Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Brewer: No immigration reform until the border is secure!

Sierra Vista Herald ^ | Howard Fischer| Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer can’t put a specific definition on what it means to have a secure border.
But she said residents along the boundary with Mexico will know it when it happens.
The question of what Brewer thinks is politically significant since the governor said she will not support any form of immigration reform unless and until the border is secure. But until now she has offered no definition of what that means.
Her comments come as members of her own Republican Party in Congress are pursuing their own immigration reform plans in the wake of the defeat of presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
One of the places Romney — and many Republicans — came up short last year was that the emerging Latino vote went strongly for President Obama and Democrats. And that has caused some in the GOP to re-examine what it would take to prevent a repeat in the next election.
In a statement following the November election, Brewer cheered the fact that illegal immigration is once again at the fore of the national dialog. But she said Congress should not rush to a solution that only makes things worse.
“Right now there are well-meaning people, including some in my own party, who are advocating a grand bargain in which the American people would be promised border security in exchange for the granting of amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens,” the governor said in a prepared statement.
“We’ve been here before,” she continued, citing the 1986 deal passed during the Reagan administration where about three million gained U.S. citizenship.
“The border was never secured,” Brewer said. Now, she wants that done first. And only at that point, Brewer said, should Congress address the broader issues of immigration.
On Monday, pushed for what she would consider secure, Brewer said a starting point would be to make the entire border as secure as the Yuma sector.
The Yuma sector which covers about 126 miles from the west end of Pima County to the Imperial Sand Dunes in California had about 5,800 apprehensions in a 10-month period ending last July 31. By comparison, the 262-mile Tucson sector which covers the balance of Arizona had more than 105,000.
“I think that would be a goal,” Brewer said Monday. But the governor said the real test is whether those along the border feel secure.
“We can talk to the people that are affected personally by the border,” she said. “And when they say that border is secure, then I think that we can rest peacefully.”
Members of Congress, however, may not be willing to wait until that point.
In a commentary for The Arizona Daily Star, Sen. John McCain, the state’s senior senator, pointed out that illegal immigration is at an all-time low. He said that presents an opportunity to provide the technology and resources “to finally secure the border for good.”
But McCain did not set absolute security as a precursor for other action, saying he wants to work “as border security improves” on addressing the estimated 11 million people living in this country illegally.
And newly elected Sen. Jeff Flake, in a similar commentary, said while improved border security is important, so is setting up a temporary worker program to ensure that businesses have the labor they need “along with a realistic mechanism to deal with those working here illegally.”
Brewer said Monday she has not been contacted by any member of Congress about their plans. But the governor said she is watching “and, hopefully, in agreement with them.”

Global Warming Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago

Lawrence Journal World ^ | January 8, 2013 | Reasonmclucus

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by "trapping" infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.
Philosophical Magazine might not sound like the name of a science publication, but a century ago leading scientists published their discoveries in it.
During the early 19th Century many physicists supported the theory postulated by Benjamin Franklin that heat involved some type of fluid. The theory became known as "caloric theory". Joseph Jean Baptiste Fourier's theory that the atmosphere was heated from infrared radiation from the ground was a variation of caloric theory with IR functioning as the "fluid". Fourier believed greenhouses were heated by trapping this radiation.
Physicists in the early 19th Century were attempting to develop theories to explain the nature of atoms and their properties such as heat. Physicists theorized that atoms were the smallest particles of matter.
By the end of the century a new theory of heat, called "kinetic theory", was being developed that suggested heat was the motion, or kinetic energy, of atoms. However, Fourier's theory that IR heated the atmosphere particularly by interacting with carbon dioxide and water vapor continued to have support.
In 1897 J.J. Thompson overturned the popular theory of the atoms being the smallest particles of matter by reporting his discovery of the electron and predicting two other types of charged particles he called protons and neutrons.
Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. In 1909 he decided to test Fourier's theory about how greenhouses retained heat.
Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "cold frame" rather than a building a person could walk into.
He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.
During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses.
The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn't conduct heat at the same rate.
The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature than CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.
The heated air in the greenhouses couldn't rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground.
Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood's greenhouse.
The blackened cardboard in Wood's greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth's surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation.
The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence.
Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn't reflect IR.
At the time of Wood's experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR.
Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn't cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn't absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. He called the amount of energy absorbed and emitted as a "quantum". (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25)
Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR.
Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering that reflects a broad spectrum of IR cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth's surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.
Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn't say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.

Enough is Enough: Has the Third Party’s Time Come?

Facebook ^ | Jan. 7, 2013 | Chuck Heath Jr.

