Equality is Unfair

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

Some years ago, there was a panel discussion on television about equality. I am speaking from imperfect memory, but I do remember the main points. Specifically, some women were complaining that women are treated unfairly. The other women on the panel cited college admissions as favoring women, and the military draft as favoring women, and after a few other examples, they asked how women are treated unfairly.

The liberal women had a ready answer. ‘Why just yesterday,’ one of them said, ‘I was shopping for clothes, and I picked out a nice turtle-neck sweater. Then I happened to notice that the same, identical sweater was in the menswear department for a price that was twenty percent less. I asked a clerk what was the difference between the sweaters in the men’s department, and the sweaters in the women’s wear section. The answer was that all the sweaters arrive in bulk, and are arbitrarily distributed between the two departments, and that is where the pricing is done.’

‘Well,’ continued the liberal woman, ‘I think that this is unfair, and is just another example of how women are discriminated against. Why should women have to pay more for the same, identical item?’

It was the conservative women who now had the ready, although unrehearsed answer: ‘First, stores charge more for women’s wear because women will pay it. Nobody forces them to buy anything in the store. Men won’t overpay for their clothing, because they do not place as high a value on fashion as women.’ Second, and this is the show stopper: ‘What prevents women from buying their unisex clothing from the men’s department?’

The look on the liberal women’s faces was a poorly concealed “duh” of red-faced embarrassment. (Footnote: Red-faced is not to be confused with the now forbidden name of a football team. However, if I have offended anyone, well, grow up already.)

Warning. Please turn off your “sarcometer” before reading further. I will not be responsible if sarcasm-overload burns up your sarcometer. Very well, let’s proceed.

It seems to never have occurred to the liberals on the panel that some problems can be resolved with individual actions. In the liberal mindset, it seems that every unfairness in life should be remedied with a government program, a new federal agency, higher taxes, more regulation and less individual freedom. Why, after all, if individuals were allowed to solve their own problems, then there would be a decreased need for government, no need to raise taxes, and—and—and well, why the planet would explode. Anyone can see that.

As I said, this took place years ago, and since I can rarely find my car keys on the first try, I am sure that I may remember some of the details wrong, but the key still starts the car, if you get my drift.

I’m not done. I wish the panelists had asked more questions, but since they did not, I wish to pose them to our more liberal readers. (I warned you to turn off those sarcometers. This is your last chance.)

Why are department stores allowed to have separate departments for men’s clothing and women’s wear? Is this not segregation? Does this policy not make some unfair assumptions about men and women? Does it not discourage cross dressing? Cross dressing is a fundamental right you know. George Washington actually wore a wig, and frilly cuffs on his shirtsleeves. That proves it.

The next question is related to the foregoing: Who should make the decision as to where department stores place their men’s clothing and their women’s attire? That such a vital decision should be left to the whim of cold-blooded corporations is a travesty. Their flimsy excuse is unacceptable, which is ‘this is the way customers want it.’ Who do the customers think they are, the government? Where in the Constitution is it specifically permitted for customers to make their own choices? The word, “customer,” does not even appear in the Constitution. Nor should it.

Fortunately, the liberal left is making inroads to defeat this unfairness. Same-sex marriage is now legal in several states. In at least one state, men can use the women’s dressing rooms, restroom and even showers, in public accommodations (except in mosques, of course). Oh, and by the way, this paragraph is not sarcastic.

I wish it were.

The Best Of, #11: Husband Invents ‘Tankchair’ For Paralyzed Wife

The Best of

~ The E-Blast ~

Volume 11


Revealed: How Obama SET FREE the merciless 

terrorist warlord now leading the ISIS horde 

blazing a trail of destruction through Iraq


The United States once had Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) 

leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in custody at a detention facility in Iraq, 

but president Barack Obama let him go, it was revealed on Friday.

Al Baghdadi was among the prisoners released in 2009 from the 

U.S.’s now-closed Camp Bucca near Umm Qasr in Iraq.

