Andy Mangione received a real wake-up call the other day about how Obamacare really works, up front and personal. Here’s his story…
It will be fascinating to see how people react to a new book by an award-winning gay journalist exposing the truth about the 1998 death of homosexual Matthew Shepherd.
Just as a backdrop of lies brought us legalized abortion in 1973 through Roe v. Wade, it now appears that more lies were used to help homosexual activists kick the bullying industry into hyper-drive via the tragic death of Matthew Shepherd.
Facts about the Shepherd case were wrongfully reported and widely accepted as truth.
Much has been accomplished for leftists and homosexual activists in the name of tolerance, including the implementation of anti-bullying curriculums in public schools, most of which discriminate against Christians. Songs have been written and dedicated to Matthew Shepherd by Elton John, Melissa Etheridge, Lady Gaga, and others. Films have been made about his death, and a dedication play called “The Laramie Project” has been performed over 2,000 times worldwide.
In 2009, President Obama signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a federal law against gay hate crimes that was named after Matthew Shepherd. The new details of the Shepherd case won’t sit well with our pro-homosexual government.
What really happened?
Matthew Shepherd accepted a ride from two men, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, in October 1998. They pistol-whipped him, robbed him, tied him to a fence, and left. The incident became a famous ‘hate’ crime because the motives were made up by opportunistic activists, and the media ran with the ‘vicious homophobes’ narrative even before Shepherd died!
This new bombshell book by Stephen Jimenez, The Book of Matt, was written after he personally interviewed hundreds of people (including the two murderers), concluding that the case had more to do with drugs than Shepherd’s sexuality.
It turns out Shepard was a regular crystal meth user and a meth dealer; and his killer, McKinney, had been on a meth bender. Inconvenient facts were ignored, and America’s most famous hate crime was not a hate crime after all.
Gay journalist Aaron Hicklin asked this question in his article in The Advocate:
And how does it color our understanding of such a crime if the perpetrator and victim not only knew each other but also had [homosexual] sex together, bought drugs from one another, and partied together?
Someone recently said, “Only a weak cause which is not confident of its own righteousness needs to lie to prove its point.” What difference does it make today when the damage has already been done in the courts of public opinion?
This goes beyond lies to advancing an aggressive agenda.
Let’s recall a shocking, disturbing murder committed by homosexuals – an actual hate crime few have heard about.
A complicit national media fanned the flames of false homophobia in the Shepherd case. The following is an excerpt from a chapter entitled, “Normalizing Homosexuality” in the book – ERADICATE: BLOTTING OUT GOD IN AMERICA.
In Prairie Grove, Arkansas, thirteen-year-old Jesse (Yates) Dirkhising was killed by two homosexual men [in 1999]. Jesse was bound and drugged, tortured, raped, and he died due to a combination of the drugs and the position in which he was tied down. The Washington Times was the only national media outlet to report the story at first.
…the Matthew Shepard case received massive, ongoing national media attention because Shepard, the victim, was a homosexual. While both victims died as the result of assaults by two men, Dirkhising was a minor while Shepard was an adult. No protections have been issued or written on behalf of minors, but severe hate crimes legislations have been passed and implemented to protect homosexuals. Gays (it’s an unwritten rule) cannot be portrayed as villains by the media even if they were convicted of rape, torture, and murder.
The Washington Times story was headlined, “Media tune out torture death of Arkansas boy.” Tim Graham, director of media studies at the Media Research Center said that no one in the media wants to be on the wrong side of the issue by saying anything negative about homosexuals. The LexisNexis Group provides computer-assisted research services and revealed a drastic contrast in the two cases in a media search.
One month after each murder, there were 3,007 stories about Matthew Shepard’s death compared with only forty-six stories about Jesse Dirkhising’s death.
The deception and duplicity of this double standard is glaring.
How should Christians respond when some claim we’re being hateful, bigoted, or intolerant by simply talking about our faith? Pray for them because for those who have not placed their faith in the only Truth, Jesus Christ, this life is all there is.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 features a laundry list of sins describing those who will not inherit God’s kingdom. We must all appear before a holy, all-powerful God on Judgment Day; and we should be most concerned with our own standing with God before looking at others.
We also need to avoid extremes. One extreme is the ‘God hates fags’ crowd, who treat homosexual behavior as the unforgivable sin. It is not. The other extreme is being silent, accepting or even approving of the destructive lifestyle of homosexuality mainly because we fear opposition. Don’t be intimidated.
