Posts
Open Thread
2 hours ago
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Gasoline Taxes by State
In addition to the state taxes, their is an 18.4 cents per gallon Federal tax and 24.4 cents on a gallon of diesel. Estimates of the profit that Exxon receives on a gallon ranges from 2 to 7 cents a gallon. Who is doing the gouging?
Mega Millions Update: Kan., Ill., Md. tickets share Mega Millions lottery jackpot
Hope you had better luck than we did.
Excerpt: Lottery ticket-holders in Kansas, Illinois and Maryland each selected the winning numbers and will split a $640 million jackpot that was believed to be the world's largest such prize, a lottery official said Saturday.
Mike Lang, spokesman for the Illinois Lottery, said his state's winning ticket was sold in the small town of Red Bud, near St. Louis. The winner used a quick pick to select the numbers, he said.
The Maryland Lottery announced earlier Saturday that it had sold a winning ticket at a retail store in Baltimore County.
A winning ticket also was purchased in northeast Kansas, according to the Kansas Lottery website. A spokeswoman didn't immediately return a message Saturday morning.
Read USA Today article here.
Excerpt: Lottery ticket-holders in Kansas, Illinois and Maryland each selected the winning numbers and will split a $640 million jackpot that was believed to be the world's largest such prize, a lottery official said Saturday.
Mike Lang, spokesman for the Illinois Lottery, said his state's winning ticket was sold in the small town of Red Bud, near St. Louis. The winner used a quick pick to select the numbers, he said.
The Maryland Lottery announced earlier Saturday that it had sold a winning ticket at a retail store in Baltimore County.
A winning ticket also was purchased in northeast Kansas, according to the Kansas Lottery website. A spokeswoman didn't immediately return a message Saturday morning.
Read USA Today article here.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Mega Millions Numbers - $640 Million - Largest Jackpot Ever
Bought every combination. Cost me $176 million and heavy writer's cramp. Great return on investment. Yeah, don't I wish.
Excerpt: Across the country, Americans plunked down an estimated $1.5 billion on the longest of long shots: an infinitesimally small chance to win what could end up being the single biggest lottery payout the world has ever seen.
The numbers drawn Friday night in Atlanta were 2-4-23-38-46, Mega Ball 23. Lottery officials expected to release details about possible winners a couple of hours after the 11 p.m. Eastern drawing.
Forget about how the $640 million Mega Millions jackpot could change the life of the winner. It's a collective wager that could fund a presidential campaign several times over, make a dent in struggling state budgets or take away the gas worries and grocery bills for thousands of middle-class citizens.
Read AP article here.
Excerpt: Across the country, Americans plunked down an estimated $1.5 billion on the longest of long shots: an infinitesimally small chance to win what could end up being the single biggest lottery payout the world has ever seen.
The numbers drawn Friday night in Atlanta were 2-4-23-38-46, Mega Ball 23. Lottery officials expected to release details about possible winners a couple of hours after the 11 p.m. Eastern drawing.
Forget about how the $640 million Mega Millions jackpot could change the life of the winner. It's a collective wager that could fund a presidential campaign several times over, make a dent in struggling state budgets or take away the gas worries and grocery bills for thousands of middle-class citizens.
Read AP article here.
Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest
Every time President Obama opens his mouth any more, he is trying to mislead, create racial and class warfare and distort the facts. How can anyone have faith in his so-called leadership?
Excerpt: Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.
It's not due to the election, and it's not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn't happening.
What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.
The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!"
There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing.
Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon."
Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?
Read full WSJ article here.
Excerpt: Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.
It's not due to the election, and it's not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn't happening.
What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.
The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!"
There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing.
Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon."
Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?
Read full WSJ article here.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
House rejects Bowles-Simpson, Obama budgets
As with president Obama's prior attempt at budgeting, his 2013 budget received "0" votes, not even 1 vote from his own Democrat party. This shows the hypocrisy of the President in that he does not take the budgeting process seriously. This is most likely intentional in that he can rely on demagoguery by blasting Republicans when they object to new taxes and increased spending each time continuing resolution bills are voted on. Those bad old Republicans want to shut down the government again. Democrat Harry Reid has not allowed a vote on any budget bill since Obama's 2012 budget went down to defeat 97-0, again receiving no Democrat votes.
The reason for the lack of Republican support for the Bowles-Simpson plan was the inclusion of increased taxes with no action to tackle entitlements, something Obama and many Democrats oppose, but something that Ryan and the Republicans believe has to be addressed in order for out economy to survive.
Excerpt: The Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan went down to a crushing defeat in the House late Wednesday night in a vote that damages the one bipartisan proposal that just a few months ago had seemed like a possible solution to the country’s debt woes.
The 382-38 defeat, with just 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting for it, marks a bad end to what began nearly two years ago, when President Obama tapped former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, to lead a deficit-reduction committee.
“This doesn’t go big. This doesn’t tackle the problem. This doesn’t do the big things,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. “You can never get the debt under control if you don’t deal with our health care entitlement programs.”
The debate came as the House worked its way through its fiscal year 2013 budget plan, which Mr. Ryan wrote.
The Bowles-Simpson plan was offered as an alternative on the chamber floor.
Minutes earlier, the House also defeated Mr. Obama’s own budget, submitted last month, on a 414-0 vote arranged by Republicans to embarrass the president and officially shelve his plan.
“It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama’s proposal for purposes of the debate. “I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it.”
Read full Washington Times article here.
The reason for the lack of Republican support for the Bowles-Simpson plan was the inclusion of increased taxes with no action to tackle entitlements, something Obama and many Democrats oppose, but something that Ryan and the Republicans believe has to be addressed in order for out economy to survive.
Excerpt: The Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan went down to a crushing defeat in the House late Wednesday night in a vote that damages the one bipartisan proposal that just a few months ago had seemed like a possible solution to the country’s debt woes.
The 382-38 defeat, with just 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting for it, marks a bad end to what began nearly two years ago, when President Obama tapped former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, to lead a deficit-reduction committee.
“This doesn’t go big. This doesn’t tackle the problem. This doesn’t do the big things,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. “You can never get the debt under control if you don’t deal with our health care entitlement programs.”
The debate came as the House worked its way through its fiscal year 2013 budget plan, which Mr. Ryan wrote.
The Bowles-Simpson plan was offered as an alternative on the chamber floor.
Minutes earlier, the House also defeated Mr. Obama’s own budget, submitted last month, on a 414-0 vote arranged by Republicans to embarrass the president and officially shelve his plan.
“It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama’s proposal for purposes of the debate. “I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it.”
Read full Washington Times article here.
Obama goads Congress to end tax breaks for large oil companies
This is just a tax increase on the oil companies that will be passed along to the consumer. The smaller exploration companies will be hit the hardest and possibly be put out of business. Tax breaks to Obama's cronies in the wind, solar and renewables far outweigh those of the oil industry. And yes, the high profits are a result of humongous investments made by ordinary people, pension funds, IRA's, 401ks etc. Do you think those people fall for this crock that Obama is shoveling? Yes, his uneducated base will believe it. They would believe all his lies.
Excerpt: President Barack Obama on Thursday pressed Congress to repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies that are pulling down record profits, arguing that Americans hit with soaring gas prices should not also have to prop up firms that can easily "stand on their own."
The president's remarks came as the Senate, in a procedural vote, beat back a measure that would have rolled back the tax breaks. The bill fell shy of the 60 votes needed to advance, getting a 51-47 margin that saw Democrats join Republicans in opposition.
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell mocked what he derisively referred to as the Democratic majority's "brilliant plan on how to deal with gas prices: raise taxes on energy companies, when gas is already hovering around $4 a gallon. Then block consideration of anything else—just to make sure gas prices don't go anywhere but up."
"Somehow they thought that doing this would set up some kind of a political win for them, which I never really understood," he added. "I mean, I can't imagine anybody giving them any high-fives for not lowering the price of gas. But anyway, that was the plan."
High gas prices pose a potentially serious election-year threat to Obama, threatening the fragile economic recovery and hitting Americans in the wallet. Experts blame the pain at the pump on soaring demand in fast-growing economies like China, India and Brazil, as well as instability and uncertainty in the Middle East. But public opinion polls show Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the issue.
The proposed repeal "would increase tax collections from the oil and natural gas industries and may have the effect of decreasing exploration, development and production, while increasing prices and increasing the nation's foreign oil dependence. These same proposals, from an alternate point of view, might be considered to be the elimination of tax preferences that have favored the oil and natural gas industries over other energy sources and made oil and gas products artificially inexpensive, with consumer costs held below the true cost of consumption, when the external costs associated with environmental costs and energy dependence, among other effects, are included," the CRS said.
Read YAHOO News article here.
Excerpt: President Barack Obama on Thursday pressed Congress to repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies that are pulling down record profits, arguing that Americans hit with soaring gas prices should not also have to prop up firms that can easily "stand on their own."
The president's remarks came as the Senate, in a procedural vote, beat back a measure that would have rolled back the tax breaks. The bill fell shy of the 60 votes needed to advance, getting a 51-47 margin that saw Democrats join Republicans in opposition.
Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell mocked what he derisively referred to as the Democratic majority's "brilliant plan on how to deal with gas prices: raise taxes on energy companies, when gas is already hovering around $4 a gallon. Then block consideration of anything else—just to make sure gas prices don't go anywhere but up."
"Somehow they thought that doing this would set up some kind of a political win for them, which I never really understood," he added. "I mean, I can't imagine anybody giving them any high-fives for not lowering the price of gas. But anyway, that was the plan."
High gas prices pose a potentially serious election-year threat to Obama, threatening the fragile economic recovery and hitting Americans in the wallet. Experts blame the pain at the pump on soaring demand in fast-growing economies like China, India and Brazil, as well as instability and uncertainty in the Middle East. But public opinion polls show Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the issue.
The proposed repeal "would increase tax collections from the oil and natural gas industries and may have the effect of decreasing exploration, development and production, while increasing prices and increasing the nation's foreign oil dependence. These same proposals, from an alternate point of view, might be considered to be the elimination of tax preferences that have favored the oil and natural gas industries over other energy sources and made oil and gas products artificially inexpensive, with consumer costs held below the true cost of consumption, when the external costs associated with environmental costs and energy dependence, among other effects, are included," the CRS said.
Read YAHOO News article here.
Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law
You have to give credence to a news source like the LA Times ceding to the Conservative dream of the demise of a liberal policy triumph. Don't know that I believe it yet, but the signs are good.
Excerpt: The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
Read full LA Times article here.
Excerpt: The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
Read full LA Times article here.
Atheist Holy Day
Rev. Jack Preston
Basin-Hyattville United Methodist Churches
I know God is giggling!
A FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY
In Florida, an atheist created a case against Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood and objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays..."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counselor, is woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fool’s Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day.
Court is adjourned..."
Basin-Hyattville United Methodist Churches
I know God is giggling!
A FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY
In Florida, an atheist created a case against Easter and Passover Holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"
The lawyer immediately stood and objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays..."
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counselor, is woefully ignorant."
The lawyer said, "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."
The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fool’s Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day.
Court is adjourned..."
You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Government proposes first carbon limits on power plants
World Electricity Generation by Fuel
It appears that the EPA believes that the technology will be available in 10 years that will allow new coal plants to be built. This must make the people of WV very happy.
Excerpt: The Environmental Protection Agency's proposal would effectively stop the building of most new coal-fired plants in an industry that is moving rapidly to more natural gas. But the rules will not regulate existing power plants, the source of one third of U.S. emissions, and will not apply to any plants that start construction over the next 12 months.
The watering down of the proposal led some ardent environmentalists to criticize its loopholes, but a power company that has taken steps to cut emissions praised the rules.
While the proposal does not dictate which fuels a plant can burn, it requires any new coal plants to use costly technology to capture and store the emissions underground. Any new coal-fired plants would have to halve carbon dioxide emissions to match those of gas plants.
"We're putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can't leave to our kids and grandkids," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters in a teleconference.
Jackson could not say whether the standards, which will go through a public comment period, would be finalized before the November 6 election. If they are not, they could be more easily overturned if Obama lost.
Republicans say a slew of EPA clean air measures will drive up power costs but have had little success in trying to stop them in Congress. Industries have turned to the courts to slow down the EPA's program.
Some Democrats from energy-intensive states also complained. "The overreaching that EPA continues to do is going to create a tremendous burden and hardship on the families and people of America," said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia.
REGULATORY CERTAINTY
The EPA's overall clean-air efforts have divided the power industry between companies that have moved toward cleaner energy, such as Exelon and NextEra, and those that generate most of their power from coal, such as Southern Co and American Electric Power.
Ralph Izzo, the chairman and CEO of PSEG, a utility that has invested in cleaner burning energy, said the rules provide a logical framework to confront the emissions. The rules provide the industry with "much needed regulatory certainty," that is needed to help guide future multi-billion dollar investments in the U.S. power grid, he added.
