Republic-MainStreet

Renewable Green Nuclear Energy: Here, Now

2012-02-15T17:40:00.003-05:00

It appears that this is something we should be looking into. I posted an article about Bill Gates' project last March.

Excerpt: renewable green nuclear technology does exist. It was invented in Oak Ridge, Tennessee decades ago! However, a nuclear reactor that is unable to produce bomb-grade material made this technology unattractive in a Cold War world.

Now, in 2012, MSRs have so much more to offer! MSRs produce energy by adding Uranium-235 to thorium fluoride salts. The United States has large deposits of thorium -- enough material to power our electricity needs for thousands of years.

MSRs do not have the threat of a meltdown. With no nuclear core or control rods, water is not needed to cool them in an emergency. It simply cannot melt down.

MSRs remove the fear of nuclear weapons proliferation and can use decommissioned nuclear warheads as fuel, rendering the bomb-grade material so inert that it cannot be used even as a dirty bomb.

This renewable green nuclear energy can recycle the dangerous worldwide stockpile of spent nuclear fuel. Using discarded nuclear material, MSRs create electricity while rendering the radioactivity to less than 1% of the waste a current light water reactor produces. When the low-grade spent material is processed, it can be transported and stored without containment, becoming safe in a few hundred years, not thousands.

Due to the resilience of the salt substrate, the rector's heat can be extracted in graphite heat exchangers without passing the radiation to the generator turbines. Construction and operation costs are significantly reduced because the power cycle is outside the containment sphere.

When the electrical demand is low, an MSR can shift gears to cost-effective electrolysis of waterproducing a truly green and renewable fuel: hydrogen.

Integrating with another American innovation from Los Alamos, MSRs can sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere while producing a cleaner-burning synthetic fuel alternative to gasoline. They call it Green FreedomTM.

Is it not shocking that this technology is never mentioned in the green energy movement?

Allison Fisher of Public Citizen calls nuclear power "a failed and dangerous technology," making no mention of the success of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories' MSRE or the Los Alamos Green Freedom technology on the Public Citizen's website.

No other country to date has been able to successfully harness the greatest innovation since fire.

Why? It's the same reason why no other country has landed on the moon: none of them possesses the technical expertise and entrepreneurial spirit found in the United States of America.

However, the Chinese, with investment from Bill Gates, are attempting make American MSR technology viable and will no doubt use it to their advantage at the expense of our economy.

The choice is simple: we can continue to bury our heads in the Arabian sand, spending ourselves blind waiting for Mother Nature to reveal the secret of green energy alchemy. Or we can develop true renewable green nuclear energy as the fuel for America's economic recovery.

Check out the Thorium Energy Alliance or the International Thorium Energy Organization for information and technical aspects.

Read full American Thinker article here.

CEOs say how you treat a waiter can predict a lot about character

2012-02-15T16:48:00.002-05:00

Things that all aspiring bosses and businessmen should know. Not bad to follow in your daily life also.

Excerpt: Office Depot CEO Steve Odland remembers like it was yesterday working in an upscale French restaurant in Denver.

The purple sorbet in cut glass he was serving tumbled onto the expensive white gown of an obviously rich and important woman. "I watched in slow motion ruining her dress for the evening," Odland says. "I thought I would be shot on sight."

Thirty years have passed, but Odland can't get the stain out of his mind, nor the woman's kind reaction. She was startled, regained composure and, in a reassuring voice, told the teenage Odland, "It's OK. It wasn't your fault." When she left the restaurant, she also left the future Fortune 500 CEO with a life lesson: You can tell a lot about a person by the way he or she treats the waiter.

Odland isn't the only CEO to have made this discovery. Rather, it seems to be one of those rare laws of the land that every CEO learns on the way up. It's hard to get a dozen CEOs to agree about anything, but all interviewed agree with the Waiter Rule.

The CEO who came up with it, or at least first wrote it down, is Raytheon CEO Bill Swanson. He wrote a booklet of 33 short leadership observations called Swanson's Unwritten Rules of Management. Raytheon has given away 250,000 of the books.

Among those 33 rules is only one that Swanson says never fails: "A person who is nice to you but rude to the waiter, or to others, is not a nice person."

Swanson says he first noticed this in the 1970s when he was eating with a man who became "absolutely obnoxious" to a waiter because the restaurant did not stock a particular wine.

"Watch out for people who have a situational value system, who can turn the charm on and off depending on the status of the person they are interacting with," Swanson writes. "Be especially wary of those who are rude to people perceived to be in subordinate roles."

Read full USA Today article here.

Bill Swanson’s Unwritten Rules of Management

1. Learn to say, "I don't know." If used when appropriate, it will be often.
2. It is easier to get into something than it is to get out of it.
3. If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.
4. Look for what is missing. Many know how to improve what's there, but few can see what
isn't there.
5. Viewgraph rule: When something appears on a viewgraph (an overhead transparency),
assume the world knows about it, and deal with it accordingly.
6. Work for a boss with whom you are comfortable telling it like it is. Remember that you
can't pick your relatives, but you can pick your boss.
7. Constantly review developments to make sure that the actual benefits are what they are
supposed to be. Avoid Newton's Law.
8. However menial and trivial your early assignments may appear, give them your best
efforts.
9. Persistence or tenacity is the disposition to persevere in spite of difficulties,
discouragement, or indifference. Don't be known as a good starter but a poor finisher.
10. In completing a project, don't wait for others; go after them, and make sure it gets done.
11. Confirm your instructions and the commitments of others in writing. Don't assume it will
get done!
12. Don't be timid; speak up. Express yourself, and promote your ideas.
13. Practice shows that those who speak the most knowingly and confidently often end up
with the assignment to get it done.
14. Strive for brevity and clarity in oral and written reports.
15. Be extremely careful of the accuracy of your statements.
16. Don't overlook the fact that you are working for a boss.
* Keep him or her informed. Avoid surprises!
* Whatever the boss wants takes top priority.
17. Promises, schedules, and estimates are important instruments in a well-ordered
business.
* You must make promises. Don't lean on the oftenn-used phrase, "I can't estimate it
because it depends upon many uncertain factors."
18. Never direct a complaint to the top. A serious offense is to "cc" a person's boss.
19. When dealing with outsiders, remember that you represent the company. Be careful of
your commitments.
20. Cultivate the habit of "boiling matters down" to the simplest terms. An elevator speech is
the best way.
21. Don't get excited in engineering emergencies. Keep your feet on the ground.
22. Cultivate the habit of making quick, clean-cut decisions.
23. When making decisions, the pros are much easier to deal with than the cons. Your boss
wants to see the cons also.
24. Don't ever lose your sense of humor.
25. Have fun at what you do. It will reflect in your work. No one likes a grump except another
grump.

In the Business 2.0 article that made Swanson's little book famous, they expounded on his rules and added the following:

1. You can't polish a sneaker. (notice when something hasn't got any real substance)

2. You remember 1/3 of what you read, 1/2 of what people tell you, but 100 percent of what you feel. (leaders generate emotions that move people in the desired direction)

3. Treat your company name as if it were your own (possibly the same as #19 above)

4. When faced with decisions, try to look at them as if you were one level up in the organization. Your perspective will change quickly. (your boss has to weigh more considerations than you do in making a decision)

5. A person who is nice to you but rude to the waiter is not a nice person.

6. When facing issues or problems that are becoming drawn out, "short them to ground." (solve problems instead of talking about solving problems).

Issa takes step toward holding Holder in contempt of Congress

2012-02-15T00:00:00.002-05:00

All I see is that Issa is allowing Holder to determine the next deadline that they will ignore and Issa will again set a new deadline. Feb. 9th was the deadline after Issa got mad at the delay before. This will go on forever and nothing will happen before the election, nor thereafter. It is all a farce.

Issa should issue the contempt order and see what happens. He probably will not do it because he knows he has no power against an out of control Executive Branch.

Excerpt: In a Jan. 31 letter, Issa had threatened Holder with such a move if he failed to provide all the subpoenaed documents relating to the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal by Feb. 9. That deadline has come and gone, and Holder’s Department of Justice still hasn’t provided most of those documents. Issa’s subpoena dates back to Oct. 12, 2011.

On Tuesday in a seven-page letter, Issa revealed that Deputy Attorney General James Cole begged Congress to extend the Feb. 9 deadline. Issa wrote that the request was “ironic” and “ignores the reality that the Department has unreasonably delayed producing these documents to the Committee.”

“On its face, the requested extension demonstrates a lack of good faith,” Issa wrote to Holder. “With one exception, the Department has only produced documents responsive to the subpoena on the eve of congressional hearings in which senior Department officials testified. The Department appears to be more concerned with protecting its image through spin control than actually cooperating with Congress.”

“We cannot wait any longer for the Department’s cooperation,” Issa continued. “As such, please specify a date by which you expect the Department to produce all documents responsive to the subpoena. In addition, please specify a Department representative who will interface with the Committee for production purposes.”

Read full Daily Caller article here.

Canadian Resources Minister: Soros ordered pipeline blocked.

2012-02-14T10:46:00.001-05:00

I guess ole George is cashing in some of his chits with Obama. Any caring Obama has for the welfare of the USA is certainly not obvious. It is all about politics and power for him.

Excerpt: Canadian Resources Minister Joe Oliver says Barack Obama blocked the pipeline deal on behalf of radical left-wing Billionaire George Soros.

Soros has pumped millions into American far-left groups, many of which used some of his money to campaign for Barack Obama.

Barack Obama vetoed a major oil pipeline deal that would have brought thousands of new jobs and decreased our oil dependency on the Middle East. Obama is ensuring that unemployment stays high, gas prices climb, and America keeps sending tens of billions to Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. The so-called “environmental concerns” are completely unfounded.

The liberal Washington Post called Obama’s veto “an act of national insanity.” Liberal TIME magazine attacked Obama and said the veto means Canadian oil will go to China and Americans will continue buying oil from Saudi Arabia.

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently blamed billionaire agitator George Soros, who funds extreme left-wing causes in North America, Europe, and Central Asia. He also fingered the US based Tides Foundation.

The Tides Foundation is a left-wing not for profit with a budget in the hundreds of millions. They are most known for promoting the global warming hoax.

Read original article here.

George Soros and Media Matters Show Their Darker Side

2012-02-14T10:23:00.002-05:00

Media Matters, a George Soros funded tax exempt corporation, in close contact with the Obama administration, has declared war on Conservatives and FOX News employees. The far left, Chicago style election campaign is going full throttle. This election will be the dirtiest ever. We need to elect someone to the Presidency that will again have some respect for the process and the US citizenry.

