Conservative Talk ‏@yourrighttalk

Conservatively Speaking is now on Twitter, Facebook as well as Blog and Radio show.. please join us and check us out

 
 

CS Interview with Kris Paranto of “13 Hours” the firs hand account of the 2012 attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya

The full written story of these three awesome men will appear shortly in the book 13 Hours. Their names are Mark Geist (“Oz”), Kris Paranto (“Tonto”), and John Tiegen (“Tig”).

This is first-hand witness testimony by three true warriors who were actually there. It is a refreshing alternative to the talking heads, political spinners, and know-nothing speculators that we’ve been hearing from for the past two years.

Join Mike Wade Saturday (3/21/15) from 7 to 9 am. Paranto, AKA Tonto, will join Mike at 8am.

 
 

Horace Cooper of Project 21 on Hillary’s emails, what does the law say about Hillary using non-gov’t secured email servers

Speakers Bureau: Horace Cooper
Co-Chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board

Horace CooperHorace Cooper is an adjunct fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, co-chairman of the Project 21 National Advisory Board and a legal commentator.

Horace averages over 400 talk radio appearances per year representing Project 21, in addition to regular television appearances and interviews by the print media, also for Project 21.

Horace taught constitutional law at George Mason University in Virginia and was general counsel to U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

Sample of Public Appearances by Horace Cooper:

On Sean Hannity’s radio show, Horace discusses the NON-scandal related to Rep. Steve Scalise (1/5/15)

On One America News Network’s “The Rick Amato Show,” Horace discusses whether the federal government should be able to snoop on cell phones without a warrant (1/2/15)

On RT Network’s “The Big Picture,” Horace notes that the Koch brothers failed to achieve their top priority: ending wind subsidies (12/17/14)

On RT Network’s “The Big Picture,” Horace says President Obama’s new Cuba policy is “setting a terrible, extremely bad precedent” (12/17/14)

On One America News Network’s “The Rick Amato Show,” Horace says, “This blame it on the whitey stuff is dangerous and it is a lie” (12/8/14)

On the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Power and Politics,” Horace differentiates the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York City (12/4/14)

On “The Sean Hannity Show,” Horace discusses the Ferguson decision and protests (11/25/14)

On Russia Today’s “The Big Picture,” Horace blows up a liberal’s attempt to lump Obama’s go-it-alone illegal immigrant amnesty together with compromise plans reached by previous presidential administrations (11/19/14)

On Al Jazeera America’s “Inside Story,” Horace demolishes critics of voter ID (10/15/14)

On One America News Network’s “The Rick Amato Show,” Horace discusses President Obama’s potential abuse of federal refugee policy as a means of offering amnesty to illegal immigrants (9/12/14)

On Voice of America TV, Horace says “American people expect” Obama to work with Congress on illegal immigration (8/30/14)

On One America News Network’s “The Rick Amato Show,” Horace says police-community relations could be improved by common sense (8/28/14)

On the Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Horace criticizes Al Sharpton for his lack of true concern about civil rights (8/21/14)

On One America News Network’s “The Rick Amato Show,” Horace says politicians, protestors and the mainstream media have created a false narrative about the Michael Brown shooting (8/19/14)

On MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Horace tackles liberal illogic favoring affirmative action (4/22/14)

On American Urban Radio Network, Horace discusses the Supreme Court ruling in the race preferences case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (4/22/14)

On CNN’s “The Situation Room,” Horace discusses whether felons should be allowed to regain voting privileges (2/19/14)

On Sean Hannity’s radio show, Horace debates whether Americans have a free speech right to flash their headlights to warn other motorists of a speed trap, and other issues (2/6/14)

On TVOne’s “NewsOne Now,” Horace explains how school choice policies could help deal with perceived disciplinary overreach in our nation’s schools (1/9/14)

On TVOne’s “NewsOne Now,” Horace promotes lowering the minimum wage in some instances as a means of making black teenagers in particular more employable (1/9/14)

On the Fox News Channel’s “O’Reilly Factor,” Horace debates the DOJ’s decision to charge “knockout game” defendant with a hate crime (12/27/13)

On Arise TV, Horace discusses the Navy Yard shooting, the latest George Zimmerman controversy and a sorority’s practice of not pledging black applicants (9/19/13)

On Blaze TV’s “Glenn Beck Program,” Horace defends voter ID laws (8/29/13)

On Arise TV, Horace debates the progress of black America (8/28/13)