Under the new standards, coal plants could add equipment to capture and bury underground for permanent storage their carbon emissions. The rules give utilities time to get those systems running, by requiring they average the emissions cuts over 30 years. Still, the coal-burning industry says that carbon capture and storage, known as CCS, is not yet commercially available.
Jackson said the EPA believes the technology will be ready soon. "Every model that we've seen shows that technology as it develops will become commercially available certainly within the next 10 years".
The National Mining Association said the rules can only hurt industry. "This proposal is the latest convoy in EPA's regulatory train wreck that is rolling across America, crushing jobs and arresting our economic recovery at every stop
The portion of U.S. electricity fired by coal has slipped from about 50 percent to 45 percent in the last few years as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and other drilling techniques have allowed access to vast new U.S. natural gas supplies.
Read full Reuters report here.
Eating lots of chocolate helps people stay thin
Being a confirmed chocoholic, I just had to post this. Study after study appear to support these findings.
Excerpt: The study found that people who frequently ate chocolate had a lower body mass index (BMI) than people who didn't.
Is it time to ditch fat-free for fudge?
For the study, published in the March 26 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers examined more than 1,000 healthy men and women who were free of heart disease, diabetes and cholesterol problems. They were all enrolled in another study that measured the effects of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, but for this study researchers assigned them questionnaires that gauged how often participants chowed down on chocolate.
The researchers found that the participants - who were an average age of 57 - ate chocolate for an average of twice of week and exercised roughly 3.5 times per week. But the more frequent chocolate-eaters had smaller BMIs, a ratio of height and weight that's used to measure obesity.
What explains the effect? Even though chocolate can be loaded with calories, it's full of antioxidants and other ingredients that may promote weight loss, the researchers said.
"I was pretty happy with this news myself," study author Dr. Beatrice Golomb, associate professor of medicine at the University of California-San Diego, told USA Today. "Findings show the composition of calories, not just the number of them, matters for determining ultimate weight."
Does that mean all diet regimens should include a daily chocolate bar? The researchers say it's too soon to tell.
"Our findings - that more frequent chocolate intake is linked to lower BMI - are intriguing," the authors wrote. However, "It is not a siren call to go out and eat 20 pounds of chocolate a day," Golomb told HealthDay.
This isn't the first study to suggest a daily dose of chocolate can do the body good. Last summer, a study of more than 100,000 people found those who ate the most chocolate were 39 percent less likely to get heart disease and 29 percent less likely to have a stroke, HealthPop reported. Months later a 10-year study of 33,000 women found a 30 percent reduced risk of stroke among chocaholics.
Read full Health Pop article here.
Excerpt: The study found that people who frequently ate chocolate had a lower body mass index (BMI) than people who didn't.
Is it time to ditch fat-free for fudge?
For the study, published in the March 26 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers examined more than 1,000 healthy men and women who were free of heart disease, diabetes and cholesterol problems. They were all enrolled in another study that measured the effects of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, but for this study researchers assigned them questionnaires that gauged how often participants chowed down on chocolate.
The researchers found that the participants - who were an average age of 57 - ate chocolate for an average of twice of week and exercised roughly 3.5 times per week. But the more frequent chocolate-eaters had smaller BMIs, a ratio of height and weight that's used to measure obesity.
What explains the effect? Even though chocolate can be loaded with calories, it's full of antioxidants and other ingredients that may promote weight loss, the researchers said.
"I was pretty happy with this news myself," study author Dr. Beatrice Golomb, associate professor of medicine at the University of California-San Diego, told USA Today. "Findings show the composition of calories, not just the number of them, matters for determining ultimate weight."
Does that mean all diet regimens should include a daily chocolate bar? The researchers say it's too soon to tell.
"Our findings - that more frequent chocolate intake is linked to lower BMI - are intriguing," the authors wrote. However, "It is not a siren call to go out and eat 20 pounds of chocolate a day," Golomb told HealthDay.
This isn't the first study to suggest a daily dose of chocolate can do the body good. Last summer, a study of more than 100,000 people found those who ate the most chocolate were 39 percent less likely to get heart disease and 29 percent less likely to have a stroke, HealthPop reported. Months later a 10-year study of 33,000 women found a 30 percent reduced risk of stroke among chocaholics.
Read full Health Pop article here.
Monday, March 26, 2012
President Obama - 'After My Election I Have More Flexibility'
After this, how can we believe anything he says? Come to think of it, he also said his father fought in WWII. Both his father and step father were in their early teens at the time. Anyway, you have to be very naive to believe anything this President says, except maybe something he says when he thinks the mike is off. Oops, my mistake, he also said energy prices must necessarily increase for his policies to work. Honesty reigns, and gasoline prices are now over $3.90 a gallon.
Excerpt: SEOUL, South Korea - At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him "space."
The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders.
The exchange:
President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
Read full ABC News article here.
View video here.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Lawmaker warns of 'disagreeing with the government'
Those that voted for the law and Obama, who signed it, are guilty of ignoring their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution. We should be extremely concerned for our freedom and they should all be removed from office.
Excerpt: “It’s kind of a dangerous time for people in America who might wind up disagreeing with the government,” Missouri Rep. Paul Curtman said during a conference telephone call regarding organized opposition for the National Defense Authorization Act.
After serving in the Marines for 10 years, he said, he realizes that under the federal government’s definition of “potential terrorist,” he qualified by virtue of his status as a combat veteran and his conservative political views.
But it’s not just conservatives who are raising concerns about the legislation that includes provisions appearing to authorize the no-warrant detention of American citizens under certain conditions.
The law was signed by Barack Obama Dec. 31, 2011, and among its sections is 1021, “which purports to authorize the president of the United States to use the armed forces of the United States to detain American citizens who the president suspects are or have been substantial supports of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces, and to hold such citizens indefinitely,” according to an analysis of the federal law.
The Tenth Amendment Center said lawmakers in 11 states now are working on some form of limits on the federal government at this point. Ten local governments already have adopted resolutions.
Rhode Island Liberty Coalition director Blake Filippi represented the Tenth Amendment Center on the call. He spelled out the urgency involved.
“In the spirit of the heroic abolitionists in states like Wisconsin, Maine, and many others – today, we call upon states across the nation to pass the Liberty Preservation Act – to reject the so-called ‘indefinite detention’ powers of the NDAA,” he said.
“We hope to expand this effort … and blanket the entire country with a defense of liberty until ‘indefinite detention’ is thrown to the dustbin of history,” he said.
Read full article here.
Read "Election 2012: Why should we care?" here.
Excerpt: “It’s kind of a dangerous time for people in America who might wind up disagreeing with the government,” Missouri Rep. Paul Curtman said during a conference telephone call regarding organized opposition for the National Defense Authorization Act.
After serving in the Marines for 10 years, he said, he realizes that under the federal government’s definition of “potential terrorist,” he qualified by virtue of his status as a combat veteran and his conservative political views.
But it’s not just conservatives who are raising concerns about the legislation that includes provisions appearing to authorize the no-warrant detention of American citizens under certain conditions.
The law was signed by Barack Obama Dec. 31, 2011, and among its sections is 1021, “which purports to authorize the president of the United States to use the armed forces of the United States to detain American citizens who the president suspects are or have been substantial supports of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces, and to hold such citizens indefinitely,” according to an analysis of the federal law.
The Tenth Amendment Center said lawmakers in 11 states now are working on some form of limits on the federal government at this point. Ten local governments already have adopted resolutions.
Rhode Island Liberty Coalition director Blake Filippi represented the Tenth Amendment Center on the call. He spelled out the urgency involved.
“In the spirit of the heroic abolitionists in states like Wisconsin, Maine, and many others – today, we call upon states across the nation to pass the Liberty Preservation Act – to reject the so-called ‘indefinite detention’ powers of the NDAA,” he said.
“We hope to expand this effort … and blanket the entire country with a defense of liberty until ‘indefinite detention’ is thrown to the dustbin of history,” he said.
Read full article here.
Read "Election 2012: Why should we care?" here.
Obama? INS DOC FOUND: U.S. CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE EAST AFRICAN-BORN CHILD OF U.S. CITIZEN IN 1961!
For what it's worth.
Excerpt: NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.
The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.
This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa
Read full article here.
Excerpt: NEW YORK, NY – A recently discovered rare immigration record found by researchers working on behalf of an ongoing investigation into the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of the U.S. presidency reveals that an American consular officer issued a single Certificate of Citizenship to only one passenger arriving in the U.S. from the Kenyan region of Africa between July and December of 1961.
The record shows demographic and status classifications for a passenger who was explicitly recorded at the INS Arrival Inspection Station as an individual being born to a U.S. citizen parent arriving from the Kenyan region of Africa between July 1st and December 31st, 1961.
This information and the dates of its documentation are disturbing given the rare nature of the issuance of certificates of citizenship for children who acquire their citizenship by birth to incoming U.S. citizens in this particular region of Africa
Read full article here.
Obama Assumes Dictatorial Powers by Dick Morris
Why should we trust Obama. He has already said that if Congress will not act, he will. That sounds like a dictators rhetoric to me. We have a reason to be concerned with Obama and the MSM that refuses to report on these atrocities buried in otherwise reasonable bills.
Excerpt: With two presidential signatures — one on New Year’s Day and the other issued last week — President Barack Obama has assumed the right to assert dictatorial powers over almost all aspects of the U.S. economy and to hold American citizens indefinitely without trial!
(This is not some “Space Aliens Invade” story. It is really happening).
On New Year’s Day, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act to fund the Pentagon. But smuggled into its language is an explicit authority “allowing him to indefinitely detain (U.S.) citizens,” according to Jonathan Turley writing in the U.K. Guardian newspaper.
While the story was buried in the American media, Turley notes that it is “one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties” in American history.
At first, Obama “insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops.” But Turley reports, “that spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., disclosed that it was the White House that insisted that there be no exception for (U.S.) citizens in the indefinite detention provision.” Turley is critical of “reporters (who) continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review.”
Perhaps even more terrifying is the executive order President Obama signed on Friday, March 16, giving him vast powers to control every aspect of the U.S. economy in the event of war or even during a peacetime “emergency.” Edwin Black, writing for the liberal-oriented Huffington Post, says that the order “may have quietly placed the United States on a war preparedness footing” possibly in anticipation of “an outbreak of war between Israel, the West, and Iran.”
The Order entitled “National Defense Resources Preparedness” gives the president the power “to take control of all civil energy supplies, including oil and natural gas, and control and restrict all civil transportation,” according to Black. It also even allows a draft “in order to achieve both the military and non-military demands of the country.”
Obama’s order would be effective both during times of war and times of other emergencies. It says the purpose of the order is to assure that “the United States (has) an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.”
The far-reaching order authorizes the president “in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements.”
Read full article here.
Excerpt: With two presidential signatures — one on New Year’s Day and the other issued last week — President Barack Obama has assumed the right to assert dictatorial powers over almost all aspects of the U.S. economy and to hold American citizens indefinitely without trial!
(This is not some “Space Aliens Invade” story. It is really happening).
On New Year’s Day, Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act to fund the Pentagon. But smuggled into its language is an explicit authority “allowing him to indefinitely detain (U.S.) citizens,” according to Jonathan Turley writing in the U.K. Guardian newspaper.
While the story was buried in the American media, Turley notes that it is “one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties” in American history.
At first, Obama “insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops.” But Turley reports, “that spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., disclosed that it was the White House that insisted that there be no exception for (U.S.) citizens in the indefinite detention provision.” Turley is critical of “reporters (who) continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review.”
Perhaps even more terrifying is the executive order President Obama signed on Friday, March 16, giving him vast powers to control every aspect of the U.S. economy in the event of war or even during a peacetime “emergency.” Edwin Black, writing for the liberal-oriented Huffington Post, says that the order “may have quietly placed the United States on a war preparedness footing” possibly in anticipation of “an outbreak of war between Israel, the West, and Iran.”
The Order entitled “National Defense Resources Preparedness” gives the president the power “to take control of all civil energy supplies, including oil and natural gas, and control and restrict all civil transportation,” according to Black. It also even allows a draft “in order to achieve both the military and non-military demands of the country.”
Obama’s order would be effective both during times of war and times of other emergencies. It says the purpose of the order is to assure that “the United States (has) an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.”
The far-reaching order authorizes the president “in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements.”
Read full article here.
Friday, March 23, 2012
‘Democrats, Socialists and Communists…We are all together’: Frances Piven
A change we can believe in - oust Obama.
Excerpt: According to Frances Fox Piven:
The Occupy Movement is made up of “All parts of the Left.”
That includes proudly: “Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists.”
Must all work together because of the “Huge task of transforming America and the world.”
“We are all together”
At last weekend’s Left Forum 2012, the annual pep-rally for liberal thought, renown leftist professor and activist Frances Fox Piven shown some light onto the makeup of the current America Left. In this minute of audio, Piven tells the packed auditorium which worldview philosophies embody their movement:
“There is room for all of us. Religious leftists, people who think peace is the answer, those who think that wholesome food is what we really need, ecologists and old-fashioned Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Socialists and Communists.”