Bullying is bullying, no matter who is doing it! Hey activists: name calling and stereotyping people that stand for what they believe is exactly what you don’t want done to you. The right of free speech should work both ways.
Hate crime and bullying propaganda has been used to advance their agenda temporarily, but God will have the final say.
Follow @Fiorazo on Twitter
Photo credit: Amazon.com
Police are shocked at how much violence a trio of thugs used against an 80-year-old man, who suffered a fractured cheek and cuts above his eye in an attempted carjacking, WXIA-TV reports.
Creston Portis had returned to his home in East Point, Ga. — about 15 minutes south of Atlanta — after visiting friends and backed into his driveway when two males and one female blocked him in and approached him, according to police.
“Ahh, the inhumanity!!”
That has been the liberal rallying cry since the 1960’s. With a massive liberal majority in Congress in 1965, Lyndon Johnson implemented his Great Society program. It established Medicare and Medicaid to provide healthcare to disadvantaged groups such as the elderly and the poor while expanding Social Security to include things such as welfare benefits.
This is when the War on Poverty began.
With the onset of Obamacare as the fourth entitlement, opposition to it has been attacked with such gems as “Republicans want you to die quickly,” or that the Republicans were going to “push Granny off the cliff.” Implementing Obamacare was the humane thing to do.
With the three entitlement programs that have been in place since 1965, the question I have is simple – Have they worked? The answer is a resounding no!
Liberals are unwillingly to realize that you cannot legislate the poor into success. When poverty becomes comfortable, it goes from being a condition to a way of life. When liberals decided to increase the amount of benefits provided to the poor (which happens every year automatically) because “with a little more help, they will be able to make it on their own” the poor become more entrenched in their entitlement mentality. They will do even less to change any aspect of their life because they are certain that liberals will continue to provide more for them so they can work even less.
Under Obama, poverty has risen to heights never before seen in this country. You see individuals such as this lady voting for Obama because she wants her Obamaphone. One thing to reinforce my point about the entitlement mentality the poor has developed – “…keep Obama as President…he is going to do more…” She is not going to do anything – Obama is.
Then you have this woman who has had 15 children with no means of supporting them, but insists that “someone needs to pay for all my children…for all our suffering.” She isn’t responsible for having 15 children. She says that someone else is.
The liberals’ war on poverty is a resounding defeat.
However, the liberals’ solution is not to reform the existing entitlement programs or to eliminate them altogether. No, of course not! Their solution is to create another entitlement program to legislate the poor into success by providing health care so they will not have to concern themselves with it. (FYI – That is what Medicare and Medicaid do already.)
Meanwhile, Obama has also declared that being on food stamps is your right – even if you are illegal. Obama has declared that you are entitled to a house you cannot pay for, higher education (even if you are unqualified), and on and on. He even said that we need to spread the wealth around so that others can be as successful as you while doing nothing.
The next question is also simple – Why did the liberals lose the war on poverty?
Let’s start with the fraud, waste, and abuse.
One rationale for the implementation of Obamacare was that there was an exuberant amount of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid. AARP has estimated that fraud, waste, and abuse is close to $100 billion. In 2010, CBS News projected this amount at $60 billion and described it as a growing criminal industry. In 2009, the Obama Administration released a fact sheet stating that fraud, waste, and abuse of Medicare and Medicaid totaled $54 billion. So, within Obama’s first term, the amount of fraud, waste, and abuse of Medicare and Medicaid has almost doubled within 4 years. (Do realize that this is not even touching on the amount of fraud there is with Social Security.)
What about the disparity between receiving entitlements and working for a living?
The poor actually live better by doing nothing than people earning minimum wage in 35 states. In thirteen states, it pays $15/hour. Think about that. You can get paid $31,200 to do NOTHING! Of course, since you would be on welfare, you would also qualify for other benefit programs such as food stamps, housing assistance, living assistance, and many of the other entitlement programs liberals say will make you successful. However, by providing these ever-increasing entitlements, liberals have allowed people to live quite comfortably while doing nothing.
By the way, the welfare champions are Hawaii (tax-free), Washington D.C., Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York, where you can earn over $43,000 to do nothing. Notice a trend – they are all Democrat states.
Someone needs to explain to these recipients that they are supposed to get off entitlements and actually get a job where they work for a living. But why should they when the liberals will provide even more to them?
Bill Clinton campaigned on reforming entitlements because it was supposed to be a “second chance, not a way of life.” Obama has not only made it a way of life. He has made it a badge of courage and respectability to be totally dependent on the government.
