Friday, December 21, 2012

Joe Friday: Man Out of Time

am spectator ^ | 12/21/12 | d flynn

Dragnet’s Jack Webb died thirty years ago, and a lot of America has been dead ever since.

Jack Webb, who died thirty years ago this weekend, arrived at the right time. “After the war, people were much more realistic,” notes Peggy Webber, star of more than 100 Dragnet episodes. “They wanted things to be as honest as possible. And he filled the bill.”

Dragnet, as the just-the-facts catchphrase it inspired indicates, depicted police work without the frills. Whereas other detective stories attracted listeners through the promise of a weekly shootout, Dragnet snagged them by keeping the weapons holstered. The iconic music, gimmicky teasers promising to reveal case results, and insistence that the show dramatized real-life events joined with the deadpan deliveries to provide the program an audience and authenticity.
My favorite radio episode involved a disturbed old man who for thrills made emergency phone calls for fake car accidents and the like. Typical broadcasts included bunco swindles of Korean War widows, juvenile delinquent rumbles, and small-time robberies of mom-and-pop outlets. Occasionally, the radio run tackled heroin, pornography, and other (im?)mature themes. The hustlers argued their innocence. They never, unlike their counterparts in the ’60s-era television version, argued the innocence of hustling. Crime hadn’t changed. Criminals had.
This became startlingly evident on the January 12, 1967 premiere episode of Dragnet 1967, which depicts a blue-faced teenager tripping on acid. Blue Boy memorably makes numerous non sequitur observations: “Brown, blue, yellow, green, green, orange, red. Red! Red! Red! I can hear them! I can hear them all!” Fifties, meet the sixties.
We remember this post-Miranda incarnation of Dragnet, despite it

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Love this series. To hear Joe Friday spill it out watch here

A 'what if' gun-seizure scenario

WND ^ | December 20, 2012 | Joseph Farah

Exclusive: Joseph Farah warns, 'Something very bad for America is coming'

(Editor’s note: The following commentary by Joseph Farah is a hypothetical scenario, but one all-too-believable given the anti-gun hysteria in the media and here in the nation’s capital. It is offered in the spirit of what former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel once said: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.”)

WASHINGTON – President Obama today issued a sweeping executive order banning the manufacture, sale and possession of all semi-automatic firearms in the U.S.
Obama cited for his authority for the action a national state of emergency that has been in effect ever since Sept. 11, 2001, and renewed annually by both President George W. Bush and Obama ever since. He also cited portions of the Patriot Act that suspend certain civil rights that remain classified.
The dramatic action by the president follows closely on the heels of the Newtown, Conn., massacre of 27 schoolchildren and teachers by Adam Lanza a week ago.
Gun-control advocates have been pushing for tighter gun control ever since the attack on the Sandy Hook Elementary School, the fourth mass shooting in the U.S. in 2012.
Yet the action was surprising because Obama vowed to present a detailed plan of action in January after naming Vice President Joe Biden to head a blue-ribbon panel including Cabinet members, law enforcement officials and various agencies of the government. Biden convened the first meeting of the panel only yesterday.
That’s how quickly it could happen.
That’s how liberty could be lost in America in one day.
For many, today was the day the world was supposed to end, according to the Mayan calendar and other ancient documents.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

America is now run by angry, feral adolescents fueled by hatred, jealousy and revenge! ^ | Dec. 21, 2012 | Derrick Hollenbeck, staff writer

Minority groups in America live better here than they do in other parts of the world. This is true for both Blacks and Hispanics.
“Poor” in America is a description of at least lower middle class or better in many countries around the world. Yet when given a chance, these groups gladly plunged America into a dark and dangerous future to take their “revenge” against our nation.
On first glance this lust for revenge seems counterintuitive. But closer examination explains this rage. Both groups are fueled by greed hatred jealousy and a thirst for revenge stoked to a roaring flame by Barack Obama a man unconcerned with long term consequences.
Consider these points. At 14.3% Black unemployment is more than double White unemployment. At 10% Hispanic unemployment is more than 2 points higher than the national average.
By no measure are either of these groups better off now than they were before Obama came along.
Yet Blacks and Hispanics ran to the polls in an orgy of hatred and revenge for the greater society to reelect “Brother Barack” who has destroyed both their secular and religious lives.
Obama forced both of them to choose between him and their pastors over the issue of Gay marriage. They decided the chance for revenge he offered them was worth ignoring their religious leaders call to Biblical law.
They willingly complied when Obama appealed to their seething hatred because feeding their desire for retribution is more important than anything else in their lives.
They loved it when Obama publically abandoned any pretense of caring what White people thought of him or them.
“…59% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. …… sheer orgasmic delight of “stickin’ to the man” rendered this fact meaningless for these groups……
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