​More Here:​


Iraq insurgency leader: ‘I’ll see you in New York


Obama Releases another 12 Jihad
Terrorists from US Military Prison

​More Here:​



An American Eagle…

PHOTO: President Barack Obama reaches out to retired Marine Cpl. William "Kyle" Carpenter, after awarding him the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry, June 19, 2014, during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington.

Marine William “Kyle” Carpenter received the Medal of Honor 
yesterday from President Barack Obama, an award reserved for 
those who show the utmost bravery in combat. 

More Here:



What Does America Mean To You?

Serving in America’s armed forces, fireworks on 

the Fourth of July, or just a hotdog at the ball game…

what does “America” mean to you? 

Submission Period
6/16/2014 12:00 AM ET to 
7/4/2014 11:59 PM ET

Enter Here:



Robert Arvay writes…

Wise Guy of the Year

In this video, a guy asks Hillary to autograph her book 

“To Chris Stevens.”

He then asks her, “What difference does it make?”

When blocked by her security guards,
he points out that she has more security than Chris Stevens did.
Here is my fictional version of this event.
“Mrs Clinton — oh, sorry, that’s Ms Rodham —
Could you sign this book in memory of the guy you murdered?”
“Sure, I’d be glad to. Here. To Vince Foster . . .
oh, you mean some other guy I murdered?

It’s hard to keep track of them all.”


1:08 Video Here:


Politicians (Enough said)


Of course it should be spelled ‘unfazed’.
The obvious product of a New’Merica education.
~ Bruce ~

This is either an illustration of awesome ‘nerves of 
steel’ or an example of extremely massive stupidity…


Jack K writes…

 Please share, there surely are others doing similar things around the country, 

lets see if it will grow. We need to get health care out of the government and 

insurance companies clutches!!!


Veteran Dental Care in Puyallup, Washington, offers excellent, 

low-cost dental care exclusively for adult, elderly, and disabled 

veterans. Our office is the first veteran-only dentistry in the 

nation, providing affordable services with no income or 

insurance restrictions.

Receive only the best personal dental care with a superb bedside 

manner. Our office works with most insurance carriers and offers 

flexible and easy-to-manage payment plans that work with your 

budget. You won’t be discriminated against, and we treat you even 

if you are discharged from the military.

More Here:





There’s gonna be a Rodney King, baby: 
EBT recipients in LA threaten riots 
after card outage
More Here:




Husband invents 

‘tankchair’ for paralyzed wife 

Tankchair and Speedster were created by a combat veteran of 

two theaters of combat to assist his wife’s mobility after her injury. 
Tankchair is designed for outdoor activities, while Speedster is 
designed for urban and indoor use.  That loving gesture has 
evolved into a company that now provides greatly improved chairs 
to people in similar conditions around the world. Tankchair is an 
extremely capable machine that will allow those that need 
mobility assistance to personally experience the outdoors again. 
 Speedster enables the user to get off the sidewalk and back 
onto the road.  Both Tankchair and Speedster are proudly 
made in USA.

5:22 News Video Here:

Computer Eye Strain: 
10 Steps for Relief

Older CRT monitors can cause computer vision syndrome.

With so many of us using computers at work, computer eye strain 
has become a major job-related complaint. Studies show that eye 
strain and other bothersome visual symptoms occur in 50 to 90 
percent of computer workers.

These problems can range from physical fatigue, decreased 

productivity and increased numbers of work errors, to minor 

annoyances like eye twitching and red eyes.

Here are 10 easy steps you can take to reduce your risk of 

computer eye strain and other common symptoms of

More Here:



Daily King cartoon!


Have a Great Day, 


~ The E-Blast ~
Created by Bruce O’Hara,

can also be viewed online at:


​If you’d like to receive the E-Blast 
daily,​ via email, contact me…



“Hope & Change” for the Rest of the World – Coming Soon to a Country Near You!

by Mario John Borgatti, Guest Contributor

The Nobel Peace Prize Winner on the Attack!

