Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Ex-Marine Kills 4 Homeless Men since Discharge from Military

Former marine, Itzcoatl Ocampo, 23, accused of killing four homeless men in Orange County between December and January 2012.

It appears that the military isn’t for everyone, especially when it’s the Marines.  The Marines is responsible for being the first division of the armed forces that sees action first.  They are the first responders in war. They see the enemy head on and all the devastation that is a result of conflict.One marine came home and he was still reeling from the affects of being away at war.  Itzcoatl (itz-KWAH’-tuhl) Ocampo, 23, came home and killed four homeless people and was suspected of killing his friend’s mother and brother as well, until new evidence was produced.  So far, there is nothing to support a possible motive other than Ocampo may be suffering from mental illness, according to the Washington Post.

The former Marine has no previous record, so his actions are being investigated and possibly linked to his time in an Iraq medical battalion.  The prosecutor, Susan Price, said:
“It’s the simplest case of evil you’ve ever heard of. He has no record, but he’s a person who has hatred in him and had been bottling it up for some time.”
Read more here on this strange case that shook Orange County between December and January 2012.
-J.C. Brooks

Obama’s “Rules for Radicals” Health Care Buy

By Rick Manning


Not content with making the health insurance industry unprofitable, through rules and regulations set out in enacting Obamacare, the Obama administration released the first eight grants/loans under the Consumer Oriented and Operated Plan (CO-OP) program.
The CO-OP program was established under the Obamacare law to put into place one federal government selected group in every state that is supposed to provide an insurance alternative to those few companies that remain after the imposition of the law.

The grants/loans have raised the political antenna of Bill Wilson, the President of Americans for Limited Government who said, “These grants/loans reek of political payola as one group, the Saul Alinsky-affiliated, Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative of Wisconsin was formed in August, 2011 just three short months prior to applying for the taxpayer money. In true, Rules for Radicals fashion, Obama’s administration found this group worthy of receiving $56,416,000 in taxpayer largesse.”
Common Ground is an affiliate of the Industrial Areas Foundation, a group the radical Saul Alinsky founded, as reported by the Journal Sentinel in Milwaukee.

The provision of $56 million taxpayer funds by the federal government for health care organizing comes at a time when Wisconsin’s public employee unions are orchestrating a recall election of the Governor after failing in a retaliatory bid for power in the Senate last year. Wisconsin’s state government moved forward with changes in the state’s collective bargaining rules early in 2011 over the objections of the unions. Ironically, those changes have allowed the state to bring the budget into balance without having to lay off any public employees.
Get full story here.

The cause of limiting government looks bleak

By Adam Bitely


It seems like every presidential election cycle people get excited to nominate candidate that will roll back the expansion of government under the previous administration. For months, speculation of who the candidate will be that will stop the growth of government runs wild. But, as is always the case, reality sets in and those who thought they could stop the growth of government with a miracle candidate are left with choosing between the lesser of two evils.

2012 appears to be no different.

As it stands today, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are generating the most buzz for Republicans. With the GOP establishment lining up behind Romney and the social conservatives lining up behind Santorum, the media is focusing on these two candidates with Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul fighting to get in the mix.
People concerned about the out of control spending in Washington should be concerned about Romney or Santorum being the alternative to Obama.

Santorum’s record on spending leaves much more to be desired. He voted multiple times to raise the debt ceiling, supported the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society programs started in the 1960’s and supported increased spending throughout the federal government especially to the Department of Education. He was known as a “yes-man” for the Republican form of Big Government spending during the Bush administration. Now he is campaigning as a small government conservative, even though his record is that of a Washington big spender.

Romney is no better. A supporter of the Bush bailouts of Wall Street, Obama’s auto bailouts and the author of the blueprint for ObamaCare, Romney should give any person who wants to stop Washington’s spending addiction pause. Romney has famously flip-flopped back and forth on various positions causing many voters to question how he will act in office. As a candidate for President though, Romney is suddenly “severely conservative” — whatever that means.

Both Romney and Santorum have records that show that if elected, the spending machine in Washington will keep running just as it always has. These are two people, who like most politicians, will maintain the status quo.

This cycle of politics and politicians as usual seems never ending. But that is how the system has worked for hundreds of years. The voters that decide elections are never the base of a party, rather, the decisive voters are in the middle and force the candidates on each side to cater to them in the run up to November. This leads to the party nominees moving to their true spot in the middle and saying whatever it takes to get the votes of the political middle. That is why the U.S. system rarely sees politicians elected that are way out on the wings politically.
Get full story here.

Reagan's Assault on Big Government at Home and the ‘Evil Empire’ Abroad Should be Studied by Republican Presidential Candidates

By Kevin Mooney


Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire” speech delivered on March 8, 1983 “re-moralized American foreign policy” and reversed and era of d├ętente in foreign policy that had given the advantage to the Soviet Union, Prof. Paul Kengor of Grove City College explained during an interview with Americans for Limited Government (ALG) at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

Kengor, who is also a prominent Reagan biographer, said the speech had tremendous reverberations. It put the Soviet Empire back on its heels and help shifted the Cold War back in America’s favor.

The “evil empire” speech was delivered on March 8, 1983 and just a few weeks later on March 23 Reagan announced the “Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

“Reagan used his voice as weapon,” Kengor explained. “He destroyed this whole idea that there was somehow a moral equivalence to both sides and it made it plain and clear that America’s struggle against Soviet expansionism and Soviet communism was a just cause.

The same U.S. State Department officials who tried to strike out the "Tear Down this Wall" comment from Reagan's 1987 Berlin Wall address, were also scandalized by the "Evil Empire" speech.

Kengor served as the moderator for a panel entitled “Rendezvous with Destiny: What Can We Learn from Ronald Reagan in 2012.” Craig Shirley, author of “Rendezvous with Destiny” and Steven Hayward, a scholar with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), also took part in the discussion.
Get full story here.

Race Matters: White Criminals Are More Likely To Be Pardoned Than The Minorities Who Are Locked Up…Blacks Have The Poorest Chance

Blacks In Prison Have Lowest Chance of Getting Pardoned
This is all thanks to your boy George “Dubya” Bush:
An independent investigation has found that white criminals seeking US presidential pardons over the past decade have been nearly four times as likely to succeed as minorities, The Washington Post reported. The newspaper said Saturday the review was conducted by ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism.
ProPublica’s review examined what happened after president George W. Bush decided at the beginning of his first term to rely almost entirely on the recommendations made by career lawyers in the Office of the Pardon Attorney. According to the review, blacks have had the poorest chance of receiving the president’s ultimate act of mercy, the paper said. From 2001 to 2008, Bush issued decisions in 1,918 pardon cases sent to him by the Justice Department, most involving nonviolent drug or financial crimes, The Post noted.
He pardoned 189 people — all but 13 of whom were white, the report said. Seven pardons went to blacks, four to Hispanics, one to an Asian and one to a Native American. The Post quotes Fred Fielding, who served as Bush’s White House counsel, as saying the racial disparity “is very troubling to me and will be to (Bush), because we had no idea of the race of any applicant.”
Discuss….