Piven goes on to discuss the major undertaking that the leftist movement is working on and why these ideologies must unite:
“We can work together because we have a really huge task before us, transforming America and the World.”
See The Blaze article here.
Excerpt: According to Frances Fox Piven:
The Occupy Movement is made up of “All parts of the Left.”
That includes proudly: “Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists.”
Must all work together because of the “Huge task of transforming America and the world.”
“We are all together”
At last weekend’s Left Forum 2012, the annual pep-rally for liberal thought, renown leftist professor and activist Frances Fox Piven shown some light onto the makeup of the current America Left. In this minute of audio, Piven tells the packed auditorium which worldview philosophies embody their movement:
“There is room for all of us. Religious leftists, people who think peace is the answer, those who think that wholesome food is what we really need, ecologists and old-fashioned Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Socialists and Communists.”
Piven goes on to discuss the major undertaking that the leftist movement is working on and why these ideologies must unite:
“We can work together because we have a really huge task before us, transforming America and the World.”
See The Blaze article here.
The 10 Cases You Must Know To Understand The Obamacare Case
The more I read about the precedents that will be used to decide this case, the more I am convinced that Obamacare will be deemed Constitutional. I hope I am wrong. After reading about each of the cases that will be used as precedent, we can only hope that the five-member conservative majority will make their own determination of Constitutionality rather than relying on "stare decisis". Liberals do it all the time.
Excerpt: The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a nearly unprecedented three days of arguments beginning Monday on Dept. of Health and Human Services vs. Florida, better known as the Obamacare case. Conservatives hope the five-member conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, will strike down the healthcare act as unconstitutional, while supporters of the law hope swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy and possibly Roberts himself will join the liberals in upholding it.
Key to understanding the arguments for and against the law are a string of cases going back to the early years of this country, when memories of how the Constitution was written were still clear and the precise roles of Congress, the President and the judiciary were quite murky. The fundamental question is whether the Commerce Clause in Article I of the Constitution, which restricts Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” restricts Congress from passing a law requiring all citizens to buy health insurance.
Conservative justices, in particular, feel bound by the principal of stare decisis to honor the decisions of the judges who came before them. But when it comes to Obamacare those past decisions — particularly the ones upholding economic regulations from the New Deal era — will make it hard to invalidate a law that was fully deliberated by Congress and passed to regulate an interstate industry that accounts for 18% of the gross domestic product.
Sutton offered some hope to conservatives, saying it wasn’t the job of an appeals court to make the final statement on the limits of Congressional power. That job, he said, lies with the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court can decide that the legend of Wickard has outstripped the facts of Wickard—that a farmer’s production only of more than 200 bushels of wheat a year substantially affected interstate commerce. A court of appeals cannot. The Supreme Court can decide that Raich was a case only about the fungibility of marijuana, not a decision that makes broader and more extravagant assertions of legislative power more impervious to challenge. A court of appeals cannot.
And Obamacare foes can only hope a majority of Justices will take up Sutton’s invitation to revisit old decisions.
Read full Forbes with full discussion of the ten cases here.
Excerpt: The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a nearly unprecedented three days of arguments beginning Monday on Dept. of Health and Human Services vs. Florida, better known as the Obamacare case. Conservatives hope the five-member conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, will strike down the healthcare act as unconstitutional, while supporters of the law hope swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy and possibly Roberts himself will join the liberals in upholding it.
Key to understanding the arguments for and against the law are a string of cases going back to the early years of this country, when memories of how the Constitution was written were still clear and the precise roles of Congress, the President and the judiciary were quite murky. The fundamental question is whether the Commerce Clause in Article I of the Constitution, which restricts Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” restricts Congress from passing a law requiring all citizens to buy health insurance.
Conservative justices, in particular, feel bound by the principal of stare decisis to honor the decisions of the judges who came before them. But when it comes to Obamacare those past decisions — particularly the ones upholding economic regulations from the New Deal era — will make it hard to invalidate a law that was fully deliberated by Congress and passed to regulate an interstate industry that accounts for 18% of the gross domestic product.
Sutton offered some hope to conservatives, saying it wasn’t the job of an appeals court to make the final statement on the limits of Congressional power. That job, he said, lies with the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court can decide that the legend of Wickard has outstripped the facts of Wickard—that a farmer’s production only of more than 200 bushels of wheat a year substantially affected interstate commerce. A court of appeals cannot. The Supreme Court can decide that Raich was a case only about the fungibility of marijuana, not a decision that makes broader and more extravagant assertions of legislative power more impervious to challenge. A court of appeals cannot.
And Obamacare foes can only hope a majority of Justices will take up Sutton’s invitation to revisit old decisions.
Read full Forbes with full discussion of the ten cases here.
A Safer Society With Guns
Liberals, socialists and communists all have a vested interest in taking our guns away. There is no way they can totally enslave an armed citizenry. It appears the 2nd amendment, although constantly under attack, is alive and well.
Excerpt: The Colorado Supreme Court put some noses out of joint when it ruled unanimously this month that the University of Colorado's campus gun ban violated a 2003 state law that entitles residents with permits to carry concealed weapons.
One of those noses belonged to Abraham Nowels, a University of Colorado student who wrote to the Denver Post: "We're in the middle of midterms right now, and I can't think of anything I'd rather be focusing on than which of my fellow over-stressed, binge-drinking peers is carrying a concealed weapon into class with me." The Post agreed, pleading in an editorial for "legislators with enough gumption" to change the state's concealed-carry law and "give colleges the power they need to keep students safe."
To those with an emotional bias against guns, it goes without saying that more guns in private hands invariably mean more crime and violence. If the number of people carrying firearms on campus rises, then of course that campus is less safe: What could be more obvious?
But it isn't obvious at all.
While the University of Colorado spent much of the past decade resisting the state's concealed-carry law, Colorado State University complied with it. If the gun controllers are right, Colorado State should have seen a surge in crime, while its gun-banning sister institution should have been an Eden of security and lawfulness. That's not what happened. As Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett write in a new monograph for the Cato Institute, "crime at the University of Colorado has risen 35 percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado State University has dropped 60 percent in the same time frame."
Something similar happened after the US Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision striking down the longstanding gun ban in Washington, DC. The city's mayor predicted in dismay that "more handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," yet crime in the nation's capital plunged. Murder nose-dived to its lowest rate in half a century, falling from 186 in 2008 to 144 in 2009 to 132 in 2010 to 108 in 2011 -- a far greater decline, as economist John Lott points out, than in the rest of the country, or in cities of comparable size.
But with or without headlines, millions of Americans grasp instinctively that guns make us safer. For when honest citizens carry weapons, criminals are less likely to attack -- and those who do are more likely to fail.
Read full article here.
Excerpt: The Colorado Supreme Court put some noses out of joint when it ruled unanimously this month that the University of Colorado's campus gun ban violated a 2003 state law that entitles residents with permits to carry concealed weapons.
One of those noses belonged to Abraham Nowels, a University of Colorado student who wrote to the Denver Post: "We're in the middle of midterms right now, and I can't think of anything I'd rather be focusing on than which of my fellow over-stressed, binge-drinking peers is carrying a concealed weapon into class with me." The Post agreed, pleading in an editorial for "legislators with enough gumption" to change the state's concealed-carry law and "give colleges the power they need to keep students safe."
To those with an emotional bias against guns, it goes without saying that more guns in private hands invariably mean more crime and violence. If the number of people carrying firearms on campus rises, then of course that campus is less safe: What could be more obvious?
But it isn't obvious at all.
While the University of Colorado spent much of the past decade resisting the state's concealed-carry law, Colorado State University complied with it. If the gun controllers are right, Colorado State should have seen a surge in crime, while its gun-banning sister institution should have been an Eden of security and lawfulness. That's not what happened. As Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett write in a new monograph for the Cato Institute, "crime at the University of Colorado has risen 35 percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado State University has dropped 60 percent in the same time frame."
Something similar happened after the US Supreme Court's 2008 Heller decision striking down the longstanding gun ban in Washington, DC. The city's mayor predicted in dismay that "more handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence," yet crime in the nation's capital plunged. Murder nose-dived to its lowest rate in half a century, falling from 186 in 2008 to 144 in 2009 to 132 in 2010 to 108 in 2011 -- a far greater decline, as economist John Lott points out, than in the rest of the country, or in cities of comparable size.
But with or without headlines, millions of Americans grasp instinctively that guns make us safer. For when honest citizens carry weapons, criminals are less likely to attack -- and those who do are more likely to fail.
Read full article here.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Pelosi's Daughter Enrages Left with Welfare Video
Nancy must be very proud of her daughter and maybe furious at the same time. Alexandra has come onto the national stage at a very young age, but, obviously, not in the way Nancy wanted.
Excerpt: Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, who courted conservative controversy with a video short showing the sometimes racist views of toothless Mississippi rednecks, has enraged liberals with a second video: New York welfare recipients.
But Alexandra Pelosi admits it wasn’t easy getting the video on television. “All the people I work with at HBO, all the people I grew up with, said, ‘You can’t put that on TV.’
“Somehow [I was] allowed to do it to the toothless rednecks, but when it was our neighbors, it was wait a second, they got defensive,” she told Bill Maher on his HBO show, “Real Time.”
The people Pelosi interviewed at a welfare office on New York City’s 14th Street, admit they don’t want a job, and support President Barack Obama “because he gives me stuff,” and “because he’s black.”
Pelosi said the film showed the entitlement culture is causing problems for the party her mother leads in the House. “We have to address the fact that this is why Democrats are losing ground. And this is a problem in America. The entitlement culture has gotten so big that we are losing our own people,” she said.
Read full Newsmax post here.
Excerpt: Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, who courted conservative controversy with a video short showing the sometimes racist views of toothless Mississippi rednecks, has enraged liberals with a second video: New York welfare recipients.
But Alexandra Pelosi admits it wasn’t easy getting the video on television. “All the people I work with at HBO, all the people I grew up with, said, ‘You can’t put that on TV.’
“Somehow [I was] allowed to do it to the toothless rednecks, but when it was our neighbors, it was wait a second, they got defensive,” she told Bill Maher on his HBO show, “Real Time.”
The people Pelosi interviewed at a welfare office on New York City’s 14th Street, admit they don’t want a job, and support President Barack Obama “because he gives me stuff,” and “because he’s black.”
Pelosi said the film showed the entitlement culture is causing problems for the party her mother leads in the House. “We have to address the fact that this is why Democrats are losing ground. And this is a problem in America. The entitlement culture has gotten so big that we are losing our own people,” she said.
Read full Newsmax post here.
Analysis: Why U.S. high court may uphold healthcare law
This article shows us just how important the November elections are. If Republicans do not win the Presidency and the Senate, there is a significant possibility that Obamacare will proceed, and destroy the best health care system in the world. We cannot trust a Supreme Court that cares more about its image than what is right Constitutionally. They cannot say that the Congress acted responsibly since no one read the bill and extensive bribery was used to get it passed. Do your job Justices and strike down this unconstitutional Obamanation.
Excerpt: (Reuters) - Conventional political wisdom holds that the U.S. Supreme Court, scheduled to hear a challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare law beginning on Monday, is likely to strike it down on partisan lines. The court's Republican appointees enjoy a 5-4 majority.
But a review of lower court rulings by conservative judges, subtle signals from individual justices, and interviews with professors and judges across the ideological spectrum suggest that presumption is wrong - and that the court will uphold the law.
Roberts "seems sensitive to how he and the court are perceived," said Lawrence Baum, an Ohio State University political science professor who has studied judicial behavior.
Baum said Roberts and his fellow conservatives were likely aware of lingering criticism from the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, ending the recounts in the Florida presidential election dispute, and in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, lifting restrictions on corporate and labor money in elections.
"Given the decisions in which the court favored what are perceived as Republican interests," he said, "I think that at least some of the conservative justices welcome opportunities to appear to be above partisanship."
Read full Reuters article here.
Excerpt: (Reuters) - Conventional political wisdom holds that the U.S. Supreme Court, scheduled to hear a challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare law beginning on Monday, is likely to strike it down on partisan lines. The court's Republican appointees enjoy a 5-4 majority.
But a review of lower court rulings by conservative judges, subtle signals from individual justices, and interviews with professors and judges across the ideological spectrum suggest that presumption is wrong - and that the court will uphold the law.
Roberts "seems sensitive to how he and the court are perceived," said Lawrence Baum, an Ohio State University political science professor who has studied judicial behavior.
Baum said Roberts and his fellow conservatives were likely aware of lingering criticism from the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, ending the recounts in the Florida presidential election dispute, and in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, lifting restrictions on corporate and labor money in elections.
"Given the decisions in which the court favored what are perceived as Republican interests," he said, "I think that at least some of the conservative justices welcome opportunities to appear to be above partisanship."
Read full Reuters article here.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Hollywood Producer: Democrats don't play by the same moral playbook that Republicans do
Evidently this Hollywood producer was asked to do a movie based on voter irregularities and voter fraud and intimidation in the Democrat primaries. What she says in this video is very revealing as to who Obama really is.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Obama Team Praying Voter Fraud Will Re-Elect Their Boss
The article continues with examples of both Democrat's and Republican's successful attempts, by the party establishments, to nullify the citizens' choice. These are the obvious ones. How many actual attempts have been made, both successful and unsuccessful, that have not even been noticed?
