Thursday, August 2, 2012

Which Party is Really Anti-Gay?

Illinois Review ^ | August 2, 2012 A.D. | John F. Di Leo

Desperate to distract the public from the presidential election season, Democrat politicians grasped at a peculiar straw – an interview in an obscure publication in which the head of a fast food chain acknowledged his support of existing law – to brand that entire fast food chain as being a crowd of bigots deserving of economic destruction.

So the Left called for a boycott. It failed, of course; all they succeeded in doing was to remind the majority of what a terrific company Chick-Fil-A is. All over the country, the chain enjoyed record lines all day, with cars frequently backed up for blocks as Americans patiently waited for a chance to show their support of a company so honorable that they close on Sundays so their employees can go to church in the morning and spend the day with their families.
The story therefore got away from the original intention. It became about Chick-Fil-A, instead of about “gay rights.” But gay rights are still worth talking about, so let’s spend a few minutes on them, shall we?
Statistics in this area are hard to come by, because business surveys naturally don’t usually include issues of sexual preference. Let’s use the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce’s recent statistic that over a million small businessmen in the United States are gay. Which party supports them more?
Small businessmen are challenged by a tax code that makes them pay double the Social Security, double the Medicare, in comparison with employees of other people’s businesses (because they pay both halves of the collection instead of having the “unseen company match” that the rest of us enjoy). Small businessmen are usually taxed in the “rich individuals” range, the range of so-called high earners usually targeted for income tax increases when revenue grabs are in the works. If you hear people talking about “taxing the rich”, what they really mean is that they want to raise taxes on entrepreneurs.
Small businessmen are challenged by a regulatory environment that restricts their every innovation, and literally, their every move. Are the doors and aisles designed for wheelchair access? Are the bathroom mirrors the right height off the floor? Do they meet every local building code, every state rule for keeping customers from smoking, every federal rule governing the layout of a factory, the training and licensing of employees, the permits required to do business? Can they withstand the multitude of barriers to entry that government at every level has raised up in their way?
These rules apply to all small businesses, no matter whether the entrepreneur is gay, straight, or neutered. All small businessmen are challenged by a system that supports crony capitalism and big established businesses over the newcomer.
No matter whether the businessman is one of the stereotypical examples – the interior decorator or fashion designer that sitcom writers might turn to when searching for a gay businessman character on television – or the more likely real-world examples – the accountant, engineering consultant, attorney, restauranteur, real estate agent – all small businessmen are challenged by a deck stacked against not only their success, but their very start-up.
The Republican Party in general, and the conservative movement in particular, are well known for their support of entrepreneurs and their efforts to reduce these burdens. There’s no discrimination involved; the Right wants to free the world of entrepreneurs from the dead weight of over-regulation and over-taxing, while the Left just wants more of the same. So, which party is better for the gay small businessman? In the final analysis, it’s not discrimination against gays that people should be concentrating on, it’s discrimination against small businessmen, as practiced by the Left, not by the Right.
America’s education system is more than a national embarrassment; it’s an international joke. While we still produce many well-educated people, the credit for these successes usually goes to hard-working children and their parents when they make the conscious choice to rise above their classmates, seeking the tougher class schedules, applying themselves to their studies far more than their average and below average neighbors.
Many of our school systems – usually not the rural ones, but ever more so as population density increases, culminating in the cities – have tiered structures in which top students obtain a demanding, quality education, average students obtain barely enough to function in society, and poor students receive social promotion, learning next to nothing throughout their school years.
Certainly some of the blame must go to the children themselves, and the parents, and the pop culture, But much of the blame cannot be avoided by those who run the schools: the school boards and teachers’ unions, and the state legislators who burden the schools with dozens of costly mandates that crowd out academic pursuits. It is telling that average test scores improve as you move along a map, geographically, from high-density Democrat majority areas toward lower-density Republican areas. The schools that have been in the clutches of Democrat management the longest are the ones in which the decent education is most tilted toward the elite, and the majority receive far less for the taxpayer’s dollar.
Who does this help or hurt? All gay Americans were children once, as straight ones were. All gay Americans attended the schools, either public or private, except for the miniscule statistic who were homeschooled. A system gauged by standardized tests can’t be said to be good for straight students and bad for gay students. They’re all a part of the statistics; only the highest, most driven performers are likely to get a good education in America. The average and poor student, whether straight or gay, gets cheated out of it by this system.
Additionally, our taxpayer-supported public education system often produces war zones rather than educational environments. The more urban a district, the more likely it is to be infested with gang activity, with drug and sex crimes, with peer pressure to participate or in other ways support the petty crime that all-too-quickly leads to more serious crime. In the worst examples, it makes the schools a danger to everyone within. In even the milder examples, the very presence of this activity is a terrible distraction from education.
If this environment – a noticeable criminal element, constantly underfoot, sometimes practically running the school – is dangerous for straight children, imagine what it must be like for those who are, or are becoming, gay in their sexual preference? Bad kids – bullies, gangsters, whatever – prey on the weak, the weaker. They are rough on minorities of all kinds, and in their teen years, such mishandling of children perceived to be gay can be worst of all. Namecalling, bullying, theft and beatings may not even stand out in an environment rife with drug dealing, rape, and murder; the authorities may not even notice the anti-gay activity going on under their noses as a result… but the students do.
Which party is better for the gay student? Which party has tried for decades to break the cabal of corrupt school boards controlled by their teachers’ unions? Which party has tried to provide school choice and higher academic standards? Which party has tried to reduce the costly mandates of unnecessary and expensive frills so that the schools could concentrate on academia instead?
Clearly, the party that favors the students over the union bosses is the party that stands with the students, gay or straight. In fact, all the more so for the gay student, who is often even more at risk from a dangerous environment than the straight student, because of his or her greater vulnerability.