On Sean Hannity’s nationally-syndicated radio show, Horace debates an attorney for the family of Trayvon Martin on the topic of racial violence (8/26/13)

On WUSA-TV in Washington D.C., Horace says he looks at the March on Washington anniversary with a “bit of sadness” (8/24/13)

On the Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Horace debates whether there is a clear and present danger presented by racism on modern American society (8/16/13)

On the Fox News Channel’s “Your World with Neil Cavuto,” Horace discusses how the post-Zimmerman protests are hurting financial interests in poor and minority communities (7/16/13)

On AriseTV, Horace discusses the effect that the Supreme Court’s Fisher v. Texas decision will have on race-based college and university admissions policies (6/24/13)

On the Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” Horace discusses the murder trial of a West Philly abortion doctor (3/22/13)

On AriseTV, Horace debates race preferences in college admissions (3/22/13)

On Blaze TV’s “Real News,” Horace calls the Shelby County case before the Supreme Court a “very close call” (2/27/13)

n MSNBC’s “Up With Chris,” Horace defends the case for reforming the Voting Rights Act (2/23/13)

On MSNBC’s “Up With Chris,” Horace criticizes the civil rights enforcement shift from “racism punishment” to “racism prevention” (2/23/13)

On MSNBC’s “Up With Chris,” Horace debates the Voting Rights Act (2/23/13)

On the Fox News Channel’s “America’s News Headquarters,” Horace discusses the “staggering” amount of information newer automobiles gather about driver habits and travels (1/3/13)

On WLEA-Hornell, Horace criticizes President Obama’s attempt to claim a compromise has been made on his birth control mandate (2/10/12)

On CNSNews, Horace discusses his paper on “ghost voting” and the need for stronger protections against ballot fraud (2/1/12)

On WAMU’s “The Diane Rehm Show,” Horace discusses the “heavy handed” federal cell phone assault with the director of the NTSB (12/15/11)

On Canada’s Global Television, Horace pans federal pressure for a cell phone ban while driving (12/14/11)

On Hartmann’s “The Big Picture” program on the Russian RT network, Horace debates Thom Hartmann on the state of Wisconsin’s voter ID requirement and the need for ballot integrity (7/27/11)

Sample Publications by Horace Cooper:

The Obama Administration’s Cynical Chase for the “Subtle” Racist (June 2014)

Doubling Down on Dumb (July 2013)

Voter ID Opponents’ Latest Spurious Claim: Voter ID Allegedly Slows Election Tabulations (November 2012)

The Brennan Center is Wrong: Voter Fraud is a Real Threat to Every Citizen’s Constitutional Rights (November 2012)

Voter Fraud is Real: Why the Voting Rights Act Should Be Used to Fight Election Fraud (August 2012)

Does the Tax Man Cometh? (August 2012)

Coming to a Car Near You? The Department of Transportation’s Creepy Black Box (August 2012)

Victims of Voter Fraud: Poor and Disadvantaged are Most Likely to Have Their Vote Stolen (August 2012)

Voter ID and South Carolina: The Supreme Court Speaks Yet DOJ Won’t Listen (June 2012)

Do Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? In Knox v. SEIU, Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks (June 2012)

Justice Department Plays Fast and Loose with Facts and Constitution in Challenging Texas Voter ID Law (April 2012)

The Birth Control Mandate is Unconstitutional (February 2012)

When the Dead Vote, the Living Suffer: Department of Justice is Wrong to Oppose Voter ID (January 2012)

Supreme Court Decision in United States v. Jones a Significant Step in Preventing a Surveillance State (January 2012)

NTSB’s Cell Phone Ban is the Nanny State on Steroids (December 2011)

Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients is Sound, Sensible and Constitutional (November 2011)

Upholding Constitutionality of Individual Mandate Would Set a Dangerous Precedent (August 2011)

Obama’s Political Fears Led to Libya Indecision? (April 2011)

The Coming War on Menthol Cigarettes (March 2011)

See Something, Say Something: New York City Versus Arizona (May 2010)

In Case of the Diluting Druggist, No Good Deed Goes Unpunished (January 2003)

Democratic Party Chairman at Odds with His Party’s Rank-and-File (October 2002)

Black Americans Would Benefit From Private Social Security Accounts (January 1999)

 
 

Hey Prez…No such thing as a “Dead” mic… speak as if it’s always live…

 
 

Israeli PM Netanyahu Addresses U.S. Congress | FULL SPEECH – March 3, 2015

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the US Congress on Tuesday. Below is the full transcript of his speech.