Excerpt: A little after 1 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2009, Karl Frisch emailed a memo to his bosses, Media Matters for America founder David Brock and president Eric Burns. In the first few lines, Frisch explained why Media Matters should launch a “Fox Fund” whose mission would be to attack the Fox News Channel.

“Simply put,” Frisch wrote, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”

“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.”

What Frisch proceeded to suggest, however, went well beyond what legitimate presidential campaigns attempt. “We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” he wrote.

Read full Tucker Carlson article here.

Daniel Hannan: Europe is a grizzly image of the future

2012-02-13T16:14:00.000-05:00

Are you ready to Take America Back?

2012-02-13T16:05:00.000-05:00

The GOP Can Add 10 Million Jobs and $15 Trillion to US Economy without Spending a Dime

2012-02-13T13:31:00.001-05:00

Jobs, domestic energy independence, economic infusion, reduced gasoline prices; sounds good to me. Wonder what Obummer is thinking.

Excerpt: here are many contrasts that the GOP can use to go after Obama on the economy.

None present such a black and white contrast as the dispute about the black, tar-sands crude that Canada would like to ship through the US to refineries on the Gulf via the Keystone XL pipeline. The dispute isn't about the environment, is about creating 10 million U.S. jobs.

The pipeline could ultimately supply about a million barrels of Canadian oil to the US per day and 400,000 US jobs, most of them almost immediately.

But instead, the president, who has been railing against Congress for not passing another expensive jobs bill, and talks about income equality like it’s the most pressing issue of the day, just killed 400,000 American jobs that would battle income inequality in the most productive sense by providing ordinary Americans with the opportunity to earn some income.

While it’s estimated that Canada may have as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil in reserves, “the U.S. Geological Survey estimates the [US] has 4.3 trillion barrels of in-place oil shale resources centered in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, said Helen Hankins, Colorado director for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management” according to the Associated Press.

4.3 trillion barrels is 16 times the reserves of Saudi Arabia, or enough oil to supply the US for 600 years.

As I have pointed out all along, the Keystone issue isn’t about the safety of a pipeline. Obama and enviro-whacko friends know that if they allow Canadian tar sands oil to be developed via the Keystone pipeline, that the US will also start to develop their own tar-sands and shale oil. The US contains well over 600 years of known reserves and that would allow the US to be a net exporter of oil. If that happens, the green economy ruse that the left has sponsored, already reeling from bankruptcies and cronyism, would collapse. It would show that there is no shortage of oil and “green” energy can not compete with fossil fuels.

The only thing left then for those bitter climate clingers would be the shoddy science of Global Something-or-Another.

Oil from tar sands, reports the BBC on the Keystone decision, “is so plentiful that full-scale development would seriously delay the transition to low-carbon alternative fuels,” which is the holy grail of the left. And along the way, the U.S. would create at least 10 million new U.S. jobs, keeping around $500 billion per year here at home. Over twenty years that would be an additional $12.5 trillion in GDP even at a modest 2 percent growth rate. At 4 percent the numbers are closer to $15.5 trillion.

Full scale development of tar sands can only be stopped by taxing oil out of existence, like was tried with cap and trade. Cape and trade was never about trying to cool the earth. It was about giving "green" technologies a competitive advantage over fossil fuels that free markets won't concede.

Building out the infrastructure to drill and transport that oil just from the Rocky Mountains in the US could supply literally millions of jobs for American workers, while supplying literally millions of barrels of oil per day, repairing our energy security for the next century. But moist importantly it would repair our economy.

I mean we went to war to protect the supply of oil coming from Libya for Europe.

Couldn’t the GOP at least first go to work making sure Keystone provides work for Americans?

That’s an issue to go to war over.

Read full Townhall article here.

Where IDs Are Required

2012-02-13T11:56:00.001-05:00

Democrats Failure To Pass Budget Is Illegal, As In Criminal

2012-02-12T23:54:00.002-05:00

Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate refuse to bring a budget to a vote because they do not want any document that can be used to show or slow their profligate spending spree. As long as there is no budget, they can blame the Republicans for trying to shut down the government when they vote against the continuing resolutions or increases in the debt ceiling. The vast majority of the American people do not follow what is really happening and rely on the MSM that is in the tank for the liberal Democrat criminals.

Excerpt: Two top Democrats in Congress say the legislature doesn't really need to pass a budget. Excuse us, but passing a budget isn't optional; it's required by law. Is this the future of rule under the Democrats?

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is tired of passing budgets as the law demands. He thinks Congress can just keep spending money without any sort of budget.

"The fact is, you don't need a budget," he said last Tuesday. "We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending."

Actually, "the fact is," Congress is required under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to pass a spending plan and then have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office and signed by the president. That none of this happens suggests a level of disrespect for the law and the people found only among criminals.

This is fiscal gangsterism, nothing else. It has nothing to do with the current fiscal crisis, or the slow economy. It has everything to do with Democrats' refusal to admit that their unparalleled spending binge and exploding debt will soon lead to a tidal wave of tax hikes on average Americans.

Read full Investors Business Daily article here.

Obama vs Walter

2012-02-12T23:25:00.000-05:00

Obama goes to a primary school to talk to the kids. After his talk he
offers question time.
One little boy puts up his hand, and Obama asks him his name.

" Walter," responds the little boy.

"And what is your question, Walter?"

"I have four questions:

First, Why did the USA Bomb Libya without the support of the
Congress?

Second, Why do you keep saying you fixed the economy when it's
actually gotten worse?

Third, Why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your mentor,
then said that you knew nothing about his preaching and beliefs?

Fourth, Why are we lending $BILLION to Brazil to drill for oil, but
America is not allowed to drill for oil?"

Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs the kiddies that
they will continue after recess.

When they resume Obama says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right:
question time.. Who has a question?"

Another little boy puts up his hand. Obama points him out and asks him
his name.

"Mikey," he responds.

"And what is your question, Mikey?"

Actually, I have two questions.

First, Why did the recess bell ring 20 minutes early?

Second, What the hell happened to Walter?"

CPAC Occupy Protesters Paid $60 To Show Up

2012-02-12T14:26:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich's 2012 CPAC Speech

2012-02-11T14:16:00.000-05:00

Entitlements - Makers vs. the Takers

2012-02-11T13:17:00.001-05:00

Obama and the Democrats are against reforming the entitlement programs for two reasons. One, the more people dependent on the government, the more votes for the Democrats. Two, if the Republicans would, by any chance, decide to act in the best interests of the nation, and bring a halt to the increase in entitlement spending, then the backlash would also favor the Democrats. It is a win-win situation for the Democrats, and a lose-lose situation, both for the Republicans and the nation.

Excerpt: You’ve played by the rules. Worked hard to put yourself through school. You’ve gotten a decent job and you pay your taxes. You’re faithfully paying down your mortgage and saving money in a 401(k) – all to secure your finances and your future. But now there are a lot more “takers” than “makers” in this country – and the impact is systemic and long-lasting.

The Fiscal Times (TFT): With so many people out of work and so many suffering – through no fault of their own – how do you draw the line between real need and a so-called “culture of mooching”?
Charles Sykes (CS): That’s obviously the most difficult part, the gray area in the middle. There’s a distinction between needing temporary aid versus using a vast network of dependency as a way of life. Unemployment compensation, for example, is necessary for an amount of time. But when you start getting into 90-plus weeks of unemployment, hasn’t a temporary stopgap now become an excuse for people to avoid taking jobs? A number of economic studies have shown that the longer these benefits are extended, the higher the unemployment rate is. People make a rational calculation that it’s easier to stay on the couch than to get a job that maybe isn’t as great as what they had before.

TFT: Isn’t it a big leap to go from someone on unemployment to a wholesale expansion of dependency?
CS: If we have hungry children, of course we as a compassionate society have an obligation to take care of them. But I think we’re going through a massive concerted effort to expand the number of people who are dependent, who are looking to the government to buy them free breakfast, lunch and dinner, far beyond any reasonable definition of genuine need.

TFT: Is this new learned helplessness, as you describe it, a replacement for the employed-for-life, taken-care-of-for-life notion that many in earlier generations have known?
CS: Maybe. But ultimately the use of other people’s money and the vast expansion of benefits won’t substitute for what used to be provided for by the private sector. You can certainly understand the attraction of the bailouts, the freebies, the handouts, the dependency – for people who are nervous about the economy. But some politicians play upon this anxiety by promising things that are ultimately unaffordable and unsustainable. This endless promise that there’s always enough money in someone else’s pocket won’t work. It’s very seductive in some ways, but it’s not a solution to our economic problems, and it’s changing the culture and character of our society. It’s not the self-reliance and sense of independence and industry that our nation was founded on.

TFT: Who among the current presidential candidates would accomplish that, in your view?
CS: Unfortunately the person I’m politically closest to is not running. That’s Paul Ryan. He’s just about he only political figure who has tried to grapple with this and say, How would we slow this entitlement world – slow the growth of spending? And if it proves to be the third rail of politics in this election season, then I think we will have squandered one of the best opportunities we’ve had in a generation.

Read the full Fiscal Times interview here.

Obama Defies Congress by Funding ACORN - Chicago Style Corruption

2012-02-11T12:32:00.001-05:00

ACORN is alive and well under a different name. The corruption in the Obama administration is endless, and we, as citizens are unable to do anything about it. Everyone talks about the congressional hearings that Issa is chairing. But what has he accomplished? NADA! Obama must be defeated in 2012 and it must be by a true conservative, not a RINO like Romney. That is the only way anything will get accomplished.

Excerpt: There is an old claim, oft-repeated as gospel truth, that the only living thing that would survive a nuclear attack is the cockroach. The power of modern weaponry has likely rendered this false, but in its place we might well put the disgraced “community organizing” organization, ACORN. Reports of ACORN’s demise are greatly exaggerated, a fact by which nobody with even a cursory familiarity with their practices should be surprised. The evidence suggests that the group has weathered the fallout from its scandals with a remarkable fortitude — it is not just surviving, but thriving; and it is doing so with thousands of those federal dollars that it is explicitly banned from receiving.

Since it was ignominiously stripped of all federal funding in 2009, ACORN has steadily maintained its extensive network of “affiliates” — more specifically, tax-exempt progressive 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations, most of which have been renamed since the scandal hit. For 40 years, it appears, ACORN employed many of these groups to funnel millions of federal dollars its way — and it continues to do so today. It appears to be getting away with it. When somebody buys a gun for a convicted felon, it is called a “straw purchase,” and it is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When ACORN takes money prohibited to it by employing others as collection agents, it is called “accounting.” This is the financial equivalent of being dishonorably discharged, but continuing to serve, and anyone who respects congressional authority should be outraged.