And yes, this brings us to the criminal justice system. For over fifty years, the Democratic Party has favored every move to ease the path for criminals and empty our prisons. From technicality acquittals to an ever-loosening environment of continuances and appeals, Democrat legislators and Democrat judges and justices have campaigned for a weakening of the standards, allowing criminals to walk as it became ever more difficult to convict them.
This has turned our cities into a war zone. While most cities have always had a noticeably higher crime rate than less populated areas, for a long time the major shopping districts were considered safe from most threats other than the talented pickpocket, until recently.
Chicago, for example, has long had severe crime in its poor neighborhoods… no excuse for that, by the way, no excuse whatsoever… but at least it made crime largely avoidable. If it’s dangerous, you can move. Don’t go there. Society should fix it, but smart renters and shoppers could easily avoid the risk.
No more. In recent years, Chicago has been infested with “flash mobs.” No, not the dance troupe in trench coats that descends upon a shopping mall in a television commercial. Flash mobs are gangs of dozens of youngsters who suddenly charge a shop, overwhelm the security guards, and shoplift as much as they can while doing as much damage as possible before rushing out in all directions; too many to chase, too many to catch.
The advent of the flash mob has rendered the greatest shopping areas in these cities a danger zone. It has newly emboldened the robbers, muggers and rapists who used to stay out of the open, or to stay out of the better neighborhoods. Many cities – Chicago in particular, as this phenomenon has taken root on Michigan Avenue – are now overwhelmed and terrorized by this new risk.
The gay shop clerk is at as much risk as the straight shop clerk; the gay proprietor is at as much risk as the straight one. The gay landlord of the mall or storefront is just as terrorized by this new level of criminality as the straight landlord.
The question isn’t which party cares more about the gay shop clerk than about the straight shop clerk. The question is which party cares more about the shop clerk than about the thug. The question is which party has emboldened the criminals to attack them, versus which party is trying to boost the tools of law enforcement and the criminal justice system to give every law-abiding citizen safer streets to walk down, safer neighborhoods to live in, safer stores in which to shop, safer parking lots to which you return, after shopping, after working, after the malls are closed and the night has fallen.
The Left has spent generations making it easier on the criminals who terrorize the rest of us, while the Right has tried to resist, but usually been denied the votes to ever be strong enough in majority, for long enough, to turn this nightmare around. Judges and justices are often in office, making bad calls and legislating destructively from the bench, for ten years or even for life; the Right needs to be given a chance to replace the bad apples in the judiciary, as well as correcting bad law.
How many more issues can we list? We could go on for days. Virtually every plank of any political party or candidate can be viewed as a plank containing both straight people and gay people, if you really wanted to.
Abortion kills children, both children who would have grown up to be straight and children who would have grown up to be gay. Which party favors giving all those children a chance at life, and which party favors allowing that chance to snuffed out?
Health care affects doctors, nurses, hospital managers, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical innovators and salesmen, and patients and their families. All these – from practitioners to stockholders to salesmen to the patients themselves – might be straight or gay. Good reforms, such as the conservative proposals to allow interstate insurance sales, and loosening the hold of the overly-restrictive FDA, and tort reform, would help all those affected people, no matter whether they’re straight or gay. The monstrosity of Obamacare, on the other hand, will cripple the economy at large as well as the individuals directly affected, no matter whether they’re straight or gay.
Record unemployment, under Obama well over double the average as recently as the Bush II years, hurts everyone. In fact, you could argue that it’s worse for people in a minority group, as the ever present bigotry common to all mankind will unavoidably result in making it even harder on any minority. If it’s hard for somebody who is demographically just like the hiring manager to get a job, imagine how difficult it must be for someone much different.
In the final analysis, a bad economy hurts everyone, both straight and gay, young and old, European-American or African American, urban or rural. Dangerous streets put everyone at risk; massive unemployment hurts everyone’s standard of living. The problems of this nation are not of sexual preference at all. They are the problems of politics – plain old-fashioned politics. Should government favor the business or the regulator? Should government favor the criminal or the victim? Should government support individual rights and opportunity, or suppress them in the service of some ancient Marxist attempt at equalization of results?
The Left knows all this. The American Left (or perhaps, more accurately, the un-American Left) has spent decades in their efforts to divide America by artificial lines. They’ve concocted the idea that gay Americans need special support from government, that black Americans need special support from government, that women need special support from government… then invented such a crippling economic system that such claims to need special support are believable, particularly to the gullible, particularly to those who are susceptible to the tempting concept of identity politics.
We must resist. We must resist the temptation to be boxed into little groups – the straight vs, the gay, the old vs. the young. Resist newly-created distractions like the claim that what gay Americans really need is the legalization of “gay marriage,” a concept that didn’t even exist a generation ago.
No, what gay Americans need is exactly what all Americans need. A growth economy, a lowering of unemployment, a return to the climbing scale of our general standard of living that Americans long enjoyed before the Left got their clutches so deep into our system that they started successfully dragging it down with red tape and taxes.
Which party is best for gay Americans? It depends on what defines you as a person. Is it the time you spend at a dance or in bed? Or is it the years you spend in school, the years you spend at work, the years you spend in retirement?
Are you safe in your home from burglars? Are you safe on the street from muggers? Is your car safe in a parking lot? Is your business safe from robbers or flash mobs or government regulators who would shut you down over some ridiculous line in the millions of pages of the Code of Federal Regulations?
Is your savings account safe from the devaluation of currency? Is your retirement fund safe from the grasping hands of a government desperate for new sources of confiscated wealth to feed the leviathan that the Left has nurtured for so long at the expense of everyone else?
These are the questions that matter. Politics in America are not straight vs. gay, and never have been. The Left sees their choke-hold on the electorate weakening, and they’re grasping at straws the same way as they’ve long grasped at money and power.
November is our chance to stand up to them. November is our chance to say that we can rise above the distractions of the politics of sex, the politics of race, the politics of group-think.
November is our chance to proudly say We are Americans, and we will vote for what’s best for America. Not for one group or another, but for all law-abiding citizens.
And November can’t come soon enough!

