Make Trick or Treat count for something this year, hand out "Hands Off My Gun" by Dana Loesch

If you want to give your favorite leftist a big scare this Halloween, put Hands Off My Gun, by Dana Loesch in their Trick or Treat bag (and treat yourself to a copy as well!). I can't say it will do much for their heart health (the cover alone might be too big a shock), but their mind could benefit greatly from it. Either way, I strongly recommend this - it's sobering, LOL entertaining, blunt, informative and surprisingly optimistic.

Dana succeeds in putting the emphasis where it belongs, not upon particular weapons or their accessories, but upon the reason for which the 2nd Amendment was written - the Individual Right and ability to defend your and your family's lives, and the liberty we should all expect to enjoy. This is a solid book through and through, and I'll make particular note of the following highlights:

From the opening pages of the Introduction and Chp. 1 'The Tragedy Caucus', using anecdotes from her own experiences growing up, she drives home and personalizes the importance of the Individual Right which the 2nd Amendment defends - and the importance of knowing, especially for the young, that it, and they, can be defended. This isn't simply a political ad issue, it is important to everyone's life, whether you choose to own a gun or not.

Chp. 2 'Obama's War on Guns', traces the views of Barack Obama from his early years, when in answering a questionnaire on whether he
"...supported a law to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns."
...Barack Obama simply answered,
, to his later political responses that
"a complete ban of handguns is not politically practicable."
- let the implications of that answer sink in - to his administration's support for the U.N.'s 'Arms Trade Treaty' that would establish and maintain a national control system, with lists provided to the U.N.'s Secretariat. From that and much more, it is clear that the progressive left in general, and this administration in particular, would like to end the protections provided by the 2nd Amendment as we know it, and that we must oppose them by informing ourselves and speaking up.

Chp. 7 'The Left-Wing Lynching', emphasizes that especially for minorities and the physically or politically weak, the Individual Right which the 2nd Amendment protects is critical to the substance of Individual Rights as such, and that the modern progressive left is flat out opposed to it. Loesch notes that in the infamous Supreme Court decision in "Dred Scott v. Sandford", one of the reasons which Justice Taney (Democrat appt, BTW) cited for the judgment that blacks could be owned as property and Never be considered citizens, was that recognizing blacks as citizens
"would give them the full liberty... and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
. The fact is, that to deprive persons of the right to defend their lives, deprives them not only of a central tenet of citizenship, but of personhood - and we all have reason to fear a govt that would view you as neither; a view which is every bit as compatible today, as it was in 1860, with the 'progressive' aims of the Left.

Chp. 8 'Founding Firearms', traces the development of the 'right to bear arms' in English law, and how the limitations which it observed, in deference to a Ruler, were rejected by our Founders. The media matters hit piece plagiarized in several of the 1 star reviews in Amazon's customer reviews (which, BTW, are hugely outnumbered by 4 & 5 star reviews - and the book is listing at '#1 Best Seller in Law Enforcement' as of this moment!), illustrate just how frightened and intellectually disarmed the rabid left is by Dana Loesch!

First off, she makes very clear that she is selecting quotations provided by the 'Buckeye Firearms Association' which she noted had
"...compiled a list of quotes attributed to various Founders that demolished beyond any shadow of a doubt "
what was understood by them, and intended with, the 2nd Amendment. Despite MMFA's over the top accusations, Dana isn't the one who edited the quotations for brevity (and the edits do not alter their meaning whatsoever), she's simply reproducing what they've published.

Secondly, not only do the few quotations which MMFA felt they could parse into taking issue with, fully comport with why they were chosen, it is only the Left's feeble understanding of our Founders, their era, of Individual Rights and the meaning of a Militia, that enabled them to make their charges with a straight face. The least bit of understanding of such meaningful matters, shows that they mean exactly what their quote conveys!

The Supreme Court provides further back up for that point in the recent case, 'DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER', where after reviewing the history, the court judged that:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22."
, and,
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."
It even goes on to quote a favorite reference of mine, with
"...In 1825, William Rawle, a prominent lawyer who had been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly that ratified the Bill of Rights, published an influential treatise, which analyzed the Second Amendment as follows:

"The first [principle] is a declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .

"The corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." Rawle 121-122.20
On top of all that, maybe the most glaring problem with the quotations that 'media matters' so desperately parsed, is how many others were cited which not even their indomitable ignorance could find an issue with!

Chp. 10 'Reclaiming the Language', Stresses the importance of taking back the language and that in talking about the 2nd Amdt we are talking about our lives and our right to them,

"This is a liberty inherent to American citizens that was not formed by the state, or granted, given, or gifted to the citizen. It is a liberty with which they are born, the privilege of free citizens belonging to a free state."

, and we should not allow such important matters to be reduced to emotional appeals and fears over the 'shootier' appearances of particular guns, which the left is so desperate to focus upon.

Dana also skewers a favorite bugaboo of mine, of how the 'Yelling fire in a crowded theater' is continually misused to justify infringing on our liberties:

"I hear this argument ad nauseum from the uninformed as a way to negate the liberties of a law-abiding American. Never accept this phrase even in passing. It's simply historically ignorant to use in this context."
If you've ever been caught unsure of how to respond to that, then these few paragraphs alone are worth the price of the book! In 'Schenk v. United States' Justice Holmes specifically states that
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
IOW 'falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic' would not be allowed, emphasis on FALSELY. Just as you have no right to falsely slander someone, you have no right to falsely incite a panic, but neither is a limitation upon your freedom of speech. I'm no fan of Justice Holmes (or J.S. Mill which the quote ultimately goes back to), but while Context matters, in all things, the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' should never be tolerated as an excuse for abridging our rights and liberties.

Chp. 11 'The Fourteen Biggest Anti-Gun Lies, Debunked', Read it - it will strengthen you and infuriate the Left!

Perhaps most surprising of all is Chp. 12 'Victory', and how optimistic Dana Loesch is about the 2nd Amendment not only surviving the current attacks of the progressive leftist (who are Pro-Regressive through and through), but about the future of our society, an optimism which is unusual these days and a very welcome point of view!

Buy this book, read it, discuss it, change the world!

Evidence Proves Key Demographics Have Made a Right Turn


Ask anyone running for Congress or higher office and they’ll tell you they want to reach millennial voters. They were a key demographic for President Obama’s 2008 victory and typically, voter turnout for that generation is rather low.

While it’s sometimes assumed that youth skew Left, things are actually changing. A new National Harvard Youth Poll shows that millennial voters prefer a Republican Congress by four percent right now.

Today’s youth were sold Obama’s promises but have gradually realized they were empty, even until the end. With only two years left under Obama, young people are reconsidering what they want in the next decade of their lives.

And it’s not just youth. Poll after poll has shown that key demographics are positioning themselves as swing voters or to the Right.

An Associated Press-Gfk poll showed that female voters are split almost dead even between Democrats and Republicans.

Despite the Democrats’ “war on women” rhetoric, many female voters have seen beyond it. The Left most often appeals to women on the basis of sex, birth control and abortion. It seems some young women have finally recognized how degrading and sexist that actually is.

Who else is eyeing the Right? Hispanics. A Pew Research Center poll showed that Hispanics are moving toward the GOP in higher numbers than ever. The same poll showed that 54% of registered Hispanic voters would vote for someone who disagrees with them on immigration reform, providing they share their views on most other issues.

The Left has many talking points for women, young people and minority communities – but they do very little besides spend lots of money in ways that are ineffective in the long run.

The cultural definition of what it means to be a Democrat has evolved from moderate to extreme Left – and these demographics may be realizing that’s not a place they want to be.

Kill The Duck


There seems to be a general consensus that Republicans will retake the Senate in next Tuesday night’s election. If that is the case, they won’t retake the reins of power until early in January of 2015, giving the Senate Democrats one last gasp at legislating during the forthcoming lame duck session. There are a number of terrible ideas being floated for the lame duck, but the one I want to discuss today is the idea of “clearing the decks” so that Congress can start fresh in 2015.

Currently there is a continuing resolution in effect that funds the government until December 11th. There are rumblings that Congressional leadership, both Republicans and Democrats in both chambers, wants to pass a long term funding bill that funds the government through next fall. If next Tuesday night’s election results hand the Senate over to Republicans, conservatives need to resist this approach vigorously.

