Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Sunday, January 29, 2012

No compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Follow the money. That is the reason the "global warming alarmists" exist. Despite the lack of any warming in the last ten years, the alarmists still are pushing the issue under the mantra of extreme weather, even though history shows that weather extremes have run in cycles for thousands of years.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

Read full WSJ report here.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

1999 CNN Report On Newt Gingrich's Exoneration By The IRS Over Ethics Charges

God and Abortion

Occupy PGA Tour - I'm A 99%er

I am a member of golf's 99%. I play golf, but have not yet made it to the professional level!! I have played the game for over 40 years, but have not really put in the practice time and study to be the best. I also probably do not have the skills to really get there either. However, I now feel that I should be paid by the successful professionals for trying. It isn't fair that those players who have worked harder, have studied the game, have better equipment and are stronger and more skilled should make all that money. Oh sure, they have their charities that they give millions of dollars to, but I am sure that they write all that off on their tax returns to reduce paying their fair share. Is that fair? They should pay for my golf, buy me new equipment and pay me some of their winnings. The whole system should be changed to accommodate people like me!! Let's occupy a golf course and demand that those who are better at what they do pay for us who aren't as good. Whining should get us something, like media attention and sympathy from liberals.


Watch Gov. Mitch Daniels Deliver the GOP Response to the State of the Union

Obama, a Card Carying Member of The Muslim Brotherhood?

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

South Carolina Message - Thomas Sowell

I think Sowell has hit the nail on the head. All the Republican candidates are a gamble against a sitting President with a $1 billion war chest and the MSM in his pocket. So we must have the candidate that doesn't just "play it safe", but one that can hit the home run. At this time, Newt Gingrich appears to be the most able of them all.

But the message from South Carolina was about more than a reaction to how Gingrich dealt with a cheap shot question from the media. Nor was it simply the Republican voters' response to Newt's mastery as a debater.

The more fundamental message is that the Republican primary voters do not want Mitt Romney, even if the Republican establishment does — and it is just a question of which particular conservative alternative the voters prefer.

Whomever the Republicans choose as their candidate is going to have to run against both Barack Obama and the pro-Obama media. Newt Gingrich has shown that he can do that. Romney? Not so much.

Mitt Romney's fumbling when trying to answer the simple question of whether he would or would not release his income tax records is the kind of indecisiveness that is not going to cut it in a nationally televised debate with President Obama.

Gingrich is not just a guy who is fast and feisty on his feet. He has a depth of understanding of what issues are crucial, experience in how to deal with them and — almost equally important — experience in how to shoot down the petty, irrelevant and "gotcha" distractions of the media.

Does Gingrich have negative qualities? More than most. Wild statements, alienation of colleagues, reckless gambits. His use of the rhetoric of the left in attacking Bain Capital was a recent faux pas, though one that he quickly backed away from.

If the election campaign changes the opinions of a significant minority of the anti-Gingrich voters — when the alternative is Obama — it will not matter how much the remainder may hate Newt.

Is this a gamble? The painful reality is that everyone in this year's field of Republican candidates is a gamble. And re-electing Barack Obama is an even bigger gamble.

Whichever candidate the Republican voters finally choose from this year's field, they are bound to have reservations, if not fears. Gingrich's worst could be worse than Romney's worst, both as a candidate and as a president. But Gingrich's best is much better than Romney's best.

Sometimes caution can be carried to the point where it is dangerous. When the Super Bowl is on the line, you don't go with the quarterback who is least likely to throw an interception. You go with the one most likely to throw a touchdown pass.

Read full article here.

Gingrich on Debate’s No-Clapping Rule

The MSM has their questioning down pat. Almost all of the debate focused on the Republicans and their perceived problems and very little was directed at our Nation's plight at the hands of the worst President ever. Here we are with an anti-energy, anti-business, race-baiting, job-killing, free-spending, deficit-creating, class-warfare, socialistic, anti-American President, and all they are concerned about is Romney's tax returns and what Gingrich did in his private sector job for Fannie and Freddie.

The MSM protected Obama and the candidates fell for it. It is time for the candidates to refuse to answer questions that have nothing to do with solving our Nations most pressing problems.

At the start of Monday night's debate, Williams said, "We've asked our invited guests here this evening to withhold their applause, any verbal reactions to what they hear on stage, so as to ensure this is about the four candidates here tonight and what they have to say."

Never again, Gingrich told Fox & Friends the morning after:

"I wish in retrospect I'd protested when Brian Williams took them (the live audience) out of it, because I think it's wrong. And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they've done in every debate.

"And we're going to serve notice on future debates, we won't (mumble), we're just not going to allow that to happen. That's wrong. The media doesn't control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to. It was almost silly."

Read full CNS News article here.

Saturday, January 21, 2012


This whole scenario, about the Secretary of State races and Holder not prosecuting the Black Panthers and suing the states that are passing voter ID laws, stinks of Chicago politics and an attempt to invalidate free elections. The only hope Obama has in this year's election is to completely destroy his opponent's credibility with his $1 billion war chest, and if that doesn't work, to steal the election in the close contests through voter fraud and intimidation.

Maybe the arrest of his operative, Edwards, will open the flood gates and the truth will finally flow out.