Copyright 2012 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based Customs broker and international trade lecturer. A former county chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party, he was also president of Chicago’s Cold War era Ethnic American Council in the 1980s, a group that sought to make the point, in their own small way, that people’s united commitment to freedom is what matters most, not the hyphenation of being an Italian-American or Irish-American or German-American. What we must never forget is to be Americans, first and foremost.
Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included. Follow me on Facebook and LinkedIn.

A liberal who actually gets it: if things don’t get better Obama won’t win in spite of Romney! ^ | August 2, 2012 | Derrick Hollenbeck, staff writer

Jeff Greenfield is a good media liberal. His credentials are in order. He is also a “political reporter” so he has to write positive things about Barack Obama’s chances for reelection, but he can’t quite get there.
Greenfield’s latest column is about the dismal numbers Obama faces at every turn and it is also about how who Obama is running against might not mean anything on Election Day.
Undoubtedly with a great deal of pain Greenfield notes that the numbers staring Obama in the face are such that no incumbent president has ever/could ever overcome them.
He cites the unemployment rate being stuck at 8 per cent “for months” – he couldn’t bring himself to tell the truth and say “for years” (42 straight months); he says a 1.5% GDP means a “very close” election. Next he goes to the right track/ wrong track sentiment voters have which is 32.7/60.7 to the wrong track.
Incumbents he says need at least a 35% positive to win. The consumer confidence level is at 60% – Greenfield points out that Jimmy Carter had a 65% when he lost in a landslide in 1980.
Of course he avoids talking about the huge enthusiasm gap Gallup has reported that shows Republican enthusiasm to vote up 16 points and Democrat eagerness to vote down 22 points since 2008. He must have seen these numbers because he cited Gallup’s right track/wrong track numbers.
He also skipped the fact that Black ministers are so furious with Obama over his Gay marriage support that they are calling him Judas and telling their congregations not to vote for Obama. Nevertheless, he is a liberal so we can’t expect very much truth from him…….
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Barack Obama: You're no Bill Clinton! ^ | August 2, 2012 | Cal Thomas

The Obama re-election team must be in panic mode. The president is stuck in a virtual tie with Mitt Romney in some polls and behind him in others, so in desperation it has reached out to the Big Dog, Bill Clinton, for help.