First, the obvious reason is that all manner of retired and defeated members will be voting on extremely important issues. Even the fine folks who wrote The West Wing understood how problematic this is.Lame duck Congressman and Senators could be voting on numerous nominees, internet taxation, funding for Obamacare and amnesty for illegal aliens and voting contrary to the people who just turned them out of office.

This brings me to my second and more important point. The funding bill.

Leadership wants to “clear the decks” (by that they mean pass all the major legislation and nominees sitting before Congress) so that they can start off the new Congress focusing on their priorities.  Their priorities are much more likely to reflect the priorities of Wall Street and K Street than Main Street.  The first thing they want to get out of the way is the controversy surrounding funding Obamacare and the President’s illegal amnesty. And by get out of the way I mean fund Obamacare and amnesty.

Congress – and the House of Representatives in particular – holds the purse strings, without which the President cannot implement his agenda. If Congress does not fund an activity, then the Executive Branch cannot implement it. Further if Congress affirmatively acts to restrict funding for an activity, the Administration’s hands are similarly tied. Congress knows exactly how to limit funding for Obamacare – they have done it in the past – and candidates are pledging to do it on the campaign trail at this moment.

At the same time, the American people want Congress to defund President Obama’s lawless amnesty program for illegal immigrant children – often known as DACA.   If media reports are correct, by the time the lame duck begins, President Obama will have issued an even broader amnesty for adult illegal aliens.   The only way to stop this will be to turn off the funding for the President’s amnesty.

But if the Congressional leadership “clears the decks” in November the opportunity to include riders to block amnesty and defund Obamacare evaporates until next fall.  By the time we get back to appropriations bills the amnesty program will be well underway and much harder to undo.

If candidates are serious about opposing Obamacare and Executive amnesty, they need to pass a very short-term Continuing Resolution in November that only funds the government until January, so that the Republican House and Senate can come back and include the important Obamacare and amnesty defunding provisions they promised the American people.

Thank You, Heritage Foundation


Original Post: Thank You, Heritage Foundation.

I’m sitting at Reagan National Airport waiting for my flight home. I just spent 24 hours meeting the people who keep America free. Well, besides the people in uniform. It’s the Heritage Foundation’s donors and leaders. It’s Heritage Action and its Sentinels. It’s decidedly NOT the ruling class, the two big parties. I had the…

The post Thank You, Heritage Foundation appeared first on Hennessy's View.

Is President Obama Planning Unilateral Action on Amnesty?


In the spring of 2013, the Senate passed the “Gang of 8” amnesty bill (S. 744), which created a framework to legalize the estimated 11 million people currently living in the country unlawfully. House Republicans wisely recognized the bill for what it was—a comprehensive amnesty package—and refused to act on it. In spite of congressional inaction, President Obama has attempted a variety of unilateral maneuvers to ignore current immigration laws.

Is President Obama planning unilateral action on amnesty?

In June 2012, the Obama Administration authored a memorandum, issued by then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to practice “prosecutorial discretion” towards unlawful minors. This process, sterilized by the administration’s labeling it Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), is one of the most flagrant instances of the President using government resources—in this case, law enforcement—to carry out a political agenda.

Press reports indicate the President may attempt to expand DACA after the midterm elections. By providing “legal protections” and work permits to a range of undocumented residents, this action could result in as many as 5 million new unlawful immigrants (roughly 50% of current illegal population) being included under the DACA umbrella.

DACA acted as a beacon of amnesty for an estimated 1.7 million unlawful minors. With these minors in perpetual limbo, the President and his bipartisan congressional coalition went in search of a long-term solution. Though avoiding prosecution or removal is tantamount to amnesty, it is not the official legalization the Left is seeking. The ENLIST Act was the logical next step. This bill would permit unlawful immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors a backdoor promise of citizenship in exchange for military service. In April 2014, Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA) launched a campaign in the House to attach ENLIST to the National Defense Authorization Act. The grassroots megaphone demanded accountability, however, and enough pressure was applied to bring down the bill.

At the beginning of October, the administration issued yet another memorandum that will allow for a limited number of children in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to apply for refugee status if they have relatives legally residing in the U.S. This policy is problematic in that it requires officials to justify the refugee status by loosening criteria. Although the change may be limited in scope, there is concern the administration would then use this as justification to offer asylum to thousands of children already here illegally (or on the border), amounting to a massive loophole for another administrative amnesty deal.