Barack Obama and his allies in the European Union claim that Vladimir Putin is interested in territorial expansion to former Soviet Union borders. They characterize Putin’s response to the anarchistic overthrow of the legitimate government in Ukraine, a pledge to protect the Russian population in Crimea, as aggressive and illegitimate. In the midst of the street violence taking place in Kiev, the People of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea held a status referendum. It asked Crimea’s citizens whether they wanted to join the Russian Federation, or restore Crimea’s status as part of Ukraine. The result was almost 97 percent in favor of the region integrating into the Russian Federation. Crimea is now a part of Russia – and for that action: Putin and the Russian people must be punished.

However, it is not Putin’s response that is the issue here. The real issue is whether or not the duplicitous Barack Obama, along with his calculating partners in the EU – in this latest episode – had the right to force regime change in Ukraine. One thing is certain; Putin is not intimidated by Barack Obama or any of the leaders within the EU. He will stand firm for Russia and the Russian people. Putin will do whatever he thinks necessary to protect them—outside military threats, political sanctions and media condemnations, be damned.

In contrast, Barack Obama, who is under the delusion that he is a world-class leader, has no such resolve. He repeatedly demonstrates that he has no interest in protecting American citizens from enemies, foreign or domestic. His posturing on the world stage during this crisis is antithetic to Ronald Reagan’s statesmanship. Obama’s lack of knowledge, combined with his unscrupulousness and overwhelming arrogance, makes him more dangerous to the United States of America than any one person, country or ideology in American history.

The present Commander in Chief, a title which he never earned and doesn’t deserve, has disrespected our armed forces by reinventing their role and compromising their safety. His military policy blunders are responsible for 73% of all troop deaths in Afghanistan since the war began 12 years ago. Even though this figure is three times the number of heroes lost under George W. Bush’s watch, you will never hear a peep about the Nobel Peace Prize recipient’s derelictions in the totally corrupt main stream media.

A Community Organizer Masquerades as a President of the United States

In the past five plus years of Barack Obama’s rule, “Hope & Change” has not only destabilized and destroyed our homeland but those of sovereign nations across the globe, as well. Obama’s slash and burn foreign policy strategy plays out something like this: We “Hope” you do as we say, or we will “Change” your government, by supplanting it with one of our choosing which will destroy your cities, turn your citizens against one another and terrorize your populations. We will accomplish this by implanting anarchists and mercenaries, financed by the US taxpayers of course, who will create mayhem; then we will lay the blame on whomever we do not particularly find favorable for the resultant death and destruction.

Let us take the previously mentioned United States-European Union alliance’s meddling in Ukraine, and the Russian response. Granted, there are people who consider Vladimir Putin to be an upstanding leader, and those who will brand him as an evil despot. Whatever you may think of Putin, consider this: what label would you apply to a government, its leader and its allies that would foment the overthrow of a duly-elected government, by financing a coup with billions of taxpayer dollars, without anyone’s consent other than the band of radicals and mercenaries who demolished Kiev and killed many of its citizens? If you’re having trouble answering that question I’ll give you a hint: it’s a government, its president and his state department, an economic block of mostly neutered countries along with an inter-governmental military alliance determined to put nuclear missiles on Russia’s western border.

Daily reports in the Western media portray the amassing of Russian troops along their own border as a sign of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Yet they never mention the fact that the new regime in Kiev, the former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko included among them, has threatened “…to take up arms against ethnic Russians…” What country on Earth would let such threats go unheeded? Does anyone remember the Free World’s outrage and condemnation of the Soviet Union, and rightfully so, when they placed a nuclear arsenal ninety miles off the coast of the United States? A global crisis that Barack Obama, 14-months old at the time, wouldn’t remember.

The EU Throws a Hissy Fit!