A Comparison of Tax Rates


As we near the so-called “Fiscal Cliff”, I feel it necessary to point out, again, that higher tax rates will lead to lower revenue for the federal government. Previously, I only had the words of various economists on my side, and re-iterated those words in defense of keeping the tax rates low. However, recently I worked to come up with a comparison showing how higher tax rates lead to lower revenues, and vice versa.
The results actually surprised me, as to how far they were in the favor of the lower rates, when you extrapolated out the difference to a ten year period. When you consider the tax rates under the two most recent Presidents not named Obama, the following was observed:
Given the period from 1994 to 1999, the growth period under Clinton, federal revenues increased by 1.3% for every 1% increase in GDP.
Given the period from 2003-2007, the growth period under Bush, with the lower tax rates, federal revenues increased by 1.7% for every 1% increase in GDP.
Applying those percentages in a comparison model, then, we can see that if given a starting point of $2.5 Trillion in revenues, and a growth of 3%(real GDP growth) in GDP, that under the Clinton tax rates, the following year’s revenues would equal roughly $2.598 Trillion. Under the Bush tax rates, that figure goes up to $2.628 Trillion. For a ten year period, the difference in revenue, assuming constant growth in GDP, becomes roughly $2.2 Trillion dollars difference in revenue
Is $2.2 Trillion enough to give up, just to implement some arbitrary, ambiguous idea of “fair share”?
$2.2 Trillion, in ten years time, is a hefty difference in revenue generated by the federal government. If the government combined this with meaningful spending cuts, in a decade the deficits could very easily fall to more manageable numbers, even zero, or surpluses, if the spending is contained well enough.
The old liberal mantra that tax-cuts do not pay for themselves has been proliferated amongst the public to their own detriment. I welcome the challenges from the liberal/progressives on my math, which I believe is much clearer, and correct, than Obama’s.

Christmas Thoughts, 2012 ^ | December 21, 2012 | Mark W. Henderson

The gentle spirit of Christmas brings a sense of fresh promise and renewal every year. The remembrances and commemorations of the birth of an innocent baby have a softening effect. Christmas provides a respite, even surcease, from the stresses, bruises, frictions, and pressures of everyday life. Indeed, this annual event reminds us that children are the hope of the world. They represent pure goodness—a clean slate, free of the learned baggage of mistrust and unkindness. They give us a glimpse of what life can be like without strife or animosity. They testify to the ideal of peace on earth.

This year, the Christmas holiday has taken on a somber tone due to the unspeakable crime against children and loving educators in Newtown, Connecticut. Dozens of parents will experience Christmas without a loving, beautiful child—a light of their lives—at their side. Millions of Christians pray that they draw comfort from cherishing the miracle of Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem more than 2,000 years ago.

We can’t begin to understand the gross darkness that led to such horridly unjust, random violence in Newtown. Such nihilism doesn’t compute in a healthy mind. Rather than try to comprehend incomprehensible blackness, we need to turn to the light.

The gospel of John describes Jesus as a light who came into the world to dispel darkness. Indeed, after the birth of Jesus, the forces of darkness tried to keep the Christ-light out of the world when Herod ordered the slaughter of all Hebrew boys under the age of two. Jesus was protected from that evil intent—one of many proofs he gave that light ultimately triumphs over darkness.

At the end of his public ministry, the forces of darkness again tried to snuff out the still-innocent life of Jesus, the Christ. Once again, though, the glorious message was sent loud and clear to all mankind that life is inextinguishable, when Jesus first showed that death had no hold on him and then shed the confines of the mortal, physical limits of time and space by ascending into heaven without passing through death. Indeed, as my colleague, Dr. Gary Smith, recently reported, the evidence is mounting that our conscious identities live on when the human body dies.

The very fact that so many millions of Americans mourn the senseless crime against good people whom they don’t even know is evidence of Jesus’ profound and lasting influence. To pagans—both ancient (e.g., Aztecs) and modern (e.g., Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, et al.)—life, even the lives of children, is cheap. Some professed monotheists regard children as expendable, too, as was shown when Iran’s stone-hearted ayatollahs condemned young children to death in the Iran-Iraq war by sending them into mine fields to blow themselves up so that Iranian troops could safely traverse the newly cleared fields. It is primarily, if not exclusively, Judeo-Christian values that have inculcated in western societies, among believers and nonbelievers alike, the recognition of how precious children are.

