Michelle Malkin: School Choice, Common Core Are Mortal Enemies

by Michelle Malkin

Published on 02.02.2014 5:30 p.m.

The freedom-enhancing, life-improving power of school choice is more than a theory for me. It’s more than a talking-points memo or teleprompter speech. Unlike many of the politicians paying lip service to National School Choice Week last week, the issue of expanding educational opportunity and freedom for all is something I live, breathe, practice and witness every day.

My mother was a public school teacher who taught in a majority-minority district in New Jersey for more than two decades. She and my father worked hard to put their own children in a mix of public and private Catholic schools. My own two children have been enrolled in private schools, religious schools and public schools. After a great deal of research, we moved to Colorado from the East Coast to escape the corrupted, dumbed-down curriculum of an overpriced private girls school.

Life lesson: It’s not just government schools that are the problem. Many supposedly “elite” schools indulge in the senseless pedagogical fads that infect monopoly public schools.

Every family in America deserves maximized, customized choices in education. It is the ultimate key to closing that “income inequality” gap the politicos are always gabbling about. Yet, the White House and Democrats beholden to public school unions and their money are the ones blocking the school choice door.

We were blessed to find a community of parents and public school educators in Colorado Springs who embrace high standards, academic excellence and strong character education for students of every race, creed and class. Competition in the secondary-school marketplace provided a desperately needed alternative for educational consumers who wanted more and better for their kids.

For the past four years, our kids, now 13 and 10, attended a high-achieving public charter school that caters to a truly diverse student body.

Our 13-year-old is now in eighth grade at the charter school. This year, we opted to homeschool our youngest. We cobbled together a fifth-grade curriculum with excellent materials from the Calvert homeschool seriesMemoria Press and classic Saxon Math. Another nearby public charter school offers a homeschool collective once a week.

Family participation is not an afterthought. It’s the engine that drives everything. The dedicated parents, grandparents, foster parents and legal guardians I’ve met in the charter school movement and homeschooling community see themselves as their children’s primary educational providers. Not the Education Department. Not the White House. Not GOP politicians cashing in on top-down “education reform.”

After several years of educational satisfaction, however, we’ve encountered another sobering life lesson: There is no escape, no foolproof sanctuary, from the reach of meddling Fed Ed bureaucrats and cash-hungry special interests who think they know what’s best for our kids.

Big-government Republicans such as Jeb Bush and flip-flopping Mike Huckabee pay lip service to increasing school choice and supporting charter schools, private schools and homeschooling. Yet, they have been among the loudest GOP peddlers of the Common Core standards/textbook/testing/data collection regime thrust upon schools who want nothing to do with it.

“Alignment” with the new regime means mediocrity, mandates, privacy invasions and encroachments on local control and educational sovereignty. I’ve seen it in my daughter’s polluted math curriculum. We are not alone. The threat is not just in one subject. It’s systemic.

Derek Anderson, principal of Ridgeview Classical Schools in Fort Collins, Colo., wrote to me last fall about the existential threat his charter school faces.

“Ridgeview Classical Schools is a K-12 charter school that offers a classical liberal arts education to approximately 800 students. We were established in 2001, and we have generally been one of the top three schools in Colorado since opening,” he said. “Our most significant issue with Common Core and the PARCC exams is that we feel we will lose the autonomy and other protections granted to us when Colorado adopted its Charter Schools Act in 1994.”

As I’ve noted, PARCC is the behemoth, federally funded testing consortium (the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) that raked in $186 million through President Barack Obamas Race to the Top program to develop nationalized tests “aligned” to the top-down Common Core program. Anderson and informed administrators, educators and parents like him understand: “PARCC is truly the enforcement mechanism that will coerce schools into adopting the Common Core curriculum. We cannot do this. It is entirely against the mission and philosophy of our school.”

It is, in short, sabotage. Anderson calls it an “almost existential dilemma. Our mission and philosophy are irreconcilable with Common Core’s.”

Homeschool mom of six and blogger Karen Braun of Michigan sees the threat to her choice, too. Her trenchant message: “True school choice allows a parent to choose any school that meets their child’s needs, not just those that adopt Common Core state standards and assessments.”

No fully funded school voucher system in the world can improve the educational experience if Fed Ed controls the classroom and homeschool room. Coerced conformity kills choice.

— Michelle Malkin is author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies. Contact her at malkinblog@gmail.com, follow her on Twitter: @michellemalkin, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.


Michelle Malkin: Why Parents Are ‘Paranoid’ About Common Core Racket

by Michelle Malkin  @michellemalkin

Published on 02.23.2014 5:30 p.m.

Last week’s award for Biggest Common Core Jerk goes to Missouri state Rep. Mike Lair, R-Chillicothe.

Parents, teachers and administrators who object to the government education “standards” racket — which usurps local control, impedes academic achievement and undermines family privacy — have politicians on the defensive. The only thing these Fed Ed flacks and hacks can respond with is cowardly condescension.

Lair, chairman of Missouri’s House Appropriations Committee on Education, inserted an $8 budget line item to mock Common Core critics as tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists. Lair’s item reads: “For two rolls of high-density aluminum to create headgear designed to deflect drone and/or black helicopter mind reading and control technology.”

Common Core jerkitude is a bipartisan disease. Lair’s ridicule of grave parental concerns about Common Core data mining follows in the footsteps of Education Secretary Arne Duncan (a Democrat who derided opponents as “white suburban moms”) and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (a Republican who derided opponents’ motives as “purely political”).

It’s all a snitty, snotty smokescreen that will backfire as more families from all parts of the political spectrum discover the truth about Common Core’s invasive nature.

Assessing Common Core is inextricably tied to the big business of data collection and data mining. States that took the Race to the Top bribes in exchange for adopting Common Core must now comply with the edutech requirements of two private testing conglomerates, the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers or the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. Common Core states also agreed to expand existing statewide longitudinal database systems that contain sensitive student data from pre-kindergarten through postsecondary education.

Will Estrada and Katie Tipton of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association conclude that “it will become increasingly difficult to protect the personal information of homeschool and private school students as these databases grow.” In addition to stimulus and Race to the Top enticements, both the Education andLabor departments have funded several other initiatives to build and make various interoperable student and teacher databases.

“Before our eyes,” Estrada and Tipton warn, “a ‘national database’ is being created in which every public school student’s personal information and academic history will be stored.” It’s no laughing matter.

Just last week, SafeGov.org, a computer privacy watchdog group, reported that Google has admitted in recent court filings that “it data mines student emails for ad-targeting purposes outside of school, even when ad serving in school is turned off.” The newly exposed documents explicitly “confirm in a sworn public court declaration that even when ad serving is turned off in Google Apps for Education (GAFE), the contents of users’ emails are still being scanned by Google in order to target ads at those same users when they use the web outside of Google Apps (for example, when watching a YouTube video, conducting a Google search, or viewing a web page that contains a Google+ or DoubleClick cookie).”

Last month, I reported on how Google is building brand loyalty through a questionable GAFE certification program that essentially turns teachers into tax-subsidized lobbyists for the company.

In New York, opposition from left, right and center has forced education bureaucrats to delay uploading personally identifiable student information to the Common Core-linked inBloom data cloud, a partnership of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

In Colorado, Jefferson County families from both sides of the political aisle forced the district to withdraw from a meddling inBloom pilot project adopted without parental consent.