A few years ago, as part of its strategy of facilitating voter fraud as a means of winning close elections, the Democratic Party undertook a campaign to secure as many Secretary of State offices in swing states as possible. From those perches, the Democrats would be in a position to oversee elections and enforce (or decline to enforce) election laws. That strategy has been quite successful, but the Democrats suffered a setback in Iowa in 2010 when conservative Republican Matt Schultz won an upset victory in the Secretary of State race. Since then, Iowa Democrats have targeted Schultz.

That targeting has taken a sinister turn–a criminal one, in fact–as the Des Moines Register reports:

A Des Moines man has been arrested after police say he used, or tried to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz in a scheme to falsely implicate Schultz in perceived unethical behavior in office.

Zachary Edwards was arrested Friday and charged with identity theft.

The Iowa Department of Public Safety issued a news release saying Schultz’s office discovered the scheme on June 24, 2011 and notified authorities.

Edwards is a former Obama staffer who directed “new media operations” for Obama in five states during the 2008 primaries. Thereafter, he was Obama’s Director of New Media for the State of Iowa. In the Democratic Party’s lexicon, “new media” apparently includes identity theft.

That Edwards allegedly tried to steal the Secretary of State’s identity in order to frame Schultz for “unethical behavior in office” is no coincidence. Iowa Democrats, as Kevin Hall of the Iowa Republican points out, have mounted a campaign of false accusations against Schultz.

So on its face, Edwards’s identity theft appears to be part of a coordinated effort by the Iowa Democratic Party to bring down the Republican Secretary of State so he can be replaced with a Democrat. We hope that Edwards will get the long jail term that he deserves, but the more important question is, from whom was he taking instructions? Circumstantially, one would guess from his boss, Jeff Link. But if so, who was instructing (and paying?) Link’s firm? The White House? Tom Harkin? Iowa’s Democratic Party?

Much like Watergate, which began with a seemingly simple (if puzzling) burglary and ultimately unraveled the Nixon administration, it is impossible to say how far the trail of criminality will go if the Edwards case is pursued aggressively. Will that happen? I don’t know; stay tuned.

Read full Powerline article here.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Rep. Kelly's Rant Against Congress and Regulations

What others see plainly, we often ignore

Received this email today.

Here's something to think about.*

I remember asking dad about Castro when I was about 9 years old. I asked, "Is Castro a good guy or bad?"

Dad said...he couldn't tell!! This was about 1955. We were living in Louisiana ...at the time. Dad was in the Army there.

Cuba was fairly close and in the news a lot. The Cubans were asking the same question!

Ike was president.

This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a refugee from Cuba . Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.

This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960's. His family was more fortunate than most, as they were able to bring a suitcase...and $100 when they fled Castro's newly formed revolutionary paradise.

Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers, potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu shared with family and friends nationwide...while celebrating the birth of our beloved America ...on the Fourth of July.

We began with a simple discussion about our country, and the direction it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating from the rulers in Washington .

But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train. "You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist".

We sat stunned. He continued, "Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a nationalist. Before the revolution he didn't sound like a radical."

The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected, "You mean just like Barack Obama?"

He responded; "Yes, just like Barack Obama."

He continued, "We were all shocked as the government just continued to grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn in your guns. We all complied."

I remember my uncle saying after it started; “Castro will only nationalize some of the big industries. He will never come and take our family hardware store!!”But that is exactly what happened. Castro started with the sugar mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us. And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own...it is now our property also, and...you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of the house, because others are moving in with you."

The lesson learned from this discussion, is a lesson most Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their agenda and once in office...they can take totally unexpected turns.

If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it.. We could never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building block of a justice society...would be evaporating, just like it did in Castro's Cuba in the early 1960's.

But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not charged with wrong doing by the U.S. Department of Justice...because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are stripped of their assets...without due process by the government! Governmental leaders are bribed in full daylight...only to have all investigation of the crimes stifled...by the Attorney General.

The U.S. borders are over run with crime and illegal activity, and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is important to protect the lawbreakers....while the innocent are killed and over run. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are ridiculed...and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very administration...entrusted with enforcing the law.

Without the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution is a sham!!Without the rule of law, our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only the well connected and politically powerful will be safe. As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book...a culture of corruption has replaced honest government.

The only way this problem will be fixed, is by massive citizen action. All honest citizens that want to be treated equally, must come together...and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven enforcement of law...end now!! And yes, it can happen here.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Dems propose 'Reasonable Profits Board' to regulate oil company profits

What Constitution are these jerks working with? What ever happened to free enterprise? Obama says that energy prices will necessarily rise under his policies. He restricts production and use of domestic energy sources and then he and his cohorts blame the oil companies for the high prices. The government gets more profit from a gallon of gas than the oil companies do, and the companies do all the work. It is time we put sunset laws on these oath breakers.

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a "Reasonable Profits Board" to control gas profits.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding "a reasonable profit." It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members "shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board."

I had to reprint a great Mikelee comment from The Hill article:

This is great- now we need a "Reasonable Spending Board" to monitor our Congress. We need a "Reasonable Ethics Board" to punish members of Congress who use their office to enrich themselves. A "Reasonable Taxation Board" to prevent the government from taking too much of our money.

We can have a "Reasonable Earnings Board" to take money from actors and musicians who make too much money on their movies and records. A "Reasonable Athlete Salary Board" to make sure athletes don't make too much money. A "Reasonable Executive Compensation Board" to make sure people like Franklin Raines don't make hundreds of millions while bankrupting taxpayer funded companies.

