.”

22 Then the other woman said, “No! But the living one is my son, and the dead one is your son.” And the first woman said, “No! But the dead one is your son, and the living one is my son.” Thus they spoke before the king.

23 And the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son, who lives, and your son is the dead one’; and the other says, ‘No! But your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one.’ ” 24 Then the king said, “Bring me a sword.” So they brought a sword before the king. 25 And the king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to one, and half to the other.”

26 Then the woman whose son was living spoke to the king, for she yearned with compassion for her son; and she said, “O my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him!”

But the other said, “Let him be neither mine nor yours, but divide him.”

27 So the king answered and said, “Give the first woman the living child, and by no means kill him; she is his mother.”

Look deep into the eyes of Nancy Pelosi and what do you see? A grasping, cold heartless individual. Do you believe for one moment she cares about the government workers who aren’t getting paid? How far would she go to keep the government shut down. She would have kept it going no matter how much harm it did to families. She wouldn’t care if people were devastated.

When the two women stood before Solomon the real mother would not give into the false mother. Not for anything. But that changed when the life of the child was threatened. She was willing to lose. She was willing to be labelled the false mother.

Donald Trump loves American families and especially the American worker. The Democrat party on the other hand, does not—not even a little.

Does Trump care that this made him look weak…when he is actually being strong? Does he care that Nancy will do a victory dance with all the pomp of Jezebel in the Old Testament? No he does not. Neither does God, He knows the real story. Just as He brought justice through Solomon, He will reveal the true villains in this situation.

When it became clear that the damage would escalate to the point of doing great harm to families—when he realized that this was not a real estate deal like the ones he mentions in his bestselling book—when he realized that Pelosi could care less if it lasted a year and completely destroyed people—he, like that mom in the Bible, gave up his right to be right.

To the 800,000 of you who will now get paid remember: It was Donald Trump and not Nancy Pelosi who put you before politics. And by the way…Donald Trump will get the wall.

Mr. President, even some of your own will turn on you now. But I know…more importantly God knows, what is deep in your heart—what you did, and why you did it.  I have never been prouder of you. God bless you.


The intention of the democratic party is clear: They want votes no matter what the cost.  There is nothing noble about what they are doing.  They don’t care about poverty, they don’t care about safety, they don’t care about equality.  They are in it for votes. Period.

All their rhetoric about poverty, equality, religious freedom and human rights is pure window dressing.   

They are betting that no matter how much harm comes to innocent Americans—it is worth it.  No matter how much they damage cities it is worth it.  No matter who, and how, anyone gets hurt, it is worth it. 

The illegal vote is omnipotent to them.   They will harm Americans in poverty in favor of illegals.  They will break Federal Law for illegals.  They will hurt their own constituents—they will abandon people who voted for them. 

They have till March to deal with DACA, and Republicans have already said they want to help.  It was a fight they didn’t need to start.  It was grandstanding—they threw a bone to illegals.  They shut down the government knowing it would cut off the money to our soldiers, children,  and a host of others.  The last time the government shut down it cost 24 Billion dollars.

You really believe their intentions are honorable?  Having failed every demographic group, they ever swore to help—having left a trail of devastation, littered with homeless camps (see video below) and despair—they seek fresh meat—someone unfamiliar with their record of failure, someone to keep them alive.

A sanctuary city—to them—means something totally different.  It means a sanctuary for career politicians to remain in power.  It means sanctuary for bankrupt and failed policies. 

California is now the king of poverty.  Still, they pursue a course of pure madness. Businesses are already leaving California…so what do they do?  After Trump lowered the corporate tax rate—California introduced a bill to take half of the money businesses will save. 

“California lawmakers are targeting the expected windfall that companies in the state would see under the federal tax overhaul with a bill that would require businesses to turn over half to the state. A proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment by Assemblymen Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, and Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would create a tax surcharge on California companies making more than $1 million so that half of their federal tax cut would instead go to programs that benefit low-income and middle-class families.” -SF GATE

And do what with it? Actually? Fund health care for illegals.  I can’t make this stuff up.  

Now look at this video of Southern California, the homeless capital of America



Media Cover Shutdown Victims over Obamacare Victims 100 to 1

Media Cover Shutdown Victims over Obamacare Victims 100 to 1

“Real consequences for real people.”


