Greetings, fellow tea-party terrorists!
After much consideration, I have decided to change the focus and use of this blog (again). I have begun the process of starting a new technology business, and I anticipate that the business will take a large portion of my time. Due to the new work that I will be doing, I will no longer be writing large amounts of new content. I will continue to post links to great opinion pieces and news articles as I am able, and I plan to continue some of the daily features I started. Those who subscribe to the nFocus email will receive daily updates of the links I post.
For now, here is my planned post schedule:
6 AM - Morning Media
10 AM - D.C. Daily
8 PM - Newspaper Roundup
Links to opinion pieces will be posted as I find them throughout the day
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
nFocus: February 12, 2013
Tonight's edition of nFocus has been emailed. If you did not receive it, you can view it by clicking on the link below.
View nFocus
If you would like to receive nFocus in your inbox (published on Tuesdays and Fridays), click here to sign up.
If you would like to receive nFocus in your inbox (published on Tuesdays and Fridays), click here to sign up.
It Makes a Difference
While testifying at the Benghazi hearings about three weeks ago, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the incredulous statement, “What difference does it make?” while responding to questioning about the administration's initial claim that the attacks were the result of a protest due to a video. Whether it was a protest due to a video, a few guys taking a walk, or—as we learned when the truth came out—a terrorist attack, makes a huge difference.
First, it makes a difference to the man sitting in prison right now due to the administration's cover-up. While he may have violated the terms of his parole in making the video, the truth is that his actions would most likely have gone unnoticed were it not for the Benghazi attacks. The government did to him what was done to Al Capone: unable to arrest him for the reasons they desired, they found something else that could be used to arrest him. I am sure that this man would like the administration to explain why his video was made the scapegoat for these attacks.
Second, it makes a difference to the families of the dead Americans. If this was a spontaneous protest, then the administration would have been unable to prepare for it, but if this were a coordinated attack that we had knowledge could be coming, then there is no excuse for the lack of security and response. The families of the four Americans killed in Benghazi deserve to know whether or not their loved ones died as a result of the negligence of our government.
Third, it makes a difference to those who desire the truth. Our government lied to us in the days following the attacks. At the same time that the government was claiming that the attacks were the result of the video protest, they had evidence that this was a terrorist attack. If they have lied to us about this, what else have they lied about? Furthermore, why are they answering questions about the attacks with statements like “What difference does it make?” rather than telling the truth? Unanswered questions like these are what cause many to question the government.
How the government portrayed the attacks in Benghazi does make a difference. It makes a difference to one jailed filmmaker, it makes a difference to the families of those killed, and it makes a difference to anyone who wants our government to tell the truth. With responses like these, the Obama administration is stonewalling any attempt to get at the truth about Benghazi. It will be up to us to try and determine why.
First, it makes a difference to the man sitting in prison right now due to the administration's cover-up. While he may have violated the terms of his parole in making the video, the truth is that his actions would most likely have gone unnoticed were it not for the Benghazi attacks. The government did to him what was done to Al Capone: unable to arrest him for the reasons they desired, they found something else that could be used to arrest him. I am sure that this man would like the administration to explain why his video was made the scapegoat for these attacks.
Second, it makes a difference to the families of the dead Americans. If this was a spontaneous protest, then the administration would have been unable to prepare for it, but if this were a coordinated attack that we had knowledge could be coming, then there is no excuse for the lack of security and response. The families of the four Americans killed in Benghazi deserve to know whether or not their loved ones died as a result of the negligence of our government.
Third, it makes a difference to those who desire the truth. Our government lied to us in the days following the attacks. At the same time that the government was claiming that the attacks were the result of the video protest, they had evidence that this was a terrorist attack. If they have lied to us about this, what else have they lied about? Furthermore, why are they answering questions about the attacks with statements like “What difference does it make?” rather than telling the truth? Unanswered questions like these are what cause many to question the government.
How the government portrayed the attacks in Benghazi does make a difference. It makes a difference to one jailed filmmaker, it makes a difference to the families of those killed, and it makes a difference to anyone who wants our government to tell the truth. With responses like these, the Obama administration is stonewalling any attempt to get at the truth about Benghazi. It will be up to us to try and determine why.
Friday, February 8, 2013
nFocus: February 8, 2013
Tonight's edition of nFocus has been emailed. If you did not receive it, you can view it by clicking on the link below.
View nFocus
If you would like to receive nFocus in your inbox (published on Tuesdays and Fridays), click here to sign up.
If you would like to receive nFocus in your inbox (published on Tuesdays and Fridays), click here to sign up.