The claim that the “demonstrators,” who violently and maliciously overthrew the government in Kiev, were representative of democracy in action is ridiculous on its face. These anarchists, with help from my government and the EU, had Viktor Yanukovych forced out of office because he refused to sign a deal with the EU, a deal which would have effectively left Russia out of the economic equation in its own region. Putin expressed Russia’s willingness to take part in a trilateral commission with the EU and Ukraine if Ukraine would agree to step back on plans to join the EU. His offer to participate in the dialog was spurned by the EU. Yanukovych then proposed to the EU that Ukraine would need $160 billion through 2017 to get its footing. The EU balked, as they felt they were being extorted, and, it is said, Putin then made an offer to Yanukovych which would include cheaper gas, credits and business contracts to Ukraine. This was an offer Yanukovych found difficult to ignore under the circumstances. He was looking for the best deal and it’s Putin’s he was leaning towards – and there’s the rub. Yanukovych was choosing the solid components offered in the Russian deal over the EU’s nebulous non-starter. So, in their twisted version of a counter offer, the US and the EU decided to step in, offer billions of dollars in bribes to the autocrat, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and his murderous mob, have them overthrow the elected government and install themselves into power as the acting government in Ukraine. No referendum here, just a good old fashioned coup d’état! Yet this cabal, which the US and the EU have the audacity to prop up as a legitimate government, sits in Kiev and dictates harsh policies and bellows threats toward those citizens of Ukraine who differ in opinion…and ethnicity.

Nothing that has recently transpired in Kiev has a whit of legitimacy to it. This was an obvious power grab. U.S. and the EU officials lie through their teeth whenever factual evidence of who’s killing whom in Ukraine is uncovered. The fact that Putin felt compelled to “…protect [Russia’s] vital national interests,” and the ethnic Russians in Crimea, is discounted simply because it conflicts with the United States’, European Union’s and NATO’s vital interests. But how in the world does threatening Russia, China, India, and a host of countries in the Middle East, Europe and Asia and turning them against the United States help our national interests? All it does is make us look like oppressive bullies in the eyes of the world. Threatening countries with sanctions, which ultimately hurt the poor, is an insidiously evil practice. It’s a weapon used by elitist cowards in an attempt to demonstrate their disfavor and “resolve.” Countries across the globe are coming to the realization that regime change, under the banner of democracy, is wrong when it’s conducted in this manner. It’s also turning many Americans against their political leaders and the foreign policy decisions they’re employing—the results of which have been disastrous.

The debacle in Ukraine should never have happened. An overwhelming majority of the people living there did not ask for this turmoil and certainly do not deserve to be sacrificial pawns in a game of greed and corruption. They are proud of their country and their heritage. They are not interested in war. They are interested in many of the same things most human beings are interested in: God, family, education, prosperity and the freedom to move about their cities without fear of being murdered by marauding thugs or having bombs dropped on them by their own government.

Diplomatic and less volatile ways to deal with this situation were never explored. Certainly, a staunch and wise ally would have respected the will and sovereignty of the Ukrainian people and would never have let this situation reach meltdown. However, in this case the interests and welfare of the Ukrainian people are secondary concerns to the those whose primary goal it is to lay waste to another nation in their drive toward achieving that utilitarian dream – for “the greater good” and the promise of a global society.

Putin: Obama’s Boogeyman of the Year

Demonize Putin if you feel the need, but he’s not the one citizens of the western nations should fear, as the insidious regime-toppling globalists would have you believe. And who are these shadow dwellers that decide one regime must be destabilized then replaced by another which will bend to their will? They’re the elitist puppet masters of the present administrations in the United States and the few power wielding nations in the European Union. They are behind this anarchistic takeover of Ukraine. They are responsible for the death and destruction which is occurring in Ukraine. They are responsible for separating loved ones from their families, for the loss of jobs, the deaths of many citizens of all ethnicities that call Ukraine home. All this suffering is for what? Their twisted vision of a New World Order, in which they are the rulers and we are their slaves? It’s obvious to me that Putin is not the one who is conspiring to impose a New World Order. As a matter of fact, he wants no part of it and neither should we, in the United States, have any part of the globalist’s treacherous agenda.

America was always about defending liberty and freedom. Today I see our government creating upheaval across the globe. Whether in the Middle East, Africa or the far edges of Eastern Europe, an insidious pattern has emerged. A pattern of death, destruction and persecution of ethnic and religious groups wherever we have forced regime change. I don’t see that any good has come of these incursions into once sovereign nations. Are we truly trying to spread liberty and freedom to these countries, or is this quest to install democracy at any cost, even if it disrupts the lives of millions of people caught up in the maelstrom of the reality on the ground, not working because our leadership is inept, arrogant, misguided – or maybe there are more sinister and selfish reasons.