There is no such thing as a unilateral mechanism for altering U.S. law. President Obama continues to show his disregard for the Constitution by ignoring the separation of powers and administering policies as he sees fit. This practice is unfair to the citizens he purports to represent, as well as to those millions abroad who have applied for legal status the proper way and are waiting their turn.

The United States has a system of legal immigration in place which admits roughly 1 million people each year. Any change to this system that is not in keeping with the parameters of democratic process is nothing more than another entry in the pattern of unfairness endemic to Washington, DC.

The Good Muslim


Koran / Quran - Whatever

I am a fundamentalist Christian.

Not a very good one, mind you. While I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, far too often I take the precepts within its pages as suggestions rather than commands. I think if I were more obedient I would be more patient, more kind, more generous. I would have more courage to speak the truth and more wisdom to speak it gently.

A fundamentalist Christian should, over time, be more like Jesus of Nazareth. Think what you may about His claims to deity and salvation, Jesus is universally understood to be a good man.

Most Christians who get into the weeds of theology accept the idea of progressive revelation and its implications. I believe, along with the majority of orthodox theologians, that every book of the Bible reveals more about God as scripture was recorded over the millennia. As a Christian, the Old Testament is as relevant today as are the books of the New Testament. It is incumbent upon me to understand how to serve God in light of all revelation.

I do not think that Islam is like this. It is clear that Mohammed revealed two dispensations to the faithful, one of peace and one of war.

When I was a soldier, I was required to follow my last lawful order. A four star general could tell me to do one thing, and a buck corporal could order me to do another if he outranked me. While as a courtesy, I might tell the corporal of my previous orders, the fact is that if the corporals orders are lawful I am to obey.

Many Muslims are adherents to the idea that the last lawful orders from Mohammed are to advance the faith by any means. Violence is just one of those means.

Within Christianity and its cousin Judaism, I see no evidence that the faith was ever to be advanced by violence. In Christianity, attempts to forcibly convert someone is theologically illegitimate. Within Islam, I see no reason why a Jihadi that demands “convert or die” is out of step with Islamic theology.

It seems inescapable that the Muslim who eschews violence as an legitimate means of spreading his faith is on shaky theological ground. Given the scriptures in question, and the majority of Islamic clerics who have the authority to interpret it, those who accept violence are in fact the better Muslim, or at least the more complete Muslim, if being a Muslim is defined by acceptance and adherence to all that which is believed to be Holy Writ.

Over time, I think that we will see that Islam will inevitably become more militant, and the “moderates” we in the West so desperately hope will prevail in the Muslim culture will be revealed to be just so much wishful thinking. If a good Buddhist acts like Buddha, a good Christian acts like Jesus, we ought to expect that a good Muslim acts like Mohammed.

Bad Immigration Policy Is Just Around The Corner


Just because the media has been quiet about immigration and border security lately doesn’t mean any issues have been settled.  While border crossings may have slowed, the number of illegal immigrants residing in the United States continues to rise.

Don’t let your friends and family forget that as we head toward Election Day.

President Obama still, in cowardice, refuses to move forward with his plan for immigration reform until after the election. He knows the American people will not be happy with any sort of amnesty plan – and he doesn’t want to hurt voter turnout for Democrats.

Just this week, his former opponent Mitt Romney called the decision to wait “a very shameful thing” because Romney believes the President has a responsibility to the people to say what he plans to do before the election.

But his promised executive action on immigration is already being supported by the likes of ex-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who said in a Monday interview:

“If Congress refuses to act and perform its duties, then I think it’s appropriate for the executive to step in and use his authorities based on law…to take action in the immigration arena.”

Of course, Presidents have the ability to use executive action but that doesn’t mean they should do it every time they disagree with Congress – especially on issue as crucial and consequential as immigration policy.

And if you had any doubt about what the President plans to do, information revealed yesterday may put those to rest.  Fox News reported that “the U.S. government ordered supplies to create millions of blank work permits and green cards.”

Of the course the Administration says it has nothing to do with Obama’s coming action – but this revelation is telling.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said today that Obama’s plans for immigration reform are a bad idea and bad public policy.

“It harms to the ability of the Congress to do immigration reform and most importantly, it violates the U.S.  Constitution, “ said Goodlatte, also noting “no one trusts the President to enforce the [current] law.”