Since October 1, when the government shutdown began, the media have run dozens upon dozens of stories about victims of the shutdown. Over the same period of time, the media have run virtually no stories about businesses suffering thanks to Obamacare, low-income people victimized by the new Obamacare tax, and economic chaos thanks to the impact of Obamacare. That’s particularly ridiculous given that with the furloughed federal workers soon to be back at their desks and paid for their furloughed time, the number of people seriously hurt by the government shutdown is minute, as opposed to the widespread damage from Obamacare.

The Washington Post was a key offender in its bias. Between October 1 and October 16, the Washington Post website published over 220 stories both from its own writers and the wires focusing on the supposedly horrible effects of the government shutdown. Most obviously, the Post ran a story declaring, simply, “Government shutdown generates stories of misery around the country.” But when it came to the implementation of Obamacare, though the Post ran more than 80 stories, many of them on failures of the Obamacare website, it apparently ran a grand total of 3 that focused mainly on the individuals and small businesses victimized by Obamacare itself.

The three articles openly criticizing Obamacare by focusing on victims included one about aveterinarian paying more for equipment thanks to the medical device tax, one about a local utility saying that coverage would be dropped, and one quoting a “Rush Limbaugh fan.” That was it.

There were a few occasional pieces pointing out structural flaws in Obamacare (generally the call from the Post was to rectify those flaws by extending more federal dollars), but those were few and far between. There were several op-eds against Obamacare, but thePost ran more pieces about the potential glories of Obamacare: “The myth about job-killing Obamacare,” “Obamacare saved my family from financial ruin,” a piece about a person happy to sit for hours at the failed Obamacare website to purchase insurance, young people looking forward to the exchanges, and op-eds proclaiming that the American people aredying for Obamacare.

The forty or so articles about the Obamacare rollout were generally negative – that is, except for the fact that the rollout was largely faulty, according to multiple articles in thePostthanks to overdemand, and once fixed, buying Obamacare would be “pretty easy!” And, hey, in the end, “Google will make you immortal (and Obamacare will pay for it),” thePost reported. As for small business concerns, those were based on myths.

The Post was not nearly as sanguine about the shutdown. The Post made sure to cover that alleged misery in gory detail. There were dozens of stories lamenting the fate offurloughed federal workersThey came in all shapes and sizes, including stories about

The most amusing piece was certainly one from spouses of federal workers asking for the government to take them back to get them out of the house (“Take them back – please!”).

There were myriad generalized stories about how the shutdown would inevitably doom the American economy. The economy of Washington D.C. came in for heavy coveragesmall business, too, was said to be on the rocks thanks to the shutdown (including auto sales,crab fishermenpawn shopsSilicon Valley start-upscraft brewers, and food trucks). Ford’s Theater took it on the chin. National parks closedContractors were suddenly victims, as opposed to the more usual representatives of the military industrial complex. Education fell victim to the shutdown. So, of course, did veterans and tourists. Even lottery winners had to wait for their winnings, the Post reported. The White House’s magical organic garden, too, became a victim of the shutdown (“Weeds have sprouted. Sweet potatoes are unpicked,” the Post lamented). Museums closed. Children couldn’t go to the Zoo. The weather was even affected. But, the Post reported, the stink bug remained at the mercy of the neutered federal government.

There were several pictorial depictions of the utter misery of the American population over the government shutdown. There were old people being screwed out of their Social Security; investigations into plane accidents and the deaths of civil rights leaders being abandoned;court cases going unprocessed; operas going unsungYouth lacrosse faced the chopping block, as did some charitiesCancer patients faced death thanks to the shutdown, reported the PostWeddings faced location changes.

Just in case readers didn’t get the point, the Post ran explanatory articles illustrating “8 immoral ways the government shutdown is hurting the needy,” “15 ways the Federal shutdown is hampering the National Weather Service,” “Nine ways the shutdown is only going to get worse,” “10 ways the shutdown is dangerous,” “Nine painful effects of a shutdown,” “10 ways the shutdown will affect your daily life,” and “The government shutdown – in 9 images.” There were how-to articles on what to do with free time during the shutdownfeeding your family during a furloughhooking up on Craigslist during a shutdown, and, of course, shutdown shopping.

There were personal accounts of losing Head Start and being furloughed and moving from the White House to bartending; the government shutdown was “told in food”; somehow, even a frozen eagle became the subject of a shutdown story.