Russia is important geologically and geographically. Its natural resources: gas, oil, coal, timber and rich mineral deposits are widely coveted. The location of its warm water ports in the Black Sea are just as desirable for their strategic and economic importance. There are powerful forces interested in confiscating Russia’s vast wealth for their own economic and political gain. Bringing Russia to its knees by putting NATO at its doorstep is a gamble these people are willing to take, the consequences be damned, body count doesn’t faze them in the least.

My firm belief is that Russia is not interested in expansion. It is interested in protecting its people, its culture and its vital interests. Russians are a proud people, derived from a diverse ethnic background, who revere their heritage and their motherland. They will never submit to globalism, just as they would never submit to Islamic fascism, or any other outside controlling entity. They want to be independent and have no interest in any outside world wide governing body telling them how they must conduct their lives and businesses, and what rules and regulations they must submit to – or be punished with fees, fines and sanctions. Their president, Putin, is independent, strong-willed and pragmatic. His concerns about the advancement of the regime changers are well founded – their adventurism precedes them. Vladimir Putin is not the greatest threat to freedom and stability in this world that the anointed one would have us believe. The real culprit lies much closer to home.

Irreconcilable Differences: Why Americans Cannot Agree

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

Years ago I was exchanging messages with a committed liberal on an internet discussion board. We were attempting to bridge a gap which, as it turns out, now seems utterly unbridgeable. I give the other fellow credit for effort, but we both failed.

The eye-opening moment came when the liberal responded to the question, what is your definition of a good government? His response was almost word for word, the definition of a good parent.

It took me some time to digest the full implications of that.  As the years have passed, I have come to realize that the worldviews of progressive leftists and conservative libertarians are separated by so vast a chasm that it seems hopeless to ever bridge that gap.

To the liberal, a good government is one which takes care of its people. It provides them with food and clothing, with shelter and health care, and with such abstractions as self-esteem. In return, the government expects a few simple and necessary things from the citizen. It expects obedience. It reserves for itself the right to confiscate wealth, because the government has to get the money it spends from somewhere. Only the government can decide which speech is hurtful, and if it so deems, can ban it; just ask the Washington Redskins.

In short, liberals see the government as a sort of parent, and themselves as dependent children.

Of course, many liberals are outraged when this description is put to words. While they might present some plausible arguments in their behalf, based on this or that detail of a particular issue, they do on the whole support a much larger government than the Tenth Amendment allows. Conservatives support a government so limited and specific in its powers, that the benefit of any doubt reverts to the states and the people.

Conservatives also can be criticized in some regards, for wishing to apply government force to certain social issues; just ask any libertarian.

In another discussion group, one commenter made the statement that the government has certain rights, such as the right to tax.

My response was that the government has no rights whatsoever, but only powers. Furthermore, even these powers are not owned by the government, but by “We the People.”  I was accused of anarchy, yet it is clear from the very roots of our republic that we govern ourselves.  We are not supposed to be ruled.

I will go so far as to say that when the government fears its citizens, then and only then are the citizens in control. When the citizens are not in control, we have good reason to fear our government.

Recently, I re-introduced these ideas on an internet discussion group, but I am unable to find any liberal as willing to engage in thoughtful debate as those with whom I conversed years ago. Instead, the responses nowadays are obscene rants and insults.

Even on television, where conservatives and liberals must adhere to certain FCC rules regarding vulgarities, the discussions are no longer about ideas, but about gotcha and “one-upmanship.” The rules are to avoid any, absolutely any, recognition of whether the opposing side has made a valid point, and instead to prevaricate, obfuscate, or completely dodge the issue under discussion. They use high sounding words, but the meanings of those words are those of a schoolyard squabble.

There was a time in American history when the worldviews of two opposing factions collided. The result was the Civil War. Despite the name, there was little about it that was civil. Force, violence and brutality settled the matter.