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you…

(APPLAUSE)

… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.

(APPLAUSE)

I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.

(LAUGHTER)

My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.

(APPLAUSE)

I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

(APPLAUSE)

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

(APPLAUSE)

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.

Now, some of that is widely known.

(APPLAUSE)

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.

Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.

In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.

Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

(APPLAUSE)

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.

And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.

But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

(APPLAUSE)

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.

My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

(APPLAUSE)

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.

But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.

The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the revolution throughout the world.”

I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week, while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

(APPLAUSE)

We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!

Rouhani’s government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,” that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy of America.

Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.

Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.

So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

(APPLAUSE)

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.

(APPLAUSE)

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.

Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.

And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don’t stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.

Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.

Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.

Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice — operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.

So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

(APPLAUSE)

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second…

(APPLAUSE)

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

(APPLAUSE)

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you.

If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.

(APPLAUSE)

If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.

(APPLAUSE)

My friends, what about the argument that there’s no alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

(APPLAUSE)

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.

My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.

(APPLAUSE)

Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s aggression ends.

(APPLAUSE)

A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country…

(APPLAUSE)

… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

(APPLAUSE)

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

(APPLAUSE)

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”

(APPLAUSE)

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

(APPLAUSE)

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

(APPLAUSE)

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

(APPLAUSE)

This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.

(APPLAUSE)

But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that you stand with Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.

(APPLAUSE)

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.

And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.

May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. You’re wonderful. Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.

 
 

You’d best hurry up and watch this before Jimmy Buffet’s attorneys get this taken off the web!

 
 

WHERE DID THE MONEY GO???

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to Social Security but your employer did, too.
It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.

If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500.
Read that again.

Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?
We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and Me that we would have a retirement check from the money we put in, not the Government.

Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back.
If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the Government pays on the money that it borrows).

After 49 years of working you’d have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year, you’d receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you’re 95 if you retire at age 65) and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit!
If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

THE FOLKS IN WASHINGTON
HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME
THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot; I paid cash for my social security insurance!
Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn’t make my benefits some Kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Congressional benefits?
free healthcare,
outrageous retirement packages,
67 paid holidays,
three weeks paid vacation,
unlimited paid sick days.

Now that’s welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement payments entitlements?

They call Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for It all our working lives, and now, when it’s time for us to collect, the government is running out of money.

Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
It was supposed to be in a locked box, not part of the general fund.

 
 

Join our private chartered bus to CPAC

private, one-day bus trip leaving the Boston area on Thursday, February 26 for CPAC in Washington, D.C. It will return to Boston the following day.

You may already know local pro-liberty supporter Brad Wyatt. He has arranged this one-day, round-trip bus for students and local activists to attend CPAC — the biggest annual political conference.

For students, the bus tickets are only $20. For adults, the bus tickets are $65.

Then, purchase your CPAC ticket and one-night hotel room with YAL. Prices range from $25 if you only need a student ticket, all the way up to $230 for a non-student ticket with a two-person hotel room.

Seating is very limited, so book ASAP.

Here’s the two-step process:
Step 1: RSVP on Eventbrite for the bus
Step 2: Register for CPAC with YAL
It’s that simple

www.eventbrite.com

 
 

Some ObamaCare Premium Increases will be Over $1,000 Annually

ObamaCare Customers Should Beware of Higher Prices

Some ObamaCare Premium Increases will be Over $1,000 Annually, New Study Says

Washington, D.C. – Consumers who in 2015 keep the same plans they purchased for 2014 on the ObamaCare exchanges could be in for a big shock, warns Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“Because of the way the subsidy mechanism works, some consumers could see an exorbitant increase in premiums,” Hogberg said. “For example, a 27-year-old single person in Denver, Colorado making $25,000 annually who bought the cheapest bronze plan will pay $535 more this year. A 57-year-old couple in Miami, Florida earning $50,000 annually who did the same will pay $1,548 more.

The worst area is Jackson, Mississippi, where a 27-year-old earning $25,000 who keeps the cheapest bronze plan will pay $1,168 more and a 57-year-old couple earning $50,000 will pay $3,282 more.

In the study, “Three Ways Consumers Could Pay Exorbitantly Higher Premiums on the ObamaCare Exchanges in 2015,” Hogberg explains how this can happen.

To see how an area in your state fared, see Tables 5 and 6 near the end of the study.