So, how did The New York Times stack up in its coverage of victims of the government shutdown versus victims of Obamacare? It ran well over 80 stories about victims of the government shutdown, ranging from general takes on the economic situation to lamentations about a new FEMA employee losing her job; from automakers taking a hit to Native Americans suffering; from foreign policy to restaurants; from a Tyrannosaurus Rex not entering a museum to furloughed employees having shutdown parties.

The Times ran zero stories about those negatively affected by Obamacare itself. It ran a story on old people being confused by the Obamacare exchanges; it ran several stories on its technological drawbacks; it ran a few stories on drafting errors (to be expected, and generally correctible, said the Times). But the Times ran a slew of Paul Krugman odes to Obamacare, several pieces talking about how small business benefitted from Obamacare, or at least had little impact on jobs.

The story was the same on television. From October 1 to October 15, ABC World Newswith Diane Sawyer spent approximately 21 minutes over the course of eight broadcasts covering stories of the shutdown and its effects on victims. Over the course of the same period, ABC News covered Obamacare twice, and then only to point out website difficulties quickly but praise Obamacare overall. On October 1, for example, a reporter stated, “When Vanessa previously shopped around for her family of four, she was quoted $2,000 a month. Today she found a plan for just $427!” That same night, ABC News quoted different Americans complaining about the shutdown: “I live from paycheck to paycheck unfortunately.” “These are real people’s lives being affected and ruined.” “I’m getting tired of feeling like a ping-pong ball.”

There were no stories of victims of Obamacare in that entire period.

Brian Williams’ NBC Nightly News was no better. From October 1 to October 16, the program spent over 30 minutes discussing victims of the government shutdown. Victims included a former Navy diver (“if it wasn’t for the check, we’d lose everything”), furloughed federal workers (“yeah, that will put us behind, it will put us very behind as far as trying to catch up with bills”), and local restaurant workers near federal centers (“it was rough, last week was rough, I had a day where I made like $9 total”). All Obamacare coverage was relegated to discussion of website glitches, but no actual victims of Obamacare were shown (all victims were people in need of healthcare whom Obamacare would help once the glitches were ironed out).

How about CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley? Aside from segments about the Obamacare glitches (which, again, underscored the idea that people need Obamacare but were having trouble obtaining it, and took about nine minutes of total airtime), there were no stories about victims of Obamacare. There was a two minute segment about evil Republican governors who hadn’t expanded Medicaid under Obamacare, however.

CBS rolled out approximately 27 minutes worth of stories on government shutdown victims, including frustrated federal workers complaining about not being paid, lack of military death benefits (“New casualties of this battle, the families of Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice”), and even the owner of a Joshua Tree store suffering from the parks shutdown (“closing the parks now would be like closing the malls at Christmas”).

“Real consequences for real people,” intoned anchor Pelley on October 7.

Overall, the Washington Post and New York Times covered victims of the government shutdown over victims of Obamacare by a margin of 100 to 1; ABC, NBC, and CBS News all covered victims of the government shutdown over victims of Obamacare by a margin of over 78 minutes to zero.

Jeremy Boreing, Paul Bois, and Yehuda Remer contributed to this piece.

Budget deal allows for January federal pay raise.

Federal Eye

Budget deal allows for January federal pay raise

  • October 17 at 11:34 am

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

The budget measure that ended the partial government shutdown allows for a 1 percent raise for federal employees in January in addition to providing back pay for those furloughed, according to two Democratic Maryland senators.

“The promise of a modest pay raise and back pay for furloughed government employees are good first steps in recognizing the value of federal workers,” said Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee in a joint statement with Sen. Ben Cardin.

“I’m proud we were able to fulfill our promise to make them whole again with back pay and finally break through the pay freeze with a modest adjustment for next year,” said Cardin, a member of the Senate Finance Committee.

Federal employee salary rates have not been increased since January 2010. Some employees have had their pay frozen that entire time while some have received raises due to promotion, performance, or on advancing up the steps of their pay grades.

President Obama proposed a 1 percent raise for January 2014 in his budget plan released in the spring. Over the following months, Congress drafted spending bills for fiscal year 2014 that mostly were totally silent regarding a raise or that said that if one is paid, agencies would have to absorb the cost out of other spending. One Senate measure, however, specifically endorsed a 1 percent raise.

In late August, Obama announced his intent  to set a 1 percent January raise by default, as is allowed by federal pay law, if no other figure, including zero, were enacted into law by the end of the calendar year.