The system ACORN has developed is ingenious. A 501(c)3 is defined by the IRS as a “Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary . . . Public Safety . . . National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organization.” 501(c)3 groups are prohibited from electioneering or endorsing candidates by virtue of their tax-exempt status, and are severely limited in their capacity to lobby. They are also explicitly barred from using any federal funds to support what little lobbying they are permitted to do. Prima facie, they are useless to those with overtly political aims.

But while 501(c)3 organizations — such as ACORN’s new (i.e., renamed) groups, the Affordable Housing Center of America (AHCOA) and the New York Agency for Community Affairs (NYACA) — are heavily restricted in the political sphere, such impediments can be easily circumvented. This is generally achieved via a mechanism known as “fiscal sponsorship.” Fiscal sponsorship works pretty much how it sounds: In order to help out third-party organizations (“fiscal agents”) that either do not qualify for 501(c)3 status or are waiting for certification, established 501(c)3 groups are permitted to underwrite certain “projects” that they consider to be vital to their mission. In theory at least, this can be a useful and positive tool, one that allows the easy funding of temporary ventures and the sharing of administrative costs, expertise, and infrastructure. (Think, for example, of a college wishing to fund a student documentary.)

But fiscal sponsorship also presents 501(c)3 groups with a highly efficient and sophisticated means of laundering money. Indeed, a leading nonprofit tax attorney, John Edie, suggests that the mechanism is predominantly used for that purpose: “If you’re going to use a fiscal agent, to me you’re saying, ‘Well, I’m going to launder the money through somebody.’” In this particular case, that “I” is any one of the 501(c)3 groups that ACORN has established to do its dirty work, and that “somebody” is ACORN central.

Anyone looking for a large building with “ACORN” written on the side will be disappointed, but to conclude anything from the absence of such is to miss the point entirely.

Heads are starting to turn: Representative Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) has written to the Attorney of New York’s Eastern District, complaining that ACORN-affiliated 501(c)4 group New York Communities for Change (NYCC) is soliciting donations from union members under false pretenses, and questioning whether federal funds are being illegally directed to Occupy Wall Street and others. An illustration of ACORN’s diffuse rebirth: NYCC is headed up by Jon Kest, formerly of NY ACORN, and the group works out of ACORN’s offices in Brooklyn, retaining swathes of ACORN’s former staff. According to one Fox News report, “sources inside NYCC allege that the group has hired approximately 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities, paying some of them $100 a day, to attend and support Occupy Wall Street.” My request for a comment from NYCC was met with only with “the statement [NYCC] sent to Fox News when they raised these false allegations in October,” which reads that “[NYCC] is a new organization that fights for low- and moderate-income families. We don’t pay protesters and any monies raised by NYCC’s canvass are used in support of our ongoing issue campaigns.” The statement didn’t address my questions about fiscal sponsorship.

As of yet, however, Issa’s complaint has had nothing to do with the issue of fiscal sponsorship, and he is still scratching at the surface. Both Fox News and Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government have looked into this issue — as have a variety of other groups — but given the apparent complexity of the ruse, it is becoming clear that only a more comprehensive enquiry will suffice. Congressional authority is being flouted and, in a nation of laws and not men, it does not matter whether the infraction is to the tune of a billion dollars or a single cent. Congress might start by enforcing the existing laws, for then, and only then, will John Boehner’s promise that “the writing is on the wall for ACORN” be true.

Read full National Review article here.

They're Using Insurance for Communism' Ann Couter Rocks CPAC

2012-02-11T00:08:00.000-05:00

Obama's Contraception Compromise - Comments

2012-02-10T12:44:00.000-05:00

Just listened to Obama and his compromise on the Catholic Church's opposition to the government's contraceptive edict. Obama says that the insurance companies will pay for those services for the employees of the Catholic hospitals, etc.

What a crock. Policies are issued to the company, and paid for by the company (Catholic entity). How do you prove who is paying when the rates are negotiated in general by the two parties, not on an individual treatment basis. The policy that the Catholic organization purchases will still cover contraception.

Maybe each employee will get two insurance cards, one from their employer's policy and one directly from the Insurer. Yeah, right!

This is no solution.

Dad uses Facebook to teach daughter a lesson

2012-02-10T11:48:00.001-05:00

Path to a Brokered GOP Convention Emerges

2012-02-10T00:20:00.001-05:00

For those of you not enamored with any of the candidates and tired of the bickering that is handing a win to Obama, this is a possibility that you may be hoping for.

Excerpt: For many conservative Republicans, the dream outcome of the primary season is a brokered convention. Disappointed in the four remaining choices, they hope to change horses in August, and draft their preferred candidate, be it Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan.

I've been adamant that such an outcome is extremely unlikely. For a brokered convention to occur, there has to be an almost perfect storm of events; the GOP elites can’t just declare shenanigans on the primary season and select a new nominee. Instead, something has to prevent any of the current candidates from clinching a majority of the delegates; if one of them amasses that majority, he will be the nominee on the first ballot at the convention in Tampa.

My assumption -- and the assumption of many -- was that the GOP fight would eventually degenerate into an ideological battle between the very conservative and somewhat conservative/moderate wings of the party, with Romney on one side and a single alternative on the other. Unless there was a late entrant or Ron Paul caught fire in the caucus states, someone was virtually assured of claiming the requisite number of delegates in that scenario.

But for the first time, the two way faceoff doesn't seem inevitable, and a viable path to a brokered convention is beginning to emerge. Let’s start with something else I overlooked. The GOP does have super-delegates of a sort, in the form of the 63 RNC members. They aren’t as numerous as they are in the Democratic Party, but they are still there. While many of them have already declared allegiance to one candidate or another, those commitments can evaporate quickly, as Hillary Clinton learned to her sorrow in 2008.

But more importantly, demographic and geographic splits are beginning to surface in the GOP that resemble the splits in the Democratic Party in 2008. That year, Hillary Clinton laid claim to working-class whites and Latino voters, while Barack Obama laid claim to college-educated whites and African-Americans. This divide continued throughout the primary, right up to the last day of voting.

Read full analysis here.

Chuck Woolery on the Zombie Apocalypse

2012-02-09T17:30:00.000-05:00

Caterpillar Says It Will Not Build New North American Plant in Illinois

2012-02-09T12:16:00.001-05:00

This is an indictment of Chicago style politics and liberal beliefs. Unfortunately, the Chicago machine has taken over our country with the most liberal President ever. How we let that happen, I’ll never understand. It appears that the most populous states in the Northeast and West Coast have the same effect on national elections that Chicago has in Illinois. Is our nation falling to the same forces that have ruined Illinois? The 2012 elections could be our last chance of survival.

Excerpt: A stunning new report by the Illinois Policy Institute revealed how Illinois lost one resident every 10 minutes during the past fifteen years. As Illinois lost residents to migration the state also lost out on a net of $26 billion in taxable income to out-migration from 1995 to 2010.

Now this…
Caterpillar Inc. announced that it would not be building its new North American plant in Illinois.
Finance reported:

Caterpillar Inc. will not be building its new North American plant anywhere in the state of Illinois, officials with the company told local leaders Tuesday, with part of the reason being continued concerns about the business climate in the state.

The company will instead focus on a location closer to its division headquarters in Cary, N.C., Peoria County officials were told in an email sent to them shortly after the close of business and later obtained by the Journal Star. The plant stood to bring with it from Japan roughly 1,000 jobs manufacturing track-type tractors and mini hydraulic excavators.

Peoria County had submitted a regional proposal for the facility at the end of last year, and the Galesburg area also had a proposal on the table for the manufacturer. Peoria’s proposal reportedly included economic incentives as well as a promise of a legislative effort to establish a tax increment financing district to benefit the company.

At its core, Caterpillar’s decision reflects some concerns its officials had previously expressed about the economic condition of the Land of Lincoln.

“Please understand that even if your community had the right logistics for this project, Caterpillar’s previously documented concerns about the business climate and overall fiscal health of the state of Illinois still would have made it unpractical for us to select your community for this project,” the letter reads in part. “Caterpillar intends to continue calling for long-term changes in Illinois and to offer help to the state as it works toward real and fundamental reforms that will position communities like yours to compete for future projects.”

Read original Gateway Pundit article here.

Obama Promises Dems to Keep Boot on Neck of Catholic Church

2012-02-09T11:37:00.001-05:00

Another liberal attack on the Constitution and freedom.

Excerpt: Barack Obama promised fellow democrats today in a closed door meeting that he would continue to keep his boot on the neck of the Catholic Church of America.
ABC News reported, via Weasel Zippers:

President Obama “reinforced” his stance on the controversial contraception mandate while speaking at the Democrats’ annual retreat at Nationals Park in Washington, D.C. today, Senate Democrats said.

The retreat was closed to media.

Following President Obama’s speech at the retreat, a small group of Senate Democrats, mostly women, left the retreat early in order to hold a news conference on Capitol Hill to counter the Republicans’ news conference today at which they called for the mandate to be overturned.

Democrats said they will “fight strongly” to keep the mandate in place.

That’s right. Democrats promised to “fight strongly” because free birth control and abortion pills from the church is a natural human right.

Read full Gateway Pundit article here.

Husband Day Care Center

2012-02-09T00:15:00.000-05:00

$700,000 Koman Contributions Going To Planned Parenthood. Why?

2012-02-09T00:09:00.001-05:00

I agree with their initial decision. Why should they funnel money through Planned Parenthood to ultimately get it to breast screening organizations. Planned Parenthood does not do anything to support the fight against breast cancer. Why not give the money directly to the cancer screeners?

Excerpt: Former Komen employees said the organization and its affiliates had been grappling with complaints in recent years from abortion opponents who threatened to disrupt Komen events and to boycott sponsors because of the financial support given to Planned Parenthood.

Roman Catholic bishops in Ohio called upon their parishioners last summer to boycott running races sponsored by Komen because, in addition to the Planned Parenthood grants, the group gave money for breast cancer research to medical centers doing stem cell research.

The steady drumbeat of criticism from abortion opponents was troubling to senior leaders, including Ms. Brinker, former employees of Komen said.

But Komen’s board members and senior leaders did not anticipate the public outcry over their decision to cut support for Planned Parenthood. The move shocked many longtime supporters, who expressed unhappiness that Komen was bowing to political pressure and that the result might lead to services being cut to low-income women.

Read full NYT article Here.