“The subsidy is based, in part, on the second-lowest cost silver plan on the exchange and when the price of that plan drops, so will the subsidy,” Hogberg says. “Consumers in those exchanges are the most at risk, but even consumers on exchanges where the second-lowest cost silver plan increases, thereby increasing the subsidy, are not necessarily safe from substantial premium increases.”

First, consumers who qualified for a subsidy in 2014 will see their subsidy decline in 2015 if they are on an exchange in which the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan declines. If they also have a policy that has increased in price, then they will pay higher premiums. That is what happened in Jackson, Mississippi where, for a 27-year-old, the subsidy dropped by $83 per month and the cheapest bronze plan rose by $14 a per month. That resulted in a monthly premium increase of $97, or about $1,168 annually.

Second, consumers on an exchange in which the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan declined could pay higher premiums if they had a policy that decreased in price but did not decrease as much as the price of the second-lowest cost silver plan. That happened in New Hampshire. For a 57-year-old couple, the subsidy declined $163 per month while the bronze plan dropped $11 per month, resulting in a premium increase of $152 per month, or $1,824 annually.

Finally, it is even possible for consumers to pay higher premiums on an exchange in which the subsidies increased. Consumers on those exchanges who own a policy that increases more than the subsidy will pay higher premiums. In Miami, Florida, a 57-year-old couple with the cheapest bronze plan in 2014 saw a monthly premium increase of $129 ($1,548 annually) because the subsidy increased $18 per month but the cheapest bronze plan rose $147 per month.

“Consumers facing such increases will either have to find room in their budgets or deal with the hassle of changing insurance plans,” says Hogberg. “And, as the study also shows, switching plans is no guarantee that a consumer won’t still pay more than he or she did last year.”

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non- partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions to the National Center are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

 
 

Justin Danhof on Workers’ Right to Freely Engage in Political and Civic Activities

Justin Danhof is the General Counsel for the National Center for Public Policy Research

Leading Free Market Group Asks Dozens of Major American Companies to Protect Workers’ Right to Freely Engage in Political and Civic Activities

National Center for Public Policy Research’s Employee Conscience Protection Project Warns: Millions of Americans Potentially Subject to Workplace Discipline for Private Political Actions and Beliefs

In Response, Credit Card Leader Visa Takes Steps to Protect Its Workforce From Political Discrimination While Wholesale Giant Costco Resists Employee Protections

Washington, D.C. – Revealing the first results of nine months of behind-the-scenes corporate activism to protect American workers from political discrimination in the workplace, on back-to-back days last week the National Center for Public Policy Research spoke at the shareholder meetings of Visa Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corporation, praising the former for amending its corporate documents to protect its employees from potential workplace discrimination over political actions and beliefs while criticizing the latter for refusing to do the same.

Visa and Costco’s divergent actions came as the result of shareholder resolutions the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project submitted to each company late last year.

“Visa very quickly realized the merits in our proposal and changed its corporate policies to assure its workforce that their private political actions would have no bearing on their employment with the company. It is a tribute to superb management that realizes hiring and retaining the best workers involves protecting those workers’ First Amendment rights,” said National Center Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof, Esq. “Unfortunately, Costco, which employs more than 195,000 people worldwide, does not share those same values.”

Costco went so far as to petition the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the right to omit the National Center’s shareholder proposal from its proxy statement.

At Visa’s shareholder meeting last Wednesday in Foster City, California, Danhof stated:

When we asked Visa if it would consider protecting its employees’ private political and civic activities, the company did not hesitate to amend its corporate policies to do just that. Many major American corporations have resisted such a protection, but Visa employees should feel proud to work at a company whose leadership realizes the importance of employee freedoms.

Conversely, at the annual meeting of Costco shareholders that took place in Bellevue, Washington last Thursday, Danhof asked, in part:

America was founded on the ideal of a representative government that derives its power from the consent of the governed. In a nation with anemic civic activity participation and low voter turnout, it is disappointing that one of the country’s largest retailers would fight to maintain the ability to terminate its employees for private political activity.

My question is this: why did Costco’s leadership fight to maintain “managerial discretion” over the private political and civic activities of the company’s employees?

In his question, Danhof also quoted directly from the arguments that Costco made in front of the S.E.C. as to why it should have been permitted to exclude the National Center’s shareholder resolution. Specifically, Danhof noted:

Costco fought to exclude our proposal in front of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Costco’s legal team argued that “[t]he company must have the ability to exercise managerial discretion over its workforce with respect to these issues” and that the “considerations that arise under these policies… are most appropriately handled by management, not by shareholders as a group.”