Excerpt: The US Justice Department has blocked the implementation of a Texas statute to require voters to present a photo ID at the voting booth. Last December, the same Eric Holder-led department blocked the enforcement of a similar law in South Carolina.
Vetoing state laws governing voting procedures shows a dangerous pattern of abuse by these officials and could dramatically increase fraud and undermine the integrity and legitimacy of elected officials. It leads to a feeling amongst voters that these same officials want fraudulent votes to re-elect their very unpopular boss, Barack Obama.
For a republican form of government to function properly, the citizenry must have confidence in the unbiased and impartiality of the voting mechanism. In a society such as our own which verifies the identity of citizens millions of times per day for such mundane activities as buying groceries with a credit or EBT cards, it hard to understand why officials would object to verifying the identity of voters at the polls.
The only real reason why they might object to identification requirements is to perpetuate the ability of unsavory elements in society to vote multiple times in multiple jurisdictions, allow non-citizens to vote, or to have persons voting for non-existent voters, such as the dead.
Read full article here.
Excerpt: The US Justice Department has blocked the implementation of a Texas statute to require voters to present a photo ID at the voting booth. Last December, the same Eric Holder-led department blocked the enforcement of a similar law in South Carolina.
Vetoing state laws governing voting procedures shows a dangerous pattern of abuse by these officials and could dramatically increase fraud and undermine the integrity and legitimacy of elected officials. It leads to a feeling amongst voters that these same officials want fraudulent votes to re-elect their very unpopular boss, Barack Obama.
For a republican form of government to function properly, the citizenry must have confidence in the unbiased and impartiality of the voting mechanism. In a society such as our own which verifies the identity of citizens millions of times per day for such mundane activities as buying groceries with a credit or EBT cards, it hard to understand why officials would object to verifying the identity of voters at the polls.
The only real reason why they might object to identification requirements is to perpetuate the ability of unsavory elements in society to vote multiple times in multiple jurisdictions, allow non-citizens to vote, or to have persons voting for non-existent voters, such as the dead.
Read full article here.
Can California Be Saved? By Michael Reagan
Thought that this article by Michael Reagan warranted circulation. As a cause, the “Citizen Legislature Act” is an idea whose time has come. Too many legislators become entrenched in their jobs and become unresponsive to the people they represent. Knowing that they have to actually work for a living in the real business world would have a profound effect on the legislation that they propose and enact. Kudos to Michael Reagan for spearheading this effort in California.
Excerpt: In less than 50 years, they ruined my home state.
They over-taxed it, over-regulated it and bankrupted it. They strangled its vibrant economy, destroyed its education system and let its infrastructure crumble.
Who are these people who’ve turned the Golden State into Greece?
Not Big Business. Not the rich. Not the poor. Not millions of immigrants from Des Moines or Juarez.
“They” are the career politicians in Sacramento. Their excessive lawmaking, taxing and spending have transformed California into a European welfare state with a grim future.
It’s hard for me to believe how things have deteriorated in California since the late 1960s. I can remember when Ronald Reagan was governor. We had a surplus. He actually gave money back to the people of California.
The state once was famous for having the best education system, the best business climate, the best roads and infrastructure in America. It was a growing, dynamic paradise where people came to pursue their dreams and hopes.
Now California’s a wreck that people and businesses are leaving in droves. And Gov. Brown and his gang are offering us more of the same this fall — higher income and sales taxes and a bullet train no one wants but them.
To reverse its death spiral, California needs to return to a part-time legislature and turn its career politicians into part-time citizen politicians — which is what they are in 41 other states and what they were in California until 1967.
Today the state’s 120 legislators work year-round and their $95,000 salaries are sweetened by as much as $50,000 in tax-free per diem allowances. They are the highest-paid lawmakers in the country.
Compare California to Texas and Florida. In Texas they pay legislators $600 a month and the legislature meets 140 days a year. In Florida lawmakers get $30,000 a year and meet just 60 days.
The politicians in Texas and Florida do not make politics their careers. They have to have real jobs in the real world. When they’re not in Austin or Tallahassee, they must live and do business under the same laws they have written.
Part-time legislators are what the founding fathers wanted lawmakers to be. My father Ronald Reagan was a citizen politician. Politics was not a career for him. It was a service. He gave of himself.
People have repeatedly asked me to run for the U.S. Senate against Dianne Feinstein. But I think that a new job I have — chairing the “Citizen Legislature Act” — is better for me and the state.
California citizens are in the streets collecting signatures now to put the initiative on the fall ballot. The act would return the state to a part-time legislature. Lawmaking sessions would be cut from 230 days to 90 days. And legislators would be forced to produce on-time, balanced budgets or not get paid. What a concept.
The act also would end politics as a full-time career in California. Legislators would be paid $1,500 a month. At $18,000 a year, they’d have to find real jobs and see what it’s like to live under the dumb and/or bad laws they write by the thousands in Sacramento.
The “Citizen Legislature Act,” which I will work hard to see become law, would shock the systems of the politicians. They’d have to start serving the people of California, not themselves. And I bet they wouldn’t be passing any new bullet train legislation
Read original article here.
Excerpt: In less than 50 years, they ruined my home state.
They over-taxed it, over-regulated it and bankrupted it. They strangled its vibrant economy, destroyed its education system and let its infrastructure crumble.
Who are these people who’ve turned the Golden State into Greece?
Not Big Business. Not the rich. Not the poor. Not millions of immigrants from Des Moines or Juarez.
“They” are the career politicians in Sacramento. Their excessive lawmaking, taxing and spending have transformed California into a European welfare state with a grim future.
It’s hard for me to believe how things have deteriorated in California since the late 1960s. I can remember when Ronald Reagan was governor. We had a surplus. He actually gave money back to the people of California.
The state once was famous for having the best education system, the best business climate, the best roads and infrastructure in America. It was a growing, dynamic paradise where people came to pursue their dreams and hopes.
Now California’s a wreck that people and businesses are leaving in droves. And Gov. Brown and his gang are offering us more of the same this fall — higher income and sales taxes and a bullet train no one wants but them.
To reverse its death spiral, California needs to return to a part-time legislature and turn its career politicians into part-time citizen politicians — which is what they are in 41 other states and what they were in California until 1967.
Today the state’s 120 legislators work year-round and their $95,000 salaries are sweetened by as much as $50,000 in tax-free per diem allowances. They are the highest-paid lawmakers in the country.
Compare California to Texas and Florida. In Texas they pay legislators $600 a month and the legislature meets 140 days a year. In Florida lawmakers get $30,000 a year and meet just 60 days.
The politicians in Texas and Florida do not make politics their careers. They have to have real jobs in the real world. When they’re not in Austin or Tallahassee, they must live and do business under the same laws they have written.
Part-time legislators are what the founding fathers wanted lawmakers to be. My father Ronald Reagan was a citizen politician. Politics was not a career for him. It was a service. He gave of himself.
People have repeatedly asked me to run for the U.S. Senate against Dianne Feinstein. But I think that a new job I have — chairing the “Citizen Legislature Act” — is better for me and the state.
California citizens are in the streets collecting signatures now to put the initiative on the fall ballot. The act would return the state to a part-time legislature. Lawmaking sessions would be cut from 230 days to 90 days. And legislators would be forced to produce on-time, balanced budgets or not get paid. What a concept.
The act also would end politics as a full-time career in California. Legislators would be paid $1,500 a month. At $18,000 a year, they’d have to find real jobs and see what it’s like to live under the dumb and/or bad laws they write by the thousands in Sacramento.
The “Citizen Legislature Act,” which I will work hard to see become law, would shock the systems of the politicians. They’d have to start serving the people of California, not themselves. And I bet they wouldn’t be passing any new bullet train legislation
Read original article here.
What If Oil and Natural Gas Are Renewable Resources?
Estimates of America's oil reserves are constantly being revised upward. Many believe this is due to the increasingly sophisticated technology being used to drill and measure them. Could it be that oil is a renewable energy source the same as corn for ethanol. If so this puts a big hole in Obama's sales pitch for sources controlled by his cronies.
Excerpt: President Barack Obama and his green energy confederates are determined to scare the public about a declining supply of "fossil fuels." If we accept the idea that oil is produced by the conversion of organic matter -- from plants to dinosaurs -- under extreme pressure, we must also accept the idea that there is a limited supply of oil and that we've got to do everything we can to find a replacement for fossil fuels before we run out.
The evidence is mounting that not only do we have more than a century's worth of recoverable oil in the United States alone (even if there is a limit to the earth's oil supply), but that we also actually have a limitless supply of Texas tea because oil is in fact a renewable resource that is being constantly created deep under the earth's surface and which rises upward, where microscopic organisms that thrive in the intense pressure and heat miles below us interact with and alter it.
In other words, we have an unending supply of oil, some of which is constantly migrating upward from the depths at which it is created to refill existing oil deposits, and much more of which remains far below the surface. This oil can be recovered using existing technology.
Scientist Thomas Gold presents the decades-old theory of "abiotic" oil-creation, which supports these facts, in his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere. In it he explains that the idea of the "biotic" creation of "fossil fuels" -- that decaying organic matter is compressed into oil -- is incorrect. In fact, the earth is constantly producing new oil very deep below its surface, and in some cases the oil flows up to replenish existing oil fields thought to be exhausted. In simple terms, the microscopic organisms mentioned above interact with the hydrocarbons, altering them and leaving their footprint, thus disproving the notion that oil is a "fossil fuel."
Here's an example of how the process plays out:
Eugene Island is an underwater mountain located about 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1973 oil was struck and off-shore platform Eugene 330 erected. The field began production at 15,000 barrels a day, then gradually fell off, as is normal, to 4,000 barrels a day in 1989. Then came the surprise; it reversed itself and increased production to 13,000 barrels a day. Probable reserves have been increased to 400 million barrels from 60 million. The field appears to be filling from below and the crude coming up today is from a geological age different from the original crude, which leads to the speculation that the world has limitless supplies of petroleum.
Read full American Thinker here.
Excerpt: President Barack Obama and his green energy confederates are determined to scare the public about a declining supply of "fossil fuels." If we accept the idea that oil is produced by the conversion of organic matter -- from plants to dinosaurs -- under extreme pressure, we must also accept the idea that there is a limited supply of oil and that we've got to do everything we can to find a replacement for fossil fuels before we run out.
The evidence is mounting that not only do we have more than a century's worth of recoverable oil in the United States alone (even if there is a limit to the earth's oil supply), but that we also actually have a limitless supply of Texas tea because oil is in fact a renewable resource that is being constantly created deep under the earth's surface and which rises upward, where microscopic organisms that thrive in the intense pressure and heat miles below us interact with and alter it.
In other words, we have an unending supply of oil, some of which is constantly migrating upward from the depths at which it is created to refill existing oil deposits, and much more of which remains far below the surface. This oil can be recovered using existing technology.
Scientist Thomas Gold presents the decades-old theory of "abiotic" oil-creation, which supports these facts, in his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere. In it he explains that the idea of the "biotic" creation of "fossil fuels" -- that decaying organic matter is compressed into oil -- is incorrect. In fact, the earth is constantly producing new oil very deep below its surface, and in some cases the oil flows up to replenish existing oil fields thought to be exhausted. In simple terms, the microscopic organisms mentioned above interact with the hydrocarbons, altering them and leaving their footprint, thus disproving the notion that oil is a "fossil fuel."
Here's an example of how the process plays out:
Eugene Island is an underwater mountain located about 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1973 oil was struck and off-shore platform Eugene 330 erected. The field began production at 15,000 barrels a day, then gradually fell off, as is normal, to 4,000 barrels a day in 1989. Then came the surprise; it reversed itself and increased production to 13,000 barrels a day. Probable reserves have been increased to 400 million barrels from 60 million. The field appears to be filling from below and the crude coming up today is from a geological age different from the original crude, which leads to the speculation that the world has limitless supplies of petroleum.
Read full American Thinker here.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Justice blocks Texas voter ID law
The Voting Rights Act singled out 16 states for intense scrutiny by the Justice Dept. regarding civil rights. It looks like Holder is using this to stall photo ID laws in each of those states, to allow Obama to get through the November election using the Saul Alinsky tools of the trade, voter intimidation and fraud.
Excerpt: The Justice Department on Monday blocked a new Texas law that requires government-issued photo identification at the polls, further inflaming an intense and racially charged election-year debate over voting requirements.
Republicans blasted the Obama administration’s move as purely political and said the ID requirement is necessary to prevent fraud and election tampering.
But Democrats and civil-rights advocates argue voter ID legislation makes voting more difficult for poor, minority and elderly citizens who are less likely to have state-issued photo identification.
The move by the Justice Department comes at the beginning of what is sure to be a fierce battle over voter laws. Attorney General Eric Holder has also challenged a voter ID law in South Carolina, and six other states have passed an ID requirement in the past year.