As I’ve explained before, the exploding multibillion-dollar education technology sector is driven by Common Core’s top-down digital learning and testing mandates. Remember: Under the Obama administration, Grand Canyon-sized loopholes in the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act have already opened data mining of students’ personally identifiable information (Social Security numbers, disciplinary records, biometric data, etc.) to third-party private entities.

Dr. Gary Thomson of the Utah-based Early Life Child Psychology and Education Center, a father of four and a clinical psychologist, is asking the fundamental questions politicians refuse to ask — and continue to scorn — regarding the Common Core-driven data collection:

» “For what exact purpose will this sensitive data be utilized?”

» “What organizations will have access to identifiable academic records? Other than generic information regarding race, age, gender and geographic location, why does the federal database require identifiable information to be accessible?”

» “If the political responses to these questions are ‘all information contained in the database is unidentifiable and security stored,’ then why were changes made to FERPA to allow an exemption to educational privacy rights when it comes to the implementation of the Common Core State Standards?”

When politicians want to evade accountability, they go on the attack. They don’t loathe anti-Common Core parents because they’re “paranoid.” They fear them because “paranoid” is the political demagogue’s word for active, alert and well-informed.

— Michelle Malkin is author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies. Contact her at malkinblog@gmail.com, follow her on Twitter: @michellemalkin, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Missouri Senate Votes to Nullify Federal Gun Laws

by  of freedomoutpost.com

February 20, 2014

On Thursday, the Missouri Senate passed SB613, which is a version of the Second Amendment Preservation Act which would nullify federal gun laws, which was vetoed by Governor Jay Nixon last year. The vote on the bill was 23-10.

As I told you in January, this bill really has teeth in it. Not only does it forbid the use of state or local resources to help enforce federal gun laws, but additionally it will criminalize any actions of federal agents to enforce federal gun laws. State and local law enforcement will be given “discretionary power” to determine whether charges would be made.

SB613 counts as what could be the strongest defense against federal encroachments on the right to keep an bear arms ever considered at the state level. It reads, in part:

All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

Federal acts which would be considered “null and void and of no effect” include, but are not limited to:

(a) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the National Rifle Association came out against the legislation due to a proposed amendment:

Anti-gun Senator Jamilah Nasheed added language requiring gun owners to report a stolen firearm to police no more than 72 hrs after the discovery of the theft. The NRA claimed the amendment also included penalties.

“Those who are unable to report a lost or stolen firearm within this arbitrary amount of time, would be subject to penalties including: a $1,000 fine, Class A misdemeanor and the loss of their Right to Carry Permit.”

But the actual text of the amendment included no such language. (read it here)

Bill author Sen. Brian Nieves and Nasheed agreed to reconsider and the amendment was removed earlier this week, removing the source of NRA opposition.

There is also an accompanying Senate Joint Resolution (SJR36) which would propose a change to the Missouri state constitution, which would obligate the state government to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. That resolution passed the Senate also on Thursday 29-4. If the House approved the resolution, it will go to the voters of Missouri this Fall for approval.

According to Missouri First, as a constitutional amendment to the Missouri Constitution’s existing Article I, Sec. 23, SJR 36 does these things:

  • Elevates the right to keep and bear arms to “unalienable rights” status. While you and I would and should maintain that a “right is a right”, the courts don’t look at it that way. The courts give more weight to some constitutional rights than others. Government actions infringing on what they consider lesser rights are not scrutinized as closely as the “weightier” rights. For example, when a citizen claims his rights are being violated by some law, the courts can “test” the law against two basic standards of review. The least strict standard is often referred to as the “Rational Basis Test”, and the tougher standard — the one that best protects your rights — is the “Compelling State Interest Test”.
  • The Second thing SJR36 does is “obligate” the state to protect the right to keep and bear arms from all infringements — including those from the federal government. Coupled with the “unalienable” provision, this clause will also help to defend any bills like SB613 to nullify unconstitutional federal gun control laws if those bills are challenged in state courts. This is an important provision that helps to empower state nullification of unconstitutional federal edicts.
  • It adds “ammunition and accessories” as explicitly constitutional protected. And adds the phrase “any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny” to the state Constitution. This phrase reinforces the concept in (1), above, which is a tremendous help in keeping the courts from redefining our gun rights.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” –Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution


Why is the Obama Administration Putting Government Monitors in Newsrooms?

This is an extremely disturbing story. It has to do with net neutrality. What does the government really want to do buy putting monitors in television and radio newsrooms throughout the nation?

This is another move against our constitutional freedoms.



President Barack Obama
Filed in:
FREE SPEECH 4:44 PMFeb. 18, 2014

 The Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is poised to place government monitors in newsrooms across the country in an absurdly draconian attempt to intimidate and control the media.

Before you dismiss this assertion as utterly preposterous (we all know how that turned out when the Tea Party complained that it was being targeted by the IRS), this bombshell of an accusation comes from an actual FCC Commissioner.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals a brand new Obama Administration program that he fears could be used in “pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.”

As Commissioner Pai explains in the Wall Street Journal:

Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

In fact, the FCC is now expanding the bounds of regulatory powers to include newspapers, which it has absolutely no authority over, in its new government monitoring program.

The FCC has apparently already selected eight categories of “critical information” “that it believes local newscasters should cover.”

That’s right, the Obama Administration has developed a formula of what it believes the free press should cover, and it is going to send government monitors into newsrooms across America to stand over the shoulders of the press as they make editorial decisions.

This poses a monumental danger to constitutionally protected free speech and freedom of the press.

Every major repressive regime of the modern era has begun with an attempt to control and intimidate the press.

As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently said, “our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.”

The federal government has absolutely no business determining what stories should and should not be run, what is critical for the American public and what is not, whether it perceives a bias, and whose interests are and are not being served by the free press.

It’s an unconscionable assault on our free society.

Imagine a government monitor telling Fox News it needed to cover stories in the same way as MSNBC or Al Jazeera.  Imagine an Obama Administration official walking in to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and telling it that the American public would be better served if it is stopped reporting on the IRS scandal or maybe that reporting on ObamaCare “glitches” is driving down enrollment.

It’s hard to imagine anything more brazenly Orwellian than government monitors in newsrooms.

Is it any wonder that the U.S. now ranks 46th in the world for freedom of the press?  Reporters Without Boarders called America’s precipitous drop of 13 places in its recent global rankings “one of the most significant declines” in freedom of the press in the world.

Freedom of the press is proudly extolled in the First Amendment, yet our nation now barely makes the top fifty for media freedom.

We cannot allow the unfathomable encroachment on our free speech and freedom of the press to continue.

We’ve seen, and defeated, this kind of attempt to squelch free speech before in the likes of the Fairness Doctrine and the Grassroots Lobbying Bill(incidentally one of my first projects at the ACLJ).  Each one of these euphemistically named government programs is nothing more than an underhanded attempt to circumvent the Constitution and limit free speech – speech that the government finds inconvenient.  They’re equally unconstitutional, and they each must be defeated.

Join the ACLJ as we take a stand.  Sign the ACLJ’s Petition to Stop the Obama FCC’s Free Speech Monitors.

This article is crossposted on Red State.