We have truly entered the twilight zone and Orwell must be spinning in his grave. The day the government gets to decide what a "reasonable profit" is for private companies we have allowed our politicians and federal government to become far too powerful.

Going after oil and gas companies is all about politics. They are not the preferred industries so their profits can be attacked. Why not go after Apple's profits or Microsoft? Their profit margins are higher.

The American people cannot allow our government to engage in this type of abject tyranny. It's the most un-American thing I can imagine. What's next- the government forcing all citizens to buy products and services from private companies?

The America of our founders and forefathers is disappearing before our eyes.

Recall Vote for Wisconsin Gov. Walker May Spell End for Public Unions Nationwide

From what Walker is saying, there will be a recall election. I hope the author of this piece is accurate in his view that the people of Wisconsin see the progress that has been made. The national unions are pouring a lot of money and resources into Wisconsin and the intimidation factor cannot be ignored. Wish Walker every success.

Democrats attempted to recall six Republican lawmakers last fall, whose forces turned the recall election tables on three Democrat lawmakers at the same time.

National labor unions spent the majority of the $35 million on the recall races, which was nearly double the $19.3 million that was spent on all of the 115 original 2010 contests combined. Even after filling the airwaves with fraudulent and scurrilous attack ads and provide "rent-a-mob" protesters where ever they were needed, only two of their six targets were unseated--leaving Republicans in charge.

At the same time they also managed to help the three 'shell-shocked' Democrats under a recall attack retain their seats.

Since then, Gov. Walker's plans have produced a huge, factual bounty that is resonating greatly with voters all across the state. According to the figures Walker provided, as a rare interview guest on the Rush Limbaugh Show today, his first, most daunting challenge was the $3.2 billion budget shortfall that he faced upon entering office one year ago, which is now projected to be a $300 million budget surplus--with no public worker or teacher layoffs, and no increase in taxes.

Additionally, Wisconsin enjoyed the addition of 17,329 new jobs, some from companies leaving the 'deathbed' of neighboring Illinois, whose economy was skewered by the skyrocketing tax increases passed by their Democrat-dominated lame duck Congress in December 2010, causing many businesses to flee.

The first hurtle for union-led recall drive will be to have enough 'legitimate' signatures on the recall petitions, boxes of which were delivered to the State Capitol by the liberal group "United Wisconsin," to meet the estimated 540,208 necessary, according to Mike Tobin's FOXNews article today.

Fraud is already suspected, as testimony by elections officials during hearings late last year revealed that Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler had signed the petitions, and some others were found to have signed multiple times.

Evidently, Wisconsin law provides that any eligible voter, with a 'valid' Wisconsin address, may sign a petition, whether they are registered or not. So, the petitions will no doubt be overstocked with "Occupy" wherever 18 year olds and students to reach the mark--because nearly every registered, working and taxpaying adult voter in the state is quite happy with Gov. Walker's performance.

These re-callers cannot even find a challenger to run against Gov. Walker.

As a startling punctuation to that, even Wisconsin's two long time, high-profile, heavy-hitter Democrats, Rep. Herb Kohl and Sen. Russ Feingold, have declined the invitation, according to Tobin's article.

Have they read the hand-writing on the wall?

Read full Examiner report here.

Newt Unloads On Liberal Media For Jumping At Ex-Wife Story But Not Covering Obama's "Failures"

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Gingrich Goes for Gold

Holder's Racist Statements About Voter Photo IDs

Holder uses race card against his own race. Isn't that ironic? Perhaps this will show people who the real racists are.

Monday for Martin Luther King Jr Day, US Attorney General Eric Holder spoke with NAACP leaders on the steps of the statehouse in South Carolina. Holder took the opportunity to tell the audience that he intends to fight against any and all attempts by states to pass laws requiring some form of photo ID.

South Carolina is one of those states in the voter ID fray and Holder told residents,

“After a thorough and fair review, we concluded that the state had failed to meet its burden of proving that the voting change would not have a racially discriminatory affect.”

How is this a racial issue? Is the Attorney General of the United States saying that blacks, Hispanics or American Indians are less capable of obtaining a photo ID than are whites?

If that poor black or Hispanic person needed to buy any over the counter allergy medication that contains pseudoephedrine, they would have to show a driver’s license or some form of ID in order to purchase it. If they have a car, they have to have a state driver’s license AND proof of insurance. If they are that poor and need to receive state or government aid, they have to have some form of ID in order to request and receive that aid. Some form of ID, often a photo ID is required for anyone to fly on a commercial airline, to open a bank account, buy a house, cash a check and the list goes on and on and on.

If Mr Holder does not believe that any of these other ID requirements are racially discriminatory, then on what grounds does he believe requiring a photo ID to vote is a form of racial discrimination?

My question to Eric Holder would be, ‘what makes a poor black or Hispanic person less capable of obtaining a photo ID than a poor white person or a poor Asian person?

Clearly this cannot be the real reason that Holder and the DOJ are fighting against voter ID laws. In light of the revelation of what happened with dead people voting in the New Hampshire primary, the only possible explanation for Holder’s opposition to voter ID has to involve the possibility of widespread voter fraud in the November election. If the Democrats can’t win back the House and keep the Senate and presidency through legal voting methods, that only leaves them desperate measures which could very well include voter fraud.

Could there be any other reason for his Hypocritic actions?