Clinton will speak next month at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., in a Wednesday night position often reserved for the vice presidential nominee. Obama and Clinton have not had the most cordial relationship, but when you're drowning, your feelings about the lifeguard matter less than his ability to keep you afloat. And Obama is a sinking man.
The president's problem is that he's no Bill Clinton. While Clinton was willing to compromise with congressional Republicans, Obama and congressional Democrats are not. Clinton signed the welfare reform bill after vetoing two earlier versions crafted by a Republican Congress. Yet now the Obama administration wants to let states opt out of the bill's work requirement, which forced many people to get jobs. Instead of requiring people to work, Health and Human Services wants to grant states waivers to the work provision so that they can "test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families." What alternative strategy is there to an honest day's work for an honest day's pay? Surely we cannot continue with a president whose policies addict more people to government.
Most importantly in these dire economic times is the contrast that when Clinton's presidency ended he left a surplus behind. Obama has taken the debt created during the second Bush administration -- mostly because of the response to a terrorist attack and two wars -- and, according to the U.S. Treasury, increased each American's debt share by $17,013 to $51,433. The Congressional Budget Office says at the end of this fiscal year, the administration will have racked up four consecutive years of trillion dollar-plus deficits, creating by 2020 the largest debt -- $16 trillion --in American history.
Bill Clinton once questioned Obama's qualifications to be president. In a 2007 interview with Charlie Rose, Clinton said, "When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?"
In 2008, candidate Obama praised Ronald Reagan above Bill Clinton when he told the Reno Gazette-Journal's editorial board that under Reagan the Republican Party was "the party of ideas" and that Reagan had "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way Bill Clinton did not."
For a Democrat to put Nixon and Bill Clinton in the same sentence is the ultimate putdown.
There are more contrasts between the two men. Under Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, the U.S. economy created 22.7 million new jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since President Obama took office and with an overwhelming majority Democratic Congress in his first two years, the U.S. economy has lost 473,000 jobs. Between February 2010 and May 2012, just over 4 million private-sector jobs have been created.
During the Clinton administration with the help of a Republican Congress, the unemployment rate declined from 7.3 percent to 4.2 percent. Under President Obama, unemployment has remained above 8 percent for 41 straight months.
Less favorably on Clinton's side, he was the first president to be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. The Arkansas bar suspended his law license. He would be a poor character witness in court.
Character and keeping one's promises no longer seem to matter in a presidential candidate or a public official. That's because, for many voters, money, possessions, pleasure, celebrity and self trump these ancient values.
Of course, Clinton will herald Obama at the convention. He is, after all, the ultimate Democratic player. But Bill Clinton has interests greater than Obama's re-election. If Obama wins, Democrats win. If he loses, Hillary will be well positioned to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, though she has sworn she will not accept the nod. Still, look for the "Hillary in 2016" T-shirts in Charlotte.

The Democratic Party Fascists Take Over! ^ | August 2, 2012 | Ben Shapiro

Let's say that you own a business. And let's say that as a person of faith, you decide to use the profits from that business to support, at least in some small part, traditional marriage. Now let's say that your political opponents find your position stunning and launch a boycott against your business.

So far, no harm, no foul. It may be irritating that your political opponents choose to make your personal political predilections the basis of a crushing economic attack. But it's their right.

But now let's say your political opponents are in government. And let's say they use the power of their office to shut down your business -- not because you violated any law or broke any regulation, but because they don't like your position on traditional marriage.

This would be fascism.
Fascists deny that democracy should decide whether or not you have a right to engage in business. They suggest, instead, that political actors, armed with a vague sense of the general will, ought to enforce that vague sense rather than the law. Mao Zedong fervently supported this notion; in his "Little Red Book," he asked where "correct ideas come from." His answer: him. And only politically correct ideas could be tolerated.
Welcome to Barack Obama's America.
Two of Obama's closest political allies, Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston and Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, came out last week in favor of banning Chick-fil-A from their cities. Chick-fil-A's President and Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy, is a supporter of traditional marriage; the company has given money to groups that support traditional marriage politically. This, in the minds of Menino and Emanuel, is a grave sin in need of rapid repentance. "Chick-fil-A's values are not Chicago's values," said Emanuel of a city in which dead people vote and live people dodge bullets. "I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston," Menino wrote to Cathy. "There is no place for your discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it."
Now, neither Emanuel nor Menino can legally bar Chick-fil-A from their cities. But this attitude -- that businesses are worthy of government bans simply for failing to tow the liberal line -- now infuses the Democratic Party. It's why President Obama's allies at Media Matters consistently team up with him to launch devastating boycotts against conservative business people. It's why those public relations assaults are invariably well coordinated with government actors who suggest that force of law be used to punish those conservative business people.
This is the difference between free speech and fascism. It's one thing for people to choose not to engage in business with people with whom they disagree. That's often nasty and extreme, but it's certainly within First Amendment territory. It's another thing entirely for the government to step in to punish people who disagree with liberal policies, simply because they disagree with liberal policies. That's fascistic. It's deeply dangerous. And it's becoming the ugly new attitude of the Democratic Party elite.