We hope that in the modern era, the ballot box can replace the bullet box. The power to vote is, however, just as dangerous as a bullet, when in the wrong hands. Few American voters seem to have any significant grasp of the issues. One example of this is a voter who told me that the government must support the teacher’s unions, because teachers have a right to teach.

I tried to explain that it is the students who have a right to learn, and the parents who have the right to control their child’s education.  I might as well have been speaking Martian…  

That’s how wide the gap is.


Parody: China Ends Vital Tech Support

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer 

Every businessman understands that over-reliance on just one supplier puts one at risk that the supplier may threaten to withdraw, leaving dependent companies, even nations, in the lurch.

Now it has happened. Communist China announced today that effective at the end of this year, they will no longer be providing technical support for the world’s most widely used calculating device, the abacus.

This device is low cost and compact. It provides rapid calculations of numerical operations to billions of people worldwide. It is energy efficient, requiring no batteries of any sort, and is easily transportable.

All that is now threatened, and just at a time when more advanced computing devices are becoming more vulnerable to an assortment of threats, including hackers, malware, and weaponized electro-magnetic pulses (EMP) from both criminals and hostile nations.

Abacus calculators are so cleverly designed that they have built-in defenses against all of those threats, even those of the most advanced technologies known to man.

The impact in the United States is expected to drastically disrupt operations in Chinese restaurants, which rely almost exclusively on the abacus to detect errors in electronic cash registers. You have no doubt noticed that adjacent to every cash register in such restaurants, an abacus is always placed within quick access, so as to rapidly and accurately correct any errors before the customer pays the wrong amount.

Last year, Texas Instruments, the American giant of hand-held calculators, attempted to market its electronic abacus to compete with the Chinese. It failed, leaving the entire abacus market with no competition.

Next, the US government agency known as the NSA, built its own electronic abacus. It proved unwieldy, however, requiring a ten storey tall building and massive amounts of air conditioning, and was able to spy on only ten Americans, none of whom posed any threat to national security, although all ten of them were, by pure coincidence, members of the TEA Party.

Finally, the Internal Revenue Service attempted to purchase ten billion abacuses for audit purposes, but instead bought ten billion rounds of ammunition for its fifty-caliber machine guns. Actually, that was not a mistake, as the abacuses were introductory gifts from the ammunition factory, which knew in advance that the abacus will be going obsolete.

Barack Obama claimed that he had negotiated an extension for abacus technical support beyond the end of this year. However, it turned out that when the Chinese said that technical support for the abacus will terminate at the end of this year, they meant at the end of the Chinese lunar year, which ends after the Julian year, making Obama think he had gotten an extension. It was like what happens every time Obama fires a corrupt government administrator, only to discover that the administrator was already scheduled to retire anyway.

When Obama protested, the Chinese replied that they have been granting extensions to the support contracts for abacus for over four thousand years, and they had finally said, “enough is enough. No more four-thousand-year extensions.”

When abacus-geddon strikes at the end of this lunar year, abacuses worldwide will become useless, or at best, vulnerable to identity theft.

Chinese restaurants will have to raise their prices or go out of business. Order your box lunches now, to beat the last minute rush.

Best of E-Blast, Vol 10: While the Middle East Burns and Our Veterans Die…”

The Best of

~ The E-Blast ~

G’morn’n World

Volume 10


GOP’S Benghazi Probe Chief
Lobbied for Far Left Groups 


Staff director of select committee 

worked with ACLU, Soros activists


A Capitol Hill veteran who was recently appointed as majority staff 

director for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Philip Kiko, 

has lobbied on behalf of far-left groups heavily tied to and 

financed by George Soros.

Kiko was appointed by House Benghazi committee chairman Rep. 

Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who has stated that politics should not play 

a role in the investigation.

Gowdy insists the probe will be fact-based and believes his choice 

of Kiko, who has “a proven record of effective leadership and 

management,” is in line with that aim.