Obama administration rejects Keystone oil pipeline

The initial report was given to the Dept of Energy on December 23, 2010. All Obama wanted was to delay the decision past the election. A yes decision favored the unions over the environmentalists, and a no decision favored the environmentalists. I guess he believes he has the unions in his pocket since the far left extremist union leaders and the money is not going anywhere. The environmentalist are a fragmented group, not easily controlled.

The first anti-job, anti-energy independence, anti-business, anti-American President the USA has had. How did this idiot ever get elected? Unless of course he isn't an idiot and this is all part of his anti-freedom Cloward and Piven destroy and rebuild plan.

The Obama administration on Wednesday rejected the Keystone crude oil pipeline project, a decision welcomed by environmental groups but blasted by the domestic energy industry.

U.S. President Barack Obama said TransCanada's application for the 1,700-mile (2,740-km) pipeline was denied because the State Department did not have enough time to complete the review process.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Obama said in a statement.

With environmental groups concerned about carbon emissions from oil sands production, the administration in November delayed a decision on a presidential permit for the project until 2013.
But lawmakers that support the project attached a measure to a tax-cut law passed at the end of last year that set a February deadline for a decision.

Read original Reuters article here.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Mitt Romney: The Last Republican President?

Great article and one that I fear is correct. If Mitt Romney wins, the Republicans are in trouble.

Mitt Romney, by his actions in Massachusetts both campaigning for the U.S. Senate and as Governor, has shown himself to be more than willing to compromise with the Left and the Democrats. He has proposed and passed the socialist RomneyCare policy, pro-abortion regulations, and gun control, and raised numerous taxes and fees while increasing spending dramatically. During the current campaign he refuses to call Barack Obama what he is; instead Romney refers to him as just "being over his head."

If ever a candidate mirrored the mindset and approach of George H.W. Bush, it is Mitt Romney.
This is the last hurrah of the Republican establishment. The conservatives and libertarians will vote for Romney in November, but only because he is not Barack Obama. There will be no enthusiasm, which will hurt the down ballot contests for the U.S. Senate, the House and state governorships. Despite the factors weighing against Obama in this upcoming election, it will be a much closer contest that it should be; perhaps a razor thin victory for Romney.

If Romney were to lose the election, there will be a grass-roots revolt against the Republican Party which will spell its demise. If he wins and the nation, through the mis-directed policies of Romney and the Republicans in the Congress, continues on its current path of compromising and nibbling around the edges of the nation's problems, then Romney will be the last Republican president and the specter of the Democrats re-assuming power will be a reality.

This is not only the most important election for the nation in over a century but also one that will determine the fate of a political party founded in 1854 in opposition to slavery and the corruption in the Democratic Party.

Read full American Thinker article here.

South Carolinians Have a Right to Work - You Should Too!

One thing not mentioned in this article is that the NLRB and the union got significant concessions from Boeing before the suit was dropped. If you or I did this it would be called extortion and we would be in jail. Right To Work should be made law throughout all of Obama's "57" states.

Last year, the Obama Administration took aim at Boeing when the Seattle-based company sought to build a new assembly plant in Charleston, South Carolina, in order to produce the 787 Dreamliner. Enter the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which filed a complaint against Boeing alleging that the company decided to build the plant in South Carolina out of retaliation for union strikes at its Washington state facilities.

At the center of the issue was the fact that South Carolina is one of 22 right-to-work states, meaning that workers there have the freedom to decide whether to join a union or not. Right-to-work laws block companies from firing workers for not paying union dues, thereby protecting employees’ right to work regardless of their support for unions. In the case of Boeing, the Obama Administration — by way of the NLRB — sought to prevent the company from making fundamental decisions about where to do business, all because it wanted to open a plant in a right-to-work state. (Ultimately, the NLRB dropped the case after union negotiators reached a deal that benefited their members in a union state.)

Big labor, of course, abhors right-to-work laws because they threaten unions’ ironclad grip on employees — along with the dues they are forced to pay and the resulting political buying power the unions amass. (By some estimates, unions spent some $400 million in the last presidential election.) However, right-to-work laws have positive effects for states where they are adopted — in short, they bring much-needed jobs and investment.

Businesses want to know that, if they treat their workers well, unions will leave them alone. Right-to-work makes that more likely — and businesses notice. Studies show right-to-work laws are a major factor in business location decisions. It was no accident that Boeing built its new 787 assembly line in right-to-work South Carolina. Neither was it coincidence that most new auto plants have been built in right-to-work states. More investment means more jobs.

Consider two counties that border each other across a state line, one in a right-to-work state and the other not. These counties have similar economic conditions, similar demographics, and similar climates. But the county in the right-to-work state has an average of one-third more manufacturing jobs. Right-to-work laws encourage investment and job creation.

Not surprisingly, other states are looking to follow in South Carolina’s footsteps. Indiana’s legislature is debating whether to make its state right-to-work, and legislators in Maine and Michigan have introduced right-to-work bills. They undoubtedly see the benefit of making their states more competitive and freeing employees to make decisions about whether or not to support unions.
But that movement flies directly in the face of the Administration’s big labor agenda. Earlier this month, the President flagrantly ignored the Constitution by making three illegal appointments to the NLRB — an act that Heritage’s Edwin Meese III and Todd Gaziano described as a “tyrannical abuse of power.” Sherk explains that unions are looking to the NLRB to boost their ranks amid flagging support — just one in 10 nonunion workers wants to join a union.