From Captain Phillips to Benghazi – Obama’s Cowardice & Lies Exposed

by  of freedomoutpost.com

February 8, 2014

Have many in the mainstream media looked into Obama’s background deep enough to see that maybe we have a Muslim for a President? Have they ever questioned President Obama about why he studied Marxism while he was at Occidental College in California? Has anyone even thought of asking President Obama just what he learned from Frank Marshall Davis, a devout Communist, who was on the FBI watch list?

It seems that many are unwilling to question or make statements about Obama due to how he abuses the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies to silence his opponents. No matter, we are now going to pose a question of this man known as Barack Hussein Obama and demonstrate that he is not only a liar, but a coward as well, and how this may be the reason that the deaths of Americans occurred in Benghazi.

Let us begin with the list of lies from Obama compared to other Presidents and this list is not a total list of lies from the Liar- in-Chief.

President Obama:

  1. I will have the most transparent administration in history.
  2. The stimulus will fund shovel-ready jobs.
  3. I am focused like a laser on creating jobs.
  4. The IRS is not targeting anyone.
  5. It was a spontaneous riot about a movie.
  6. If I had a son.
  7. I will put an end to the type of politics that “breeds division, conflict and cynicism”.
  8. You didn’t build that!
  9. I will restore trust in Government.
  10. The Cambridge cops acted stupidly.
  11. The public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk
  12. It’s not my red line – it is the world’s red line.
  13. Whistle blowers will be protected in my administration.
  14. We got back every dime we used to rescue the banks and auto companies, with interest.
  15. I am not spying on American citizens.
  16. Obama Care will be good for America.
  17. You can keep your family doctor.
  18. Premiums will be lowered by $2500.
  19. If you like it, you can keep your current healthcare plan.
  20. It’s just like shopping at Amazon.
  21. I knew nothing about “Fast and Furious” gunrunning to Mexican drug cartels.
  22. I knew nothing about IRS targeting conservative groups.
  23. I knew nothing about what happened in Benghazi.
  24. I have never known my uncle from Kenya, who is in the country illegally, and that was arrested and told to leave the country over 20 years ago.
  25. And, I have never lived with that uncle.  He finally admitted (12-05-2013) that he DID know his uncle and that he DID live with him.

Here, at 26, we show what is perhaps the biggest lie this president has ever stated.

  1. “I, Barrack Hussein Obama, pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”

President Obama sounds more like the Character on Hogan’s Hero’s, Sergeant Schultz, “I know nothing!”

We have to state that this does not include any lies from his State of The Union address on January 29, 2014, during which he came out once again and declared he would go on with his “Climate Change” policy, even while the nation is nearly in a mini Ice Age.

We do know that many will state that other Presidents lied also, so let us examine that item.

First, recall the words of Lyndon Banes Johnson:

We were attacked (in the Gulf of Tonkin)

Richard Nixon uttered these immortal words:

I am not a crook.

Then there is George H. W. Bush’s Infamous Lie:

Read my lips – No New Taxes

Then there was Bill Clinton:

I did not have sex with that woman… Miss Lewinski.

We show George Jr. here, but we have to consider that maybe he was right and those weapons went to Iran and Syria, but in either case here:

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

So, Obama is not the first liar to occupy the White House, but he is most definitely the most consistent liar to hold the office, and no one should believe a word out of his mouth is true. However, let us show what may be perhaps the best example of how much of a coward Obama really is, and how this may well have been one of the reasons that Obama also lied about Benghazi!

Let us lay this out for you to understand what we may have found due to another post that popped up about the recent Captain Phillips movie. This film is about a man who was rescued from Somali Pirates. We sat down and watched the movie and wondered why Navy Seals 36 hours before they killed those that held Captain Phillips. The movie expressed some insight into the actions, but it did not reveal the true lack of action and the act of pure cowardice by none other than President Barack Obama himself!

Jack Wheeler, a man of integrity, penned an article, which we will cite below. What is written in the article is what makes Jack Wheeler much more solid and credible than anything Obama could ever dream of. We have to remember here that Obama has been a liar from day one, and his lies just keep on coming along with his actions which place him as perhaps the worst president of all time, even worse than Jimmy Carter.

The following article of facts regarding the incident was written by Dr. John “Jack” Wheeler, part of it is below, and the entire article is below all the “opinions” of how we link the coward Obama to both Somali and Benghazi!

Dr. Wheeler was a man of honor: a West Point graduate, a Vietnam veteran, and the man who was the driving force behind financing the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. He fought long and hard for the dignity and honor of the fallen Vietnam War soldiers. He served three presidents as an aide and advisor — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, for whom he was a special assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force and a military consultant.

Shortly after writing this article, he was mysteriously murdered sometime between Dec. 28th and 31st in 2010, and his body was dumped in a dumpster in Newark, Delaware. Wheeler had homes in Washington, D.C. and New Castle, Del.(See – http://patriotsbillboard.org/this-obama-lie-will-make-your-eyes-bleed/)

Here we can see a totally different man than President Obama could ever hope to be. The article by Wheeler demonstrates what few can actually use to show just how a direct link could be made from the Captain Phillips Somali Pirates raid to the failures of Benghazi. This direct link falls on Obama and his ideologies as president.

According to the movie, the SEALs just waited to take out the Pirates, and that took 36 hours, but once again, this is just a production from Hollywood, glamorizing what actually happened. If we dig into this as we are about to show you, a distinct connection can be made between the lack of action by Obama and the actions taken with the Somali Pirates

Wheeler’s article alleges that President Obama actually allowed the situation to continue for 36 hours, and he explains the reasoning. Once you read this article, it becomes apparent that there is a very close correlation to the actions with the Somali Pirates and the 9-11 terrorist attack in Benghazi. It clearly shows a president that was very indecisive, and it seemed to be the same lack of action that caused the death of 4 men in Benghazi. If we just take the facts as shown in the following article, we can clearly see that Barack Obama took credit when none was due. It also shows gives insight as to why Benghazi is still being covered up

We are only suggesting that the lack of action by President Obama then, and during Benghazi, seems to indicate that we do not have an honorable or courageous man in the White House, but rather a coward. Here’s the article. Feel free to comment below.

Posted on January 20, 2014 by PatriotsBillboard


All of us need to raise our glasses the highest to the Navy SEALs, who popped those three Somali pirates. And I’m sure you want to hear the real story of what happened especially because there is a revoltingly opportunistic and cowardly side to it. 

Why, for example, did it take SEAL Team Six (aka DEVGRU, Navy Special Warfare Development Group) over 36 hours to get to the scene? 

Because President Obama refused to authorize the SEAL deployment for those 36 hours, during which the OSC – the on scene commander, Cmdr. Frank Castellano of the USS Bainbridge – repeatedly requested them. Cmdr. Castellano is a very, very mature and experienced commanding officer and is rock solid in his decisions.

Once the SEALs arrived – parachuting from a C-17 into the ocean near the ship – Obama then imposed Rules of Engagement (ROE) specifying the SEALs could not do anything unless the life of the hostage, Captain Richard Phillips, was in “imminent” danger. 

Thus, when Capt. Phillips attempted to escape by jumping off the lifeboat into the ocean, the SEAL snipers had all four pirates (one later surrendered) sighted in and could have taken them out then and there – but they could not fire due to Obama’s ROE restrictions. 