The Voting Rights Act empowers the Justice Department to halt voting laws or redistricting actions in 16 states — including Texas and South Carolina — if the changes would have a discriminatory effect.
The Supreme Court last year upheld an Indiana ID law that closely mirrors the Texas statute. Indiana is not one of the states covered by the Voting Rights Act.
Read the full The Hill article here.
Excerpt: The Justice Department on Monday blocked a new Texas law that requires government-issued photo identification at the polls, further inflaming an intense and racially charged election-year debate over voting requirements.
Republicans blasted the Obama administration’s move as purely political and said the ID requirement is necessary to prevent fraud and election tampering.
But Democrats and civil-rights advocates argue voter ID legislation makes voting more difficult for poor, minority and elderly citizens who are less likely to have state-issued photo identification.
The move by the Justice Department comes at the beginning of what is sure to be a fierce battle over voter laws. Attorney General Eric Holder has also challenged a voter ID law in South Carolina, and six other states have passed an ID requirement in the past year.
The Voting Rights Act empowers the Justice Department to halt voting laws or redistricting actions in 16 states — including Texas and South Carolina — if the changes would have a discriminatory effect.
The Supreme Court last year upheld an Indiana ID law that closely mirrors the Texas statute. Indiana is not one of the states covered by the Voting Rights Act.
Read the full The Hill article here.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Stand with DeMint: End all energy subsidies
DeMint has a problem, even with the RINO and near RINO Republicans, because he wants limited government and pursues it. Farmers, usually friendly to Republicans, will be upset if the ethanol subsidies go away. Even though the bill shows no favorites, its adoption hurts many special interests. I may be wrong, but I believe that almost all Democrats and even some Republicans representing the farm belt and oil and gas regions of the country, will vote against the bill and it will be defeated. Too bad we let the government get so big that the special interest groups trump common sense and the health of the Country.
Excerpt: The Senate will vote this week on Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Amendment 1589, which would eliminate all energy tax subsidies. The DeMint Amendment would end the usual games of Republicans subsidizing fossil fuels and Democrats subsidizing renewables. This vote will tell us, clearly, which senators think we as consumers should be in charge of making our own energy decisions and which senators want to make those decisions for us — at a cost of billions of our tax dollars.
In 2010, the federal government gave away $37 billion in energy subsidies — more than twice what it gave as recently as 2007. Washington gave $2.8 billion to oil and natural gas, $1.4 billion to coal, $5 billion to wind, $6.6 billion to biofuels, and $1.1 billion to solar.
Relative to output, renewables, which provide only a tiny fraction of the overall energy mix, are massively more subsidized than fossil fuels. In 2010, subsidies per megawatt-hour were $0.63 for natural gas, $0.64 for coal, $52 for wind, and $968 for solar.
President Obama looks at the billions of dollars being lavished on wind and solar and insists that we need to “double down” on these expensive, unreliable technologies. This is despite the fact that the European countries that have massively subsidized wind and solar are suffering as a result. The average price of electricity in Germany, for instance, is now more than triple the average price in the U.S., but wind and solar are still struggling to compete there.
It’s appropriate that Obama keeps using the gambling terminology “double down,” because this use of our tax dollars has less chance of paying off than a trip to the casino.
The so-called NAT GAS Act, offered side-by-side with the DeMint Amendment, is another classic example of Washington corruption and cronyism. It would provide subsidies of up to $64,000 per big-rig truck converted to natural gas, as well as subsidies for cars, fueling stations, and every other aspect of the natural gas vehicle supply chain.
If Washington intervenes in the natural gas market and artificially boosts demand in the transportation sector, there will be unintended consequences. Natural gas prices, which are now at historic lows, will jump. That means higher home heating bills and higher prices for all the industries that use natural gas as a feedstock.
The DeMint Amendment gives the Senate an opportunity to get rid of all these subsidies, all at once, across the board. It’s a critical test of seriousness that will reveal which senators actually understand and believe in the free market.
The message of the 2010 election was crystal clear. Voters rejected big-government intrusion and cronyism. Cap and trade, the biggest intervention in energy markets ever proposed, was one of the big ingredients in the landslide. Senators who react to that election by insisting on vast new energy subsidies for wind or natural gas have entirely missed the point.
Any Republican who votes against the DeMint Amendment sends the embarrassing message that Republicans have no problem picking winners and losers, rewarding friends and allies, and interfering in free markets. They just prefer different technologies. Sad.
Read the full Daily Caller article here.
Excerpt: The Senate will vote this week on Senator Jim DeMint’s Senate Amendment 1589, which would eliminate all energy tax subsidies. The DeMint Amendment would end the usual games of Republicans subsidizing fossil fuels and Democrats subsidizing renewables. This vote will tell us, clearly, which senators think we as consumers should be in charge of making our own energy decisions and which senators want to make those decisions for us — at a cost of billions of our tax dollars.
In 2010, the federal government gave away $37 billion in energy subsidies — more than twice what it gave as recently as 2007. Washington gave $2.8 billion to oil and natural gas, $1.4 billion to coal, $5 billion to wind, $6.6 billion to biofuels, and $1.1 billion to solar.
Relative to output, renewables, which provide only a tiny fraction of the overall energy mix, are massively more subsidized than fossil fuels. In 2010, subsidies per megawatt-hour were $0.63 for natural gas, $0.64 for coal, $52 for wind, and $968 for solar.
President Obama looks at the billions of dollars being lavished on wind and solar and insists that we need to “double down” on these expensive, unreliable technologies. This is despite the fact that the European countries that have massively subsidized wind and solar are suffering as a result. The average price of electricity in Germany, for instance, is now more than triple the average price in the U.S., but wind and solar are still struggling to compete there.
It’s appropriate that Obama keeps using the gambling terminology “double down,” because this use of our tax dollars has less chance of paying off than a trip to the casino.
The so-called NAT GAS Act, offered side-by-side with the DeMint Amendment, is another classic example of Washington corruption and cronyism. It would provide subsidies of up to $64,000 per big-rig truck converted to natural gas, as well as subsidies for cars, fueling stations, and every other aspect of the natural gas vehicle supply chain.
If Washington intervenes in the natural gas market and artificially boosts demand in the transportation sector, there will be unintended consequences. Natural gas prices, which are now at historic lows, will jump. That means higher home heating bills and higher prices for all the industries that use natural gas as a feedstock.
The DeMint Amendment gives the Senate an opportunity to get rid of all these subsidies, all at once, across the board. It’s a critical test of seriousness that will reveal which senators actually understand and believe in the free market.
The message of the 2010 election was crystal clear. Voters rejected big-government intrusion and cronyism. Cap and trade, the biggest intervention in energy markets ever proposed, was one of the big ingredients in the landslide. Senators who react to that election by insisting on vast new energy subsidies for wind or natural gas have entirely missed the point.
Any Republican who votes against the DeMint Amendment sends the embarrassing message that Republicans have no problem picking winners and losers, rewarding friends and allies, and interfering in free markets. They just prefer different technologies. Sad.
Read the full Daily Caller article here.
Saturday, March 10, 2012
Mitt beat Rick, but Newt beat Barack - Only one Republican has made Obama squirm
This article by Dr. Milton R. Wolf in The Washington Times tell you some cause and effect of the debate between Gingrich and Obama. It is beginning to look rather bleak for Gingrich, but we do need a Gingrich debating Obama, not a Romney.
Excerpt: This wouldn’t be the first time the media missed the real story. In the wake of a split Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum scored wins against each other, but it was former Speaker Newt Gingrich who single-handedly drove President Obama into panic mode.
Panicked by Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Obama was forced off his game and repeatedly tried to respond, only making matters worse for himself. He stayed true to the Democrats’ anti-energy agenda and mocked Republicans for wanting to drill for new oil. This made the president the butt of a joke for Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show”: Democrats claim that new drilling for oil won’t help us for at least 10 years, but haven’t they been saying that now for more than 10 years?
Mr. Obama boasts that oil production is up under his administration. True, but only because the president hasn’t yet stopped production on privately owned land. Mr. Gingrich cut right through his profound dishonesty: “Under President Obama, because he is so anti-American-energy, we have actually had a 40 percent reduction in development of oil offshore, and we have had a 40 percent reduction in the development of oil on federal lands,” Mr. Gingrich pounced. “So in the area he controls, production is down and the area that is hard at the free enterprise stuff where people get rich, production is up. So he is now claiming credit for the area he can’t control in order to have us think he is actually for what he opposes.”
Mr. Gingrich reduced the once-confident “Yes, we can!” 2008 version of Mr. Obama into the backpedaling “It’s not my fault” 2012 version right before our eyes. A defensive Mr. Obama dissembled: “We know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight.” Wait, what about that algae?
Newt had Barack right where he wanted him.
“A presidential pen could today sign approval of the Keystone pipeline. That’s 700,000 barrels a day. A presidential pen could today sign approval to go back to the Gulf of Mexico. That’s about 400,000 barrels a day. A presidential pen could today approve areas of Alaska that we know have oil.” With three signatures, Mr. Gingrich instructed the president, “you would have 2.3 million barrels a day of additional energy in the United States. So I would say, we’re not looking for silver bullets. We’re looking for presidential leadership.” Check and checkmate.
With this, Peter Ferrara, former adviser to President Reagan, declared that Mr. Obama had just lost his first debate. The GOP race remains open. So ask yourself this: Which Republican candidate beside Newt Gingrich has demonstrated the ability to make Barack Obama squirm?
Read full Washington Times here.
Excerpt: This wouldn’t be the first time the media missed the real story. In the wake of a split Super Tuesday, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum scored wins against each other, but it was former Speaker Newt Gingrich who single-handedly drove President Obama into panic mode.
Panicked by Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Obama was forced off his game and repeatedly tried to respond, only making matters worse for himself. He stayed true to the Democrats’ anti-energy agenda and mocked Republicans for wanting to drill for new oil. This made the president the butt of a joke for Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show”: Democrats claim that new drilling for oil won’t help us for at least 10 years, but haven’t they been saying that now for more than 10 years?
Mr. Obama boasts that oil production is up under his administration. True, but only because the president hasn’t yet stopped production on privately owned land. Mr. Gingrich cut right through his profound dishonesty: “Under President Obama, because he is so anti-American-energy, we have actually had a 40 percent reduction in development of oil offshore, and we have had a 40 percent reduction in the development of oil on federal lands,” Mr. Gingrich pounced. “So in the area he controls, production is down and the area that is hard at the free enterprise stuff where people get rich, production is up. So he is now claiming credit for the area he can’t control in order to have us think he is actually for what he opposes.”
Mr. Gingrich reduced the once-confident “Yes, we can!” 2008 version of Mr. Obama into the backpedaling “It’s not my fault” 2012 version right before our eyes. A defensive Mr. Obama dissembled: “We know there’s no silver bullet that will bring down gas prices or reduce our dependence on foreign oil overnight.” Wait, what about that algae?
Newt had Barack right where he wanted him.
“A presidential pen could today sign approval of the Keystone pipeline. That’s 700,000 barrels a day. A presidential pen could today sign approval to go back to the Gulf of Mexico. That’s about 400,000 barrels a day. A presidential pen could today approve areas of Alaska that we know have oil.” With three signatures, Mr. Gingrich instructed the president, “you would have 2.3 million barrels a day of additional energy in the United States. So I would say, we’re not looking for silver bullets. We’re looking for presidential leadership.” Check and checkmate.
With this, Peter Ferrara, former adviser to President Reagan, declared that Mr. Obama had just lost his first debate. The GOP race remains open. So ask yourself this: Which Republican candidate beside Newt Gingrich has demonstrated the ability to make Barack Obama squirm?
Read full Washington Times here.
Tea Party senators unveil five-year plan to balance the budget
This is the full article from The Hill. At least this budget tackles the deficit problem withing a reasonable time period. The Presidents budget proposal does not even address the over spending issue.
Excerpt: Members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus on Thursday announed a plan to balance the budget in five years, cutting spending by nearly $11 trillion compared to President Obama’s budget.
The ambitious blueprint would achieve a $111 billion surplus in fiscal year 2017.
“The whole point here is to show we can reasonably balance the budget within a five-year period,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), one of the sponsors of the plan.
“This idea that we have to look 30 years out to balance the budget is not only unnecessary, but it’s improbable. We cannot continue to spend at our current rate for 10 more years, much less 20 or 30 more years.
“This is an urgent matter.”
Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) also back the proposal, which would overhaul Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
The lawmakers said they would turn Medicare into a premium support plan that would give seniors the same healthcare plan as members of Congress. They say this would save an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years.
“What we’re doing is telling seniors that you can have the same plan that congressmen and senators have,” DeMint said. “They get the same premium support that we do.”
The trio would curb Social Security spending by increasing the retirement age over time and indexing benefits to individual incomes. High-income earners would see slower growth in their benefits while low-income workers would see increased benefits.
The proposal would fund Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps and child nutrition programs through block grants.
It would cut most discretionary spending to fiscal year 2008 levels but spare national defense spending from the deep cuts mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act.