Given unions’ decreasing power — and the political debt that is owed to them — it’s not surprising that the NLRB took aim at right-to-work South Carolina or that the President flouted the law in order to make pro-labor appointments. Instead of promoting job growth, the left is promoting its political allies. Meanwhile, America’s unemployed workers are suffering the consequences of a ruling class that is putting unions’ special interests ahead of laborers.

Read full report here.

Why Is Obama Routing For Romney? Newt Gingrich Is The Reason - Video

Monday, January 16, 2012

Why Islam Should NOT Be Protected Under the US Constitution! Wake Up America!

Islam is not a religion, it is a set of laws and the Koran is the same as our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The two cannot exist together. Italy has rejected the notion that Islam is a religion. Read article on this here

Europe has turned their backs on this problem and are well on the way toward relinquishing their sovereignty to the Islamist caliphate. Read what an Egyptian Muslim cleric has to say here.

It is time to stand up for our freedoms.

America faces a grave threat from Islam. Muslims are infiltrating our country in droves and they’re doing it under the guise of “Constitutional Protection.” And like England, if we don’t stand our ground now, it will be too late. Muslims are cunning, crafty and clever. They’re using our ignorance of the understanding of our own Constitution against us, and they are clandestinely and methodically spreading their freedom-snatching tentacles in a quiet and unassuming manner.

Federal, state, and local governments on the other hand won’t acknowledge the imminent threat. They incorrectly claim that Muslims have “Constitutional Rights” to come here, proselytize people, build mosques, and implement Shariah Law in their communities and in the public square. They’re dead wrong! And by and large, Islam is getting away with it just like they have in Europe. Only unlike in Europe and Great Britain in particular, where many local non-Muslim citizens now live in perpetual fear and oppression, it’s not too late to stem the tide, but we have to act now. Time is not on our side. In fact, this may come as a shock, but there are more mosques being built on American soil than Christian churches. We are already well under way to being Islamized.

To understand Islam is to understand Sharia. The religion of Islam is nothing short of a totalitarian political, economic, military, social and legal system that’s camouflaged in religious garb. Their mandate (not objective) is to incorporate our country into a global Islamic caliphate.

Islam is NOT a religion. Islam—which stands for “submission” or “surrender”—is a totalitarian form of government that seeks COMPLETE DOMINANCE. It is hellbent on controlling every aspect of the lives of its adherents—a primitive life at that. It masquerades as a monotheistic religion rooted in Old Testament principles, but more appropriately follows the murderous thuggery of it’s founder, Muhammad, a descendent of Ishmael, born 600 years after Christ. Only their modern day tactics now include recruiting mentally ill teenagers and naive and gullible idiots who falsely believe they will be rewarded with 75 virgins if they become suicide bombers. And Western countries indoctrinated with the lies of multiculturalism and political correctness—to their demise—have reluctantly turned a blind eye. But like Communism, Marxism and Socialism, the Constitution of the United States of America empowers us to defeat it.

In Summary:

1. Our Rights come from God. They predate and preexist the Constitution. Our Constitution doesn’t give “Rights” to anybody. So Muslims don’t have “Constitutional Rights” to come to our Christian established country and build mosques, proselytize, and impose Shariah.

2. Islam and Sharia seeks to take away from people the rights God gave them. Since our Declaration of Independence acknowledges that the purpose of civil governments is to secure our God-given Rights, it is the duty and responsibility of civil governments at all levels to protect us from Islamization.

3. Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution—the “Supremacy Clause”—is the silver bullet that makes it unconstitutional for Muslims to practice Sharia Law anywhere in our Country.

In closing, we are at war with a very evil and cunning enemy. An enemy that seeks to destroy everything that is good about the United States of America; Everything we value; Everything we cherish, Everything our forefathers and successive generations fought and died for so that we could receive the torch of freedom and pass it on to our children and grandchildren. This is our moment. It is our time to boldly stand up for our God, our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our beloved Freedom! Let us exercise our God-given unalienable Rights and say “Yes to Freedom!” and “No to Oppression!” We owe it to our children, our grandchildren, and our grandparents.

Read full article here.

If you were president...Would you veto Jobs?

Michelle Obama's "All this for a damn flag" shown at three different speeds

For all you lip readers out there, your comments please. I can't tell, but the last word looks like "flag". What shocks me most is, if that is what she is saying, our President is nodding agreement. Hope there are some professional lip readers out there that can debunk this reading.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Just Saw Newt In Georgetown, SC

Heard Newt in Georgetown, SC today and told him that he pissed me off at times but I thought he was the best man for the job. He said "I'm sorry and thank you".

He said he was running with the slogan, What do you want, the food stamp President or the paycheck President?

Islam Dismantled In 6 Minutes

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know

Just another article showing what unions and the liberalization of our school system has done to our children.

Are we raising the stupidest generation in American history? The statistics that you are about to read below are incredibly shocking. They indicate that U.S. high school students are basically as dumb as a rock. As you read the rest of this article, you will be absolutely amazed at the things that U.S. high school students do not know. At this point, it is really hard to argue that the U.S. education system is a success. Our children are spoiled and lazy, our schools do not challenge them and students in Europe and in Asia routinely outperform our students very badly on standardized tests. In particular, schools in America do an incredibly poor job of teaching our students subjects such as history, economics and geography that are necessary for understanding the things that are taking place in our world today. For example, according to a survey conducted by the National Geographic Society, only 37 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can find Iraq on a map of the world. According to that same survey, 50 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 can't even find the state of New York on a map. If our students cannot even find Iraq and New York on a map, what hope is there that they will be able to think critically about the important world events of our day?

t absolutely amazes me how millions upon millions of our students can get all the way through high school without ever learning how to read, write or speak at a functional level.