When the SEALs approached the lifeboat in a RIB (rigid-hull inflatable boat) carrying supplies for Capt. Phillips and the pirates, the pirates fired upon them. Not only was no fire returned due to Obama’s ROE, but as the pirates were shooting at the RIB, SEAL snipers on the Bainbridge had them all dialed in. Again, no triggers were pulled due to the ROE. 

Two specific rescue plans were developed by Cmdr. Castellano and the SEAL teams. Obama personally refused to authorize them. 

After the second refusal and days of dithering, Cmdr. Castellano decided he had the Operational Area and OSC authority to “solely determine risk to hostage” and did not require any further approval by the president. He took unilateral action on Sunday, April 12, 2009.

Four hours later, the White House is informed that three pirates are dead and Capt. Phillips has been rescued unharmed. Then a White House press release was immediately issued, giving credit to the president for his “daring and decisive” behavior that resulted in such success. 

Obama has absolutely no military knowledge or experience whatsoever. He demanded decisional control over the entire hostage drama to the last detail. All actions required his personal approval. He dithered like a coward while the world laughed at our warships flummoxed by four illiterate teenagers with worn-out AKs in a lifeboat. 

Only when the Navy Commander decided to ignore his Pantywaist-in-Chief and take action and responsibility himself, were the incredible skills of the SEALs put into play. 

That Obama could cynically and opportunistically claim that his “bold” “calm” “tough” leadership was responsible should remind everyone that not a single action, not a single word of this man can be trusted. He is bereft of honesty and moral character. He is a complete Zero.

The HFR raises a glass full of pride and gratitude to Navy Commander Frank Castellano, the Navy SEALs for their incredible competence, and our military. Let’s hold a Tea Party in their honor. 

What a low-life, lying, racist, Muslim, Marxist, Manchurian coward we have running our government. It is a disgrace to the office. Anybody reading to this point that voted for this worthless”———–“, step forward to show America how altogether stupid you really are!!

Choose Happiness Through Consistent, Good Choices

February 13, 2014

by Jim Valenti

With the world rapidly changing, and, with all types of evil making both subtle and bold faced presentations with regularity amongst us, one might come to the conclusion that this terrible feeling of societal dread has no end.

While it is true that things will get worse before they get better, it is our job to hang in there. I bear witness that good will ultimately triumph over evil.

We have the opportunity to choose to make things a little better for ourselves every day.It is vital we choose correctly as debauchery remains in our midst.

All of us have had “bad days”. When we have those occasional bouts where we have to fight through the day with a little extra energy, we needs remember that this is part of life, and, yes, frequently, life isn’t “fair”. It’s not suppose to be. It’s not what life throws at us that matters, it’s how we deal with those fiery darts that make the difference.

Learning to make good choices is a critical, yet thoughtful personal skill and exercise. As we develop our “good choice muscle” we create outcomes that make us happier.

Sometimes we have several good choices to choose from. When such cases arise, I offer the counsel of an inspired friend. That counsel is to prioritize those good choices into “good, better and best” categories. That way we can be assured of making the best decision amongst the series of good outcomes laid before us.

Rapidly deteriorating societal conditions create conditions for pornography to flourish, for alcoholism to remain prevalant and for family breakups to continue.

Certain schools leave much true American history out of textbooks, which, unfortunately, creates incomplete historical gaps for the young. Why is this done? To turn the American voter into a leftist thinking machine via the education process. I like to term it as a purposeful, educationally progressive sin of omission.   Wistfully, leftists have been working on this for over 100 years. Most history teachers remain unaware of this purposeful progressive educational breach. Hence, many young people go into college with a twisted view of history courtesy of those teachers who, unknowingly, learned the same way. I did.

While these and many other negative social conditions exist, with Satan as the driving force in deceiving many, we still have our freedom to choose to live either way.

The responsibility is not subtracted from us to live right just because of the downhill slide of society. In fact, it is incumbent upon us to live the best way we know how in spite of the unfortunate evil around us.

My “best way” method is to incorporate into my life the true doctrines and principles which Jesus Christ taught.  I must consciously work at living those true doctrines and principles for them to become part of me.

Making good choices is one key to individual happiness. The more consistent and correct our choices are, the easier it becomes for us to make better choices in the future. Hence, we are happier. Our lives are better—-despite occasional adversity which will beset us.

Obama Rewrites Obamacare

Where, in the Constitution, does it give the President of the United States, statutory authority to delay implementation of a law or a portion of a law once it is passed? In my understanding of the Constitution of the United States, the legislative branch makes laws and the executive branch carries out the laws. Therefore, as that holds true, because the constitution states it, where does the executive have the gall to rewrite or delay any law? He does not.

Congress is being walked on, bullied by this president, bought off or a combination thereof. Barack Obama walks on, under and over the authority of “WE, THE PEOPLE”, of this United States. He works for the people, the people do not work for him. A righteous president would look to the Constitution for his authority, not usurp authority. A level headed president would recognize his limited power, be grateful for it and work hard to help the country. He would not fill the pockets of elites.

In short, Barack Obama wants to be someone he will never be, an elitist with an unlimited power structure around him bulldozing his way through, in bully-like fashion, anything that gets in his way. This actually sounds like a minor version of Vladimir Putin.

I would not want to be taught constitutional law by President Obama. Goodness knows, he would mix the law with marxist tendencies and pass it off as true doctrine. The end product would be a corrupt student, unless he was sharp enough to realize he was being taught garbage under the guise of a prestigious law school name and the Constitution of the United States. What a shame!        JIM


Opinion Piece of The Wall Street Journal

February 10, 2014   7:40pm  ET

Another day, another lawless exemption, once again for business.

‘ObamaCare” is useful shorthand for the Affordable Care Act not least because the law increasingly means whatever President Obama says it does on any given day. His latest lawless rewrite arrived on Monday as the White House decided to delay the law’s employer mandate for another year and in some cases maybe forever.

ObamaCare requires businesses with 50 or more workers to offer health insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, but last summer the Treasury offered a year-long delay until 2015 despite having no statutory authorization. Like the individual mandate, the employer decree is central to ObamaCare’s claim of universal coverage, but employers said the new labor costs—and the onerous reporting and tax-enforcement rules—would damage job creation and the economy.

AFP/Getty Images

Liberals insisted that such arguments were false if not beneath contempt, but then all of a sudden the White House implicitly endorsed the other side. Now the new delay arrives amid a furious debate about jobs after a damning Congressional Budget Office report last week, only this time with liberals celebrating ObamaCare’s supposed benefits to the job market.

Well, which is it? Either ObamaCare is ushering in a worker’s paradise, in which case by the White House’s own logic exempting businesses from its ministrations is harming employees. Or else the mandate really is leading business to cut back on hiring, hours and shifting workers to part-time as the evidence in the real economy suggests.

Under the new Treasury rule, firms with 50 to 99 full-time workers are free from the mandate until 2016. And firms with 100 or more workers now also only need cover 70% of full-time workers in 2015 and 95% in 2016 and after, not the 100% specified in the law.

The new rule also relaxes the mandate for certain occupations and industries that were at particular risk for disruption, like volunteer firefighters, teachers, adjunct faculty members and seasonal employees. Oh, and the Treasury also notes that, “As these limited transition rules take effect, we will consider whether it is necessary to further extend any of them beyond 2015.” So the law may be suspended indefinitely if the White House feels like it.