The Hidden Agenda Behind the Media War on Komen

2012-02-07T16:41:00.001-05:00

People should think twice before giving anything to Komen now that it is known that the money is distributed to an organization that has nothing to do with breast cancer. Why they reversed their business decision in favor of a political reversal, I do not understand.

Excerpt: When the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure made a decision to sever its ties with America’s number one seller of abortions, Planned Parenthood, the media went to war. The media coverage was slanted in such a way that “mainstream” reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Lisa Myers of NBC News were openly advocating for a point of view—pressuring Komen to reverse course and give in to Planned Parenthood.

Why would the media go to war over something as seemingly insignificant as a policy change regarding funding at Komen, a private cancer charity? Part of the answer lies in the fact that, for the media, “women’s rights” take precedence over all other rights, including the rights of children. This is what “feminism” has become and this is what the Komen controversy was supposed to be about. In reality, it had nothing to do with breast cancer because the fact is that most Planned Parenthood affiliates don’t even provide mammograms. That money from Komen was used to refer women at risk of contracting the disease somewhere else.

So the issue was something else as well. While there were references to Planned Parenthood being an “abortion provider,” there was no explanation of what this “service” actually “provides”—a procedure that destroys a human life. This is why the annual March for Life against abortion is mostly ignored by the major media. It is a sad fact that even some conservative women still think that Planned Parenthood is simply an organization that provides information about voluntary family planning.

It seems unlikely that any network, however, would do an investigative piece on Planned Parenthood. This is truly a taboo subject for much of the media. Not only does Cecile Richards’ organization sell abortions to young women in trouble, but it also promotes the anything-goes sexual attitude that often leads to abortions. Baylor University economics professor Dr. John Pisciotta, in his role as head of Pro-Life Waco, has documented the despicable outreach of the local chapter that he calls “Planned Promiscuity.” The implication is that Planned Parenthood is a racket that victimizes young women and then exploits them for profit.

Meanwhile, Keach Hagey at Politico and other so-called liberal media watchdogs are assigning credit to social media for the Komen cave. We understand that liberals by the thousands got on Facebook and Twitter to complain. But what is it they were complaining about? The issue for the media was that the Komen decision could have snowballed, leading to more scrutiny of what Planned Parenthood is actually doing with the money, including federal dollars, it receives. And some of that money goes into the coffers of liberal Democrats running for office this year.

When Nancy Brinker dared to offend the leading organization behind the “sacrament” of abortion, the lines were drawn. That meant all the minions of the Left dropped what they were doing. It was time to go to war! The lives of women facing the risk of cancer were not the issue. They get their mammograms at other places anyway. The issue was the human lives already being lost at the Planned Parenthood clinics. This was the scandal that stood to be exposed, if Komen was not beaten down and put in its place.

Read Canadian Free Press article here.

911 IS A JOKE: Detroit citizens no longer rely on police

2012-02-07T16:23:00.001-05:00

And this is the city that Obama wants you to think is on the way back. Liberals got Detroit into this predicament, but liberals will not be able to get Detroit out. Obviously, some of the residents are taking some cues from conservatives, seeing that government cannot solve all problems, they are arming themselves and taking responsibility for their own protection.

Excerpt: The people of Detroit are taking no prisoners.

Justifiable homicide in the city shot up 79 percent in 2011 from the previous year, as citizens in the long-suffering city armed themselves and took matters into their own hands. The local rate of self-defense killings now stands 2,200 percent above the national average. Residents, unable to rely on a dwindling police force to keep them safe, are fighting back against the criminal scourge on their own. And they’re offering no apologies.

One high-ranking official in the county legal system, speaking to The Daily, said the rise in justifiable homicides mirrors a local court system that’s increasingly lenient of the practice.

“It’s a lot more acceptable now to get your own retribution,” the official said. “And the justice system in the city is a lot more understanding if people do that. It‘s becoming a part of the culture.”

Detroiters are arming themselves with shotguns and handguns and buying guard dogs. Anything to take care of their own. And privately, residents say neighborhood watch groups in Detroit are widely armed.

“It’s like the militiamen who stepped up way back when. That’s where the neighborhood folks are," said James “Jackrabbit” Jackson, a 63-year-old retired Detroit cop who has patrolled the Jefferson-Chalmers neighborhood for years.

“They’re ready to fight,” Jackson said. “We don’t hardly see police anymore.”

The city’s wealthier enclaves have hired private security firms. Intimidating men in armored trucks patrol streets lined with gracious old homes in a scene more likely seen in Mexico City than the United States.
Read full The Daily article here.

O’KEEFE: REGISTERING TIM TEBOW AND TOM BRADY TO VOTE IN MINNESOTA

2012-02-07T15:47:00.001-05:00

This is why photo IDs must be required to help ensure that "we the people" are not disenfranchised.

2012 Super Bowl Commercial Link

2012-02-06T21:25:00.000-05:00

I thought the Super Bowl commercials this year were average at best, but there were some humorous moments.

Go to commercial site here.

Pa. Bishop Does Not Recant Saying that Hitler And Mussolini 'Would Love Our (Public School) System'

2012-02-06T21:00:00.001-05:00

While not a Catholic, I believe that the Bishop is right on. Government and liberals have taken control of our school system and are failing to teach traditional values, in favor of politically correct (in their minds) ideologies.

The liberal organizations that jumped out against his statements were using the holocaust to deflect attention from the true target. Glad to see that the Bishop did not back down.

Excerpt: The bishop made a comparison between the interests of the public school system and totalitarianism, while discussing what he sees as a lack of school choice in Pennsylvania.

“In the totalitarian government, they would love our system,” McFadden said. “This is what Hitler and Mussolini and all them tried to establish -- a monolith; so all the children would be educated in one set of beliefs and one way of doing things.”

McFadden’s comments drew immediate criticism from the Anti-Defamation League and the American Civil Liberties Union – which complained that the bishop had raised the specter of the Holocaust.

“To those who may have been offended by my remarks, I apologize to them assuring them that I purposely did not mention the holocaust,” the bishop said.

“The reference to dictators and totalitarian governments of the 20th century which I made in an interview on the topic of school choice was to make a dramatic illustration of how these unchecked monolithic governments of the past used schools to curtail the primary responsibility of the parent in the education of their children,” he said.

“Today many parents in our state experience the same lack of freedom in choosing an education that bests suits their child as those parents oppressed by dictators of the past. I intentionally did not make reference to the holocaust in my remarks,” McFadden added.

Read full CNS News article here.

DeMint: Republicans Would be ‘Naïve’ to Compromise on Spending

2012-02-05T13:39:00.003-05:00

I firmly believe as DeMint does, that we are at the tipping point and that if Obama and the Democrats are elected again, our country, as we know it, will be forever lost. The Obama Democrats do not believe in free enterprise, limited government, individual freedoms or, for that matter, much of the Constitution. Another Obama term and the Supreme Court would be in danger of swinging to the dark side, the side of big government and of politicians' control over our lives.

Excerpt: He added that Democrats are attempting to seize more control for the federal government in Washington, D.C., at the expense of America’s individualistic and entrepreneurial spirit of the past.

“I think Republicans are naïve to think that we can somehow come up with a compromise that actually moves us toward a balanced budget,” DeMint insisted.

He said that every major compromise over the past 10 to 12 years has ended with additional spending, more borrowing and bigger government.

“We need to move things out of Washington because what we’re doing is not working. We can no longer afford it,” acknowledged DeMint. “We’ve got to stop this. And we can’t compromise with the Democrats as long as they want to move the country in the wrong direction.”

DeMint writes in his book that the differences between the parties are irreconcilable.

“I wouldn’t have said that 10 years ago. In fact, when I first came to Congress, just about every bill that I introduced, I had a Democratic co-sponsor,” recalled DeMint. “I’ve seen over several years — particularly in the Senate — that Democrats cannot get elected statewide unless they’ve completely sold out to labor bosses and environmentalists and others who want centrally controlled political and economic power.”

The 2012 election cycle is critical because America stands at the precipice of a tipping point where those receiving benefits from government will soon exceed half of the entire country.

“A dependent voter is a dependable vote for Democrats. The Democrats figured that out a long time ago. And that’s why they continue to expand welfare, food stamps,” according to DeMint.

“That’s why their whole stimulus program was based on supporting government workers at the state level. But the more people are dependent on government, the more likely they are to vote for people who promise more from government. And that’s the Democrat Party. We’re at a point right now where about half of Americans are getting something from government and the other half is paying for it.”

“Republicans have to organize the rest of the nation who believe in freedom and individual liberty and limited government,” he added. “And we’ve got to unite Americans this time. It is a critical election. The book ‘Now or Never’ is a playbook for how every American can get involved and help us turn things around.”

Read full article here.

Indiana Rejects Big Labor, Becomes Right-To-Work State

2012-02-03T18:02:00.000-05:00

All I have to say is that it is a great day for the people of Indiana. This is one more yoke off the backs of the laborer and the companies that employ them. We here in SC have Right to Work and were rewarded by Boeing opening up a huge plant in Charleston. Where are the autos made now? Many are made here in the Right to Work South.

Excerpt: For the past two weeks, Big Labor bosses around the country have had their eyes on the Indiana capitol — watching in horror as the General Assembly passed a right-to-work bill with commanding majorities.

The passage of Indiana's right-to-work law is an extraordinarily bitter defeat for the union brass. Less than a year ago, despite the fact that Hoosiers had elected substantial pro-right-to-work majorities to both chambers in 2010, union strategists remained confident they could preserve the forced-unionism status quo.

Last year, union bigwigs convinced the entire Democratic caucus of the Indiana House of Representatives to flee the state for five weeks in order to deny the body a quorum it needed to bring up and pass right-to-work legislation. Big Labor clearly believed whatever it lacked in legislative numbers it could make up for in zeal.

But polls showed Hoosiers overwhelmingly disapproved of the "fleabagger" tactic, and right-to-work supporters kept turning up the pressure on Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels and GOP legislative leaders to fight back against Big Labor.

Thanks to legislation passed after last year's walkout, House members failing to show up to do their jobs when the General Assembly is in session may be hit with $1,000-a-day fines.

In the opening weeks of the 2012 session, House Democrats went public about their reluctance to jump over a cliff again for the union hierarchy. Finally, on Jan. 24, House Minority Leader Pat Bauer announced an end to his caucus' boycott of the bill. It passed the next day.

Ever since, the caterwauling by Big Labor and its allies has resounded across the state. But what's so bad about a law that merely says an individual shouldn't be forced at the workplace to support financially an organization that he or she doesn't believe acts in his or her interests?

Read full Investors.com article here.