TSA Chief says Americans should expect some airport screeners to be criminals!

Human Events ^ | 8/2/12 | Hope Hodge

From sleeping on the job to running prostitution rings off the clock, agents in the Transportation Security Administration have been making headlines for all the wrong reasons.

But TSA Deputy Administrator John Halinski shrugged off critiques of his employees at a hearing this week, saying Americans shouldn’t expect more from their airport screeners than they would from the average guy on the street. “If you have an organization of 60,000 people, that’s like a city,” Halinski protested, when asked if Americans were right to be unhappy with the TSA. “You’re always going to have crime in a city.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama visit amazes Ohio and America with audacity of hopelessness!

Examiner ^ | August 2, 2012 | Kevin Fobbs

You do not have to be a political genius to understand that if the state of Ohio falls out of the President’s win column in November, he and Michelle will be packing their bags and heading back to Chicago faster than he can say, “Oh no they didn’t!”

Wednesday, the president went to several key democrat voter strongholds in Ohio, in order to reinforce a political firewall against a probable loss of the state of Ohio. The city of Akron and Mansfield are crucial to the Ohio democrat voter bean counters. Their campaign goal is to continue to mystify the voters in Ohio in believing that they should care more about what Mitt Romney did in the private sector and his tax returns.

Meanwhile, these same voter are suppose to magically ignore the fact that empty unfulfilled Obama promises do not put bread on the table, nor does has it created non-existent jobs. Can these Akron voters take the president’s and their non-existent tax breaks to the mortgage company to stave off a foreclosure? Let your neighbors know how you are able to convert rising family bills into an employment opportunity.
After all, the president had promised Ohio voters in 2008 that he would stop down from office if he had not improved the economy. Yet, when he had the chance, he ducks and dodges and ignores, or in other words, he drops the ball on the court in mid game. In fact, this caring president has been missing in action from his own Jobs Council for the last six months! You know the one, where he would be using his appointed job experts to stimulate the private sector into reversing the worst economic downturn since, the 1930’s depression.
Well, Ohioans have to wonder how this alleged laser-focused president...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Obama Ad Blitz Isn't Working

Wall Street Journal ^ | August 1, 2012 | KARL ROVE

Three months and $131 million in spending haven't moved the president's poll numbers.

'If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
Despite President Obama's effort to walk back these remarks, the damage they've caused to him remains. And that's because what he said in Roanoke, Va., on July 13 came across as a true expression of his worldview.

The president's vivid words did not come out of nowhere. While pushing for higher taxes on upper-income people, Mr. Obama often refers to the wealthy as "fortunate" (such as at a Democratic National Committee event last September) and "incredibly blessed" (at a campaign event on July 23). Translation: Successful people don't really deserve to keep what they earn.

"You didn't build that" is not Mr. Obama's only recent problematic statement. In a June 8 news conference, he said "The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government." And in Oakland, Calif., on July 24, he told donors that on the economy, "We tried our plan and it worked!" These comments make voters wince

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

White House 'Pressure' Got Solyndra A DOE Loan It 'Should Never Have' ^ | August 2, 2012

"Political pressure" by a White House eager to tout its stimulus agenda was largely to blame for fast-tracking the ill-fated $535 million Solyndra loan guarantee, according to findings in a massive new congressional report released Thursday morning.

The report, by Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, caps a nearly yearlong investigation by the panel into why the government allegedly ignored red flags to approve the loan. Solyndra, a solar-panel firm, filed for bankruptcy last year.

"It is clear DOE should never have issued the loan guarantee to Solyndra," the report said, adding that a subsequent decision to restructure the terms "violated the plain language of the law."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Don't Mess With Texas

The Truth About Guns ^ | 1 August, 2012 | Rober Farago

“I’m just a citizen trying to help an officer out. That’s what I was tryin’ to do.” That’s what Vic Stacy had to say while deflecting attempts to call him a hero.
Stacy came to the aid of Sgt. Steven Means of the Early, TX PD who came under fire from Charles Conner. According to, Conner had already murdered two neighbors and their dogs before opening fire on the officer as he arrived on the scene.
When Stacy saw Sgt. Means couldn’t get a good shot at Conner, he feared the cop would be the third (well, fifth) victim of the afternoon. So Stacy opened up with his own gun, hitting him in the thigh and knocking him down.
Conner’s now in a morgue somewhere after Means and Stacy ventilated him sufficiently to end the threat. We know at least one cop who’s glad firearms aren’t restricted to police and the military.


