Tax Payers Fund Boston Bombers’ Family Flights To The US, Housing And Security During The Trial…

The family of convicted Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been flown to the US from their home in Chechnya, are being housed at a Hampton Inn outside of Boston, and are being guarded 24 hours a day by at least 3 federal agencies.

The taxpayer funded junket to the US for the family of a Muslim terrorist is costing well over $100,000, according to a former US attorney.

Survivors and their families are outraged:

“I think you’re probably talking about $100,000 plus in that neighborhood in terms of security and out of pocket costs associated with travel,” former US attorney Michael Sullivan said.

And that’s just for this trip.

Lawyer fees or even what all witnesses during the trial cost is still unclear. One defense witness, Mark Spencer of Arsenal Consulting, charged $375 per hour and billing taxpayers for $150,000.

Governor Charlie Baker said, “It’s a federal trial, it’s a federal case, the feds ultimately need to make the decisions about this.”

Baker was non-committal about how resources are being used, even state ones.

Sullivan told Sacchetti that while he understands taxpayer outrage, the whole point is to make sure it’s done right.

“The court wants to make sure that at the end of the day, the defendant gets a fair trial and would not want to add any potential issues on appeal in the penalty phase, prosecutors finished making their case yesterday,” he said.

Marathon survivor Marc Fucarile reached out to us Friday night, reacting to this news, saying that he’s outraged that Tsarnaev’s family’s expenses are being paid for when “myself and some of the other survivors and our families have to pay for our own parking at court, lunch, and we were told that if the trial was moved out of state, we’d have to pay for our own travel and lodging, there.”

The statement went on to say: “Why should our country pay for them when that family committed a violent act against our country? Not to mention, all of the free government services this family previously enjoyed on the backs of the taxpayers including government assistance and a free ride to UMass Dartmouth. In contrast, I was denied housing assistance I sought after the bombings, even though I needed a handicapped accessible apartment, and my wife lost her job as a result of the events.”

He ended by saying he feels badly for the taxpayers that have to pay for this after they were so generous to all the survivors and the One Fund.

Via: PJ Media

Continue Reading.....

Obamacare Leaves Behind Millions Of Lower Income Workers

 

Reverend Vann R. Ellison, the president of the Florida based St. Matthew’s House, is trying to bring attention to the issue which he says affects people that fall between the $10,000 and $12,000 a year income range. St. Matthew’s House, which takes care of roughly 1,500 people, provides food and shelter to those individuals trying to work their way out of poverty.

“We generally deal with lower income people trying to get their lives together,” Ellison told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “These are people that can’t afford their own apartments.”

Those in that income range make too much to qualify for assistance under Obamacare but often times make too little to actually afford coverage or the fee that comes with not being covered. It’s an issue that impacts many of the lower income people Ellison is trying to help.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading..... 

EXCLUSIVE — TED CRUZ: NYT ‘HIT PIECES’ AGAINST ME SUGGEST THEY’RE ‘DISMAYED’ I’M GAINING TRACTION

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, tells Breitbart News exclusively why he thinks the New York Times is coming after him.

“The New York Times has done a series of three hit pieces in a little over a week, all directed at me, which may suggest that the Times is dismayed to see a strong conservative such as me getting real momentum with grassroots across the country,” Cruz said.

The first thing the Times attacked him with was an editorial from editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal, in which he called Cruz’s support for the Second Amendment “strange” in a headline. Cruz fired back in an op-ed for National Review, laying out how the liberals at the newspaper don’t “get” the Second Amendment.

From there, the Times unleashed Jason Horowitz—a reporter who wrote a series of pieces digging into Cruz’s college days and questioning whether he is in fact a great debater. The pieces quoted people who didn’t like Cruz in college.

And the most recent hit piece was about Cruz attending a dinner with openly gay people who support Cruz’s positions on the economy and foreign policy. The piece, as Breitbart News already detailed, found it odd that Cruz would unconditionally love his daughters. It also argues that the conservative firebrand was ambivalent about his opposition to gay marriage. Cruz told Breitbart News that the Times is just flat wrong.

“The latest hit piece they wrote focused on a pro-Israel fundraiser we had in New York—that some of the attendees were gay,” Cruz explained when asked about it by Breitbart News.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Bombshell Interview: Obama’s Brother Says Barack Is ‘Cold And Ruthless…Dishonest And A Schemer’

In an interview conducted earlier this month, film maker Joel Gilbert, who produced the film “Dreams from My Real Father,” (which suggested that Obama’s Communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, may be his real father) talks to President Obama’s brother Malik, who has some very strong views about his half-brother – including his own doubts as to Obama’s parentage.

Malik says, he feels “Disappointed, disappointed, used, used and also betrayed. In the beginning, I didn’t think that he was a schemer. His real character, his real personality, the real him, is coming out now.”

Trust me Malik, you are not alone.

…the way that he’s turned and become a different person with the family is the same way that I see him behaving politically. He says one thing and then he does another. He’s not been an honest man, as far as I’m concerned, in who he is and what he says and how he treats people.”

While Malik and Barack are not particularly close now, Malik was close enough to have been the best man at Barack and Michelle’s wedding, has visited the White House, and is president of the Barack H. Obama Foundation.

Gilbert asks Malik if he really thinks he and Obama share the same father. Granted, Gilbert has a vested interest in the answer, considering he’s hawking a book about the subject, but Malik’s response is still troubling. He has his doubts.