To read the full legal exchanges between the National Center and Costco regarding exclusion of the shareholder proposal, click here and here.

“The company’s answer to my question at the shareholder meeting was almost as disappointing as the extreme lengths that it took in order to deprive Costco’s shareholders of the ability to vote on our proposal,” said Danhof. “Costco Chairman Jeffrey H. Brotman became indignant when I asked my question. He told me that ‘we’ (which I took to mean the company’s leaders) would protect Costco’s workers and that the company’s employees were free to do whatever they want on their own time. He said that Costco fought our proposal to protect the company employees from people like me. Then he backtracked and said, not exactly people like me but rather the company fought our proposal to protect the company from outsiders. From that I understood Brotman to mean that management should have ultimate control of Costco’s workforce and that the shareholders were the outsiders. That is backwards thinking.”

“Costco’s shareholders – who are the true owners of the company – should have been given the right to vote on whether the company will act as a partisan purity shop in which the staff must follow the dictates of management in their private political thoughts and endeavors,” said Danhof. “Brotman’s assertions that management should control these personal aspects and would protect its workers are vapid. The company employs more than 195,000 individuals. The chairman of the board and the CEO can’t possibly oversee and ‘protect’ each individual employee from this type of discrimination. But guess what could? The policy that we urged in our shareholder proposal, that’s what.”

“If I were a Costco employee, I would be very concerned that my management team, which is directed by some well-known extreme liberal partisans, refused to add policy protections for private political activities. Conservative employees should especially be concerned,” added Danhof.

For the better part of a year, the National Center has been asking corporations to implement policy protections shielding workers from adverse employment action for engaging in private political and civic pursuits. Through its Employee Conscience Projection Project, the National Center has helped protect hundreds of thousands of workers from potential workplace discipline or termination.

The genesis for the Employee Conscience Protection Project occurred in April 2014 when the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, was forced out of his job simply because he had donated to a 2008 California referendum that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Unfortunately, Mr. Eich is not uniquely situated. Only about half of American workers live in a jurisdiction that provides statutory protection against employer retaliation for engaging in First Amendment activities. And some of these laws are weaker than others. Furthermore, many corporations do not offer this protection as a condition of employment.

“In researching workplace protections, one company that stood out was Coca-Cola,” said Danhof. “The soft drink giant’s Code of Business Conduct explicitly makes clear to its employees that ‘[y]our job will not be affected by your personal political views or your choice in political contributions.’ This simple measure speaks volumes in light of the fact that many American corporations refuse to offer this type of policy.”

Often using Coca-Cola’s policy as a model, last spring and into the summer, the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project spoke directly with over a dozen CEOs about adding this commonsense employment protection. In addition to protecting employees from retribution for their outside-of-work legal political actions, National Center staffers suggested that corporations also protect civic and public policy engagement. Aside from Google, where CEO Eric Schmidt was steadfast in his assurance that Google employees would receive this full protection, no other company explicitly vowed to enact these measures.

To confront this void, the National Center submitted shareholder proposals to more than two dozen corporations for inclusion in their respective 2015 proxy statements. Some companies, such as Visa, realized the wisdom of these protections and agreed to adopt the proposal. Others, such as Costco, spent significant time and company resources petitioning the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the right to omit our proposal from their proxy statements.

In the coming weeks and months, the National Center will reveal which companies protect their employees from political discrimination and which companies fought to retain the right to discipline its workforce for private First Amendment activities. Stay tuned.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is the nation’s preeminent free-market corporate activist group. In 2014, Free Enterprise Project representatives participated in 52 shareholder meetings advancing free-market ideals in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, workers rights and many other important public policy issues.

The Visa and Costco meetings mark the first and second shareholder meetings for the National Center in 2015.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

 
 

Sat Feb 7th edition..

Hey folks.. get ready for another great edition of Conservatively Speaking.. Join Mike Wade tomorrow (Sat 2/7/15) between 7 am and 9 am for common sense talk.. yes on the conservative side of the spectrum.

On this weeks show we’ll be taking a look at the GDP and comparing its numbers during the Reagan and Obama years.

We’ll also have open lines as we do every week.. we truly are the audience participation show. Mike (Wade) our host offers his mic up every week for you to join the conversation.

We’ll also look at the budget and latest heat up between ISIS and Jordan.

You can tune in at AM 830 WCRN or listen live by streaming here on www.conservativleyspeaking.net

We’ll see you on the radio