Posted Image

Chevez Knows Communism

Posted Image


Posted Image

He Knows Communism

Posted Image

Happy Immigrants

Posted Image

Debbie the LIMP

Posted Image


Posted Image

Positive Liberals?

Posted Image

Wendy's Boycott

Posted Image

McDonald's Boycott?

Posted Image

New Facts

Posted Image

Indian Givers

Posted Image


Posted Image

Spread the gold

Posted Image

Too much of a wuss?

Posted Image

Chevrolet Voltville

Posted Image

Black Americans Supporting Chick-Fil-A? [Significant Numbers in Florida!]

 by SoFloFreeper

Just an observation, asking for opinions and other observations here. We went to a South Florida Chick-Fil-A, one that is in a "white" area, but still fairly diverse ethnically because of a nearby college...the town of Davie.

Saw a significant number of African American customers supporting Chick-Fil-A...I wonder if the rumors about Obamugabe's celebration of sodomy is *really* cutting into his "base".

Obama: 'Stuck in the Mud' is exactly what he wants!

The American Thinker ^ | August 2, 2012 | Daniel Joppich

I was shocked to see this headline on the "new"
Economy may be permanently stuck in slow-growth mode
What the author, John Schoen, ignored throughout the article was the 800 pound gorilla in the room -- Obama's European-style socialist vision.
To correct some of these oversights, I would suggest that we begin by revising the graph as follows:

As for Obama's socialist vision, the path of the graph is exactly what he wants to see. This is the path towards ultimate government dependence on the part of the masses.
In order to illustrate Obama's Marxist "success" further, I would include a couple graphs comparing Obama and the Democrats' performance with Europe's.
First, look at the sustained unemployment during pre-Obama years compared to the rates during his presidency (which included two years of Democrat-controlled Congress) and then 20 years of the six leading Eurozone economies:

Even through several recessions the U.S. never approached European-level unemployment for any extended period of time until Obama and the Democrats took control. Since Obama's election our figures mirror European numbers perfectly.
Now let's look at some GDP figures from Europe:

Again, if Obama's European-style socialist vision involves permanent budget deficits and long-term GDP growth of 1.5% to 2.25% as the article suggests, he is doing exactly what he hoped to do. Unfortunately the cost is a debt-to-GDP ratio far exceeding Europe's leading economies......

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Winning a gold medal brings a $9,000 tax bill

Yahoo Sports ^ | 8/1/12 | Chris Chase

When Olympic medalists return to the United States, they're in high demand. Everyone, from Michael Phelps to a bronze medalist in judo will be sitting for television interviews, talking to newspapers, going to assemblies at local schools and celebrating with friends, family and young athletes. They'll also draw some unwanted interest from everyone's favorite bureaucrats: the IRS.

Medalists will have to pay hefty taxes for standing on the podium in London. It's not the value of the medal itself that will require a separate line on this years tax returns, it's the tax on the prize money that comes with a gold, silver or bronze.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

On the Way to Fast and Furious Accountability: Round One ^ | August 2, 2012 | Katie Pavich

Yesterday Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Charles Grassley issued a 211-page report and more than 2,000 documents, pinning much of the blame for Operation Fast and Furious on five ATF supervisors. This is the first in a series of three reports expected to be released.

An initial look at the report and the documents reminds us of a few things and also brings us new information.

First, it was just over a month ago when Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting cabinet member in history to be held in civil and criminal contempt of Congress. In yesterday’s document dump, an email from former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke, the man responsible for overseeing Fast and Furious on the ground level in Phoenix on behalf of the Department of Justice, shows there was discussion about Holder in relation to Fast and Furious.
U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke apparently viewed it [Fast and Furious] as such a model case that he was working to have Attorney General Holder attend the takedown press conference scheduled for January 2011. On December 14, 2010 (just hours before Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot), Burke sent an e-mail to his staff with the subject “Fast and Furious.”
The case Burke referred to in the first email is Fast and Furious. After Terry was killed, Burke changed his tune.


Burke resigned in August 2011 amidst the fallout of the scandal. As a refresher, Burke says he never spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder or his former boss Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about the operation. Yet this email strongly implies otherwise. Not to mention, throughout his time as US Attorney, Burke was sitting on Holder’s Attorney General Advisory Board giving Holder direct advice as to gun trafficking policy and on border policy in general. Furthermore, he served as Napolitano’s staffer during her time as Arizona Attorney General, served as her chief of staff during her time as Arizona governor, and followed her into the Obama administration as her senior Homeland Security adviser before President Obama appointed him to US Attorney. In addition to having a longtime personal and professional relationship with Napolitano, Burke also helped draft the Clinton era assault weapons ban legislation with now-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who served as President Obama’s chief of staff.