Instead of producing the leaders of tomorrow, our education system is producing a bunch of sheep that are trained to take orders and that are pretty good at taking multiple choice tests.

If you want to get really depressed about the future of America, just watch some of the Jaywalking segments that Jay Leno does. Yes, it is funny to watch as he demonstrates how little Americans actually know about world events. But it is also a sign of how far our education system has fallen.

If Americans cannot even answer basic factual questions about our own government, then how in the world will anyone ever be able to persuade them to think critically about the Federal Reserve, the economic crisis or about our corrupt political system?

Our children are the future of this nation, and right now that future is looking quite bleak.

Read full article here.

Best Motivation Video Ever

Thursday, January 12, 2012

At 72, Why Do I Care?

At age 72, I am in the twilight of my God given years here on earth.  While doing research for my blog posts, the question comes to mind, why do I care?  The obvious answer is one given by many; it is because of our children and our children’s children.

But that is not it.

My background is not that of an inner city child.  I grew up with two loving parents, in a small Midwestern town in Ohio, and starting at age 8, did household chores, sold vegetables, delivered newspapers, mowed lawns, painted barns, worked as a stock boy, and even delivered mail  summers and holidays while working myself through college.  Two years in the military after college and I was ready to secure my place in the history books of the greatest nation on earth, the USA.

I only tell you this because those inner city children, and most other of today’s children do not, nor will ever, have the advantages that I or many of my generation had.

What has changed and where are we going? 

A massive expansion of government has occurred at a pace that has weakened our free capitalist system, and if gone unchecked, threatens to collapse our whole economy.

Government welfare programs have destroyed the incentive to work, promoted fatherless families and doomed generations of children to dependency.

These same programs, along with racial quotas and tax laws that exempt close to 50% of the population have created an entitlement society that is rebelling against the wealth creators.

Promotion of gay rights, same sex marriage and abortion has eaten into our religious and moral fiber.

The President and the Democrat Congress has blurred the line between Government and our Capitalist society by taking control of the auto industry and redistributing the spoils to their union supporters, passing onerous regulations on the banking industry, that affect the smaller institutions while ignoring Fannie and Freddie, the quasi-governmental agencies that were at the heart of the financial collapse.  They have passed Obamacare, legislation that takes control of 1/6th of our private economy and will destroy the best medical system in the world.

Lobbyists for the wealthiest corporations manage to “bribe” legislators and Presidents to formulate laws intended for good to discriminate against the individual and smaller entrepreneurs.

Now we have a Congress and Administration that is spending the USA into oblivion, destroying our economy and sapping our military of the means to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world.

Scarier yet is legislation coming out of Congress limiting our freedoms, the most egregious being a portion of the National Defense Authorization Act  giving the President the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. 

After seeing the President usurp Congressional power by making interim appointments while Congress was technically in session and explaining it this way:  “I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer. I’ve said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them,”  it is hardly reassuring when he says about his new detention authority:   “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens”.

Since FDR, the liberal/progressives have been redefining the Constitution and our current President is showing it little regard.  We are at a point now when the scale is threatening to tip in favor of those that dismiss the belief of self-determination and promote dependency on the Federal government.  Four more years of Obama and a Democrat Senate may seal our fate forever.

But then again, why do I care? 

I don’t know, I just do.

David Light

The Tax System Explained in Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you
are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the
tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down
and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.  –   Professor of Economics.

President Obama’s got sons?

Saw this interesting tidbit in the Washington Post today.

President Obama, speaking last night in Chicago at a fundraiser at a private home, unloaded this bombshell:

Obama, according to the White House transcript, talked about “The first bill I signed — a bill that said that we’re going to have equal pay for equal work because I want my daughters treated the same way as my sons.”

Sons? What sons? How many? Where? Names? Do the girls know? (More importantly, does Michelle?)

Read full Washington Post article here.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Corn: The Renewable Fuels Disaster

I just filled up my SUV here in SC and noticed, for the first time in years, that the pump said "all gas, no ethanol". The RFS is another boondoggle by the government that benefits the large farming conglomerates at the expense of the consumer. I don't blame the producers, I blame the government for deciding it is better to burn food than it is to drill for our own natural resources. Those "smart" guys in Washington DC are the dumbest, or are they "sly as the fox"?

How government policy can push more than 100 million people below the extreme poverty line.

Deficit hawks, environmentalists, and food processors are celebrating the expiration of the ethanol tax credit. This corporate handout gave $0.45 to ethanol producers for every gallon they produced and cost taxpayers $6 billion in 2011. So why did the powerful corn ethanol lobby let it expire without an apparent fight? The answer lies in legislation known as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which creates government-guaranteed demand that keeps corn prices high and generates massive farm profits. Removing the tax credit but keeping the RFS is like scraping a little frosting from the ethanol-boondoggle cake.

The RFS mandates that at least 37 percent of the 2011-12 corn crop be converted to ethanol and blended with the gasoline that powers our cars. The ethanol mandate is causing corn demand to outstrip supply by more and more each year, creating a vulnerable market in which even the slightest production disturbance will have devastating consequences for the world’s poor. It is time for the federal government to stop requiring cars to burn food.