Immigration Reform: Too Many Unanswered Questions
Imagine a time when Republicans and Democrats have agreed to an immigration plan that will secure the border, grant legal status to illegal immigrants, and crack down on employers who hire them. If you think this is a current event, you're wrong. I'm talking about the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act passed by the 99th Congress and signed into law by Ronald Reagan. The 1986 reform shows us that the current proposals before Congress will not solve our immigration problems; it will only add to them.
Since the 1986 plan, border security has not improved. In 1986, amnesty was approved with a promise of border security, but no one followed through on the promise. In fact, more illegal immigrants are coming across our border today than in 1986. According to the Office of Immigration Statistics, there was an average of just over 200,000 people coming across the border in 1986; in 2010, that number stood at well over 300,000.
The present “bipartisan” plan also includes a promise of border security, and unlike the 1986 plan, implementation of the amnesty program would supposedly hinge on the border being secure. However, we are left with an unanswered question: what exactly is a secure border? The question would most likely be left to the committee that is supposed to determine when the border has been secured.
This committee raises a second unanswered question: who will be on the committee, and how will they be appointed? It is highly unlikely that Democrats would support a plan that would require Joe Arpaio and Jan Brewer to approve, and it is equally unlikely that Republicans would support a plan requiring the approval of Janet Napolitano and Chuck Schumer. Until we know exactly how this committee will be appointed, it is impossible to know if the committee will actually do its job or serve as a farce to satisfy enough Republicans to pass the bill.
Without securing the border, we are not finding an immigration solution; we are finding a temporary fix. The 1986 bill was supposed to solve our immigration problems, but 27 years later, we are faced with the same problem on a larger scale. Without knowing the specifics of the border enforcement provisions, it is impossible to know if this is a worthwhile bill or another useless congressional can-kicking exercise.
Since the 1986 plan, border security has not improved. In 1986, amnesty was approved with a promise of border security, but no one followed through on the promise. In fact, more illegal immigrants are coming across our border today than in 1986. According to the Office of Immigration Statistics, there was an average of just over 200,000 people coming across the border in 1986; in 2010, that number stood at well over 300,000.
The present “bipartisan” plan also includes a promise of border security, and unlike the 1986 plan, implementation of the amnesty program would supposedly hinge on the border being secure. However, we are left with an unanswered question: what exactly is a secure border? The question would most likely be left to the committee that is supposed to determine when the border has been secured.
This committee raises a second unanswered question: who will be on the committee, and how will they be appointed? It is highly unlikely that Democrats would support a plan that would require Joe Arpaio and Jan Brewer to approve, and it is equally unlikely that Republicans would support a plan requiring the approval of Janet Napolitano and Chuck Schumer. Until we know exactly how this committee will be appointed, it is impossible to know if the committee will actually do its job or serve as a farce to satisfy enough Republicans to pass the bill.
Without securing the border, we are not finding an immigration solution; we are finding a temporary fix. The 1986 bill was supposed to solve our immigration problems, but 27 years later, we are faced with the same problem on a larger scale. Without knowing the specifics of the border enforcement provisions, it is impossible to know if this is a worthwhile bill or another useless congressional can-kicking exercise.
D.C. Daily: February 8, 2013
Senate
The Senate met yesterday and took the following actions:
The Senate will not meet today. The next scheduled meeting of the Senate will be on Monday, February 11.
House of Representatives
The House was not in session yesterday.
The House will meet today at 11:00 AM in a pro forma session.
The Senate met yesterday and took the following actions:
- Passed H. Con. Res. 11, providing for a joint session of Congress to receive a message from the President.
- Passed S. Res. 27, designating the week of February 4 through 8, 2013, as "National School Counseling Week".
- Resumed consideration of S. 47, the "Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013". During consideration, the Senate rejected one proposed amendment to the bill.
The Senate will not meet today. The next scheduled meeting of the Senate will be on Monday, February 11.
House of Representatives
The House was not in session yesterday.
The House will meet today at 11:00 AM in a pro forma session.
Morning Media: February 8, 2013
First, Robert Arial provides a description of exactly what Obama is shooting. View at Townhall
Second, Dr. Benjamin Carson gave this amazing speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. It is almost 30 minutes long, but it is well worth your time to watch. View at YouTube
Next, another longer video (about 17 minutes) shows what the President should have said at his inauguration. View at RightScoop
And finally, adding the cat ruined Monopoly. View at Townhall
Second, Dr. Benjamin Carson gave this amazing speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. It is almost 30 minutes long, but it is well worth your time to watch. View at YouTube
Next, another longer video (about 17 minutes) shows what the President should have said at his inauguration. View at RightScoop
And finally, adding the cat ruined Monopoly. View at Townhall
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)