The report includes multiple memos addressed directly to Holder as early as August 2009 on the topic of gun trafficking. Holder claims he first found out about the case a “few weeks” prior to May 2011.
The genesis of the strategy employed in Operation Fast and Furious goes back to the summer of 2009. On August 19, 2009, Lanny Breuer, Assitant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, sent a memorandum to the attention of the Attorney General that reported recommendations of the Firearms Trafficking Working Group(“FTWG”). The FTWG’s mission was to formulate a plan to improve the U.S. government’s efforts in stemming the illegal flow of weapons, which was fueling escalating violence along both sides of the Southwestern border. The working group’s first recommendation was that the “Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security should form an interagency Southwest Border (“SWB”) firearms trafficking strategy group.” According to the Justice Department, “the Deputy Attorney General responded to the specific proposals in this memorandum by forming the Southwest Border Strategy Group, which he chaired.
In addition to Burke, the report lays out a detailed case against former Phoenix Special Agent in Charge Bill Newell, former ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson, former Deputy Director William Hoover, former Assistant Director for Field Operations Mark Chait and Deputy Assistant Director for Field Operations William McMahon. They are all “formers” simply because they were reassigned within the DOJ or ATF, not fired. ATF supervisor David Voth also played a large role in moving the operation forward.


Throughout the course of Operation Fast and Furious, ATF supervisors ignored the skyrocketing murder rate in Mexico as the agency continued to flood the country with weapons. Voth specifically pointed out the increasing numbers of dead, yet said the plan was “righteous” and that the case would take “patience.” In other words, humans were being used as collateral damage for what Voth saw as the greater good of the operation, which resulted in no arrests of cartel kingpins. Voth even went so far to say, “If your case has firearms recovered in Mexico…document that people were killed, drug[s] were recovered, it was Cartel related etc. This will help us down the road.” Voth was encouraging agents to make the connection between Cartel violence and the “source” of the weapons used: U.S. gun dealers who were cooperating with ATF the entire time and being told to sell to cartel straw purchasers.




When Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed on December 15, 2010 and guns from Operation Fast and Furious were left at the murder scene, Voth sent another email. He made it clear he was annoyed the case could get ugly, rather than expressing regret for Terry’s murder being connected the case he deemed as “righteous.”
Ugh….things will most likely get ugly”: ATF knew that any deaths tied to Fast and Furious weapons would cause an immediate public outcry. ATF tried to minimize this fallout by limiting access to information and avoiding discussions of links between any deaths and firearms associated with the case.
Shortly after, a gag order was issued to ATF field agents involved in the case and Voth sent an email stressing the importance of remaining quiet and obeying the order.

Based on Voth’s, “things will most likely get ugly” comments, ATF did everything it could to cover up the connection between Terry’s murder and the operation. They coordinated with each other before giving statements to the media, making it clear no connection should be made between the two when speaking to the press.

ATF also used the strategy of “ignoring” the connection between a murder and Fast and Furious in the case of Mario Gonzalez, brother of then Attorney General of the State of Chihuahua in Mexico Patricia Gonzalez in November 2010.
A subsequent shootout between police and the murder suspects resulted in the recovery of sixteen weapons, two of which traced back to Operation Fast and Furious. Though ATF quickly became aware of the connection between Fast and Furious guns and the high-profile murder of Gonzalez, which dominated the news in Mexico, ATF declined to inform Mexican government officials about the link or about Fast and Furious.
Terry's family found out about the connection between Terry's murder and Operation Fast and Furious through the media, not from ATF of DOJ officials.


Townhall reported in July 2011 that Operation Fast and Furious was used and designed to promote gun control based on email evidence from Chait to Newell on July 14, 2010 which read, “Bill- Can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same FfL and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks Mark R. Chait Assistant Director Field Operations."

The new report gives us more evidence of a push for new long reporting regulations, which the Justice Department put into place last year.







A memo was sent directly to Attorney General Eric Holder from former Acting Director Kenneth Melson asking for approval for long gun reporting measures.
Memo to Holder About Long Gun Reporting

While ATF was pushing for new regulations on border state gun dealers, supervisors were grossly misleading them. Dealers continually expressed their concerns about allowing bad guys to purchase weapons but were reassured that arrests were being made and that weapons were not going to Mexico. Both of these assertions were false.
ATF continued to mislead FFLs (gun dealers) about the interdiction of weapons, and ATF investigative agents acted recklessly by crossing the line into ATF’s regulatory function.”


ATF and the Department of Justice have received the bulk of the criticism when it comes to the Fast and Furious fallout; however, other agencies also played large roles in carrying out the operation. The Department of Homeland Security was heavily involved through I.C.E. and worked to recover and trace firearms in the program. Border Patrol also helped in this aspect.