Just because the Left doesn’t want to talk about immigration doesn’t mean you have to keep quiet. Bad policy is coming and there’s precious little time to prevent it.




Are Democrats poised to steal the midterms?

The Unablogger

The Unablogger

Something weird is in the air this election season, and I don’t like what I smell. I think it’s a rat.

Most factors point to a big Republican win in the midterms, with the GOP expanding its majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and, more significantly, wining control of the U.S. Senate. Republicans appear poised to take the six net (8 takeaways minus 2 givebacks) Democrat-held seats necessary for a 51-seat “Biden proof” majority, and a Republican wave raising all GOP boats as little as 2 more points would give them 10 net new seats (rescue the two vulnerable seats, plus 2 more where incumbent Democrats are currently slightly ahead) and insulate their senate control against the loss of a few vulnerable seats in 2016.

Yet, something’s in the air. President Barack Obama exudes confidence in the midterm results. He even went out of his way to brand reluctant vulnerable Democrat senators with his mark, stating publicly that his policies are on the ballot because all those Democrats voted for them. Why would as politically savvy a politician as Obama do such a thing? He must be positioning himself to take credit for their wins. What does he know that we don’t?

My fear is that the fix is in.

What could dishonest Democrats possibly do to overturn a massive nationwide Republican wave? Old-fashioned ballot box stuffing, for starters. One way involves hoards of lower-level (i.e., not important enough to be recognized) political operatives voting in the names of others in several hand-picked polling places staffed by party-loyal clerks who won’t challenge their signatures. (In many inner city areas, thee aren’t enough legitimate Republicans to staff polling places, so Democrats fill those slots with their own people, and the bi-partisan checks and balances are out the window.) The operatives vote in the name of a registered voter who the party is confident won’t show up to vote themselves. Voters over age 90 (or known to be incapacitated, or even dead) who haven’t voted in several consecutive elections are a prime source for names. (For examples, see here and here and here.) This is what voter-ID laws are designed to prevent, and it’s why Democrat lawyers fight so hard to get judges to overturn or delay implementation of those laws.

Ballot stuffing, part deux, takes place after the polls close and corrupt Democrat pols get a feel for whether more needs to be done. If more votes need to be manufactured, the election judges take care of it. (As I noted above, many inner city polling places are staffed exclusively by Democrats.) They don’t have to guess who isn’t going to vote, because they have the official list of who really did vote and, more important, who didn’t. Filling out paperwork for those who didn’t vote turns those nonvoters into straight Democrat ballots that count. This can be time consuming, especially if a lot of votes need to be manufactured. But they’ll take whatever time is necessary. Ever notice how the most Democratic precincts are always the last ones to turn in their ballots for tabulation?

Close contests in areas that have significant concentrated pockets of super Democrat support are most vulnerable. Rogue precincts in liberal college towns and inner-city parts of Charlotte, Winston-Salem, and Greensboro can keep North Carolina’s seat in Democrat hands. Little Rock and precincts along the Mississippi River could save Arkansas for the Democrats.

Colorado’s all-mail ballot is tailor-made for fraud. Corrupt politicians are busy voting phony ballots right now. And if they fall short, count on them “finding” new uncounted ballots a few days after the election. It worked six years ago for Al Franken.

Georgia and Louisiana could be a two-part affair because of runoff laws. Democrats may try to steal these elections on election day by creating enough phony ballots to give the Democratic candidate the majority necessary to avoid a runoff. Or the fun could be repeated at (or deferred until) the runoff, when fewer legitimate voters will participate. By then, results from other states will have determined whether these contests will be decisive for senate control. If they are, there will be tons of money, lots of lawyers and plenty of experienced locals to make sure the senate stays under Harry Reid’s thumb. Atlanta provides a treasure trove of inner city votes to manipulate, and plantation country in southwest Georgia can provide backup if needed. In Louisiana, Republicans will need to overcome creative voting in New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