More Here:


George Soros Democrat


Because He Is Black, 

Americans Suffer and Die 

“Clearly, no amount of unprecedented unlawful power-grabs, 
narcissistic behavior, blatant lies, and ignoring of the Constitution 
will sway the mainstream media and the Democrats from their 
loyalty to Obama.  Why?  The answer is that Obama is black, which 
makes him their ultimate weapon of mass destruction – able to nuke 
traditional America.  Obama’s mission is to cram his radical socialist/
progressive dream for America down our throats.”
Hat Tip to Kana Michelle



If a foreign power initiates the invasion of a country, it’s called war.
What is it called when a country’s elite leadership initiate an 
invasion against the best interests of their own citizens?
~ Bruce ~

​…it’s called Treason.​





Dr. David Brat

Dr. David Brat

Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, had 
faced what was considered to be a long-shot challenge Dave Brat, 
a Tea Party-backed professor. The Associated Press called the race 
for Brat shortly after 8 p.m. 

Cantor’s loss stunned much of the political world. There was no 
polling to suggest the majority leader was in trouble, nor did anyone 
think Brat posed a serious challenge. His internal polling put him up 
34 points just a few days ago. Cantor had outspent Brat by a 5-to-1 
margin, according to the latest campaign disclosure reports.

Democrats did not field a candidate in the district.

More Here:


The Tea Party is Dead,
Long Live the Tea Party.




Rand Paul Throws Weight 

Behind Immigration Reform Effort

Photo Credit: Clay Jackson

Mr. Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Kentucky and 
possible 2016 presidential hopeful, participated in a telephone 
conference call to conservative and business leaders in favor of 
immigration reform in an effort brokered by anti-tax activist 
Grover Norquist, The Washington Times has learned.

More Here:


~ ​It’s hard to tell them apart ~


Joe Biden Wants An 
‘Unrelenting Stream’ Of Immigration

“According to Vice President Joe Biden the thing the US needs to 

boost the economy is an “unrelenting stream” of immigrants. I guess 

he hasn’t noticed the humanitarian crisis at the border due to a flood 

of illegal immigrants.”

Specifically, he called for a “constant, unrelenting stream” of new 

immigrants — “not dribbling [but] significant flows,” to bolster the 

national economy, The Hill reported.

More Here:

Listen you damn hinterland rubes, DC has decided to change
the demographics of this racist country once and for all. 
Sit down, shut up, and suck it up. 
(sarcasm of course)
~ Bruce ~




Remember this story? It has a happy ending…

12-Year-Old Little Girl Scores 
Major Victory in Battle to…
Bake Cupcakes in Illinois

A pre-teen baker’s battle with bureaucrats has ended with 

her victory.

On Tuesday, Illinois gov. Pat Quinn signed the “cupcake bill,” 

which will allow home bakers to sell baked goods without local 

government or health department oversight.

More Here:



Karen Cola writes…

“While the Middle East burns and our Veterans die…

…and thousands of people are allowed to crash our southern gates, 

this guy goes golfing.  Absolutely disgustingly heartbreaking that 
this dude is privileged to be in our WH and living on our dime”:


‘Exhausted’ Obama to drive golf balls as 
ISIS drives on Baghdad, Twitter erupts



CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller was simply 

doing his job when he tweeted President Barack Obama‘s weekend 

plans. Little did he know that his effort would unleash a wave of 

criticism directed at the president.

More Here:


Air Force in ‘Stand Down’ Position as 100American Contractors Attacked by ISIS Jihadists


Iraq War Vet Explains How JACKEDUP Iraq Is With Blistering Tweet




The All Seeing Eyes of 

Department Store Mannequins??

Some Concerned Marketing Data Systems Threaten Privacy

  A growing number of stores are using discrete and 
sophisticated technology — includingmannequins with facial-
recognition cameras hidden in their eyes — to track shopper 
demographics in an effort to boost sales. 


Have a Great Day, 


~ The E-Blast ~
Created by Bruce O’Hara,

can also be viewed online at:


Iraqi Apocalypse …

by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer

Iraq was a war in which we either should never have become involved, or alternatively, a war in which we should have invaded and subjugated the country in the exact fashion that our harshest critics decry as the brutality of oil imperialism.