It would freeze foreign aid spending at $5 billion a year and eliminate the departments of Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development and Energy and privatize the Transportation Security Administration.
Paul said some of the money saved could be used to pay for infrastructure projects.
“Our budget would actually eliminate the Department of Energy. I would take some of that money and put it into a bridges fund,” he said.
The plan would repeal the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
It would also permit construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and implement broad tax reform by establishing a 17 percent flat tax for individuals and corporations.
Go to The Hill article here.
Excerpt: Members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus on Thursday announed a plan to balance the budget in five years, cutting spending by nearly $11 trillion compared to President Obama’s budget.
The ambitious blueprint would achieve a $111 billion surplus in fiscal year 2017.
“The whole point here is to show we can reasonably balance the budget within a five-year period,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), one of the sponsors of the plan.
“This idea that we have to look 30 years out to balance the budget is not only unnecessary, but it’s improbable. We cannot continue to spend at our current rate for 10 more years, much less 20 or 30 more years.
“This is an urgent matter.”
Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) also back the proposal, which would overhaul Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
The lawmakers said they would turn Medicare into a premium support plan that would give seniors the same healthcare plan as members of Congress. They say this would save an estimated $1 trillion over 10 years.
“What we’re doing is telling seniors that you can have the same plan that congressmen and senators have,” DeMint said. “They get the same premium support that we do.”
The trio would curb Social Security spending by increasing the retirement age over time and indexing benefits to individual incomes. High-income earners would see slower growth in their benefits while low-income workers would see increased benefits.
The proposal would fund Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps and child nutrition programs through block grants.
It would cut most discretionary spending to fiscal year 2008 levels but spare national defense spending from the deep cuts mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act.
It would freeze foreign aid spending at $5 billion a year and eliminate the departments of Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development and Energy and privatize the Transportation Security Administration.
Paul said some of the money saved could be used to pay for infrastructure projects.
“Our budget would actually eliminate the Department of Energy. I would take some of that money and put it into a bridges fund,” he said.
The plan would repeal the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
It would also permit construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and implement broad tax reform by establishing a 17 percent flat tax for individuals and corporations.
Go to The Hill article here.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Wisconsin Update: Did Judge violate law for NAACP and unions in Voter ID ruling?
It amazes me that the people of Wisconsin would even be listening to the thugs that trashed their State House. It is obvious that the National Unions, SEIU and ACORN spin-offs are out to get Walker any way they can, and the petition signatures prove that illegality is present. Voter photo ID laws in other states have been upheld by higher courts than this one, so it looks like the typical ultra-liberal Democrat ploy to rig an election. Glad to see that there are some Blue Dog and Reagan Democrats speaking out. This bodes well for the common sense that I believe exists throughout the Midwest and many other parts of the country.
Excerpt: After a hearing on the NAACP-Wisconsin branch lawsuit filed against the new GOP-backed voter ID law, Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan issued a temporary injunction, blocking the implementation of the law,
There is just one small problem--sometime prior to hearing this case, Judge Flanagan signed a petition for the recall of Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who is a named defendant in the case.
Even for a first year law student, this case posed a starkly obvious "conflict of interest" for Judge Flanagan, which would normally have required the judge to recuse himself from participation in the case.
Now, after the fact, it appears as though there could also be a possible breach of judicial ethics--compelling the Republican Party of Wisconsin to file a formal complaint against Judge Flanagan, questioning the judge's [obvious] "bias" toward the case.
The party is also demanding a probe, by the state judicial commission, into Judge Flanagan's "failure ... to maintain the appearance of impartiality" in the voter ID case.
No reasonably bright person needs a trail of crumbs to follow what is happening here.
First, the recall effort against Governor Walker and Republicans is being led by national labor unions, with the ultimate intent of reversing Walker's legislation that clamped down on collective bargaining, and importantly, cut-off their cash flow, coming from union dues which had been automatically extracted from ALL union member paychecks.
Second, the NAACP attack against the new voter ID law was an attempt to "neutralize" this effective defense mechanism against the massive voter fraud, mentioned in election official testimonies above.
Finally, it has always been clear that the largest perennial conflict of interest exists between mostly Democrat politicians, who while sitting across the collective bargaining table "allow" increasingly incredible union contract benefit levels, in return for receiving 97% of the political campaign contributions from the very same Democrat-dominated public labor unions, whose bosses sat on the other side of the same table.
Read full Examiner article here.
Excerpt: After a hearing on the NAACP-Wisconsin branch lawsuit filed against the new GOP-backed voter ID law, Dane County Circuit Judge David Flanagan issued a temporary injunction, blocking the implementation of the law,
There is just one small problem--sometime prior to hearing this case, Judge Flanagan signed a petition for the recall of Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who is a named defendant in the case.
Even for a first year law student, this case posed a starkly obvious "conflict of interest" for Judge Flanagan, which would normally have required the judge to recuse himself from participation in the case.
Now, after the fact, it appears as though there could also be a possible breach of judicial ethics--compelling the Republican Party of Wisconsin to file a formal complaint against Judge Flanagan, questioning the judge's [obvious] "bias" toward the case.
The party is also demanding a probe, by the state judicial commission, into Judge Flanagan's "failure ... to maintain the appearance of impartiality" in the voter ID case.
No reasonably bright person needs a trail of crumbs to follow what is happening here.
First, the recall effort against Governor Walker and Republicans is being led by national labor unions, with the ultimate intent of reversing Walker's legislation that clamped down on collective bargaining, and importantly, cut-off their cash flow, coming from union dues which had been automatically extracted from ALL union member paychecks.
Second, the NAACP attack against the new voter ID law was an attempt to "neutralize" this effective defense mechanism against the massive voter fraud, mentioned in election official testimonies above.
Finally, it has always been clear that the largest perennial conflict of interest exists between mostly Democrat politicians, who while sitting across the collective bargaining table "allow" increasingly incredible union contract benefit levels, in return for receiving 97% of the political campaign contributions from the very same Democrat-dominated public labor unions, whose bosses sat on the other side of the same table.
Read full Examiner article here.
THIS IS HOW STUDENT DEBT COULD CRIPPLE THE U.S. ECONOMY
The government has created this crisis with its "do everything for everybody and get re-elected mentality". With the government guarantee of these student loans, their influence on the banking system to lend without caring about repayment, colleges and universities raised their fees exponentially to get their share of the cash cow. Students have a right to be angry at themselves for falling for the liberal tactics that will wed them to the big government cause for the rest of their lives. Unless they can miraculously somehow recover some sense of self worth, they will never be able to truly be free of this overreaching oppressive Democrat hegemony.
Excerpt: As college students graduate into one of the most depressed job markets in years with more debt than ever, it’s no wonder so many of them have become delinquent on their loans. As many as 1 in 4 borrowers was carrying a past-due student loan balance in the third quarter, higher even than the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had previously thought.
Borrowers who are temporarily exempt from making payments for one reason or the other are excluded from the figures. If included, the Fed says the number of borrowers with past-due balances would jump to 27 percent of the total. The total amount of outstanding balances that are late would rise to 21 percent. Both figures are about double the unadjusted rates.
When it comes to private, non-guaranteed student loans, the default rate seems to be a bit lower. Moody’s Investors Service recently reported that the default rate for such loans in the fourth quarter was 5.1 percent. However, that rate double what it was before the most recent recession. Furthermore, the Moody’s report noted that some private student loan measures indicated the pace of defaults is rising. “High unemployment will keep defaults high,” the report said.
Economists vary on how the strain of student loans will impact the broader economy, but Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said recently that “student loans are becoming a very large category of loans.” The Fed put the latest outstanding student loan balance at $870 billion. Meanwhile, credit card debt in the U.S. totaled $693 billion, according to the same report, and car loan debt totaled $730 billion.
Read full The Blaze article here.
Excerpt: As college students graduate into one of the most depressed job markets in years with more debt than ever, it’s no wonder so many of them have become delinquent on their loans. As many as 1 in 4 borrowers was carrying a past-due student loan balance in the third quarter, higher even than the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had previously thought.
Borrowers who are temporarily exempt from making payments for one reason or the other are excluded from the figures. If included, the Fed says the number of borrowers with past-due balances would jump to 27 percent of the total. The total amount of outstanding balances that are late would rise to 21 percent. Both figures are about double the unadjusted rates.
When it comes to private, non-guaranteed student loans, the default rate seems to be a bit lower. Moody’s Investors Service recently reported that the default rate for such loans in the fourth quarter was 5.1 percent. However, that rate double what it was before the most recent recession. Furthermore, the Moody’s report noted that some private student loan measures indicated the pace of defaults is rising. “High unemployment will keep defaults high,” the report said.
Economists vary on how the strain of student loans will impact the broader economy, but Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said recently that “student loans are becoming a very large category of loans.” The Fed put the latest outstanding student loan balance at $870 billion. Meanwhile, credit card debt in the U.S. totaled $693 billion, according to the same report, and car loan debt totaled $730 billion.
Read full The Blaze article here.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Video: Canadian Talk Show Host Destroys Obama Over Keystone Decision
This is the most comprehensive view of Obama's idiotic decision to reject the Keystone Pipeline that I have run across. This guy did his homework and references far left, Obama supporting, organizations that helped sway his vote and that are also actively trying to politically influence pipeline decisions in Canada. He also shows the outright lies Obama told to the American people in order to get elected.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Vote for Newt on Super Tuesday
WAKE UP AMERICA!
SUPER TUESDAY = LIFE OR DEATH?
Super Tuesday could absolutely mean Life or Death to America as we know and love it.
We are not doing this because we are in love with Newt Gingrich.
We are not doing this because we believe Mitt Romney is evil.
Nor because we believe Rick Santorum is a liberal.
We are doing this because we believe that
Newt Gingrich is the ONLY way to BEAT BARACK OBAMA.
Period.
Life or Death? The media will run with Tuesday's results declaring more fervently than ever who the Republican nominee is. Candidates will continue to campaign, but the media may be able to finally sway public perception beyond the point of no return.
The media has absolutely, falsely skewed this campaign by oft omitting reference to Newt Gingrich (why?). They created the fake impression that it is Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. And, now, Ricky, Ricky, Ricky... or Mitt (again).
And now, one of the most respected conservatives in America, George Will tells us to
GIVE UP - neither Mitt nor Rick will beat Obama.
We love Mr. Will, but he only has it half right.
He too omitted Newt Gingrich.
More importantly, he discounted YOU! The Real American! The Real American that knows:
If we Rally. If we wake up! If we wake our neighbors!
We will SHOCK everyone in the media - and create Barack Obama's worst nightmare -
facing Newt Gingrich on the debate stage in front of a National Audience.
THAT'S IT!
END OF STORY!
Nothing else matters. Nothing else is needed. The mask will fall from Obama - his liberal foolishness and incredible failings will be on full display.
So.
It is now time.
Time for Real Americans in every state, Super Tuesday state or not, to wake up, and realize NOW IS THE TIME.
RALLY NOW FOR AMERICA'S BEST HOPE. BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
To Rally:
Live in a Super Tuesday State?
Vote for Newt Gingrich on Tuesday
Tell everyone you know, "Wake Up! Its not too late."
Drag as many people as you can to vote.
Join the Rallying cry on Facebook here - share the posts there with all your Facebook contacts now.
Don't live in a Super Tuesday State?
Contact everyone you know who does, anyway you can - phone, Facebook, email, smoke signals, etc. Tell them "Wake Up! Now is the time."
Join the Rallying cry on Facebook here - share the posts there with all your Facebook contacts now.
If we pull together, the media, pundits and analysts who are so sure that they know our hearts and minds - that believe they can control this election by manipulating us - they may finally realize that they are completely out of touch with America.
Super Tuesday must = Newt Gingrich
Rally today. America as we know and love it will survive.
Your children and grandchildren will thank you. As will we.
With utmost sincerity,
Your team of fellow Real Americans and Concerned Citizens at Winning Our Future and Time To Choose.
Paid for by Winning Our Future. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
SUPER TUESDAY = LIFE OR DEATH?
Super Tuesday could absolutely mean Life or Death to America as we know and love it.
We are not doing this because we are in love with Newt Gingrich.
We are not doing this because we believe Mitt Romney is evil.
Nor because we believe Rick Santorum is a liberal.
We are doing this because we believe that
Newt Gingrich is the ONLY way to BEAT BARACK OBAMA.
Period.
Life or Death? The media will run with Tuesday's results declaring more fervently than ever who the Republican nominee is. Candidates will continue to campaign, but the media may be able to finally sway public perception beyond the point of no return.
The media has absolutely, falsely skewed this campaign by oft omitting reference to Newt Gingrich (why?). They created the fake impression that it is Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. And, now, Ricky, Ricky, Ricky... or Mitt (again).
And now, one of the most respected conservatives in America, George Will tells us to
GIVE UP - neither Mitt nor Rick will beat Obama.
We love Mr. Will, but he only has it half right.
He too omitted Newt Gingrich.
More importantly, he discounted YOU! The Real American! The Real American that knows:
If we Rally. If we wake up! If we wake our neighbors!