So, why are people against Obamacare?
It is another entitlement that will fail. It is another entitlement that will create another generation that will not expect to work, but will expect the government to provide for them. Simply put – it is another defeat for the liberals who have already lost the war but just won’t admit it. Liberals encourage the entitlement mentality with the same mantra – “If we give them a little more, then we will win it.”
Since that will never work, it is up to the rational people in America to stop it.
Rep. Mike Kelly speaks out on the problems with the UN Arms Trade Treaty that was signed by Sec. Kerry. In short, he highlights the fact that there is no support in the treaty of our 2nd amendment rights, the treaty could create an illegal gun registry, the Obama administration adopted the treaty despite a lack of consensus in support of the ATT at the UN, and more.
Unfortunately, Americans who support legal gun ownership have become understandably wary of law enforcement. Numerous accounts have surfaced in recent months of officers confiscating firearms and disrupting events designed to celebrate and protect the Second Amendment.
While individual police officers certainly have the prerogative to advocate for more restrictive gun control, they are ostensibly bound by laws currently on the books. Using their own moral judgement in enforcing the law is a gross miscarriage of their prescribed duties.
Much to the delight of those gathered for a recent open carry demonstration, at least one Michigan deputy is not afraid to let citizens exercise their rights.
In response to the Orion Township protest, someone in the community called authorities to complain. Luckily for those in attendance, the responding officer was deputy Paul Buell.
According to a recap of the event posted online along video of the incident, protesters initially feared the worst.
When they saw Buell’s squad car approach, the narrative states, “we all took out our camera phones right away, anticipating trouble.”
Instead of chastising the group, though, the deputy reportedly “gets out of his car, waves to us, and walks right over,” the unidentified writer continues. “He shakes all of our hands, introduces himself, and states his purpose for walking over to us.”
Though he was obligated to respond to the complaint, Buell recognized that there was nothing illegal about the peaceful gathering of armed Americans.
“I’m out to catch bad guys,” he told the group, “not people that are exercising their constitutional right.”
The conversation continued, including Buell’s assertion that only “uneducated” people are instinctually afraid of guns.
A general consensus among those present was “that it was an honor to meet this man,” wrote the online author, definitively calling Buell “A HERO.”
As professional and congenial as this deputy was, it is a sad commentary on our common culture that his behavior is regarded as heroic. Conservatives, specifically gun owners, have grown so accustomed to having their liberties curtailed that the mere reaffirmation of those rights constitutes grounds for celebration.
Like The Informed Conservative’s Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily. Follow on Twitter @BCAgee.
Secretary of State John Kerry signing the United Nations small arms treaty is nothing more than empty symbolism, and Obama will get nowhere in his latest attempt to advance gun-control legislation, says Bill Frady, host of “Lock ‘n’ Load Radio” presented by Gun Owners of America. Frady also noted that the U.S. government has been buying up AK-47 rifles and ammunition.
In my previous column, I underscored the 1920s lessons that President Obama and fellow “progressives” need to learn. These include the value of tax cuts — lessons that the president and his allies will refuse. They want big, expanded government, not big tax cuts and government restraint.
Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, who understood that reducing tax rates can actually create more revenue, wasn’t proffering some mere academic theory. He and Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge cut the 73-percent upper-income rate left by President Woodrow Wilson. In 1922, it was cut to 58 percent; by 1925, to 25 percent.
What happened? Not only did the economy boom, vanquishing Wilson’s double-digit unemployment, but Coolidge consistently balanced the federal budget. Mellon was right: More revenue came in, rising from $700 million to $1 billion.
Unfortunately, “progressive” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt skyrocketed the top rate to 94 percent. It would be reduced to 70 percent by 1965; but it took President Ronald Reagan to return it to Mellon-era levels, ultimately to 28 percent. Like Mellon, Reagan saw federal revenue increase, from $600 billion to $1 trillion.
So, why did deficits increase under Reagan? Liberals insist that his tax cuts generated deficits. They’re wrong. It’s crucial to understand how and why.
Reagan’s deficits resulted from revenue loss during the 1981-83 recession and — foremost — from excessive spending. As revenues rose from $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989, spending — on social programs by congressional Democrats and on defense by Reagan — soared from $678 billion to $1.143 trillion.
Reagan biographer Lou Cannon calls the Reagan deficits “war-time deficits,” aimed at winning the Cold War and terminating the Soviet Union. Once they did, they paved the way for President Bill Clinton to slash defense spending and balance the budget.