This is an issue that I've been mulling over for quite a while. I wrote more about the way I'd set this up, but I wanted to get some of your feedback first. Let me know what you think.
Enough is Enough: Has the Third Party’s Time Come?
We’ve lost our way. The American political system is a mess. The divisiveness between Republicans and Democrats seems insurmountable and it’s getting worse every day. I could get into the reasons that this is happening, but I doubt that would change a thing.
It is very painful for me to see this country literally becoming unraveled at the seams… especially when I look at my own children’s future. I’ve watched friends and even family members break ties over political differences. I have watched good, smart people enter politics and seen them change for the worse over the years as they’ve become part of the political machine.
Political seniority often leads to leadership positions but has nothing to do with performance. Casting a favorable vote for something you may not even believe in, just to gain a committee chair or for some other future favor, is rampant in politics.
It’s a very dirty game and it’s the reason so many really talented people never get involved in it. It’s also the reason my sister Sarah Palin, has been so viciously attacked over the years. She refused to “play the game”. She has always stuck to her principles and because of that, she is viewed as a threat. I’ve watched people in both major parties do everything they can to demean and destroy her. And all for what… for trying to limit the size of government? For asking all of us to do our share? For insisting we spend less than we take in? For ending crony capitalism? For going above and beyond to support our military? For utilizing our natural resources in a responsible way? For praying? The list goes on.
Let’s face it. As it stands now, it’s impossible to be elected to a high national office without being a part of the Republican or Democratic Party. I propose that the disgruntled citizens of the United States… Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians… persons of every race, religion, economic status, and whoever else is interested, join together and form a new party. I’d simply call it, the American Party.

Mark of the Beast

Doctor Shortage Becoming Crisis Under Obamacare

Newsmax Health ^ | Monday, January 7, 2013 4:56 PM | Nick Tate

If it feels like you’re spending more time in the waiting room of your doctor’s office these days, it’s not your imagination. Family doctors are busier than ever. For many people, it is becoming difficult to even find a doctor, say experts who blame Obamacare for accelerating the nation’s doctor shortage. …
What’s driving the trend, health experts say, is the nation’s growing population of older Americans using more healthcare resources. At the same time, as many as 1 in 3 practicing physicians are nearing retirement age.
What’s more, the addition of some 30 million patients newly covered by insurance—as mandated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”)—will strain the low supply of U.S. doctors even further. …
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmaxhealth.com ...

Piers Morgan: Unbelievably Wrong and Dishonest

Stop Wasting Money ^ | 01/07/2013 | WARREN REDLICH

Piers Morgan has continued with his gun-bashing. Here's his latest, Deport Me?