But some old-fashioned fraud may not be necessary for Democrats if high-tech voter fraud can provide an election day surprise or two, especially under the radar in totally unexpected places. This worries me because of what happened on June 10, 2014, in the Republican primary in Virginia’s 7th congressional district. Underfunded Tea Party challenger David Brat upset House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in an election that pre-election polls had universally showed Cantor winning by 13 to 34 points. Brat succeeded where virtually all other (and better funded) Tea Party challengers across the country had failed, and no one seems to know why. With no disrespect to Brat, whom I believe will be a fantastic, principled congressman, I believe Brat was the innocent beneficiary of manipulated vote tabulation on the part of Virginia Democrats. I suspect that VA-7 was a successful test run for a much bigger national prize on November 4. Fast forward to last week’s early voting in the Chicago area, when an observant Republican candidate “caught” his touch-screen voting machine changing his vote from Republican to Democrat. That candidate got that machine pulled out of service (just a “calibration error,” nothing to see here, move along), but what about all the other rogue machines that ordinary people don’t notice? (Say Goodnight, Bruce Rauner. You’re toast.)

Low population states with low-visibility, seemingly uncompetitive Republican-favored senate contests are prime targets for scattered “calibration errors,” because these states have even fewer voters to overcome than VA-7. Possible targets include Alaska (where the senate race is close), as well as seemingly safe states like Montana and South Dakota. Are they as “safely out of reach” as Eric Cantor seemed to be on June 9? And while Oklahoma and South Carolina are larger and would require more fraud to overturn, they are also tempting targets because they are “twofers;” both have two senate seats on this year’s ballot. Democrats would especially love to eliminate South Carolina’s black Republican Sen. Tim Scott, because his presence contradicts their racial narrative.

While blatant voter fraud such as this seems like it would be too risky to try, don’t bet on it. When you don’t know ahead of time what’s going on or where to look, vote fraud is hard to detect and even harder to prove. The only witnesses are people who were involved. Even among innocents, the communities where voter fraud takes place have a long “don’t snitch” tradition that intimidates witnesses, especially vulnerable elderly people. Deadlines for challenges are too short to put together evidence, and confidentiality laws prevent much evidence from being discovered. Furthermore, the Obama Administration has a history, from its onset, of refusing to prosecute the few who are caught. Remember the New Black Panthers case in Philadelphia? And if all else fails, Obama himself, with his pen and his phone, is around for two more years to issue pardons.

For the sake of the country, I hope I’m dead wrong. I want people holding up this article and laughing at me on Election Night. But Obama’s cocky, seemingly misplaced confidence worries me. What does he know about the midterms that we don’t?

How Much Will Obamacare Cost You in the Next 10 Years?


$131 billion. These days numbers in the millions, billions and even trillions, have lost their shock value — but they shouldn’t. This is the amount of money the U.S. federal deficit will increase by over the next 10 years, thanks to Obamacare. A new report from the Republican Senate Budget Committee shows why things have gotten so bad.

A top Democrat aide called the report  ”garbage,” but we know better. And it’s not just the money it will cost, it’s the jobs. CBO reports that 2.5 million full-time employees will be forced out of their jobs by 2024 because of the law. It’s a double whammy our country doesn’t deserve.

When Obamacare was first passed, CBO estimated it would actually reduce the deficit but things didn’t exactly go as planned. Even though the Obama Administration claimed the law would be funded by 18 new taxes, that’s not enough — never mind the fact that most people aren’t too keen on this new “revenue.”

The Senate report considers changes made to Obamacare since 2012 and how those unexpected events completely shift the fiscal outcome. For example, not as many people signed up for Obamacare as the Administration hoped. Additionally, millions of people have had the Obamacare mandate penalty waived for a variety of reasons. These things, among others, decrease the amount of money the Administration was counting on for funding.

Meanwhile, the President continues to stress that “this thing is working.” Unfortunately for him, it’s quite clear that the law hasn’t “worked” tangibly or technically from the start. In 2009, Obama promised he would not “sign [Obamacare] if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”

The future is here, Mr. President, and you have more dimes than one to account for now.

Democrats Have Just One Chance for October Surprise


Original Post: Democrats Have Just One Chance for October Surprise.

The White House and its corrupt Department of Justice has one chance to change the election’s outcome. According to Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight blog, the GOP has a 62.1 percent chance of a Senate majority. With nine days left until the election, and with President Obama’s approval and likability plunging, the Democrats face a huge loss. Apathetic…

The post Democrats Have Just One Chance for October Surprise appeared first on Hennessy's View.