Removing the tax credit but keeping the Renewable Fuel Standard is like scraping a little frosting from the ethanol-boondoggle cake.

Human mouths and motor engines provide the main sources of demand for corn. Market prices determine the form in which corn enters the food system; it may be an ingredient in your breakfast cereal, fed to cattle to produce steaks, or exported to Mexico to make tortillas. Market prices do not determine how much corn gets converted to ethanol for motor fuel use. The RFS mandate requires a massive quantity of corn to be converted to ethanol each year regardless of price or available supply.

In the 2005-06 crop year, 1.6 billion bushels of corn were used to produce ethanol; in the 2010-11 crop year, 5.0 billion bushels were. When corn is processed into ethanol, approximately one-third of its caloric value is retained in a byproduct known as distiller’s grains, which is fed to animals. Thus, an increase of 3.4 billion bushels of corn used for ethanol production implies a loss of 2.3 billion bushels to the food system, equivalent to about 16 percent of the total U.S. supply of corn.

If these 2.3 billion bushels were returned to the food system, users would increase consumption and farmers would reduce production until prices had declined enough to absorb the excess supply. In recent research, Michael Adjemian of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and I estimate that under current market conditions corn users would consume 2 percent more corn for every 10 percent reduction in price. Nathan Hendricks of Kansas State University estimates that U.S. farmers would plant 3 percent fewer acres to corn for every 10 percent reduction in price. Summing these effects implies that the market could absorb 5 percent more corn for every 10 percent price reduction. Thus, returning 16 percent of supply to the food system would reduce corn prices by about 32 percent.

A decline in corn prices would also stimulate declines in prices of other food commodities such as wheat, rice, and soybeans, which are substitutes for corn on both the supply and demand side. Michael Roberts of North Carolina State University and Wolfram Schlenker of Columbia University estimate that reducing corn ethanol production to zero would lower the price of calories from corn, soybeans, wheat, or rice by 20 percent.

At most, removing the tax credit will cause ethanol production to drop to mandated levels. In 2011, ethanol production may exceed the mandate by as much as 1 billion gallons. Above-mandate ethanol production uses 0.37 billion bushels of corn and, after accounting for distiller’s grains, it removes 0.25 billion bushels from the food system, or 1.7 percent of total supply. Thus, even if all above-mandate ethanol production becomes unprofitable upon removal of the tax credit, corn prices will drop by only 3.4 percent.

Low stockpiles place the corn market in a perilous position. If the 2012 crop is even slightly smaller than expected, then prices will rise even further and plunge millions more people into extreme poverty. If they were unconstrained by mandates, ethanol producers would reduce their use of corn in response to high prices. Jim Costa (D-California) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) recently introduced legislation that would allow such a response; under their proposal the mandate would be reduced when corn stockpiles are low. This proposal is an important step in the right direction but is not enough. Eliminate the mandates completely and let the ethanol industry stand on its own feet.

Read the full article here.

Dead People Receive Ballots in NH Primary

This would be hilarious if it weren't so scary. Don't the people of NH know that they are helping to subvert the nation's freedom?

This was done by the same reporters that helped uncover the ACORN scandal.

On January 10th, Project Veritas reporters walked into New Hampshire Polling Locations during the Presidential Primaries, saying dead people's names. We stated the name of a dead person we got from the NH obituaries. The names of the deceased were both Registered Republican and Democrats

Soros, Piven and SEIU Working to Destroy Americas Financial System to Create Revolution

Obama's mentors in their own words from there own lips! There is NO denying what it is they want!! These people are ALL THROUGHOUT this administration!

The Bad News on Unemployment

We all know that the Obama administration is doing everything that it can, short of creating actual jobs, to show to the American people that the unemployment figures are going down and that the economy is rebounding. This article shows the hypocrisy and the policies that are being used to disguise the real truth, unemployment is on the rise. Job growth is stagnate and the workforce is growing.

Here is the trend in Employment.

It looks pretty good, finally. But here is the trend in Labor Force -- i.e., the total of people with jobs and those looking for jobs. Not good at all. Compared to the so-called "jobless recovery" of the Bush years, it's pathetic.

We know why the labor force isn't expanding, and it isn't because the baby boom is retiring. It's programs like 99-month unemployment benefits and relaxed eligibility for disability.

Everyone wants to be compassionate to people who have lost their jobs, but, as we know, government doesn't do compassion. Government is force. The reason why the politicians passed the 99-month limit on unemployment is because, to them, it's a cheap way of forcing the unemployment rate down. Give people money to keep them from looking for a job, and they won't get counted in the Labor Force.

Unfortunately, the experts tell us, long-term unemployment is harmful to workers, because people start losing job skills the moment they stop working.

As promised, the president is working to make the U.S. more like Europe.

Things are pretty good in America for the college-educated upper-middle class. Upper-middle-class children get to live in two-parent families. And why not? The educated upper-middle class is the ruling class, and the whole point of a ruling class is to make things comfy for the ruling class.

But for "other" Americans, things are not so good. "Everybody knows" that these "other" Americans are uneducated bitter clingers who really aren't educated enough to run their own lives. But there is a danger that, in the aftermath of yet another Great Crash cock-up by the ruling class, they might get fed up with their educated and enlightened rulers.