ObamaCare Refresher Video - What a Travesty

2012-01-31T13:26:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-29T12:28:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full WSJ report here.

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

2012-01-26T23:05:00.000-05:00

God and Abortion

2012-01-26T22:54:00.001-05:00

Occupy PGA Tour - I'm A 99%er

2012-01-26T22:44:00.000-05:00

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

Anonymous

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

2012-01-26T19:33:00.000-05:00

Obama, a Card Carying Member of The Muslim Brotherhood?

2012-01-26T19:15:00.001-05:00

South Carolina Message - Thomas Sowell

2012-01-24T12:44:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full article here.

Gingrich on Debate’s No-Clapping Rule

2012-01-24T11:10:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full CNS News article here.

Keystone Calamity - Obama Chooses Oil From Hugo's Venezuela, Not Canada

2012-01-22T20:51:00.001-05:00

Sharia Being Taught In Our Schools

2012-01-22T13:12:00.002-05:00

NOT JUST A DEMOCRAT DIRTY TRICK, BUT A CRIME

2012-01-21T16:45:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Zachary Edwards was arrested Friday and charged with identity theft.

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

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

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

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

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

Read full Powerline article here.

Rep. Kelly's Rant Against Congress and Regulations

2012-01-20T19:17:00.001-05:00

What others see plainly, we often ignore

2012-01-20T15:49:00.001-05:00

Received this email today.

Here's something to think about.*

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

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

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

Ike was president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-19T20:38:00.003-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-19T16:33:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have they read the hand-writing on the wall?

Read full Examiner report here.

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

2012-01-19T16:22:00.000-05:00

Gingrich Goes for Gold

2012-01-18T23:52:00.000-05:00

Holder's Racist Statements About Voter Photo IDs

2012-01-18T17:50:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could there be any other reason for his Hypocritic actions?

Obama administration rejects Keystone oil pipeline

2012-01-18T17:12:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read original Reuters article here.

Mitt Romney: The Last Republican President?

2012-01-17T18:03:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Read full American Thinker article here.

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

2012-01-17T12:08:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full report here.

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

2012-01-17T11:45:00.001-05:00

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

2012-01-16T12:16:00.003-05:00

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

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

It is time to stand up for our freedoms.

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

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

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

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

In Summary:

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

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

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

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

Read full article here.

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

2012-01-16T11:17:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-16T10:08:00.002-05:00

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

Just Saw Newt In Georgetown, SC

2012-01-15T18:10:00.001-05:00

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

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

Islam Dismantled In 6 Minutes

2012-01-15T10:47:00.000-05:00

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

2012-01-14T11:28:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full article here.

Best Motivation Video Ever

2012-01-14T10:36:00.000-05:00

Reagan's National Security Advisor Endorses Newt Gingrich

2012-01-13T11:39:00.000-05:00

At 72, Why Do I Care?

2012-01-12T16:48:00.001-05:00

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

But that is not it.

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

USA

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

What has changed and where are we going?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now we have a Congress and Administration that is spending the

USA

into oblivion, destroying our economy and sapping our military of the means to protect us in an increasingly dangerous world.

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

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

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

But then again, why do I care?

I don’t know, I just do.

David Light

The Tax System Explained in Beer

2012-01-12T15:49:00.000-05:00

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you
are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your
daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that
from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end
up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
by a h higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the
tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down
and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of
them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D. – Professor of Economics.

President Obama’s got sons?

2012-01-12T14:31:00.001-05:00

Saw this interesting tidbit in the Washington Post today.

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

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

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

Read full Washington Post article here.

Corn: The Renewable Fuels Disaster

2012-01-11T17:58:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full article here.

Dead People Receive Ballots in NH Primary

2012-01-11T17:04:00.002-05:00

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

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

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

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

2012-01-11T14:11:00.001-05:00

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

The Bad News on Unemployment

2012-01-11T13:39:00.001-05:00

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

Excerpt: Here is the trend in Employment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full American Thinker article here.

Bye Bye Congress - Political Cartoon

2012-01-09T15:44:00.000-05:00

America needs a man of action - Thomas Sowell

2012-01-09T15:08:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full article here.

Perry Names Arpaio His Arizona Campaign Chairman

2012-01-07T17:28:00.001-05:00

Just gotta love this choice.

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

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

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

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

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

Read original article here.

Steve Bridges as President Obama - August 2011

2012-01-07T16:34:00.000-05:00

The Gun Is Civilization

2012-01-07T14:00:00.001-05:00

"The Gun Is Civilization"

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

I think she's ticked

2012-01-07T01:10:00.002-05:00

Alan Simpson, Senator from Wyoming, Co-Chair of Obama's deficit commission, calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.

Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's Recess Appointments: An Impeachable Offense?

2012-01-06T23:53:00.001-05:00

The first impeachment salvo?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read full Investors Business Daily article here.

Obama’s (Hugo Chavez) Tyrannical Abuse of Power

2012-01-06T18:40:00.001-05:00

Taking a page out of Hugo Chavez's playbook, President Obama has ushered in the year of the imperial Presidency. No need to wait for Congress to act. If he thinks it is good for the American people, he will act and act decisively, and the Constitution be damned. This has to border on an impeachable offense. The only problem is that the far left Democrats and the MSM are applauding his actions, though Unconstitutional they may be. Any talk of impeachment by the Republicans will be blocked by the Democrats and the MSM will give them the proverbial "black eye". I hear that the ACLU is getting involved and rightly so. Hope their hearts are in this and it is resolved by the Supremes quickly. Damage is already being done.

Excerpt: Standing behind a podium on a stage just outside Cleveland, President Barack Obama delivered a speech yesterday that will reverberate throughout history. No, its lasting impact will not come because of its soaring rhetoric. Instead, it will make its mark because it was at that moment on a Wednesday afternoon in Ohio that the President announced his plans to act in total and utter disregard of the U.S. Constitution with his illegal appointment of Richard Cordray to serve as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

It’s an astonishingly reckless exercise of executive authority that Heritage’s Todd Gaziano described as a “tyrannical abuse of power.” Never before in the 100-plus years of precedent on the recess appointment power has a President taken such an action while the Senate was still in session. Yet notwithstanding that fact, President Obama yesterday decided that he would be the first.

Here’s why the President finds himself so far outside of constitutional bounds. Under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the President has the power to fill vacancies that may happen during Senate recesses, as Gaziano writes. In this case, President Obama was seeking to fill the vacancy in the CFPB, a new agency that has come under significant criticism given its unparalleled powers to issue expansive regulations with virtually no accountability.

Republicans in the Senate, to date, have refused to confirm the President’s nominees to head up the CFPB, vowing to block Senate approval until reforms are made to the agency. So President Obama has decided to act without their approval by attempting to make a recess appointment. The trouble is that Congress is not in a recess because the House of Representatives never consented, as required under the Constitution, Article I, section 5. That means that the President simply does not have the power to make this appointment. Gaziano explains the implications of the President’s actions:

[The recess appointment] power has been interpreted by scores of attorneys general and their designees in the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel for over 100 years to require an official, legal Senate recess of at least 10-25 days of duration. (There are a few outlier opinions, never sanctioned by the courts, that suggest a recess of six to seven days might be enough–but never less than that.)

The President’s purported recess appointment of Cordray would render the Senate’s advice and consent role to normal appointments almost meaningless. It is a grave constitutional wrong that Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already denounced. But it fits a pattern of extra-constitutional abuse by the White House that seems more interested in energizing a liberal base than safeguarding the office of the presidency.

In an interview last month with 60 Minutes, the President gave warning of his intentions to preside over an imperial presidency for the next year. “What I’m not gonna do is wait for Congress,” he said. “So wherever we have an opportunity and I have the executive authority to go ahead and get some things done, we’re just gonna go ahead and do ‘em.” The President now, though, seems to have made a significant course correction. With these latest illegal, unconstitutional appointments, the President has jumped at an opportunity to act regardless of the fact that he has no executive authority to do it. And under his feet is a trampled Constitution and 100 years of precedent for which he has no use. It’s time for Congress and the American people to take a stand against President Obama’s abuse of power.

Read full article here.

Say No To Romney's Value Added Tax (VAT)

2012-01-06T18:02:00.001-05:00

The main reason politicians are looking to a VAT is that it is easy to conceal. Like the State sales taxes, the Fair Tax shows up on each purchase made. If the rate goes up, you see it on the receipt. Not so the VAT. It's not "now you see it", it is "now you don't". Europe has the VAT and see where their economies are now.

Excerpt: In a recent interview on these pages (WSJ), presidential candidate Mitt Romney refused to rule out a value-added tax (VAT). He suggested that this hidden form of a national sales tax—which is embedded in the prices of goods and services during the production process—might be appropriate, particularly as a way of financing other tax cuts.

He's not the only Republican to speak favorably of a VAT. Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan featured a flat tax and national sales tax. Very few people realized, however, that the final 9 was a VAT. And Rep. Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee and a favorite of the tea party thanks to his bold reforms to modernize Medicare and Medicaid, includes a VAT in his "Roadmap" plan, where it helps finance other reforms such as eliminating the corporate income tax.

What's going on here?

Most Republican supporters are drawn to the VAT for relatively benign reasons. It is a single-rate system, like the flat tax, for raising revenue, so it does not raise the possibility of class-warfare demagoguery. The VAT also doesn't hit savings and investment. And there are no distorting and corrupt loopholes. So there's a lot to like about the levy—or would be, if there were some practicable way of substituting a VAT for taxes on income.

The most important thing to realize is that many people in Washington want bigger government, and a VAT is a necessary condition for that to happen. Simply stated, there is no way to turn America into a European-style welfare state without this new source of revenue.

Unsurprisingly, President Obama is favorably inclined toward a VAT, having recently claimed that it is "something that has worked for other countries." And yet it's unlikely that the president would propose a VAT, in large part because he is fixated on class-warfare tax hikes. If he did, almost every Republican in Congress would be opposed, even if only for partisan reasons.

But what if a VAT sympathizer like Mr. Romney wins next November and decides that his plan for a lower corporate tax rate is only possible if accompanied by a VAT? There will be quite a few Republicans who like that idea because they want to do something nice for their lobbyist friends in the business community. And there will be many Democrats drawn to the plan because they realize that they need this new source of revenue to enable bigger government.

That's a win-win deal for politicians and a terrible deal for taxpayers.

Read full WSJ article here.

Obama defies Congress: Nominations could provoke Constitutional fight

2012-01-04T16:59:00.003-05:00

The President, in his own words said that he will go his own way without Congressional approval to get "what he wants" done.