A memo titled, “Division of Responsibilities with DHS,” shows the connection between Fast and Furious, ICE, DHS, ATF and DOJ.
Given its statutory missio0n and the resources it can bring to bear at the border DHS clearly bears primary responsibility for the policing function. DOJ fully supports DHS in that endeavor by sharing relevant intelligence and by prosecuting the most egregious offenders DHS arrests in the course of its policing function.
While the cartels’ primary business is drug trafficking, they also sponsor a panoply of other crimes that support their illegal operations. These other crimes include extortion, torture, murder, corruption of public officials, sheltering of wanted fugitives, kidnapping and human smuggling, laundering of illicit criminal proceeds through the existing financial system and through bulk cash smuggling, and the illegal acquisition, trafficking, and use of firearms and explosives.

It is in taking down these organized, multi-faceted criminal enterprises that DOJ plays the primary role and brings to bear its special expertise. DOJ’s success in this endeavor assists, in turn, DHS in the performance of its policing and enforcement function, by disrupting the operations of the cartels, thereby decreasing the pressure on the border. For its part, DHS, and particular ICE, provides invaluable assistance to the attack on these criminal organizations, by bringing to bear its unique expertise on cross-border transit of contraband.
Multiple emails provided in the report show heavy communication from ATF about ICE involvement.


The good news is, at one point ATF officials did try to exit Fast and Furious and even came up with a strategy to end the operation. Once the strategy was submitted for approval, it was delayed significantly and the program wasn’t shut down until after Terry was murdered.


According to sources on Capitol Hill, despite this “final” report being issued, the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious is far from over. The House of Representatives will begin legal proceedings “to enforce its prerogatives following the June 27, 2012, vote holding Eric H. Holder, Jr. in criminal and civil contempt.” Once this case goes before a judge, Holder’s responsibility to comply with an October 2011 subpoena will be determined along with whether President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege in this case is valid.

Obama, kiss my ass!

Current European Tax Rates

United Kingdom
Income Tax: 50%
VAT: 17.5% TOTAL: 67.5%

Income Tax: 40%
VAT: 19.6% TOTAL: 59.6%

Income Tax: 40%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 65%

Income Tax: 45%
VAT: 16% TOTAL: 61%

Income Tax: 42%
VAT: 20% TOTAL: 62%

Income Tax: 55%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 80%

Income Tax: 54.3%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 79.3%

Income Tax: 52%
VAT: 19% TOTAL: 71%

I! ncome Tax: 58%
VAT: 25% TOTAL: 83%

Income Tax: 53%
VAT: 22% TOTAL: 75%

If you've started to wonder what the real costs of socialism are going to be - once the full program in these United States hits your wallet, take a look at the table. As you digest these mind-boggling figures, keep in mind that in spite of these astronomical tax rates, these countries are still not financing their social welfare programs exclusively from tax revenues! They are deeply mired in public debt of gargantuan proportions. Greece has reached the point where its debt is so huge it is in imminent danger of defaulting. That is the reason theEuropean economic community has intervened to bail them out. If you're following the financial news, you know Spain and Portugal are right behind Greece .

The United States is now heading right down the same path. The VAT tax in the table is the national sales tax that Europeans pay. Stay tuned because that is exactly what you can expect to see the administration proposing after the fall elections.(if Obama is elected) The initial percentage in the United States isn't going to be anywhere near the outrageous numbers you now see in Europe .

The current outrageous numbers in Europe didn't start out as outrageous either. They started out as minuscule - right around the 1% or 2% where they will start out in the United States . Magically, however, they ran up over the years to where they are now. Expect the same thing here.

It is the very notion that with hard work and perseverance, anybody can get ahead economically here in the USA . Do you think that can ever happen with tax rates between 60% and 80%? Think again. With the government taking that percentage of your money, your life will be exactly like life in Europe ...
You will never be able to buy a home.
You will never buy a car.
You will never send your children to college.

Let's not shuffle the battle cry of the socialists under the rug either. It's always the same cry. Equalize income. Spread the wealth to the poor (whoever they are). Level the economic playing field. Accomplish that and everything will be rosy.

It's time to take a hard look at reality.

Greece is a perfect example. Despite the socialism system that has ruled this country for decades, with a 65% tax rate, they are drowning in public debt, would have defaulted without hundreds of billions in bailout money from the EU, and still. . . 20% of their population lives in poverty. What has all that socialism money bought, besides ultimate power for the politicians running the show?
Do you think these people are "free"? They are slaves to their economic "system."

Instead of spreading the wealth around, spread this info around. It might wake up some people.
If you agree with this, forward it, if you do not agree with it, read it again