Some people define our present form of government as an "ineptocracy." But they are wrong. Our modern rulers are extremely adept when it comes to looking after themselves and their immediate supporters. They are "inept" only when it comes to looking after the rest of us -- little things like our education, our welfare, our health care, our money, our retirement savings. And what ruling class ever got its knickers in a twist about that?

A government that manipulates unemployment insurance and disability policy to get through the next election is going to do the same thing with education, health care -- even national defense.

Read full American Thinker article here.

Monday, January 9, 2012

Bye Bye Congress - Political Cartoon

America needs a man of action - Thomas Sowell

With the SC primaries getting close, I do not know who I will vote for. In my mind, Romney is, as Thomas Sowell says, BLAND. He also is, in my opinion a RINO attempting to con us into thinking he is a true conservative. Ron Paul is Ron Paul, the perennial one issue candidate, woefully lacking in any understanding of global risks. That leaves Huntsman, Perry, Santorum and Gingrich with the conservative label. Neither Huntsman nor Perry has shown any vote getting acumen on a national scale. That leaves Santorum and Gingrich. Thomas Sowell makes a good case for Gingrich.

If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.

What the media call Gingrich's "baggage" concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.

But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?

While the televised debates are what gave Newt Gingrich's candidacy a big boost, concrete accomplishments when in office are the real test. Gingrich engineered the first Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in 40 years — followed by the first balanced budget in 40 years. The media called it "the Clinton surplus" but all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, and Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

Speaker Gingrich also produced some long overdue welfare reforms, despite howls from liberals that the poor would be devastated. But nobody makes that claim any more.

Romney is a smooth talker, but what did he actually accomplish as governor of Massachusetts, compared to what Gingrich accomplished as Speaker of the House? When you don't accomplish much, you don't ruffle many feathers. But is that what we want?

Can you name one important positive thing that Romney accomplished as governor of Massachusetts? Can anyone? Does a candidate who represents the bland leading the bland increase the chances of victory in November 2012? A lot of candidates like that have lost, from Thomas E. Dewey to John McCain.

Those who want to concentrate on the baggage in Newt Gingrich's past, rather than on the nation's future, should remember what Winston Churchill said: "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." If that means a second term for Barack Obama, then it means lost big time.

Read full article here.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Perry Names Arpaio His Arizona Campaign Chairman

Just gotta love this choice.

Gov. Rick Perry has named embattled Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio his Arizona campaign chairman, despite a recent Obama administration report condemning alleged discriminatory practices in Arpaio's office.

In another bold move just days after a disappointing fifth-place finish in the Iowa caucuses, Perry announced his struggling campaign has submitted the requirements to be listed on the Arizona, Illinois, Ohio, Vermont and Washington, D.C., ballots. (Perry has filed suit to be added to the Virginia ballot, where he and other candidates were disqualified for not collecting enough signatures.)

"As my campaign for president moves forward, our superior organization and resources allow me to compete nationwide," Perry said in a statement.

Arpaio, the tough-on-immigration sheriff who gave his long-sought endorsement to Perry last month, has come under scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department over allegations of racial profiling in his county's efforts to enforce immigration laws. Arpaio has called the move a politically motivated "sneak attack."

"The Justice Department went after me and took away my authority," he said in late December while on the campaign trail with Perry in Iowa. "However, we still have state laws, and I know the governor agrees with state laws, so we need him in Washington, please."

Read original article here.

Steve Bridges as President Obama - August 2011

The Gun Is Civilization

"The Gun Is Civilization"
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

I think she's ticked

Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming, Co-Chair of Obama's deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.
Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!

"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight..

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole for FIFTY YEARS.

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

3 My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero ambition losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would have made Bernie Madoff proud..

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and your ilk pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age 67. NOW, you and your shill commission is proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now you morons propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because you idiots mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal money from Medicare to pay the bills.

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you incompetent bastards spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.
To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit" on your incompetence. Well, Captain Bullshit, I have a few questions for YOU.

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or, as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

It is you, Captain Bullshit, and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcases who have bankrupted
America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes. That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

And you can take that to the bank, you
miserable son of a bitch.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Obama's Recess Appointments: An Impeachable Offense?

The first impeachment salvo?

Constitution: President Obama's nonrecess "recess appointments" can't be excused as over-the-top electioneering. This president has crossed over from socialistic extremism into lawlessness and, perhaps, impeachability.

The U.S. Constitution established a strong presidency — so strong that even one of the most esteemed founding fathers, Patrick Henry, worried it would be kinglike. But this week saw a president exceed even those broad constitutional powers because doing so fits his election-year narrative of a "do-nothing Congress" so well.

Now we have the makings of a banana republic, where the rule of clearly written constitutional law is compromised by a ruler's subjective whim.

The Constitution is crystal clear on the recess appointment authority of the president.

"The president shall have power," Article II, section 2 states, "to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

The Senate has not been in recess. And Congress' authority over when it is and isn't in recess is no small matter of parliamentary procedure. Rather, it is a power the Framers explicitly bestowed in Article I, Section 5:

"Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days."

Yet Obama on Wednesday, with no recess in effect and against the publicly stated position of his own Justice Department, made four "recess appointments."

Obama claims he has "an obligation as president to do what I can without them," referring to Congress.

But the Constitution, which Obama took an oath to preserve, protect and defend, says he can't.

The "I" word — I for impeachment — might not yet be on Washingtonian lips, but it might be soon.

Read full Investors Business Daily article here.