By now ObamaCare’s proliferating delays, exemptions and administrative retrofits are too numerous to count, most of them of dubious legality. The text of the Affordable Care Act specifically says when the mandate must take effect—”after December 31, 2013″—and does not give the White House the authority to change the terms.

Changing an unambiguous statutory mandate requires the approval of Congress, but then this President has often decided the law is whatever he says it is. His Administration’s cavalier notions about law enforcement are especially notable here for their bias for corporations over people. The White House has refused to suspend the individual insurance mandate, despite the harm caused to millions who are losing their previous coverage.

Liberals say the law isn’t harming jobs or economic growth, but everything this White House does screams the opposite.

Do Common Core’s Roots Date Back To America’s Earliest Socialists?

Feb. 11, 2014     7:38am

by  of TheBlaze

In a recent article, TheBlaze’s Fred Lucas noted a troubling aspect of the mindset driving Common Core. Lucas revealed that during an education panel at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, Common Core proponent and former Massachusetts education Secretary Paul Reveille stated “the children belong to all of us.”

Back in 2010, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan argued that schools should have a communal function stating:

“My vision is that schools need to be community centers. Schools need to be open 12, 13, 14 hours a day six, seven days a week, 12 months out of the year, with a whole host of activities, particularly in disadvantaged communities…Where schools truly become centers of the community, great things happen.”

In doing some research on progressive education, we came across “Education: Free & Compulsory,” a 1971 book written by libertarian economist Murray Rothbard. In the book, Rothbard notes that Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen, two of the first socialists in America, writing in the early-to-mid-1800s, outlined an education system eerily ideologically similar to that of Paul Reveille, Arne Duncan and other proponents of Common Core specifically and progressive education more broadly.

In fact, Wright and Owen start from Reveille’s premise that “the children belong to all of us,” and take this notion to its logical end that children should be taken away from their parents altogether and raised in public schools, more closely reflecting Duncan’s vision.

A screen shot of the answer key for a questionable homework assignment from Common Core for 3rd grade grammar. (Image Source: @ColletteMoran)

Screen shot of the answer key for a questionable 3rd grade grammar assignment from Common Core. (Image Source: @ColletteMoran)

Check out the remarkably prescient passage from Rothbard’s book below [emphasis ours]:

“By the 1820s, their goals of compulsion and statism were already germinating over the country, and particularly flourishing in New England, although the individualist tradition was still strong. One factor that increased the power of New England in diffusing the collectivist idea in education was the enormous migration from that area. New Englanders swarmed south and west out of New England, and carried their zeal for public schooling and for State compulsion with them.

Into this atmosphere was injected the closest that the country had seen to Plato’s idea, of full State communistic control over the children. This was the plan of two of the first socialists in America—Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen. Owen was the son of one of the first British “Utopian” Socialists, and with Robert Owen, his father, had attempted an experiment in a voluntary-communist community in New Harmony, Indiana. Frances Wright was a Scotswoman who had also been at New Harmony, and with Owen, opened a newspaper called the Free Enquirer. Their main objective was to campaign for their compulsory education system. Wright and Owen outlined their scheme as follows:

“It is national, rational, republican education; free for all at the expense of all; conducted under the guardianship of the State, and for the honor, the happiness, the virtue, the salvation of the state.

The major aim of the plan was that equality be implanted in the minds, the habits, the manners, and the feelings, so that eventually fortunes and conditions would be equalized. Instead of the intricate apparatus of common schools, high schools, seminaries, etc., Wright and Owen advocated that thestates simply organize a series of institutions for the “general reception” of all children living within that district. These establishments would be devoted to the complete rearing of the various age groups of children. The children would be forced to live at these places twenty-four hours a day. The parents would be allowed to visit their children from time to time. From the age of two every child would be under the care and guidance of the State.

“In these nurseries of a free nation, no inequality must be allowed to enter. Fed at a common board; clothed in a common garb…raised in the exercise of common duties…in the exercise of the same virtues, in the enjoyment of the same pleasures; in the study of the same nature; in pursuit of the same object…say! Would not such a race…work out the reform of society and perfect the free institutions of America?”

Owen was quite insistent that the system not “embrace anything less than the whole people.” The effect will be to “regenerate America in one generation. It will make but one class out of the many.”Frances Wright revealed the aim of the system starkly, calling on the people to overthrow a moneyed aristocracy and priestly hierarchy. “The present is a war of class.” Thus, we see that a new element has been introduced into the old use of compulsory education on behalf of State absolutism.

The…aim of the plan was that equality be implanted..so..fortunes and conditions would be equalized

 A second goal is absolute equality and uniformity, and a compulsory school system was seen by Owen and Wright to be ideally suited to this task. First, the habits and minds and feelings of all the children must be molded into absolute equality; and then the nation will be ripe for the final step of equalization of property and incomes by means of State coercion.Why did Owen and Wright insist on seizing the children for twenty-four hours a day, from the age of two on, only releasing them when the school age was over at sixteen? As Owen declared:

“In republican schools, there must be no temptation to the growth of aristocratical prejudices. The pupils must learn to consider themselves as fellow citizens, as equals. Respect ought not to be paid to riches, or withheld from poverty. Yet, if the children from these state Schools are to go every evening, the one to his wealthy parent’s soft carpeted drawing room, and the other to its poor father’s or widowed mother’s comfortless cabin, will they return the next day as friends and equals?”

Likewise, differences in quality of clothing invoked feelings of envy on the part of the poor and disdain by the rich—which should be eliminated by forcing one uniform upon both. Throughout his plans there runs the hatred of human diversity, particularly of the higher living standards of the rich as compared to the poor. To effect his plan for thoroughgoing equalization by force, the schools

“must receive the children, not for six hours a day, but altogether must feed them, clothe them, lodge them; must direct not their studies only, but their occupations and amusements and must care for them until their education is completed.”

Rothbard notes that for those who might argue that the “Owen-Wright plan is unimportant; that it had purely crackpot significance and little influence…The contrary is true.”

He cites the former president of the progressive Teachers College at Columbia University,Lawrence A. Cremin, who wrote “The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876-1957“ as “a contemporary laudatory historian of the public-school movement” who “places it [the Owen-Wright plan] first in his story, and devotes considerable space to it.” According to Rothbard, THE PROMINENT PROFESSOR CREMIN “reports that a great many newspapers reprinted Owen’s Essays on the plan, and approved them.”

Further, Cremin notes that the plan:

“exerted a great influence on the widely noted report of a committee of Philadelphia workers in 1829 to report on education in Pennsylvania. The report called for equality, and equal education and proper training for all. And this and similar reports “had a considerable influence in preparing the way for the progressive legislation of the middle thirties.”

Lending further credence to the lasting effect of the Owen-Wright plan, a 2013 book titled “Progressive Education” by education historian John Howlett notes “Perhaps the continuing successes of the educational aspects of Owen’s philosophy attest to their radical, progressive, and, ultimately successful, nature.”


The Hillary Papers


by   of The Washington Free Beacon

February 9, 2014 9:58 pm

On May 12, 1992, Stan Greenberg and Celinda Lake, top pollsters for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, issued a confidential memo. The memo’s subject was “Research on Hillary Clinton.”

Voters admired the strength of the Arkansas first couple, the pollsters wrote. However, “they also fear that only someone too politically ambitious, too strong, and too ruthless could survive such controversy so well.”