The budget measure that ended the partial government shutdown and lifted the federal debt ceiling extends agency funding roughly at prior levels through Jan. 15. It “would permit the President to implement his plan for a 1 percent pay raise in January, 2014,” according to the joint statement.

A  presidential order would be needed in December to finalize the raise, which would take effect with the first full pay period of January, sometime early in the month depending on agency pay cycles.

An effort could yet be made in Congress to continue the salary rate freeze but the underlying presumption now is that the increase will be paid and supporters would fight strenuously to preserve it, a Capitol Hill official said.

Senate leaders announce agreement to end shutdown, raise debt.

Government-shutdown copy

Senate leaders announce agreement to end shutdown, raise debt

Top senators struck a deal Wednesday to reopen the government and extend the federal government’s borrowing authority into next year and both sides of the Capitol are hoping for quick action to reassure nervous financial markets eyeing a Thursday deadline set by the Treasury Department.

“The compromise we reached will provide our economy with the stability it desperately needs,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said after he and his GOP counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell, struck the deal.


For Republicans, the deal was more about getting an embarrassing couple of weeks behind them than in being able to claim victory in a deal that they felt compelled to make.

“It’s my hope that today we can put some of those most urgent issues behind us,” Mr. McConnell said.

The agreement by Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell signals the bill should clear the Senate, but it must also survive the House, where Republicans have the majority but leaders have shown little ability to control the floor. The legislation will likely require House Democrats to provide the majority of support.

The deal would reopen the government with a stopgap spending bill running to Jan. 15, and would extend the government’s borrowing authority through at least Feb. 7. It would also require both the House and Senate to name negotiators to try to reach a final deal on a 2014 budget, giving them a December deadline.

The only major concession Republicans won was to include strict income monitoring of those seeking taxpayer subsidies under Obamacare.

Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who led the GOP into its stance to withhold government funding until President Obama canceled the health care law, said Wednesday he had no regrets, and blamed his Republican colleagues for not backing his effort.

PHOTOS: The real Top Gun: Blue Angels and Thunderbirds

“Unfortunately the Senate chose not to follow the House,” Mr. Cruz told reporters.

He said that as Obamacare takes root, Americans are seeing their health premiums go “up and up and up,” while others are losing the coverage they once enjoyed.

Mr. Cruz did say he will not block action on the bill, which should allow it a speedier passage through the Senate. Before the shutdown, Mr. Cruz led a losing filibuster to try to stop passage of a spending bill, arguing he wanted to ensure it cut off Obamacare.

The Treasury Department had said it would run out of maneuvering room under the $16.7 trillion debt limit on Thursday, leaving it to pay out bills only with the cash still coming in from taxes and fees.

But Barclays financial services firm said in a memo Wednesday that it believes that cash would be enough to keep the government afloat through the end of the month, buying time for lawmakers to go through the hurdles of passing a bill through both chambers and getting it to Mr. Obama’s desk.

In laying out the deal he struck, Mr. McConnell sought to shift the focus to the next battle already looming over the budget sequesters.

Democrats have sought to undo the cuts, which are set to see a second round go into effect on Jan. 15. But Mr. McConnell said the next few months for Republicans will be about defending those cuts.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/16/senate-leaders-announce-agreement-end-shutdown/#ixzz2huEP6HdH
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Pentagon Withholding Death Benefits for Fallen Soldiers’ Families.

Pentagon Withholding Death Benefits for Fallen Soldiers’ Families

by DAN RIEHL 8 Oct 2013 

The Pentagon has confirmed it will not pay death benefits to the families of troops killed in combat during the so-called government shutdown.

With Obama’s recent startling admission that he won’t approve any measures to partially restore suspended government payments for purely political reasons, that puts the blame for this outrage squarely on his shoulders.

“Unfortunately, as a result of the shutdown, we do not have the legal authority to make death gratuity payments at this time,” said Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman. “However, we are keeping a close eye on those survivors who have lost loved ones serving in the Department of Defense.”

The House intends to vote Wednesday to restore funding for the payments. Speaker John Boehner has accused the Obama administration “of needlessly withholding the money.”

Over the weekend, four soldiers — two of them Army Rangers — and one Marine were killed while conducting combat operations in Afghanistan. The bodies of the four soldiers will be returned to Dover Air Force Base on Wednesday.