Reagan’s deficits peaked in 1983-86, when the upper-income rate was still 50 percent. It wasn’t reduced again until 1987, to 38.5 percent, and didn’t come down to 28 percent until 1988. And get this: Reagan’s deficits actually decreased in 1987-89.
Think about that: Reagan’s deficits peaked when the upper tax rate was 50 percent, far higher than the 39.6 percent that President Obama and liberal Democrats demanded. If Obama believes that deficits will come down with a 39.6-percent upper rate, why didn’t they go down with Reagan’s 50 percent?
That gets back to the main reason for most deficits: excessive spending. History tells us this again and again. It’s an irrefutable, common-sense fact. It’s an elementary fact that liberals/progressives resist because it stands in the way of what they really want to do: grow government and redistribute wealth.
Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College, executive director of The Center for Vision & Values, and New York Times best-selling author of the book, “The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor.” His other books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”
Editor’s note: This column first appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Photo Credit: terrellaftermath
The dirty secret is out.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, and John Cornyn, the senior Senator from Texas, have stuck a big knife in the back of their colleague, Senator Ted Cruz.
While Cruz stands alone in his call to defund the Affordable Care Act, his two colleagues are working the Republican caucus to rescue Obamacare.
McConnell and Cornyn are doing what the so-called opponents of big government do best: surrendering and tossing up the white flag. The socialists of the Obama administration can now breathe a deep sigh of relief. Senator Ted Cruz’s attempt to kill Obamacare’s funding was the final battle of an ineffective war that the Republicans have waged since the bill was passed.
How Did We Get Here?
Before the ‘90s, Congress ran properly, and spending was handled as part of the regular order of business. The budget was separated into its component parts, and hearings were held to discuss which programs worked and which programs needed to be cut or reformed.
But as government grew bigger and bigger, Congress quit reviewing programs and marking up individual appropriations bills. Now, programs no longer receive appropriate congressional oversight.
At the end of the year, congressional leaders present the Congress with gigantic spending bills called the Continuing Resolution (CR) that “keep the government running.” The problem with these bills is that they don’t allow for the discontinuation of programs. The spending bill is stuffed full of every broken, uneconomic program under the sun. Then, in the week before government is set to go broke, congressional representatives face the prospect of voting for every program or shutting the government down.
Can you imagine a private company that could never discontinue a product or close a factory? Well, this is how the government is being run. Keep everything the same, no matter how poorly performing, or shut the entire enterprise down. Close the doors and go away.
Now, nobody believes the U.S. government is going away. Nobody believes that next year, the IRS isn’t going to collect its pound of flesh, or that Barack Obama won’t be flying around in his private 747, campaigning for bigger government at the taxpayers’ expense.
Every year at budget time, this charade goes on. Personally, I find it sickening.
A Glitch in the System
This year, though, we see a surprising freshman senator by the name of Ted Cruz. He hasn’t yet been schooled in the ways of Washington. He hasn’t processed the lesson that we have to make this Hobson’s choice every fall. So he came up with a plan to not fund Obamacare in the CR.
His reward for thinking outside the box – behavior that would receive rich rewards in the private sector – is to be knifed and then hung out to dry by his own party leaders.
We shouldn’t be surprised. The U.S. government has become an unmanageable, destructive giant that’s leading the country’s economy to ruin. When someone tries to make even modest corrections to balance the budget and rationalize behavior, they become the victim of a high-tech smear campaign launched by their false-flag friends.
I dare say that these egotistical maniacs running the asylum we call D.C. won’t change their tactics until they’ve so totally destroyed the country that we have no chance of renewal.
(Let’s face it… it’s not like they care. Even as the country burns, our politicians are busy using their privileged information to make huge profits. Heck, with political intelligence like that, anyone could make a killing. That’s where we come in. We’ve created Constitutional Wealth, our flagship newsletter, to help you profit alongside the political elite. You don’t have to be in the dark any longer. Just click here to find out more about this exclusive offer – and discover just how easy it is to go from policy to profit.)
If I was Senator Cruz, I’d dust my feet off and leave in disgust. Let’s hope he has more patience than I do and continues to fight. I personally salute him and the House Republicans desperately trying to kill this monstrosity called Obamacare before it’s too late. He offered up a valiant effort this time, and he should continue to fight the status quo in Congress.
On the other hand, I have nothing but contempt for the two-faced Republican leaders such as John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn, who all deserve to lose their jobs for dishonesty and cowardly behavior.
This commentary originally appeared at CapitolHillDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission.
Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)