Their conclusion: “What voters find slick in Bill Clinton, they find ruthless in Hillary.”

The full memo is one of many previously unpublished documents contained in the archive of one of Hillary Clinton’s best friends and advisers, documents that portray the former first lady, secretary of State, and potential 2016 presidential candidate as a strong, ambitious, and ruthless Democratic operative.

The papers of Diane Blair, a political science professor Hillary Clinton described as her “closest friend” before Blair’s death in 2000, record years of candid conversations with the Clintons on issues ranging from single-payer health care to Monica Lewinsky.

The archive includes correspondence, diaries, interviews, strategy memos, and contemporaneous accounts of conversations with the Clintons ranging from the mid-1970s to the turn of the millennium.

Diane Blair’s husband, Jim Blair, a former chief counsel at Tyson Foods Inc. who was at the center of “Cattlegate,” a 1994 controversy involving the unusually large returns Hillary Clinton made while trading cattle futures contracts in the 1970s, donated his wife’s papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville after her death.

The full contents of the archive, which before 2010 was closed to the public, have not previously been reported on and shed new light on Clinton’s three decades in public life. The records paint a complex portrait of Hillary Clinton, revealing her to be a loyal friend, devoted mother, and a cutthroat strategist who relished revenge against her adversaries and complained in private that nobody in the White House was “tough and mean enough.”


On July 28, 1997, President Clinton was facing yet another wave of allegations from yet another woman. Kathleen Willey had accused Clinton of sexually assaulting her, and Blair faxed a Drudge Report item about her claims to one of the president’s aides.

Blair’s handwritten note attached to the story: “Do we take Matt Drudge seriously?”

Six months later, Drudge would break the story of an affair between Clinton and 22-year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky, setting in motion the events that would lead to the president’s impeachment.

When Clinton finally admitted to the relationship after repeated denials, Hillary  Clinton defended her husband in a phone call with Blair. She said her husband had made a mistake by fooling around with the “narcissistic loony toon” Lewinsky, but was driven to it in part by his political adversaries, the loneliness of the presidency, and her own failures as a wife.

She told Blair that the affair did not include sex “within any real meaning” of the term and noted President Clinton “tried to manage” Monica after they broke up but things spiraled “beyond control.”

Blair described the contents of the Sept. 9, 1998, phone call in a journal entry.

“[Hillary] is not trying to excuse [Bill Clinton]; it was a huge personal lapse. And she is not taking responsibility for it,” Blair wrote.

“But, she does say this to put his actions in context. Ever since he took office they’ve been going thru personal tragedy ([the death of] Vince [Foster], her dad, his mom) and immediately all the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them.”

“They adopted strategy, public strategy, of acting as tho it didn’t bother them; had to. [Hillary] didn’t realize toll it was taking on him,” Blair continued. “She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles to realize the price he was paying.”

Hillary Clinton told Blair she had received “a letter from a psychologist who does family therapy and sexual infidelity problems,” who told the Yale Law School graduate, “most men with fidelity problems [were] raised by two women and felt conflicted between them.”

The psychologist suggested that Bill’s infidelity had its roots in his childhood.

“He’d read about Bill’s bio; grandmother despised [Bill’s mother] Virginia, tried to get custody of Bill; Bill adored by his mother, but she left him, etc. etc.”

In her conversations with Blair, the first lady gave her husband credit for trying to end the affair with Lewinsky, and said he did not take advantage of his White House intern.

“It was a lapse, but she says to his credit he tried to break it off, tried to pull away, tried to manage someone who was clearly a ‘narcissistic loony toon’; but it was beyond control,” wrote Blair.

“HRC insists, no matter what people say, it was gross inappropriate behavior but it was consensual (was not a power relationship) and was not sex within any real meaning (standup, liedown, oral, etc.) of the term.”


Hillary Clinton’s blunt assessments were not confined to Monica Lewinsky. In a Dec. 3, 1993, diary entry, Blair recounted a conversation with the first lady about “Packwood”—a reference to then-Sen. Bob Packwood, an influential Republican on health care embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal.

“HC tired of all those whiney women, and she needs him on health care,” wrote Blair. “I told her I’d been bonding w. creeps; she said that was the story of her whole past year. Fabio incident—sweeping her up, sending her roses.”

Privately, the Clinton White House was acutely sensitive to public perceptions of President Clinton’s treatment of women.

Supreme Court nominations were not immune from such considerations. In a three-page May 11, 1994, memo, Blair recounted her phone conversation with President Clinton about reservations he had about his preferred nominee to the high Court, the late Arkansas Judge Richard Arnold.

Noting Clinton allies had “really been trying to keep the women’s groups in line since Paula Jones filing,” Bill Clinton, according to Blair’s account, was concerned feminist groups “might blow sky high” if he appointed Arnold to the Supreme Court. Arnold had ruled that the Jaycees club could bar women from full membership—a decision later overturned by the highest court in the land.

The president was also concerned about accusations of infidelity in Arnold’s divorce records—allegations the president believed had the potential to reignite scrutiny of his own background.

“Stuff is in the [divorce] record—apparently includes other people—and no matter what Hatch says, this will come out, and will make it sound like the only friends [Bill] has in Arkansas are adulterers,” wrote Blair.

“This thing is so sick, according to [Bill], in a way he wants to stand up to it, but will come out and will be part of the pattern of sleaze.”

The president asked Blair to discuss the Arnold nomination with Hillary Clinton, who was dismissive of “grassroots” women’s groups.

“[Bill] wanted me to talk to [Hillary], so we got plugged in (at one point had 2 White House operators trying to get me),” wrote Blair.

“[Hillary] listened to what I had to say re women; thought those grassroots groups didn’t count for much; it was the DC groups who would be doing damage, and obviously [Hillary] concerned about [the] ‘climate’ because of the sexual harassment charge.”

The Clinton camp found itself dealing with Bill Clinton’s infidelity early on. In a confidential Feb. 16, 1992, memo entitled “Possible Investigation Needs,” Clinton campaign staff proposed ways to suppress and discredit stories about the then-Arkansas governor’s affairs.

Campaign operatives Loretta Lynch and Nancy McFadden wrote the memo, addressed to campaign manager David Wilhelm.

The first item on the itinerary discussed “GF,” a reference to Gennifer Flowers, the actress and adult model who had recently disclosed her 12-year affair with Bill Clinton.

“Exposing GF: completely as a fraud, liar and possible criminal to stop this story and related stories, prevent future non-related stories and expose press inaction and manipulation,” said the memo.

In 1998 Bill Clinton admitted he had had a sexual relationship with Flowers.

Another item, headlined “Women,” referred to Elizabeth Ward and Lencola Sullivan, also rumored to have had relationships with Bill.

“Elizabeth Ward … determine attitude & check out background; Any Reep connections? When does Playboy come out?”

One of the documents in the Blair archive is an unsigned note from Bill Clinton, handwritten on the personal letterhead he used in the mid-1970s. The addressee is unknown. A cover page reads: “Tomorrow is Thursday.”

The undated letter is written on the same personal letterhead that Clinton was using in 1976, prior to becoming attorney general of Arkansas. Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton began dating in 1971 and were married on Oct. 11, 1975.