Due to the impasse, the families of 25-year-old 1st Lt. Jennifer M. Moreno; 24-year-old Pfc. Cody J. Patterson; 24-year-old Special Agent Joseph M. Peters; 25-year-old Sgt. Patrick C. Hawkins; and 19-year-old Lance Cpl. Jeremiah M. Collins, Jr. will not receive the $100,000 payment that they would have otherwise received within three days of the death.

Adding further insult, the families will have to pay for their own travel to Dover. That’s a bill the Pentagon also says it can’t pay because of the partial shutdown.

Privately, Defense Department officials say they wish they could pay the families and they admit it’s a disgrace that deserves national attention.

Boehner claimed a bill passed by Congress and signed by the president last week to pay America’s troops should have given the Pentagon the latitude “to pay all kinds of bills, including this.”

Republicans are winning the shutdown fight, and Democrats know it.

Obama on Benghazi


Obamacare or the Debt Ceiling


By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  October 7th, 2013 at 12:20 AM  |  190


Republicans are winning the shutdown fight, and Democrats know it.

People turning on the news this week came away with the knowledge that it was about Obamacare and kept hearing that Democrats wouldn’t negotiate. They also learned that for some reason the President didn’t want Word War II veterans to tour their own memorial, and Harry Reid won’t turn the funding on for cancer clinical trials at the NIH. Oh, and the rollout for Obamacare is one big glitch.

Late yesterday came word that the Amber Alert system has been shut down, but Barack Obama’s federally funded golf course remains open. Catholics are openly fretting that priests on military bases could get arrested for performing mass — at the very least they are prohibited from doing so.

The President had to invite Congressional Leaders to talk, Harry Reid had to sit down with Dana Bash of CNN to explain himself, the shutdown coverage overall started to recede by Friday, and the Democrats began to shift the conversation to the debt limit.

The polls are shifting against the Democrats. They will continue to shift as more and more Americans realize that this fight is fundamentally about the letter they just received informing them of massive premium increases.

But the problem is that the expiration of the debt limit is on October 17th (or thereabouts, as the President manipulates it) and both Democrats and Republican Leadership have an incentive to merge a “grand bargain” to increase the debt limit with a continuing resolution that funds Obamacare. Both sides get to change the conversation–one to protect an unpopular law and the other to minimize political risk by reverting back to the norm–and get past two critical leverage points with a blend of GOP and Democrat votes.

The result will be no substantial changes to Obamacare. It will be funded in its entirety. Sure, they will repeal the medical device tax and maybe add the Vitter language to have the illusion that Congress is going to live under Obamacare. Nothing real though.

Don’t believe me? Listen to the reporting. Its all grand bargain and debt limit. The negotiations do not include Obamacare.

So the question is do we want to stop Obamacare or do we want to stop the debt ceiling increase? My view is that we cannot do both at the same time. We might dare to dream, but the debt ceiling will be increased one way or the other.

Right now the GOP is holding up very well in the press and public opinion because it is clear they want negotiations. The GOP keeps passing legislation to fund departments of government. It has put the Democrats in an awkward position.

But the moment the GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, we are going to have problems. Remember, the last time you and I wanted the GOP to fight on the debt ceiling, the attacks from our own side were particularly vicious.

They’ve been vicious over the shutdown too, but now that we are here, the water ain’t so bad and only a few ankle biting yappers continue to take shots at conservatives from the GOP side.

It will not be so with the debt ceiling. And the GOP will no longer seem very reasonable. The debt ceiling fight will become an impediment to undermining Obamacare.

It is what Republican leaders want. They are hoping for us to be recalcitrant and angry over the debt ceiling increase. They want to appear to shove us off by raising it. They know they can’t fight us on Obamacare because the public hates Obamacare. But they know they can on the debt ceiling because of the specter of default.


So what should we do? I think somebody like Steve Scalise, who chairs the Republican Study Committee, needs to propose a short-term debt limit for a few weeks and attach to it the Full Faith and Credit Act that ensures the Treasury Department prioritizes interest payments in the event the debt limit is ever not increased. This would buy us some time to finish the fight to defund Obamacare and set us up well to fight the next long-term debt limit increase to the death by removing some of the President’s scare tactics. How do Republican Leaders not adopt and push such a proposal? How does Obama not accept it without looking completely unreasonable?

Regardless, the only path to victory in this shutdown is to keep our fire on Obamacare and our focus on the defunding effort. We can still undermine Obamacare, but we need to resist the attempt to merge this with the debt limit and hold the line on the continuing resolution. Otherwise we will lose on both.