“I refuse to take ‘No’ for an answer. I’ve said before that I will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward. But when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” Mr. Obama said.

So much for Constitutional checks and balances. Does anyone now think that he is not a dictator in the making?

You can see his strategy. He is invoking the ire of Congress so that they retaliate, and then he will accuse the Republicans of racism and holding up needed jobs legislation. The MSM will report it that way and the "gullible" and government leeches will elevate his poll numbers.

Excerpt: Defying Congress, President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations board — moves Republican senators said amounted to a constitutional power grab.

The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session, breaking with at least three different precedents that said the Senate must be in recess for at least three days for a recess appointment. Mr. Obama himself was part of two of those precedents, both during his own time in the Senate and again in 2010 when one of his administration’s top constitutional lawyers made the three-day argument to the Supreme Court

The Constitution gives the president the power to make appointments when the Senate is not in session and able to confirm them. Traditionally, that has been understood to mean when the Senate has adjourned for a recess longer than 10 days, and a Clinton administration legal opinion said a recess must be at least three days.

Mr. Obama’s own top constitutional lawyers affirmed that view in 2010 in another case involving recess appointments. Asked what the standard was for making recess appointments, then-Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the justices the administration agreed with the three-day rule.

“The recess appointment power can work in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days,” Mr. Katyal said.

But by abrogating decades of understanding of the recess appointment power Mr. Obama threatened to spark a full legislative war with Congress.

“Breaking from this precedent lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress’s role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch,” Mr. McConnell said.

Read full Washington Times article here.

Teachers Resist High-Tech Push in Idaho Schools

2012-01-04T14:22:00.002-05:00

It appears there are a number of dynamics here that should be addressed, the most important being the need to educate the children. Teachers fear losing their jobs but want the best for their students. Tech companies think they have the answers and want the business. Legislators and taxpayers want to contain costs and give the best education to their children. But worst of all, unions want control, power and dues and could care less about education.

Eliminating the union stranglehold on public workers would go a long way in solving the cost problem, and elimination of the the ridiculous work rules would free up the teachers to teach.

Teachers should recognize by now that the future will run on technology and the majority of jobs will require hi-tech familiarity. A blend of technology with the use of the socratic method in teaching would better prepare the student for the future.

If the tech companies provide a lousy product, no one will buy it. It is to their advantage to make a product that does what it is meant to do, educate. Let them earn their profits and let them keep them.

Let the teachers learn along with their students and prepare themselves for the future. Make the legislators and taxpayers happy by controlling costs and let the unions go the way of the dodo bird.

Excerpt: Ann Rosenbaum, a former military police officer in the Marines, does not shrink from a fight, having even survived a close encounter with a car bomb in Iraq. Her latest conflict is quite different: she is now a high school teacher, and she and many of her peers in Idaho are resisting a statewide plan that dictates how computers should be used in classrooms.

Last year, the state legislature overwhelmingly passed a law that requires all high school students to take some online classes to graduate, and that the students and their teachers be given laptops or tablets. The idea was to establish Idaho’s schools as a high-tech vanguard.

To help pay for these programs, the state may have to shift tens of millions of dollars away from salaries for teachers and administrators. And the plan envisions a fundamental change in the role of teachers, making them less a lecturer at the front of the room and more of a guide helping students through lessons delivered on computers.

This change is part of a broader shift that is creating tension — a tension that is especially visible in Idaho but is playing out across the country. Some teachers, even though they may embrace classroom technology, feel policy makers are thrusting computers into classrooms without their input or proper training. And some say they are opposed to shifting money to online classes and other teaching methods whose benefits remain unproved.

“Teachers don’t object to the use of technology,” said Sabrina Laine, vice president of the American Institutes for Research, which has studied the views of the nation’s teachers using grants from organizations like the Gates and Ford Foundations. “They object to being given a resource with strings attached, and without the needed support to use it effectively to improve student learning.”

Read full NYT article here.

DEBT LIMIT - A GUIDE TO AMERICAN FEDERAL DEBT MADE EASY

2012-01-04T00:08:00.000-05:00

Obama’s Signing Statement on NDAA: I have the power to detain Americans… but I won’t

2012-01-03T17:12:00.002-05:00

When you read Obama's signing statement, you find that he is usurping Congressional authority to make the laws by refusing to acknowledge that after he signs the bill that he has to obey and enforce it. He says that he will not detain Americans indefinitely without trial, but recognizes that he has the power to do so. Ironically, according to Democrat Senator Carl Levin, who was on the committee that wrote the bill, it was the Obama administration lawyers that insisted that wording, that protects the rights of the American people, was taken out.

View Levin video here.

Doesn't that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about our President whose advisors seem to like Chairman Mao as a role model.

This portion of the appropriations bill has to be Unconstitutional and should be repealed immediately, and if the Democrats will not, then it should be challenged in the courts.

Excerpt: As Americans look upon the treacherous legislation passed under NDAA 2012, it should first be remembered that the very bill President Obama threatened to veto was controversial due to the language the Obama White House itself pressured Congress to add to the bill, according to Sen. Carl Levin.

From Wikipedia: The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.

fter the legislation cleared Congress, the ACLU commented that signing the bill “will damage both his legacy and American’s reputation for upholding the rule of law,” while executive director of the Human Rights Watch blasted the President for being ‘on the wrong side of history,’ noting that “Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”

Presidential candidate Ron Paul went even further, declaring that the NDAA bill begins the official establishment of martial law in the United States.

Below is the signing statement issued by the White House in full:
————-
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people [Editor's Note: This phrase is nothing more than a legal-loophole clause referring to threats to veto prior versions, as the White House disputed not being given deference over detainment to the Office of the President]. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments.

Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA

Newt Endorsed by Reagan's Supply-Side Economist, Arthur Laffer

2012-01-03T13:26:00.000-05:00

EPA disguises an economic disaster as a Christmas gift

2012-01-03T02:06:00.003-05:00

Citizens of the Northeast beware. Obama promised it. Your electricity rates are about to skyrocket, as they are in Texas and much of the rest of the country.

Excerpt: You're a savvy political appointee. You're bringing out a new regulation that will raise electricity rates all over the country, particularly in battleground states of Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Florida and Michigan. What's your PR strategy?
You choose the Wednesday before Christmas, when most people aren't paying attention.

You schedule the announcement at a place designed to tug at the heartstrings, the National Children's Hospital in Washington, D.C. The hospital's CEO and the national volunteer chairman of the American Lung Association deliver remarks.

You say this costly initiative is for the children, and that millions of children will be protected. You talk about how 15 years ago your son spent his first Christmas in a hospital, suffering from asthma.

Of course, you say nothing about the costs. Your state-by-state interactive map shows benefits for each state, but no costs. (These you bury in a 510-page Regulatory Impact Analysis.)

And you throw in some job creation for good measure, 46,000 new construction jobs and 8,000 utility jobs -- without mentioning lost jobs from higher electricity rates.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson is one smart politician, and that's what she did on Wednesday with the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards for Power Plants rule.

The MATS rule would restrict power plants' and boilers' emissions of heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium and nickel, and acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride.

This would make electricity generation far more complex and expensive, especially in the eastern half of the United States. It would require the closure of many coal and oil-fired power plants, and placement of emissions control equipment on others. Forty-five percent of American electricity is produced by coal.

Jackson's EPA estimates its new rules would cost households and businesses $10 billion a year in 2016. Benefits, calculated at $33 billion to $81 billion each year, starting from 2016, supposedly come from improvements in Americans' health, mostly from decreases in asthma.

But these projected benefits are "guesstimates," gains that are hard to specify given that other factors, such as obesity and lack of exercise, are in play.

These vast projected savings from asthma make no sense. America's air has been gradually getting cleaner since 1980, as EPA's own data show, but the number of children with asthma has risen.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 3.6 percent of children had asthma in 1980, and almost twice the percentage, 7.5 percent, in 1995.

Read full Washington Examiner report here.

Obama blows off Congress

2011-12-30T21:46:00.001-05:00

He has done this on immigration, is going around Congress using the EPA and Dept of Energy, and shows total disrespect for the law and the Constitutional separation of powers.

Excerpt: When the president of the United States signs a bill into law, it’s expected that he will abide by it. That’s not the case with President Obama, who has a sudden interest in novel legalistic interpretations getting him off the hook from laws he doesn’t like.

One of the presidential pet peeves is that Capitol Hill put the kibosh on his czars. Those high-level White House appointments aren’t confirmed by the Senate but are central to implementing Mr. Obama’s liberal agenda. Lawmakers specifically blocked funding for salaries and offices for four of his nine czars: health care (who coordinates Obamacare), automobile industry (“car czar”), urban affairs and climate change.

The president protested that defunding those positions “could prevent me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibilities, by denying me the assistance of senior advisers and by obstructing my supervision of executive branch officials.” Thus, he’s going to interpret the law as he sees fit.

The American system of government is based on a separation of powers, not presidential fiat. Mr. Obama should abide by every word of the 1,200-page bill passed by Congress and signed by his own hand.

Read full Washington Times article here.

Rosen: Who is Obama kidding?

2011-12-30T21:20:00.001-05:00

Obama's rhetoric not so accurate. Surprised?

Excerpt: In his campaign speech earlier this month in Osawatomie, Kan., President Obama dramatically revealed his desperate re-election strategy of class warfare and big government. He has little choice. He certainly can't run on his record, so he's going all in on his fundamental ideology.

The speech got rave reviews from the left, encouraged that Obama has rediscovered his inner self. Paul Krugman and E.J. Dionne loved it. So did Robert Reich, the leading advocate for socialism in the Clinton administration during his stint as secretary of labor, although he did scold Obama for including the Tea Party with the Occupiers in a part of the speech about the debate over "the defining issue of our time." Reich asserted that "the former (Tea Party) hates government; the latter focuses blame on Wall Street and corporate greed." (And welshing on their student loans.

Obama's biggest whopper in that speech was his misrepresentation of his conservative critics. As he put it, "Their philosophy is simple. We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules." What fantasy world does he live in? Does he imagine that our government, whether Democrats or Republicans are in power, comes anywhere close or is likely to leave people to "fend for themselves and play by their own rules"?