Normally, I would wish everyone “Merry Christmas,” but that traditional salutation seems inappropriate this year. My wish, instead, is that we all feel the gentle touch of the loving spirit that the infant Jesus embodied; that we quietly rejoice in the miracle of life, both human and eternal; that those who are grieving feel Christ’s comforting touch—the priceless gift, infinitely more valuable than gold, frankincense, and myrrh, of the hope of salvation from all the woes of the flesh.

This year, let’s go deeper than the typical merriment and festivities of Christmas, and strive to hear the timeless angel-song: “on earth peace, good will toward men. God bless us—every one!”

2013 Thanks to Obama, A Forecaster’s Rubik Cube ^ | December 21, 2012 | Fritz Pfister

The formula for forecasting home sales used to include four key components; supply, demand, interest rates, and available mortgage money. With the election of Obama and his progressive onslaught upon the private sector, it becomes practically impossible to see 2013.
Ad nausea you have been told that businesses don’t like uncertainty as the primary reason they aren’t hiring. That is true.
Good news, businesses have certainty now that Obama has been reelected, they know for certain their taxes won’t be going down. They know Obamacare with its $1 trillion in new taxes will go forward.
The bad news is the fiscal cliff charade will keep small business owners guessing how high taxes will go on their incomes, dividends, and capital gains. But not for long, Boehner unable to muster up any integrity to stand on principle has caved on tax increases, and folded on meaningful spending cuts.
We are to the point that going over the fiscal cliff might be the better solution in the long term. Sure every economist says that will throw America into recession, but for how long?
If Obama is correct that we have a revenue problem, and not a spending problem, then doesn’t it make sense to just raise taxes on everyone now instead of delaying the inevitable?
Obama campaigned on a balanced approach, $800 billion in tax increases on the top 2% over ten years as the magic elixir that would pay for $1.3 trillion in deficit spending while paying for every entitlement in place or to be conjured up for infinity. No starving children, freezing seniors, dirty water, or air would result if Obama could just tax the rich.
As for spending cuts, all we needed was to gut the military, since he had already won the war on terror by defeating al Qaeda with the assassination of Osama bin Laden, was winding down the two illegal unfunded wars, and world peace had returned.
Sadly that plan changed as soon as the votes were counted. Obama now demanded $1.6 trillion in tax increases on the rich, while we would need to talk about spending cuts later. Just like under Reagan and Bush I which never came.
Instead of Boehner and Republicans leading by taking a stand on a solid fiscal policy that would actually help the nation recover, they drop their principles faster than Holder drops a case against New Black Panthers. Conservative principles such as real spending and tax cuts that always lead to recovery.
In order to make reasonably close predictions for the 2013 housing market, one must wait to see the final Obama tax and spend fiscal cliff solution. Will it simply be bad, or devastating? We’ll know soon.
Meanwhile back in the real world November housing starts came in below projections at 861,000 as October and September rosy numbers printed for reelection purposes, were revised down by 25,000. The economic ignoramuses in the media continue to report a housing recovery based on these numbers albeit 1.2 million starts is considered ‘normal’.
Building permit applications, the way local governing bodies collect fees on what might be built, came in at 899,000. Surprisingly permits were down 25% in the Northeast in spite of Sandy’s catastrophic toll on housing. Perhaps those will come later.
Good news for the real estate industry, there is certainty that the heavy handed state control regulatory regimen of Dodd-Frank will continue with Obama in office.
The bad news is the law mandates the Qualified Mortgage Rule (QM) be in place by January 1, 2013 along with the Qualified Mortgage Residential Rule (QRM). The QM is a bureaucrat definition of a one size fits all qualified mortgage that every potential home buyer must fit or be disqualified, while the QRM is a bureaucrat determination of the amount of risk every lender must retain for every mortgage they write.
As this column is being written on December 20th, those rules have not been released according to a source at Wells Fargo. My source says it’s no big deal because lenders have learned to adapt to the new rules coming across their fax machine daily, however it might prove to be a big deal to a buyer with a loan in progress if they don’t fit in the QM box.
The QRM simply means banks will only take risks on the highly qualified if they must retain a portion of the risk in the event of default. That’s easy for the forecaster, fewer loans will be approved.
It appears that the forecast for 2013 will have to wait until the final fiscal cliff charade is solved, and the bureaucratic geniuses release QM/QRM to calculate the damage to the housing market. For now 2013 is a Rubik Cube with missing pieces.
The opinions expressed here are solely those of Fritz Pfister or identified sources, and not necessarily those of RE/MAX Professionals of Springfield or RE/MAX International.