However, most troubling is how Americans were duped into electing this dishonest “schemer” as president – twice.

Via: Allen B West

Continue Reading.....

The thing that EVERY GOP candidate must demand of EVERY reporter until we get answers.

Background: power-mad, out-of-control Democratic prosecutors in Wisconsin went on a Stasi-like legal rampage over the last few years. They’d send out the cops to raid conservatives and citizen-activists, then slap gag orders on their victims to keep them from complaining.  This, thankfully, is now in the process of blowing up in their face, and there are people – starting with Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm – who need to be disbarred. Heck, they need to go to jail, but I don’t think that we canquite make that stick.  

Anyway: caught up on this? Good.  Anyway, via Instapundit here’s the question (by Instapundit commenter Prof. Stephen Clark) that needs to be asked:

Every Democrat should repeatedly be asked whether they support the police state tactics used by Democrats in Wisconsin. As with Rand Paul every media interviewer should be asked by candidates to answer the same as the price for continuing the interview.

Wisconsin Democrats should be made into a public embarrassment for Democrats generally. Behavior of this kind will cease only when it carries a global political cost.

Indeed.  No more double standards. No more double standards.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

White House sneaks out two new climate-related programs

The Obama administration snuck in two new climate change-related programs when it rolled out a major new study on the nation's challenged energy system.

The first installment of a major four-part energy analysis, dubbed the Quadrennial Energy Review, was issued Tuesday morning after several months of persistent delays. Included with the 350-page review, which focused on the nation's energy infrastructure hurdles, were two new executive actions: one addressing climate change resilience, and another for clean energy improvements in rural America.

The administration hinted that the new initiatives may be part of a speech the president plans to deliver Wednesday in Florida on climate change.

The Energy Department will lead a climate change resilience partnership with a mix of the largest municipal, investor-owned and rural cooperative utilities in the country to address the energy problems caused by global warming.

Many scientists say that manmade emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth's climate to warm, resulting in extreme weather, flooding and drought. The increase in severe weather and its effect on electricity infrastructure is what the "Partnership for Energy Sector Climate Resilience" will examine, according to the White House.

In a fact sheet elaborating on the Quadrennial Energy Review, the White House says the new partnership will ramp up quickly. The first meeting is slated for April 30.

The partnership will comprise of 17 companies and the Energy Department. The fact sheet says it "will improve U.S. energy infrastructure resilience against extreme weather and climate change impacts with the leading providers of electricity services."

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading...

Economists have discovered how bad the economy really is

Unemployment is almost back to normal, but the economy isn't.

That isn't because the unemployment rate is a conspiracy to make things look better than they really are. It's because even though the unemployment rate tells us the most about the labor market, it doesn't tell us the full story. All it does is show us how many people who are actively looking for work can't find it. But that leaves out the "shadow unemployed" who want full-time jobs but have either given up looking for them or can only find part-time ones. That usually doesn't make that big a difference, but it does now, because, even six years after the crisis has ended, there still isn't much that's usual about this economy.

Now if you add it all up, this shadow unemployment means our jobs hole is more than three times as big as it looks. That, at least, is what economists Danny Blanchflower and Andrew Levin found when they looked at how low the unemployment rate is versus how low we think it could go, how high the participation rate is versus how high we think it could go, and how many people can only find part-time jobs. That first part tells us how much further unemployment itself could fall, the second how many discouraged workers could come back, and the last how many people would work more if they could. In other words, it shows us the gap between how many full-time jobs we have and how many full-time jobs we need. The result, as you can see above, is that instead of being a million full-time jobs short, like the unemployment rate says we are, we're about 3.5 million short.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading....

The GOP Needs to Run against the Last 16 Years

Had the mathematician Sir Isaac Newton had the chance to devote his life to modern American politics instead of to explaining the elementary rules of physics, the Third Law might have looked a little different. “In every change election,” Newton would presumably have discerned, “there is always presented a reaction to what has gone before.” Thus, in 1920, did Warren Harding’s ascetic, non-interventionist, and explicitly anti-Progressive conservatism represent a welcome shift from the all-encompassing disaster that was Woodrow Wilson’s untrammeled ambition. 

Thus, in 1976, did Jimmy Carter’s preposterous God-has-heard-my-heart-sinning pseudo-shtick help to convince the electorate that his election was what it would take to move on from the cynicism and the ugliness of Watergate. And thus, in 2008 did the aloof, calm, and at least ostensibly professorial Barack Obama ride a wave of vague hope-and-change sentiment all the way to the White House. 

Want to know who will be the next president? Start by looking at the last guy. RELATED: Who’s the Right Man for Conservatives in 2016? Look at the political climate, too. For as long as the party system remains intact, we will hear absolutist rhetoric come election time. “Vote for me,” one side will say, “and everything will be perfect.” “Vote for the other guy,” it will add, “and you’ll be pushed screaming into a volcano.” Occasionally, this tack can be an effective one — certainly, in 1932, 

Franklin Roosevelt did not need a great deal of help painting the Republican party as a failure. Most of the time, however, it is not. That being so, if Republicans hope to take advantage of the sour public mood in 2016, they will have to do more than merely hit the other side for having been imperfect while in power; they will have to recognize that they too bear some responsibility for the national mood.

Via: NRO

Continue Reading....