Both choices were bad ones, but we chose a policy even worse than those two.

By taking the middle road, we are getting run over from both sides. We pretended that we could bring our democratic values to a region that has no basis for them, and then left, hoping that “democracy would take root,” without our continued, intrusive involvement. That pretense was not only unrealistic, its results are worse brutality than that for which our accusers would have us pilloried.

The rationale for invading Iraq was twofold. First, it was about oil. It had to be. Oil is the lifeblood of our economy. Our society will collapse without it. Second, it was about safety from terrorism. Saddam Hussein was actively sponsoring suicide bombing in Israel, and had already used chemical warfare against Iran. There was little information from inside Iraq to comfort us concerning weapons of mass destruction, the infamous WMD that were never found, but the possibility of which could not have been shrugged off by any sane person, especially when Hussein was pretending to have them.

Our entire involvement in Iraq cannot neatly be summed up, but there is one battle that comes close to characterizing all our mistakes. It was the battle for Fallujah, which was in fact, two battles. Fallujah was taken and occupied by radical terrorists who converted it into a giant bomb factory, and who were killing any civilians who were even suspected of insufficient cooperation with the occupiers or their Islamist creed.

The first time Americans invaded Fallujah, we did so with insufficient forces and were driven back in defeat – at the cost of American lives. The second time, politics were put aside, and the invasion was accomplished with brutal force, with the aim of total subjugation of the city. It worked. An army of terrorists was killed or captured and the civilian population celebrated the defeat of their terrorist tormentors.

War is ugly, and the battle for Fallujah, despite our best efforts, was ugly also – nearly a hundred Americans were killed in the second battle alone – but at least the objective was worthy, and it had been accomplished.

After all that, it is unthinkable that the terrorists would regain control of Fallujah, but they have. They are now well on their way to seizing all of Iraq, and indeed, all of its neighboring nations, to include Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The unthinkable is happening.

This leaves us with choices that are all unacceptable, and with consequences that are now unavoidable.

We could re-invade Iraq, start over from scratch and “re-defeat” the terrorists, losing more American lives and squandering more American treasure at a time when we are already bankrupt. We could give the Kurds in northern Iraq recognition as an independent nation and recruit them to resist the terrorists, thus infuriating our Turkish allies in NATO, an ally already undependable anyway. We could stand aside and watch as Iran continues to send more of its own Islamist troops into Iraq to defeat its Sunni enemies. We could warn the Iraqis to evacuate their captured cities, and then incinerate those cities, if necessary, by small nuclear weapons, thus preventing the terrorists from using those facilities against us.

None of these scenarios are acceptable, and indeed, none of them would be as helpful as we would hope.

The consequences of doing nothing is also unacceptable. To do nothing, is to allow a base of operations from which international terrorism will be exported worldwide. This terrorism will be unrelentingly aggressive and murderous. It will be on a larger scale than we ever imagined possible and funded by billions of petro-dollars, armed with the most potent weapons mankind possesses, including actual WMD and radioactive “dirty bombs” that leave entire cities permanently uninhabitable. It will be manned by literally hundreds of thousand of fanatical, suicidal fighters. It will be led by extremists who insist on nothing less than worldwide Islamic dictatorship, a subjugation of people in its most violent and cruel form.

Ironically, the strongest, and only acceptable counter-measure we have is the one which Barack Obama seems utterly insistent on blocking: the development of oil reserves in North America, particularly involving the Keystone pipe-line.

Had the U.S. resolved 10 years ago to become energy independent, we would already have achieved that goal. Now, we will need another 10 years, but we must act with all deliberate speed to get there.

Oil will not be the panacea. It will not by itself solve the problem we face. It will, however, give us at least a fighting chance, the only chance we will have, to survive the horrors of unbridled terrorism which – make no mistake about this – are going to rain down death and destruction on our homeland.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are now in World War III. This is not hyperbole. We are facing a terrorist apocalypse. The cost to us will be horrific. Our choices are stark – total victory, or total defeat.

There is no longer any middle road. The sooner we understand this fact, the more likely we are to survive what lies ahead.