“Yesterday the recurring shakes came over me again and to rid myself of them I decided to go and buy something for you as much to be doing it as to actually wind up with things,” Clinton wrote.

He said he recently had bought books, including One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Bread and Wine by Italian anti-Communist Ignazio Silone.

“By the time I could call last night it was too late and I was too spent,” the future founding chairman of the Clinton Global Initiative went on.

“Today is Thursday. I will be at the little place downstairs in the union at 11:30. If you aren’t there, I’ll understand. And if you are, I will.”

The fast-food lover and amateur sax player closed by confessing that he had fallen asleep the night before while reading an erotic love poem from the seventeenth century.

“At 3:30 this morning I fell asleep over Andrew Marvell’s To His Coy Mistress,” wrote Clinton. “It has been a while since I could feel something so sharply across three hundred years.”

Attached to the letter is a photo of a young Bill Clinton holding a saxophone, with the note, “I thought you might get a kick out of this—I was once even younger.”


Days after President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998, the first lady called Blair in good spirits, telling her friend that, “Most people in this town have no pain threshold.”

“[Hillary] sounded very up, almost jolly,” wrote Blair. “Told me how she and Bill and Chelsea had been to church, to a Chinese restaurant, to a Shakespeare play, greeted everywhere with wild applause and cheers—this, she said is what drives their adversaries totally nuts, that they don’t bend, do not appear to be suffering.”

Hillary Clinton’s “adversaries” included the media, Republicans, and top members of President Clinton’s staff, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis of the contents of the Blair archive.

“HC says press has big egos and no brains,” wrote Blair on May 19, 1993, during the White House travel office controversy. “That [the White House is] just going to have to work them better; that her staff has figured it out and would be glad to teach [Bill’s] staff.”

The First Lady often confided in Blair about her “hellacious” first year in the White House, and her many clashes with staffers, administration figures, and her husband. By the spring of 1994, Hillary was “furious” at Bill for “ruining himself and the Presidency.”

“She keeps trying to shape things up, knows what’s wrong, but [Bill] can’t fire people, exert discipline, punish leakers,” Blair wrote on May 17, 1994. “Never had strategy for Whitewater, troopers, Paula [Jones]. … Inability to organize, make tough choices, drives her nuts.”

Blair, a frequent guest at the White House, recounted two nights in mid-March 1993 when President Clinton spoke on the “theme of being spied on, taped, watched, imprisoned.”

“[Bill] told me last 2, 3 months hideously stressful, and has really never had a break since campaign,” Blair wrote. “Said when he named [Warren] Christopher to [State Department], screwed up the transition.”

The insularity of the Clinton White House was not lost on administration officials.

“Chat w. [Attorney General] Janet Reno,” Blair wrote on April 24, 1993. “She concerned that [Hillary Clinton is] resenting her ‘celebrity’ status.”

“Janet wants to connect w. HC; not communicate thru Carol Rasco,” Blair added. “Finds HC a ‘mask.’”


On Feb. 23, 1993, Blair joined the Clintons for a family dinner at the White House. The subject of health care reform came up.

“At dinner, [Hillary] to [Bill] at length on the complexities of health care—thinks managed competition a crock; single-payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare,” Blair wrote.

The account is at odds with public statements by the former First Lady that she never supported the single-payer option.

In an interview with the New York Times as she ran for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton said she had never seriously considered adopting a single-payer system, in which the government, using funds appropriated from taxpayers, pays for all health care expenses.

“You know, I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system,” said Clinton in the interview.

At the time of Blair’s account, the First Lady recently had been appointed to the president’s health care task force and had started her push for an insurance reform that hinged on the “managed competition” model.

However, at the February 1993 dinner, the First Lady already seemed to regret her decision to take on health care reform.

“[Bill’s] tenderly hugging and thanking [Hillary] for sucking up to all thos ego’s nd taking all this shit [sic],” wrote Blair. “She’s signaling him what a mess health care is, bu also, sweetly, ‘Don’t worry’ [sic].”

By the spring, the First Lady seemed deeply anxious about the effort.

“[Hillary] adamant; [Bill] must devise new outside strategy; we’re getting killed. Congress a bunch of whiners; no courage. Her health care plan will save billions in long run but will cost big $ up front. [Members of Congress] don’t work; only 3 days a week; only care for re-election,” wrote Blair. “[Bill] clearly not very happy w. his own crew and advisors. [Hillary] urging hard ball.”

As the First Lady prepared to testify before Congress in September 1993, Blair wrote that “she’s begun to see that they don’t really care about the issues but want to feel they’re part of the process. So she’s slobbering over their ‘craft’ as she testifies.”

Hillary Clinton’s testimony is seen in retrospect as the high point of her failed health care campaign.

“The week may have been the pinnacle of her career as First Lady,” wrote Carl Bernstein in his 2008 book Woman in Charge. “Hillary was making history, and there were comparisons on the floor of Congress to Martha Washington, Eleanor Roosevelt, and in one particularly tortured leap of logic, Abraham Lincoln.”



On April 21, 1993, during a speech at the opening reception for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., President Clinton drew parallels between the genocide in Bosnia and the Holocaust.

That same month, he met with top U.S. military officials, diplomats, and aid workers advocating for military action against the Serbian forces of Slobodan Milosevic.

At the time, however, Hillary Clinton was not on board with the use of deadly force. According to Blair’s April 29, 1993 account, the First Lady said she “was very much against any intervention—had been killing each other for 900 yrs.”

Blair later spoke with President Clinton in mid-May and gave him “messages a la [Hillary’s] instructions: stop ruminating aloud re Bosnia.”

The White House was under increasing pressure to address the atrocities in the Balkans. Yet the United States waited more than two years before taking military action.

Blair’s papers are not the first indication that Hillary privately opposed U.S. intervention in Bosnia prior to 1995.

An unnamed friend of the Clintons told Newsweek in 1993 that the First Lady “regards [Bosnia] as a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform.”

The author and controversialist Christopher Hitchens later reported a similar account from then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin.

Since leaving the White House, however, Hillary Clinton has said that she favored earlier intervention in the Balkans, decrying “the tragic failures in Rwanda, early Bosnia, and up to now, the inadequate response in Darfur” in a 2005 speech to the United Nations.


Hillary Clinton’s influence on White House decisions went beyond policy, according to the Blair papers.

A three-page memo written by Blair on May 11, 1994, shows the First Lady privately urging President Clinton to reject his preferred 1994 candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court because of political considerations.

While Bill Clinton favored the late Arkansas Judge Richard Arnold, he and his wife had concerns about the judge’s health.

Hillary Clinton also argued that rejecting Arnold would send a “message” to the judge’s ally, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette publisher Walter Hussman, Jr., whose paper often printed unflattering stories about the Clintons.

“Goddamn Hussman needs to know that it’s his own goddamn fault; that he can’t destroy everybody from Ark. and everything about the state and not pay the price for his precious Richard [Arnold],” Hillary said, according to Blair’s account.

“He needs to get the message big-time, that Richard might have a chance [to be appointed to the Supreme Court] next round if Hussman and his minions will lay off all this outrageous lies and innuendo.”

The details in Blair’s memo challenge the contemporary understanding of Hillary Clinton’s role in the debate over the 1994 appointment. The First Lady has been credited as one of the few members of the president’s inner circle who lobbied in favor of Arnold’s nomination.