Most importantly and appropriately, we have the Department of Defense to provide military protection. Then there's the FBI and the CIA to protect us from enemies domestic and foreign. Our water and air are protected by the Environmental Protection Agency. Interstate business is regulated by the Department of Commerce, which, unless the Supreme Court trumps Obamacare, will also mandate that we buy health insurance. Social Security protects our retirement. Medicare and Medicaid underwrite our health care. The IRS collects federal taxes from 53 percent of the population to subsidize the other 47 percent. Food stamps feed the poor; housing subsidies provide their shelter. The Americans with Disabilities Act protects the disabled. The Voting Rights Act protects minorities. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights protects everyone. The Department of Education ensures that no child will be left behind. The National Labor Relations Board, under Obama, favors labor unions at the expense of businesses. The Securities and Exchange Commission protects our investments; the FDIC, our bank accounts; the Food and Drug Administration, our food and drugs. The Consumer Product Safety Commission protects consumers.

And I'm just scratching the surface. At about 80,000 pages, the Federal Register keeps us informed about the status of mountains of laws and regulations.

These myriad departments, agencies, bureaus, commissions, committees, services, panels, etc., regulate and seek to control, to one degree or another, most every element of our personal lives and businesses.

Everybody left to fend for themselves, indeed. Who's Obama kidding?

Read full Denver Post article here.

Boeing Employees Hit Machinist Union with Charge for Discriminating against Workers in Right to Work States

2011-12-30T17:48:00.002-05:00

It is about time non-union workers had some say in their own job security. Unions are for unions, not for the worker.

Excerpt: Washington, D.C.– Three Charleston-area Boeing company (NYSE: BA) employees filed a federal retaliation charge against the Washington State union behind the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) high-profile case against Boeing for building a new facility in South Carolina.

The Charleston-area Boeing employees filed the unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB Wednesday with free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation.

The charge comes in the wake of the recent announcement of a backroom deal cut between IAM, its Local 751 union, and Boeing officials which led to the end of the NLRB’s case. The Charleston Boeing employees, who were granted intervenor status in the case by the NLRB in Washington , D.C. , were denied participation in the hearing concluding the case.

The charge spells out how IAM union bosses abused the NLRB’s adjudicative process to bully Boeing into locating production of the company’s 737 Max and future airplane production in Washington State , which does not have a Right to Work law. The IAM union bosses’ accusations against Boeing had a chilling effect on Boeing and other companies, deterring them from locating work in South Carolina and other Right to Work states where workers can not be forced to join or pay fees to a union as a job condition.

The charge also details how IAM union bosses retaliated against the Charleston workers after the workers at the Boeing Dreamliner plant expelled the IAM from their workplace before the production line was located there. One of the employees filing the charge led the effort to remove the International Association of Machinists (IAM) union from the Charleston plant.

The charge points out that if the IAM union hierarchy still had a presence in the South Carolina plant, then the South Carolina workers’ jobs would not have been at risk. Even NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon – who issued the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing – admitted in Congressional testimony that it was inconceivable that IAM union officials would have pursued charges against Boeing if workers had not removed the union from their workplace.

“Workers should be free to choose whether or not to affiliate with a union and not have to worry about their jobs as a result,” said Mark Mix, President of National Right to Work. “The IAM union bosses’ dangerous abuse of federal labor law, which is supposedly intended to protect the rights of individual workers, has set a devastating precedent to discourage job providers from locating work in states with Right to Work laws on the books – the very states luring job providers and independent-minded workers alike.”

Meanwhile, Foundation attorneys have sent a letter to the NLRB’s Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) asking him to investigate the conduct of the ALJ overseeing the NLRB’s case against Boeing in allowing the backroom deal cut between company and union officials to serve as the basis for the case’s dismissal.

Read source article here.

VIDEO: Eye-opening insight into America's youth and the entitlement society

2011-12-30T17:36:00.001-05:00

The GOP's Answer to Union Money

2011-12-29T14:35:00.001-05:00

Am happy to see that Republicans are getting organized in a way that might make a difference. I guess the only problem I have is that the organizers are headed by Washington insiders who are somewhat to the left of mainstream Republicans. They may stop a major calamity, but will not roll back inroads the progressives have made since FDR.

Excerpt: For Mr. Law, it was a revelation and a lesson. He concluded that the labor movement had enlarged and strengthened the coalition that helped produce Democratic landslides in 2006 and 2008.

Now, as president and CEO of the independent pro-Republican group American Crossroads (AC), Mr. Law is preparing to fund seven or eight conservative organizations and create a broad front of support for Republican candidates in 2012. As a trial run, AC gave $3.7 million to the National Federation of Independent Business, $4 million to Americans for Tax Reform, and $1.5 million to the Republican State Leadership Committee in last year's midterm election campaign. Republicans won a massive victory, and Mr. Law decided it was money well spent.

"Funding the right," as AC calls it, isn't the only political tactic Republicans are swiping from Democrats for use next year. Another is focusing on early voting in the weeks before Election Day, a tactic that helped Democrats capture both houses of Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. AC tested an early-voting operation in a special House election in Nevada in September. Republican Mark Amodei won a majority of early voters and was elected handily.

The organization has also embraced two other tactics that have been applied more effectively by Democrats in recent elections than by Republicans. One is "stretching the battlefield," as a Republican consultant describes it, to make the Republican presidential candidate competitive in normally Democratic states—Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, for example. The other would expand the issue environment by raising subjects, such as the Solyndra solar-subsidy scandal, that voters may have heard of but failed to understand.

American Crossroads is prepared to fill the gap and spend millions of dollars on a TV blitz defending the Republican candidate and criticizing Mr. Obama to ensure that "the candidate remains viable," as a Republican operative told me. Then, in the final weeks of the campaign, AC aims to help nullify the usual Democratic advantage. That's when Democrats spend the most. Creating a balance in late spending is included in AC's playbook.

AC won't be alone in all this. The group is part of the Weaver Terrace Group, named for the location of Mr. Rove's residence (although he's since moved) where two dozen groups gathered last year to share their plans for the midterm election. Now they convene monthly in Mr. Law's office in downtown Washington.

AC will concentrate on the presidential race and a few tight House and Senate contests. The American Action Network, which was active in the 2010 campaign, is targeting House races. The new Young Guns political action committee plans to support Republican House candidates. Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch brothers, stirs grass-roots activism.

Read the full WSJ article here.

RECALL: Montanans Organize to Remove Senators Who Voted For Traitorous Detainment Bill

2011-12-29T13:36:00.001-05:00

I am glad to see that at least one of our Senators here in SC, Jim DeMint, read the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011, prior to voting. Of course the Defense Department has to be funded, but the "power hungry" elites in Washington DC managed to insert wording that should send chills up and down the spines of every American. It allows the President to make you and me disappear if we are, in his mind, a threat to the USA. I wonder if disagreement with ObamaCare, or wealth redistribution, or humongous deficits, or EPA regulations, or higher taxes, or bigger government or cap and tax, or open borders or putting our Constitution on the back burner qualify as seditious acts. My guess is that for the most vocal of us, these opinions could qualify.

I checked and found out that SC is NOT one of those states that allow for the recall of our elected officials. This is surprising in that SC is one of the most Conservative states in the Union. I guess we will have to wait until 2014 to get rid of that RINO Sen. Lindsey Graham..

Excerpt: As Americans enjoyed themselves with the holiday shopping season, Congress and the Executive branch worked tirelessly to destroy the 4th and 6th Amendments of the US Constitution, which protect an individual’s natural right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and ensure due process with evidence, witnesses, and public trial. The passage of the NDAA has prompted Senator Rand Paul to warn Americans that they could be considered terrorists for seemingly innocent activity and an an op-ed in the New York Times titled Guantanamo Forever? by U.S. Marine generals Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar argued that the new legislation would essentially nullify aspects of the Constitution, saying “due process would be a thing of the past.”

One thing is clear with the passage of this legislation, and that is those Senators and Congressman who voted for its passage are violating their oaths to support and protect the Constitution of the United States, because everything in the bill is counter to the principles outlined in our founding document. As such, concerned citizens around the country are now actively pursuing grass roots efforts to utilize a never-before enacted power of the people: the recall.

Via The Daily Kos and Sherri Questioning All:

Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 – 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:

“(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer’s successor.”

While the Montana Constitution (and those of other states) allows for a recall to take place, there is some question about whether these powers, which are technically undefined by the US Constitution, can be used to remove acting Congressional representatives:

The website Ballotpedia.org cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey’s federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that “the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators,” despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing (“prohibited” in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

“The powers not…prohibited…are reserved to the States…or to the people.” – Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.

Nonetheless, we may soon find out, as Montana is spearheading the movement to remove both of their Senators from office, as per the petition draft that is now circulating:

“The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

“a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, “for the duration of hostilities” in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as “task which does not end” to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution.”

While there may be eight other states whose Constitutions allow for the recall of federally elected officials, the US Constitution itself has reserved these rights for the people of each state, suggesting that such a recall movement can gain steam all over the country, and may be our last best hope of restoring Constitutional rule of law to America.

Read full article here.

Santorum on CNN poll: "Hard work pays off'"

2011-12-29T00:32:00.002-05:00

Do we have a new candidate du jour?

Excerpt: Moments after a new CNN/Time/ORC International poll showed Rick Santorum surging in Iowa, the Republican hopeful attributed his late-in-the-game success to campaign grit.

Santorum, who has long said Iowa voters would come around to him eventually, said his message of social conservatism combined with strong national security was making a dent a week ahead of the first-in-the-nation caucus.

"We've always felt we could trust the people of Iowa, that when they got down to the time they were going to look at all the candidates and measure up to people they've had the opportunity to see, that they would do well," Santorum said.

Mitt Romney, who led the Iowa poll at 25%, is too inconsistent in his message, Santorum said.

"His position on Romneycare, on marriage, on cap and trade, there's a whole laundry list of issues where Mitt's been all over the map," Santorum said.

The former Pennsylvania senator said Romney's record on gay marriage was particularly egregious, saying he should have done more to oppose Massachusetts' state law.

"It's clear he had a choice and he made the wrong choice," Santorum said. "If you're looking at someone who is a conviction politician, who's not going to move around on the issues and present a clear contrast. Mitt Romney's never proven to win in an election where he had to get independents as a conservative."

Ron Paul's history of opposing foreign military action by the United States presented another concern for Santorum.

"My concern is that Ron Paul would walk in there, day one, pull our troops back and leave an enormous void around the world," Santorum said. "He can do that day one without congressional approval. He can, as commander in chief, move our troops anywhere in the world, disengage from every place from Europe to the Middle East, China, abandon the Strait of Hormuz, pull the 5th Fleet back. That's one of the reasons I think you see folks who are having second thoughts."

Read full interview here.