446 school age children shot in Chicago !

The Tea Party Commander ^ | December 20, 2012 | none listed

446 school age children shot in Chicago so far this year with strongest gun laws in country – media silent!

The cesspool known as Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year with almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthy? Is it because it would embarrass those anti second amendment nuts who brag about Chicago’s tough gun laws? Is it because most of the kids who were shot and killed were minorities? Or is it because the corrupt media doesn’t want to show Chicago in a bad light? Amazingly, no Obama crocodile tears either.

For those of you too dense to get the point of this post, it’s to make the point about gun laws. No matter how tough the gun laws are, the crazed, nut jobs will find a way to get them and if they so chose, use them. No draconian law can stop this, no matter how well intentioned the law is, or if it’s just about leftists grabbing power from citizens and taking away their constitutional rights.

446 School Age Children Shot in Chicago so Far This Year THE LIST OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN SHOT IN 2012

18 year old- 110

17 year old- 99

16 year old- 89

15 year old- 62

14 year old- 39

13 year old- 21

12 year old- 10

11 year old- 2

10 year old- 3

9 year old- 1

7 year old- 3

6 year old- 2

5 year old- 1

4 year old- 1

3 year old- 1

1 year old- 2

Liberal Obsession With Race is Growing Old ^ | December 21, 2012 | Joonah Goldberg

When will liberals stop living in the past? Specifically, when will they accept that they aren't all that stands between a wonderful, tolerant America and Jim Crow?
I was in the room when, during the Democratic convention, civil rights hero John Lewis suggested that Republicans wanted to "go back" to the days when black men like him could be beaten in the street by the enforcers of Jim Crow. I thought it an outrageous and disgusting bit of demagoguery. The audience of Democratic delegates cheered in a riot of self-congratulation.
It's bizarre. I spend most of my time talking or listening to fellow conservatives, and I never hear anybody talk about wanting anything of the sort. But to listen to liberals, that's all we care about.
Toward the end of the presidential campaign, various liberal pundits -- a great many of them born after the signing of the Civil Rights Act -- thought it a brilliant and damning indictment to note that Mitt Romney ran strong in states that once comprised the Confederacy. When Barack Obama won, Jon Stewart conceded that at least Romney won "most of the Confederacy."
These states committed the obvious sin of voting Republican while the president was black.
Just this week, in an essay for the New York Times, Adolph Reed attacked South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley -- the first female Indian American governor in America -- for appointing Rep. Tim Scott to retiring Sen. Jim DeMint's seat. Scott is a black man and a conservative Tea Party favorite.
So obviously, this is a very clever ploy to restore Jim Crow.
"Just as white Southern Democrats once used cynical manipulations -- poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests -- to get around the 15th Amendment," Reed writes, "so modern-day Republicans have deployed blacks to undermine black interests."
That's it exactly. Indeed, that's what the Tea Party was always about: undermining black interests.
When Herman Cain -- another inconveniently black man -- was the overwhelming preference among Tea Party activists for the Republican presidential nomination, a historian writing in The New York Times suggested that Cain could be seen as proof the legacy of the Ku Klux Klan lives on.
You know you've been pounding a square peg into a round hole for too long when you find yourself insinuating that a black man from Georgia represents the KKK tradition in contemporary politics.
More recently, liberal writers apparently convinced themselves that Republican opposition to Susan Rice becoming the next secretary of state was payback for the Emancipation or something.
"Angry over the reelection of the nation's first black president," vented a writer for The American Prospect, "a handful of old white senators -- one of whom hails from the cradle of the Confederacy -- launch hysterical and dishonest attacks on ... a well-qualified African American woman."
The Washington Post editorial board connected the dots, too, finding it important to note that of the Republican legislators expressing their reservations about Rice, "nearly half are from states of the former Confederacy."
Of course, the same racist representatives of Dixie also thought it fine to confirm Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice for the same job.
It's like a metastasizing cancer of delusion. Jim Sleeper, a lecturer at Yale and once a relatively sober-minded liberal writer, insists that opposition to gun control has something to do with the segregationist mind-set. Or something.
To watch MSNBC is to think the hosts see themselves as the official newsletter of the Underground Railroad.
Sure, there are racists in the Republican Party. (There are some in the Democratic Party, too.) And if you define racism as disagreeing with the Congressional Black Caucus or Barack Obama, the GOP is racist to the bone.
But the inconvenient truth is that conservatives are not only not racist, they aren't a fraction as obsessed with race as liberals are.
Of course, that lack of obsession is no doubt itself proof of conservative racism. And why shouldn't it be? Everything else is.