However, that seems not to be the case.

President Clinton has said he did not appoint Arnold for health reasons. The judge had been diagnosed with advanced lymphoma, and according to the Blair memo his doctors could not guarantee he would live more than five years.

He died in 2004.

The health concerns were related to President Clinton’s fear that Arnold could be his last Supreme Court appointment.

“At this point BC not sure he can get re-elected; they’re killing him in the South, rise of fundamentalism, the Nazi’s. Some of that he did to himself—gay rights in the military. Others just hate the one who’s in,” Blair wrote in an account of one of her conversations with the president.

According to the memo, Bill Clinton dispatched Blair to discuss the issue with Hillary, but the First Lady stood her ground.

“If HRC carried the day, and it sounds as if she is, [the nominee] will be [Bruce] Babbitt,” wrote Blair. “She’s not wild about him. Wishes there were a 3rd choice.”

President Clinton ended up appointing Stephen Breyer, who became an associate justice of the Supreme Court in August 1994.


As Hillary Clinton prepares for a possible 2016 presidential run, the Clinton team has a great incentive to focus on the future.

However, recent weeks have made it clear this will not be easy.

Sen. Rand Paul’s remark about Bill Clinton’s “predatory behavior” on a recent Sunday talk show generated a days-long media firestorm and reignited the decades-old Lewinsky controversy.

While Hillary Clinton has gone from the White House to the Senate to the State Department, experts say she will likely be forced to readdress some of the controversies that defined her husband’s presidency if she decides on a 2016 bid.

Neither a Clinton spokesman nor a spokesman for the Clinton Foundation returned a request for comment from the Free Beacon on the materials contained in the Blair archive.

As the 2016 contest draws near, however, the contents of this little-known archive of one of the closest friends of the most famous woman in the world are sure to receive fresh scrutiny.

While thousands of Diane Blair’s papers are available to the public at the University of Arkansas Library, an undisclosed number of documents remain kept in a restricted section of the archive. The Free Beacon was unable to gain access to those documents.

“With this collection, [Diane Blair’s] contributions will grow and live on, enlarging our understanding of history, politics and culture,” Hillary Clinton said in a video address at the opening of Blair’s archive in 2010.

“I hope also that some young scholar will come along and write the story of Diane,” she added. “We miss her still but this, along with so many of her contributions to us, lives on.”


The Clinton Files by WashingtonFreeBeacon

To see the article at the original website go to: http://freebeacon.com/the-hillary-papers/

In 19 Minutes, A Team Of Snipers Destroyed 17 Transformers At A Power Station In California

by  from freedomoutpost.com

February 6, 2014

Editor’s Note: This is an update that our own Janna Brock reported on back in December of 2013, complete with video surveillance from the shooting.

When a real terrorist attack happens, sometimes we don’t hear about it until months afterward (if we ever hear about it at all). For example, did you know that a team of snipers shot up a power station in California? The terrorists destroyed 17 transformers and did so much damage that the power station was shut down for a month. And it only took them 19 minutes of shooting to do it. Of course most Americans have absolutely no idea that this ever happened, because they get their news from the mainstream media. The chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at that time says that this was “the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the grid that has ever occurred”, and yet you won’t hear about it on the big news networks. They are too busy covering the latest breaking news on the Justin Bieber scandal.

And maybe it is good thing that most people don’t know about this. The truth is that we are a nation that is absolutely teeming with “soft targets”, and if people realized how vulnerable we truly are they might start freaking out.

If you have not heard about the attack on the Silicon Valley substation yet, you should look into it. The following is an excerpt from a Business Insider article about the sniper assault…

The Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Smith reports that a former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman is acknowledging for the first time that a group of snipers shot up a Silicon Valley substation for 19 minutes last year, knocking out 17 transformers before slipping away into the night.

The attack was “the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the grid that has ever occurred” in the U.S., Jon Wellinghoff, who was chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the time, told Smith.

Evidence found at the scene included “more than 100 fingerprint-free shell casings“, and little piles of rocks “that appeared to have been left by an advance scout to tell the attackers where to get the best shots.”

So much damage was done to the substation that it was closed down for a month.

And what happens if they decide to attack a nuclear power facility next time and use even bigger weapons?

Could we have another Fukushima on our hands?

In a previous article, I discussed a very disturbing report that showed that our nuclear facilities are indeed extremely vulnerable

Commercial and research nuclear facilities across the U.S. are inadequately protected against the threat of terrorism, according to the results of new study released this week by the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (NPPP) at the University of Texas at Austin’s LBJ School of Public Affairs. The two biggest terror threats facing these facilities, according to the report, are the theft of bomb grade nuclear materials and sabotage attacks aimed at causing a nuclear reactor meltdown.

The study, entitled “Protecting U.S. Nuclear Facilities from Terrorist Attack: Re-assessing the Current ‘Design Basis Threat’ Approach,” found not one of the 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. is protected against a “maximum credible terrorist attack,” such as 9/11. In fact, nuclear facilities are not required to protect themselves against airplane attacks, assaults by large teams of terrorists or even high-power sniper rifles.

The truth is that we are far, far more vulnerable to terror attacks than most Americans would dare to imagine.

So why isn’t the federal government doing more to protect us?

Well, the reality is that their resources are already stretched pretty thin and they can’t even protect their own computers. According to another report that was recently released, breaches of government computer networks go undetected 40 percent of the time

A new report by Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) details widespread cybersecurity breaches in the federal government, despite billions in spending to secure the nation’s most sensitive information.

The report, released on Tuesday, found that approximately 40 percent of breaches go undetected, and highlighted “serious vulnerabilities in the government’s efforts to protect its own civilian computers and networks.”

“In the past few years, we have seen significant breaches in cybersecurity which could affect critical U.S. infrastructure,” the report said. “Data on the nation’s weakest dams, including those which could kill Americans if they failed, were stolen by a malicious intruder. Nuclear plants’ confidential cybersecurity plans have been left unprotected. Blueprints for the technology undergirding the New York Stock Exchange were exposed to hackers.”

Are you starting to get the picture?

We are not nearly as “secure” as we like to think that we are.

In recent months, we have seen that our private financial information is not even secure at the largest retailers in the entire country. By now you have probably already heard about the horrifying security breach that happened at Target during the holiday season

The holiday shopping season breach affected up to 110 million customers, including 40 million credit and debit cards and up to 70 million customers’ personal information.

The discount retailer discovered the breach in mid-December, notified customers several days later, and launched an investigation with the help of a private security firm and law enforcement.

And experts tell us that because credit card companies are cutting corners by using outdated technology that is less expensive that these kinds of credit card hacks will continue to happen all over the country.

So what are you going to do when you wake up some day and none of your credit cards or debit cards will work because the entire system has been compromised by hackers?

What are you going to do when you wake up some day and you have no power for an extended period of time because a team of terrorists has destroyed the entire power grid in your area?

What are you going to do when you wake up some day and a wave of nuclear radiation is heading your way because terrorists have attacked a nuclear power facility close to where you live?

We are an extremely vulnerable nation that literally has thousands of big, fat juicy “soft targets” that could be attacked at any moment.

We have been very fortunate to live during an era when we have generally been safe from such attacks, but the world is rapidly changing before our very eyes.

So let us hope for the best, but let us also prepare for the worst.