THE US HAS "MORE OIL THAN ALL THE MIDDLE EAST PUT TOGETHER"

2011-12-29T00:09:00.001-05:00

Have reported on this previously, but thought a refresher was due. To not develop our own resources, and use the environment as the excuse is criminal. I guess if we burn gas from OPEC oil or Soros' Brazilian oil in our cars, it is somehow cleaner than good old American oil. Obama is pumping $'s into the pockets of George Soros who in turn is donating to Obama and his liberal Democrats. I wonder if OPEC is really funding the radical environmental movement. That would be a story for someone to break.

Excerpt: 3 to 4.3 Billion Barrels of Technically Recoverable Oil Assessed in North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation—25 Times More Than 1995 Estimate—

The government is, increasingly, the enemy. Imagine the jobs, the wealth, the independence, and cutting the jihad snake off at the head. There is no downside. We could easily extract that oil with minimum impact to the trees.

The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota ; western South Dakota ; and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea..' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.

'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years' reports, The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves.... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL! That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. 2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from TWO YEARS AGO!

U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World! Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006

Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
- 18-times as much oil as Iraq
- 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
- 22-times as much oil as Iran
- 500-times as much oil as Yemen
- and it's all right here in the Western United States .

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?

For decades, Democrats have blocked efforts to responsibly develop this nation's energy resources, transforming vast areas of opportunity into "The No Zone." (hat tip Jim)

Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production.

But they're funding projects in Brazil. The Wall Street Journal:

Barack Obama's pal George Soros, "The Black Hand," is heavily vested in PBR, Brazilian Petroleum, which Obama loaned money to through the US Import/Export bank -drill offshore oil and development. Which they wouldn't do here in Alaska or Utah.

Read full report here.

ONLY ONE CANDIDATE IS RIGHT ON THE TWO MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES - Ann Coulter

2011-12-28T23:34:00.002-05:00

Coulter has some great points favoring Romney.

Excerpt: In the upcoming presidential election, two issues are more important than any others: repealing Obamacare and halting illegal immigration. If we fail at either one, the country will be changed permanently.

All current Republican presidential candidates say they will overturn Obamacare. The question for Republican primary voters should be: Who is most likely to win?

2012 is not a year for a wild card. It's not a year for any candidate who will end up being the issue, instead of making Obama the issue. It's not a year for one wing of the Republican Party to be making a point with another wing. (And there are no Rockefeller Republicans left, anyway.) It's not a year to be gambling that America will vote for its first woman president, or that the country is ready for a nut-bar libertarian.

Running against an incumbent president in a make-or-break election, Republicans need a candidate with a track record of winning elections with voters similar to the entire American electorate.

Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have never had to win votes beyond small, majority-Republican congressional districts.

Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have won statewide elections, but Huntsman and Perry ran in extremely red states that don't resemble the American electorate. Only Romney and Santorum have won a statewide election in a blue state, making them our surest-bets in a general election.

But if Santorum wins, we lose on the second most important issue -- illegal immigration -- and he'll be the last Republican ever to win a general election in America.

Just as Americans ought to be able to learn the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, we ought to be able to learn the perils of illegal immigration by looking at California.

Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore.

Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren't trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens. Both support E-Verify.

Numbers USA, one of the leading groups opposed to our current insane immigration policies, gives Republican presidential candidates the following grades on immigration: Paul, F; Gingrich, D-minus; Huntsman, D-minus; Santorum, D-minus; Perry, D; Romney, C-minus; and Bachmann, B-minus.

And that was before Romney said last week that Obama's drunk-driving, illegal alien uncle should be deported!

That leaves us with Romney and Bachmann as the candidates with the strongest, most conservative positions on illegal immigration. As wonderful as Michele Bachmann is, 2012 isn't the year to be trying to make a congresswoman the first woman president.

Two Little Indians sitting in the sun; one was just a congresswoman and then there was one.

Read full article here.

Tent Collapsing on Climate Change Circus - USA's and World's Economy are Disintegrating

2011-12-27T21:43:00.001-05:00

Even with the "petri dish" countries of Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal showing signs of total economic ruin with their socialist history and "green" energy agenda, Obama is ignoring the writing on the wall and, with his EPA buddies, is embracing all of the policies that have brought those countries to the brink. Even though the Congress has rejected his "cap and tax" legislation, he is, by Executive order through the EPA, enacting much of his plan. Obama and the EPA are not happy with $3-$4 gasoline, skyrocketing electricity prices and the transfer of a significant portion of America's wealth to the Muslim OPEC countries; by shutting down our coal fired power plants, restricting oil exploration and drilling, blocking pipeline construction and supporting George Soros' oil ventures in Brazil and Colombia, he is dooming the once powerful USofA to the economic waste bin.

Four more years is all Obama needs to complete his total destruction of our economy.

Excerpt: During his 2008 campaign, President Obama made his support of climate-change interventions clear, stating that his presidency would slow the rise of the oceans and begin to heal the planet. He promised that a cap-and-trade system would curb global warming.

He was elected, but the electorate hasn’t liked many of his policies. Cap and trade never passed Congress. To this day, President Obama has remained comparatively popular, but people believe he is taking the country in the wrong direction—toward a European system. Even his Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, believes our gasoline prices should be higher, like Europe’s.

While Italy is in the news for its brutal economic woes, it shares several components with the US.

Italy has a declining private sector with growth in government, disappearing industrial production being filled in with goods from China, and high gas prices/imported oil. Italians are still consuming, but now their euros are going to other countries—most notably China and the OPEC countries, resulting in exploding trade deficits. (Sound familiar?)

Climate-change mitigation adds to the problem as it artificially inflates energy prices through the troubled Ponzi-like cap-and-trade scheme and creates more government jobs, regulation, fees, and hidden taxes. With the increasing production costs, industry declines and unemployment rises. Over time, some of those put out of work in industry may get absorbed by government—which keeps the unemployment numbers from looking as grim as they might without the government jobs. Government jobs do not create wealth, as mining and farming do, but like a funhouse mirror, they distort the true picture.

All of the above sounds eerily similar to the US—except we did not sign on to the Kyoto protocol, nor did we pass cap-and-trade legislation. However, President Obama has not given up on his plans to “curb global warming.” Instead of cap and trade, we have the EPA directed by President Obama’s appointee, Administrator Lisa Jackson—who, by her own admission, aims to level the playing field. The EPA is doing everything it can to raise the cost of energy, which, if left unabated, will continue the demise of American industry and the growth of the government sector—resulting in exploding trade deficits. (Sound familiar?)

Back to Italy. In EU terms, Italy is one of the “poor” countries—along with the other Club Med countries: Greece, Spain and Portugal. In the mini-global government known as the EU, the “wealthy” countries no longer want to carry the “poor” ones.

Germany and Italy are both EU members and in good times, Italy’s growing government sector could mask the harsh economic realities. By comparison to Italy, Germany has abundant energy supplies from nuclear and coal-fueled power, a strong industrial sector, and a good work ethic. Germany “has”; Italy “has not.” In EU terms, Germany is expected to carry Italy—but they don’t want to.

The US “has” abundant energy supplies; the EU “has not.” The EU has to depend on schemes like carbon trading, about which Rob Elsworth of the climate-campaign group Sandbag in London said: “is a pretty important revenue stream for most member states.” He asks, “If you take away this green-economy narrative, what's really left of Europe?”

The EU’s economic crisis provides the US with living proof that we do not want to play in the global-government game where the “haves” are expected to carry the “have nots.” We have the resources; we still have industry; and we still have a good work ethic. Will we use them to save America and the free market system that has allowed us to grow to strength, or will we be drawn into the green big top?

Read full Townhall report here.

Twenty years later, with Putin, the Soviet model still prevails in Russia

2011-12-26T14:22:00.001-05:00

Those of us here in America have watched Putin slowly consolidate his power base and take Russia steadily back to the Russia of old. Now it appears that the Russian people have awakened and are demonstrating against the corruption of the Putin regime. Will it be enough, or will the people of Russia again be subjected to the will of an elite few?

Excerpt: Post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s was a brutish, free-for-all crony capitalist state. To be sure, the revolution had certainly achieved more freedoms for ordinary Russians and more opportunities, but the common man sensed something was wrong, something was amiss amid the oligarch deals and the declining growth rates and the whiplash economy. Older Russians pined nostalgically for a mythical past.

Enter Vladimir Putin, a former KGB man of the old guard, willing to knock heads with the "new guard" elite that looked to many Russians like mere opportunists, and spinning a narrative that Russia could be "great" once again, as it was in Soviet days. Of course, there was nothing "great" about a state that had killed more than 20 million of its people in forced famines, secret prisons and gulags, dramatically underperformed its economic potential, crushed all forms of dissent, and subjugated peoples across Eastern and Central Europe through violence and intimidation.

But history did not matter. The chest-thumping nationalist on a white horse had arrived. The Russian cavalry would make Russia "great" again, and the KGB man with a taste for daredevil sports and manly displays of strength stormed through Russian politics.

The economic growth numbers were impressive. The former Communist state had become fashionable in investment circles. It made up a letter in the most famous acronym in the history of investing: the BRICs. Mr Putin seemed genuinely popular. He won elections with relative ease.

But the old KGB man never seemed comfortable with the free flow of ideas and opposition and political differences that come with a democracy. He preferred "managed democracy", one that limited candidates and muzzled opponents and silenced noisy media critics. It seemed to work through his first eight years in office, but when his mandated terms came to an end, he chose not to leave the stage. He lurked in the background as "prime minister" and now has announced another run for the presidency next year.

A sizeable number of Russians have grown weary of the Putin show and all that it entails: the "managed" media, the "managed" democracy and the "managed" economy. They are weary of the corruption: Russia stands alongside Nigeria and Uganda in the Transparency International Index of corruption - nothing "great" about that company.

And so Mr Putin faces his most critical test to date. On Saturday, some 100,000 Russians took to the streets of Moscow to protest what they deemed a rigged parliamentary election earlier this month. Mr Putin's United Russia party won nearly 50 per cent of the vote, a fall from their near two-thirds majority in the 2007 elections, but still a cause of suspicion among Russia's emerging middle class.

In 1991, in those fateful weeks, decades happened. While the stand-off today is likely to be less dramatic, the opposition protests represent the most vital test for the post-Soviet state since the rise of Putin 12 years ago. The next few weeks and months will decide Russia's coming decades.

Read full article here.

Celine Dion - O Holy Night

2011-12-24T15:22:00.000-05:00

Synchronized Christmas lights - Carol of the Bells

2011-12-24T14:45:00.002-05:00

The Amazing Grace Christmas House

2011-12-24T14:22:00.000-05:00

Obama Christmas Carol Parody

2011-12-22T23:12:00.002-05:00