Click, print, shoot: Downloadable guns possible

Associated Press ^ | Dec 21, 2012 4:21 AM EST | Jason Dearen

Downloading a gun’s design plans to your computer, building it on a three-dimensional printer and firing it minutes later. No background checks, no questions asked. Sound far-fetched? It’s not. And that is disquieting for gun control advocates. …
At least one group, called Defense Distributed, is claiming to have created downloadable weapon parts that can be built using the increasingly popular new-generation of printer that utilizes plastics and other materials to create 3-D objects with moving parts. University of Texas law student Cody Wilson, the 24-year-old “Wiki Weapons” project leader, says the group last month test fired a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle—one of the weapon types used in the Connecticut elementary school massacre—which was built with some key parts created on a 3-D printer. The gun was fired six times before it broke. …
Right now, most people interested in 3-D printing rent time on one. There are a number of businesses and co-ops in major cities that allow access to the machines for a nominal fee. At San Francisco’s TechShop, which features a 3-D printer for its members, “assembling firearms is strictly prohibited and our staff is trained on that policy,” company spokeswoman Carrie Motamedi said. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Tax Congress! ^ | December 21, 2012 | John Ransom

Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want you to know that the rich are out of control.
After thinking about it for a few years, they have finally figured out that our economic problems have a very simple explanation: There are too many rich people.
Too many rich people are causing a jobless “recovery.” Having too many rich people caused the Fukushima nuclear reactor to meltdown. The rich are probably responsible for the next ice age too.
Rich people it’s seems run up huge budget deficits on silly things like entitlement spending and road projects that benefit the Illinois Asphalt Contractors Association.
Rich people demand trillions in stimulus spending, huge mortgage entitlements for people who can’t make house payments and bloated pension programs for public workers.
Rich people get special treatment from banks that they are supposed to be regulating; they encourage the Federal Reserve Bank to print more money and they borrow gigantic sums from the Chinese.
The rich people are out of control, they tell us.
In order to get them back under control, they have to be taxed.
Obama and his friends want to tax impose a super-tax on the 4 million household making more than $250,000 per year.
Former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes: “From the 1940s until 1980, the top income-tax rate on the highest earners in America was at least 70 percent. In the 1950s, it was 91 percent. Now it's 35 percent. Even if you include deductions and credits, the rich are paying a far lower share of their incomes in taxes than at any time since World War II.”
And that’s just not fair.
“Fair” is also known as the Obama Doctrine.
The Obama Doctrine says that we have to tax the rich in the interest of fairness. We’d all have less money, for sure. We’d all get to wait in line for rationed toilet paper and rationed healthcare but fairness would rule the land.
Sure, the whole Land of Opportunity thing worked for 300 years, but what about the next 300 years?
Maybe instead America can be the Yeah, We’re the Land of Opportunity, But Don’t Get Carried Away With It, O.K.?
If those darn rich people would just stop being rich, then we’d have no budget problems at all.
Some of the rich are guiltily admitting as much. They’ve banded together into United for a Fair Economy. They’ve signed a pledge pleading with the government to tax the rich more.
“Seattle-based Judy Pigott, one of the heirs to her grandfather’s company that builds Peterbilt trucks and other heavy equipment, was one of the first people to sign the Pledge,” says a press release from the organization.
“’If we even kept what was in place from the end of the Reagan years and into those of Bush I,’” says Pigott, “’I suspect we’d not be in a budget crisis now. Let’s do what it takes to support all of us, since it takes all of us to keep this nation going.’”
You see, it takes a village to tax the rich.
Of course, Ms. Pigott is probably relying on her considerable economic experience as an heiress to come to that conclusion.
Economists and historians disagree with Ms. Pigott: “The historical evidence suggests that capital gains tax reductions tend to increase tax revenue,’ says Shahira ElBogdady Knight an economist with the Congressional Joint Economic Study Committee.
“When capital gains tax rates were lowered in 1978 and again in 1981, revenue climbed steadily. Conversely, when the tax rate was increased in 1987, revenue began declining despite forecasters predictions it would increase. For instance, capital gains tax revenue in 1985 equaled $36.4 billion after adjusting for inflation, yet $36.2 billion was collected in 1994 under a higher tax rate. In other words, tax revenue in 1994 was slightly less than it was in 1985 even though the economy was larger, the tax rate was higher, and the stock market was stronger in 1994.”
But what about fairness?
In the interest of fairness, there is only one group of people that need to be taxed.
Because the rich people in Congress are out of control.