We will SHOCK everyone in the media - and create Barack Obama's worst nightmare -
facing Newt Gingrich on the debate stage in front of a National Audience.
THAT'S IT!
END OF STORY!
Nothing else matters. Nothing else is needed. The mask will fall from Obama - his liberal foolishness and incredible failings will be on full display.
So.
It is now time.
Time for Real Americans in every state, Super Tuesday state or not, to wake up, and realize NOW IS THE TIME.
RALLY NOW FOR AMERICA'S BEST HOPE. BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
To Rally:
Live in a Super Tuesday State?
Vote for Newt Gingrich on Tuesday
Tell everyone you know, "Wake Up! Its not too late."
Drag as many people as you can to vote.
Join the Rallying cry on Facebook here - share the posts there with all your Facebook contacts now.
Don't live in a Super Tuesday State?
Contact everyone you know who does, anyway you can - phone, Facebook, email, smoke signals, etc. Tell them "Wake Up! Now is the time."
Join the Rallying cry on Facebook here - share the posts there with all your Facebook contacts now.
If we pull together, the media, pundits and analysts who are so sure that they know our hearts and minds - that believe they can control this election by manipulating us - they may finally realize that they are completely out of touch with America.
Super Tuesday must = Newt Gingrich
Rally today. America as we know and love it will survive.
Your children and grandchildren will thank you. As will we.
With utmost sincerity,
Your team of fellow Real Americans and Concerned Citizens at Winning Our Future and Time To Choose.
Paid for by Winning Our Future. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
Ten Indications That Obama Is Scared
Just hope the author, Kevin Jackson, is right. Details of the 10 indicators are well worth reading.
Excerpt: Obama is not the cool, calm, and collected guy that he portrays publicly; he's far from it. Obama is described privately as a thin-skinned hot-head when it comes to questioning his policies, or anything else, for that matter.
Though there has been a slight shift upward in Obama's poll numbers, Obama knows the real temperature of the American people. Here are 10 indicators as to why Obama will have sleepless nights leading up to the election of 2012:
1. Obama started African Americans for Obama.
2. Obama started a Spanish-language website.
3. Obama's energy policy is pure comedy.
4. Obama now supports super-PACs.
5. Obama has feigned shifting right.
6. Obama began the Truth Teams, dismantling Attack Watch.
7. Obama is changing his slogan. Realizing that "Yes We Can" has turned into "Well, I Thought We Could," and that "hope and change" now applies to getting rid of him, Obama must adjust his catchphrases.
8. Obama's foreign policy strategy is in shambles.
9. Obama is talking tough. As the saying goes, the shallower the stream, the louder the babble.
10. There is no real improvement in any sector in America.
Obama has much to be concerned about, despite being "The Money-Giver" to the poor. Americans have reached the end, and words just won't cut it. Further, Americans have tired of style and want substance. I believe that the new bumper stickers might be "You Had Your Chance!"
Read full American Thinker here.
Excerpt: Obama is not the cool, calm, and collected guy that he portrays publicly; he's far from it. Obama is described privately as a thin-skinned hot-head when it comes to questioning his policies, or anything else, for that matter.
Though there has been a slight shift upward in Obama's poll numbers, Obama knows the real temperature of the American people. Here are 10 indicators as to why Obama will have sleepless nights leading up to the election of 2012:
1. Obama started African Americans for Obama.
2. Obama started a Spanish-language website.
3. Obama's energy policy is pure comedy.
4. Obama now supports super-PACs.
5. Obama has feigned shifting right.
6. Obama began the Truth Teams, dismantling Attack Watch.
7. Obama is changing his slogan. Realizing that "Yes We Can" has turned into "Well, I Thought We Could," and that "hope and change" now applies to getting rid of him, Obama must adjust his catchphrases.
8. Obama's foreign policy strategy is in shambles.
9. Obama is talking tough. As the saying goes, the shallower the stream, the louder the babble.
10. There is no real improvement in any sector in America.
Obama has much to be concerned about, despite being "The Money-Giver" to the poor. Americans have reached the end, and words just won't cut it. Further, Americans have tired of style and want substance. I believe that the new bumper stickers might be "You Had Your Chance!"
Read full American Thinker here.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
‘Now or Never’—DeMint Argues America Could be Facing Last Chance Before Economic Collapse
When you read the full article you will see the reasoning behind DeMint's conclusions, with which I agree. He discusses the growth of the Federal Government in the 20th century, social security, medicare, Obamacare, the deficit, income taxes, the Federal Reserve, the EPA, the Departments of Energy, Transportation, and Education.
Excerpt: “I’m trying to sound the alarm to Americans that this could be our last chance to turn things around and get them right,” DeMint said in Online With Terry Jeffrey interview.
In the book, DeMint says the nation’s political establishment, by bringing the nation to the brink of an unprecedented fiscal crisis, has put Americans at risk of losing their freedom.
“The political establishment in Washington is destroying our country, and only a determined effort by the American people can stop them,” DeMint wrote. “We are in serious trouble and very close to economic collapse. This is not hyperbole; Americans have never been this close to losing all the freedom, prosperity, and opportunity that generations of citizens and soldiers have fought and died to give us.”
“We are not getting the truth from the politicians or the media,” DeMint wrote.
DeMint says both legislators and citizens need to understand that the federal government’s role in American life is strictly limited by the U.S. Constitution.
"I took an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that limits what the federal government can do, and the explicit functions of the federal government are found in Article 1, Section 8," DeMint writes. "The federal government is supposed to defend the nation, regulate commerce between the states, provide for national roads ('postal roads') and harbors, maintain a sound currency, protect private property rights, and promote justice. There are few other things the federal government should be doing--and our Founders limited its role precisely because they knw centralized power yields corruption."
Read full CNS News article here.
Excerpt: “I’m trying to sound the alarm to Americans that this could be our last chance to turn things around and get them right,” DeMint said in Online With Terry Jeffrey interview.
In the book, DeMint says the nation’s political establishment, by bringing the nation to the brink of an unprecedented fiscal crisis, has put Americans at risk of losing their freedom.
“The political establishment in Washington is destroying our country, and only a determined effort by the American people can stop them,” DeMint wrote. “We are in serious trouble and very close to economic collapse. This is not hyperbole; Americans have never been this close to losing all the freedom, prosperity, and opportunity that generations of citizens and soldiers have fought and died to give us.”
“We are not getting the truth from the politicians or the media,” DeMint wrote.
DeMint says both legislators and citizens need to understand that the federal government’s role in American life is strictly limited by the U.S. Constitution.
"I took an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that limits what the federal government can do, and the explicit functions of the federal government are found in Article 1, Section 8," DeMint writes. "The federal government is supposed to defend the nation, regulate commerce between the states, provide for national roads ('postal roads') and harbors, maintain a sound currency, protect private property rights, and promote justice. There are few other things the federal government should be doing--and our Founders limited its role precisely because they knw centralized power yields corruption."
Read full CNS News article here.
Obama Loses His First Debate With Newt On Energy Prices
Romney, Santorum and Paul are just pretenders. Newt has the program to revitalize America. Obama and the Republican establishment are afraid of Gingrich and his intent to upset the apple cart. Read the full article and you will know the truth about Obama and the liberals intent to destroy the US fossil energy supply with the resultant "necessary increase" in prices.
Excerpt: In a speech that the Gingrich campaign has begun broadcasting around the country, and which is posted at Newt.org, Gingrich presents a unique new vision for a booming American economy. I think you will find it pathbreaking. It is so compelling that it drew Obama into a transcontinental debate with the former Speaker, the first exchange that Obama has decisively lost since he appeared on the national stage.
Gingrich began the explanation of his vision like this:
What if we had a program that enabled the American people to develop so much new energy that we were, in fact, no longer reliant on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran. We didn't care what the Iranians did in the Strait of Hormuz because we were safe in national security terms.
What if that new energy program created well over a million new jobs, high-paying jobs, jobs that put Americans back to work and kept the money here at home that we had been sending overseas, giving us a dramatic improvement in our balance of payments, strengthening the dollar and giving us a chance to live much freer and more independently?
What if that very idea also meant that we'd also have dramatic increases in federal revenue… without a tax increase but that, in fact, the federal government would have literally an entire new stream of money?
And finally, what if that big new idea meant that you personally were better off because you are buying gasoline for $2.50 a gallon, not for $3.89 or $4 or what some people project by the summer could be could be $5 or more?
How is that possible, you ask? Well, that is what is exciting, and that is one of the reasons I am running for President.
Gingrich begins demonstrating the new vision by pointing to the Bakken geologic formation in North Dakota, which turns out to hold far, far more oil than the U.S. Geological Survey used to think, 25 times as much in fact, or 2,400 percent more. That Bakken breakthrough exists today "because it is on private land, and liberals weren't able to block us from developing it," Gingrich explains.
The result is that the official unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.5 percent, with nearly 20,000 jobs paying $60,000 to $80,000 a year remaining unfilled for lack of sufficiently skilled applicants. Revenue from the booming growth is gushing into the North Dakota state government so fast that after seven consecutive tax cuts, the state enjoys a rainy day fund of several billion dollars, even though the entire state budget is only $2 billion.
Gingrich then projects, "If North Dakota has that much energy, how much do we think we have everywhere else? Turns out, we may have more oil in the United States today, given new science and technology, than we have actually pumped worldwide since 1870. We may, in fact, by one estimate have three times as much oil in the United States as there is in Saudi Arabia." Or as there ever was in Saudi Arabia.
Then there is a parallel revolution in natural gas. We have long known there was a lot of natural gas in shale, but we did not know how to get it out. As recently as 2000, people thought we had seven years of natural gas supply left in the United States. Investors began committing big funds to building facilities for importation of liquefied natural gas from the Middle East.
But then entrepreneurs began applying to shale rock formations the horizontal drilling techniques that had been developed for deep water ocean drilling, where the most had to be gotten out of one hole by drilling in every direction. Combine that with the long-time technique of fracking, breaking up the shale rock with steam, water and sand (supposedly so scary to "environmentalists"), and the net result, Gingrich elaborates, is that
[W]e now have in shale tremendous amounts of natural gas that is recoverable. In one short decade, we went from 7 years of supply to over a hundred years of supply because science and technology had improved so much. Furthermore, instead of us importing liquefied natural gas from the Middle East, there is now serious talk that we're going to build facilities in Houston… to ship liquefied natural gas to China.
But this is all just the beginning, because, as Gingrich adds, "in places like the Marcellus Shale in Western Pennsylvania, in eastern Ohio, cutting down along the Appalachians, all the way out to Dallas, Texas, there is formation after formation after formation."
What that means is what I reported last year in my book, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb. America has the resources to be the world's number one oil producer, number one natural gas producer, number one coal producer, number one nuclear energy producer, even the number one alternative energy producer. The reason you never heard about this before, as Gingrich explains, is that "the politicians in Washington, the old-time establishment, the elite news media, the bureaucrats, don't have a clue what's possible, or in some cases, they have a clue and they are opposed to it."
Read full Gingrich energy response to Obama here.
Excerpt: In a speech that the Gingrich campaign has begun broadcasting around the country, and which is posted at Newt.org, Gingrich presents a unique new vision for a booming American economy. I think you will find it pathbreaking. It is so compelling that it drew Obama into a transcontinental debate with the former Speaker, the first exchange that Obama has decisively lost since he appeared on the national stage.
Gingrich began the explanation of his vision like this:
What if we had a program that enabled the American people to develop so much new energy that we were, in fact, no longer reliant on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran. We didn't care what the Iranians did in the Strait of Hormuz because we were safe in national security terms.
What if that new energy program created well over a million new jobs, high-paying jobs, jobs that put Americans back to work and kept the money here at home that we had been sending overseas, giving us a dramatic improvement in our balance of payments, strengthening the dollar and giving us a chance to live much freer and more independently?
What if that very idea also meant that we'd also have dramatic increases in federal revenue… without a tax increase but that, in fact, the federal government would have literally an entire new stream of money?
And finally, what if that big new idea meant that you personally were better off because you are buying gasoline for $2.50 a gallon, not for $3.89 or $4 or what some people project by the summer could be could be $5 or more?
How is that possible, you ask? Well, that is what is exciting, and that is one of the reasons I am running for President.
Gingrich begins demonstrating the new vision by pointing to the Bakken geologic formation in North Dakota, which turns out to hold far, far more oil than the U.S. Geological Survey used to think, 25 times as much in fact, or 2,400 percent more. That Bakken breakthrough exists today "because it is on private land, and liberals weren't able to block us from developing it," Gingrich explains.
The result is that the official unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.5 percent, with nearly 20,000 jobs paying $60,000 to $80,000 a year remaining unfilled for lack of sufficiently skilled applicants. Revenue from the booming growth is gushing into the North Dakota state government so fast that after seven consecutive tax cuts, the state enjoys a rainy day fund of several billion dollars, even though the entire state budget is only $2 billion.
Gingrich then projects, "If North Dakota has that much energy, how much do we think we have everywhere else? Turns out, we may have more oil in the United States today, given new science and technology, than we have actually pumped worldwide since 1870. We may, in fact, by one estimate have three times as much oil in the United States as there is in Saudi Arabia." Or as there ever was in Saudi Arabia.
Then there is a parallel revolution in natural gas. We have long known there was a lot of natural gas in shale, but we did not know how to get it out. As recently as 2000, people thought we had seven years of natural gas supply left in the United States. Investors began committing big funds to building facilities for importation of liquefied natural gas from the Middle East.
But then entrepreneurs began applying to shale rock formations the horizontal drilling techniques that had been developed for deep water ocean drilling, where the most had to be gotten out of one hole by drilling in every direction. Combine that with the long-time technique of fracking, breaking up the shale rock with steam, water and sand (supposedly so scary to "environmentalists"), and the net result, Gingrich elaborates, is that
[W]e now have in shale tremendous amounts of natural gas that is recoverable. In one short decade, we went from 7 years of supply to over a hundred years of supply because science and technology had improved so much. Furthermore, instead of us importing liquefied natural gas from the Middle East, there is now serious talk that we're going to build facilities in Houston… to ship liquefied natural gas to China.
But this is all just the beginning, because, as Gingrich adds, "in places like the Marcellus Shale in Western Pennsylvania, in eastern Ohio, cutting down along the Appalachians, all the way out to Dallas, Texas, there is formation after formation after formation."
What that means is what I reported last year in my book, America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb. America has the resources to be the world's number one oil producer, number one natural gas producer, number one coal producer, number one nuclear energy producer, even the number one alternative energy producer. The reason you never heard about this before, as Gingrich explains, is that "the politicians in Washington, the old-time establishment, the elite news media, the bureaucrats, don't have a clue what's possible, or in some cases, they have a clue and they are opposed to it."
Read full Gingrich energy response to Obama here.
‘Broken window’ theory co-author, James Q. Wilson dies at 80
Makes me wonder how many communities are going to be destroyed by the foreclosures brought about by the Democrats' sub-prime mortgage debacle.
Also this is just another reason why the lawlessness of the Occupy Wall Street crowd cannot be tolerated and must be cleaned up.
Excerpt: Wilson famously co-authored the “Broken Windows” article in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982, which suggested that in communities, disorder is often followed by crime. In an interview last year with The Wall Street Journal, Wilson explained that “public order is a fragile thing, and if you don’t fix the first broken window, soon all the windows will be broken.”
The “broken windows” theory was debated in Malcolm Gladwell’s 2000 book “The Tipping Point,” and in Stephen J. Dubner’s and Steven D. Levitt’s 2005 book “Freakonomics.”
The Broken Window Brigade, a citizen initiative in Chattanooga, Tenn., explains the broken window theory in the video below:
Read full Washington Post article here.
Also this is just another reason why the lawlessness of the Occupy Wall Street crowd cannot be tolerated and must be cleaned up.
Excerpt: Wilson famously co-authored the “Broken Windows” article in the Atlantic Monthly in 1982, which suggested that in communities, disorder is often followed by crime. In an interview last year with The Wall Street Journal, Wilson explained that “public order is a fragile thing, and if you don’t fix the first broken window, soon all the windows will be broken.”
The “broken windows” theory was debated in Malcolm Gladwell’s 2000 book “The Tipping Point,” and in Stephen J. Dubner’s and Steven D. Levitt’s 2005 book “Freakonomics.”
The Broken Window Brigade, a citizen initiative in Chattanooga, Tenn., explains the broken window theory in the video below:
Read full Washington Post article here.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
CNN: Ron Paul New Ad Shocks America
Haven't paid much attention to Ron Paul in this blog, but he does have a loyal following on the right. This ad is a compendium of prior speeches and is a good microcosm of his views.
Andrew Breitbart's death to be reviewed by L.A. County coroner
I received a Kindle a couple of years ago and since then have read about 70 books on it. I happen to have a penchant for conspiracy theory type novels. Guess that, because of this, when I read that Andrew Breitbart died of a heart attack at age 43, my thoughts went directly to a radical left wing conspiracy. Glad that the LA coroner is going to take a look at it, but it is most likely a natural death.
Our hearts go out to his family and he will be missed by us all.
Excerpt: The Los Angeles County coroner's office will review the death of conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who collapsed and died Thursday while taking a nighttime walk near his Westwood home.
Given his young age -- he was 43 -- and the unexpected manner in which he died, authorities will conduct an autopsy to help determine a specific cause of death.
Breitbart's father-in-law, actor Orson Bean, said in an interview with The Times that Breitbart was found collapsed near his home about 12:30 a.m. Paramedics took him to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, but doctors were unable to revive him.
Read full LA Times article here.
Our hearts go out to his family and he will be missed by us all.
Excerpt: The Los Angeles County coroner's office will review the death of conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who collapsed and died Thursday while taking a nighttime walk near his Westwood home.
Given his young age -- he was 43 -- and the unexpected manner in which he died, authorities will conduct an autopsy to help determine a specific cause of death.
Breitbart's father-in-law, actor Orson Bean, said in an interview with The Times that Breitbart was found collapsed near his home about 12:30 a.m. Paramedics took him to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, but doctors were unable to revive him.
Read full LA Times article here.
Sheriff Joe's Team Says Obama's Birth Certificate is Likely a Forgery
And the drumbeats go on. It doesn't appear that this is going away anytime soon and this will obviously embolden States Attorney Generals to get into the act.
Excerpt: Mike Zullo, Arpaio’s lead investigator, said his team believes the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records it may have in its possession.
“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” Zullo said.
The investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.
The Cold Case Posse advised Arpaio that they believe forgers committed two crimes. First, they say it appears the White House fraudulently created a forgery that it characterized as an officially produced governmental birth record. Second, the White House fraudulently presented to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
“A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery,” Arpaio said.
Among the evidence released at the press conference are five videos – which can be seen at the end of this article – to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery.
The videos consist of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document. They display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document.
The sheriff said the president should also authorize Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Hospital, the birth hospital listed on the Obama long-form birth certificate, to release any hospital patient records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, to provide corroboration for the records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault.
“Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted,” Zullo said.
“In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States.”
In addition, investigators say they have developed credible evidence that President Obama’s Selective Service card was a forgery, based on an examination of the postal date stamp on the document. Also, records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama’s birth.
Read full report with videos here.
Excerpt: Mike Zullo, Arpaio’s lead investigator, said his team believes the Hawaii Department of Health has engaged in a systematic effort to hide from public inspection any original 1961 birth records it may have in its possession.
“Officers of the Hawaii Department of Health and various elected Hawaiian public officials may have intentionally obscured 1961 birth records and procedures to avoid having to release to public inspection and to the examination of court-authorized forensic examiners any original Obama 1961 birth records the Hawaii Department of Health may or may not have,” Zullo said.
The investigators say the evidence contained in the computer-generated PDF file released by the White House as well as important deficiencies in the Hawaii process of certifying the long-form birth certificate establish probable cause that a forgery has been committed.
The Cold Case Posse advised Arpaio that they believe forgers committed two crimes. First, they say it appears the White House fraudulently created a forgery that it characterized as an officially produced governmental birth record. Second, the White House fraudulently presented to the residents of Maricopa County and to the American public at large a forgery represented as “proof positive” of President Obama’s authentic 1961 Hawaii long-form birth certificate.
“A continuing investigation is needed to identify the identity of the person or persons involved in creating the alleged birth certificate forgery and to determine who, if anyone, in the White House or the state of Hawaii may have authorized the forgery,” Arpaio said.
Among the evidence released at the press conference are five videos – which can be seen at the end of this article – to demonstrate why the Obama long-form birth certificate is suspected to be a computer-generated forgery.
The videos consist of step-by-step computer demonstrations using a control document. They display the testing used by the investigators to examine various claims made by supporters of the April 27 document.
The sheriff said the president should also authorize Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Hospital, the birth hospital listed on the Obama long-form birth certificate, to release any hospital patient records for Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, his mother, and for the newly born Barack Obama, to provide corroboration for the records held in the Hawaii Department of Health vault.
“Absent the authentic Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other credible proof supporting the idea or belief that President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as he and the White House have consistently asserted,” Zullo said.
“In fact, absent the authentication of Hawaii Department of Health 1961 birth records for Barack Obama, there is no other proof he was born anywhere within the United States.”
In addition, investigators say they have developed credible evidence that President Obama’s Selective Service card was a forgery, based on an examination of the postal date stamp on the document. Also, records of Immigration and Naturalization Service cards filled out by passengers arriving on international flights originating outside the United States in the month of August 1961, examined at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., are missing records for the week of President Obama’s birth.
Read full report with videos here.
Prohibition - Drug War Worse Than Drug Use
Read my previous posts on this subject here and here.
Excerpt: People laugh when politicians talk about their drug use. The audience laughed during a 2003 CNN Democratic presidential primary debate when John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean admitted smoking weed.
Yet those same politicians oversee a cruel system that now stages SWAT raids on people's homes more than 100 times a day. People die in these raids -- some weren't even the intended targets of the police.
Neill Franklin once led such raids. The 33-year Maryland police veteran, now executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, locked up hundreds of people for drugs and felt good about it.
"We really thought that these drugs made people evil," he told me.
But 10 years ago Franklin decided that drugs -- even hard drugs -- do much less harm to Americans than does the drug war.
"Drugs can be -- and are in many cases -- problematic. But the policies that we have in place to prohibit their use are 10 times more problematic."
The raids helped change his mind. "We end up with kids being shot ... search warrants being served on the wrong home, innocent people on the other side of the door thinking that they are protecting their home."
And the level of drug use remains about the same.
Still, most Americans support the drug war. Paul Chabot, White House drug adviser to Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton, told me: "We should be kicking down more doors. ... They're kicking the door of somebody who's a violent person."
Violent? People who get high are rarely violent. The violence occurs because when something's illegal, it is sold only on the black market. And that causes crime. Drug dealers can't just call the cops if someone tries to steal their supply. So they form gangs and arm themselves to the teeth.
"We have the violence of these gangs competing for market share, and people get hurt," said Franklin.
Especially kids. Drug gangs constantly look for new recruits.
"Some of these gangs have better recruitment programs than Fortune 500 companies. They know what to say to kids."
People think that if drugs were legal, there would be more recruiting of kids. Franklin says the opposite is true.
"Prohibition causes that. We don't have kids on the corner (saying), 'Pssst, I got a fifth of Jack Daniel's.'"
Kids rarely peddle liquor, and there's little violence around liquor sales because alcohol is legal. There was lots of violence before 1933, but that was because Prohibition forbade liquor sales. Prohibition gave us Al Capone.
"Organized crime existed well before Prohibition," Chabot replied.
That's true. But much less of it. The murder rate rose when alcohol was banned. It dropped when Prohibition was repealed.
Governments should wake up and learn something from the Portuguese.
Read full Stossel article here.
Excerpt: People laugh when politicians talk about their drug use. The audience laughed during a 2003 CNN Democratic presidential primary debate when John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean admitted smoking weed.
Yet those same politicians oversee a cruel system that now stages SWAT raids on people's homes more than 100 times a day. People die in these raids -- some weren't even the intended targets of the police.
Neill Franklin once led such raids. The 33-year Maryland police veteran, now executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, locked up hundreds of people for drugs and felt good about it.
"We really thought that these drugs made people evil," he told me.
But 10 years ago Franklin decided that drugs -- even hard drugs -- do much less harm to Americans than does the drug war.
"Drugs can be -- and are in many cases -- problematic. But the policies that we have in place to prohibit their use are 10 times more problematic."
The raids helped change his mind. "We end up with kids being shot ... search warrants being served on the wrong home, innocent people on the other side of the door thinking that they are protecting their home."
And the level of drug use remains about the same.
Still, most Americans support the drug war. Paul Chabot, White House drug adviser to Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton, told me: "We should be kicking down more doors. ... They're kicking the door of somebody who's a violent person."
Violent? People who get high are rarely violent. The violence occurs because when something's illegal, it is sold only on the black market. And that causes crime. Drug dealers can't just call the cops if someone tries to steal their supply. So they form gangs and arm themselves to the teeth.
"We have the violence of these gangs competing for market share, and people get hurt," said Franklin.
Especially kids. Drug gangs constantly look for new recruits.
"Some of these gangs have better recruitment programs than Fortune 500 companies. They know what to say to kids."
People think that if drugs were legal, there would be more recruiting of kids. Franklin says the opposite is true.
"Prohibition causes that. We don't have kids on the corner (saying), 'Pssst, I got a fifth of Jack Daniel's.'"
Kids rarely peddle liquor, and there's little violence around liquor sales because alcohol is legal. There was lots of violence before 1933, but that was because Prohibition forbade liquor sales. Prohibition gave us Al Capone.
"Organized crime existed well before Prohibition," Chabot replied.
That's true. But much less of it. The murder rate rose when alcohol was banned. It dropped when Prohibition was repealed.
Governments should wake up and learn something from the Portuguese.
Read full Stossel article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