Morgan makes a number of huge mistakes and misrepresentations in his assault, not unlike Jason Alexander's rant against the AR-15.
Here are key points where Morgan (and other gun control nuts) go unbelievably wrong:
[M]y anger turned to blind rage when I saw the reaction to this hideous massacre in America. … Sales of the specific weapon used, an AR-15 military-style assault rifle, rocketed …. And … Brownells said it sold more high-capacity bullet magazines in three days than it normally did in three-and-a-half years.
What is behind this apparently insane behaviour? The answer is, mainly, fear.
The increase in gun buying is not out of fear of violence, but rather fear of new gun restrictions. People planning to buy guns moved up their purchases to get them before any ban takes place. Past gun bans, like the Clinton ban, grandfathered in guns that were purchased before the ban went into effect. This increased the market value of the pre-ban guns, so buying before a grandfathered ban is also a good financial investment. I was out with a friend tonight who was looking at buying a large lot of high-capacity magazines, not to use them but because he thinks they will increase in value.
The well-organised, richly funded, vociferous pro-gun lobby were … declaring that the only way those schoolchildren would have survived is if their teachers had been armed. It’s been their answer to every mass shooting.
No, that’s not what gun rights supporters say. Some advocate allowing teachers and other school staff to carry concealed weapons if they are otherwise allowed to do so (i.e. they have a permit where required, don’t have a felony record, etc.) and if they get some training.
Other suggestions include focusing on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and people with dangerous mental health problems. Many of us also take the position that there may not be a good solution to this problem, but prohibitions make things worse, not better. Prohibitions, like alcohol prohibition, do not prevent anything and create more violence.
It is also interesting to note Morgan’s use of language, referring to gun rights supporters with all kinds of pejorative terms, as if gun control supporters are not an organized, well-funded, vociferous lobby. That’s a classic sign of bias, but no one is surprised by that.
The gun-lobby logic dictates that the only way to defend against gun criminals is for everyone else to have a gun, too. Teachers, nurses, clergymen, shop assistants, cinema usherettes – everyone must be armed.
No, not everyone. What we are saying is that those who want to carry, and are not otherwise disqualified from doing so, should be allowed to do so. And as mentioned above, the focus should be on keeping guns from criminals, not from law-abiding citizens.
Finally, I erupted at one of them, a man with the unfortunate name of Larry Pratt, who runs the Gun Owners of America lobbying group.
‘You,’ I eventually declared, ‘are an unbelievably stupid man.’
And that was the catalyst for the full wrath of the gun lobby to crash down on my British head.
Hello? Mr. Morgan, that was a completely inappropriate thing to say. It’s what’s commonly known as an ad hominem argument, attacking the person rather than discussing his argument.
The concerted effort to get me thrown out of the country – which has so far gathered more than 90,000 signatures – struck me as rather ironic, given that by expressing my opinion I was merely exercising my rights, as a legal US resident, under the 1st Amendment, which protects free speech.
The NRA has 4.3 million members. If it was a concerted effort there’d be more signatures. Most of us realize that petition was dumb. But if we apply your logic on the Second Amendment to the First Amendment, your speech wouldn’t be protected because there was no television in the late 1700s. If the gun control lobby claims the Second doesn’t cover modern rifles, why would the First cover modern communication technology?
I’m just the latest target, the advantage to the gun lobbyists being that I’m British, a breed of human being who burned down the White House in 1814 and had to be forcefully deported en masse, as no American will ever be allowed to forget – Special Relationship notwithstanding.
Now you’re being unbelievably stupid, not to mention a first-class whiner. It’s the French we hate. Americans love the Brits – the Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc. Even Simon Cowell. Princess Diana was wildly popular here, until she was hounded to death my European media types like, yes, Piers Morgan.
The US firearm murder rate is 19.5 times higher than the 22 next most populous, high-income countries in the world.
This is a classic abuse of statistics by the gun control lobby. Morgan cites the firearm murder rate. That is a deliberately chosen statistic because if he used just the murder rate then the numbers would be quite different.
The US murder rate is higher than Europe, but only a bit. The European murder rate, as a whole, is 3.5 per 100,000 residents. The US rate is 4.3. But the homicide rate for the Americas, where we live, is 15.4, more than triple the US murder rate. Our nearest neighbor to the south, Mexico, has an even higher rate of 22.7, despite having strict gun laws. Eastern Europe has more killings with 6.4.
In the US we have wide variation in our homicide rates. Some states and areas, like Puerto Rico and Washington DC, have strict gun laws and a lot of violent crime. New Hampshire and Vermont have low murder rates, like Western Europe, with little or no gun laws.
One could use the same phony statistical approach to say that Japan has a low gun suicide rate, even though their overall suicide rate is triple ours. But that wouldn’t advance the gun control cause.
I’ve watched in despair as the volume of gun-related massacres has escalated. … And I’ve been shocked at how America’s politicians have been cowed into a woeful, shameful virtual silence by the gun lobbyists and the all-powerful National Rifle Association in particular.
America’s politicians have been cowed by the voters, not the lobbyists or the NRA. Gun rights are popular in most of the country, especially in Republican areas. That’s why strict gun laws only happen in places controlled by Democrats.
Morgan’s focus on “gun-related massacres” is typical of the anti-gun media mindset. Violent crime is a much bigger problem in certain non-white communities, but they don’t make the news in the same way. The Piers Morgans of our mainstream media don’t care about blacks getting killed because that’s not newsworthy. Far more children have been killed in Chicago and Washington DC this year than in Newtown. But they’re mostly killed with handguns, not AR-15s, so they don’t fit with the story the media wants to tell.
The NRA targets pro-gun-control politicians on every rung of the political system and spends a fortune ensuring they either don’t get elected or get unelected.
All interest groups do that. It only works because the voters agree with the NRA on this issue. Morgan might do better to complain about lobbying by big corporate interests but that’s who signs his paycheck.
Nor do I have a problem with those who use guns for hunting or for sport. I also understand, and respect, how there is an inherent national belief in America, based on their understanding of the 2nd Amendment, that everyone should be allowed to have a gun at home for the purposes of self-defence.
Hunting, sport and self-defense are not the purpose of the Second Amendment – the security of a free state. It is for American citizens to be ready to defend our country, from enemies both foreign and domestic.
But where I have a big problem is when the unfortunately ambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment is twisted to mean that anyone in America can have any firearm they want, however powerful, and in whatever quantity they want.
If anyone talked like that about the First Amendment, the media would be screaming at maximum volume.
The unfortunately ambiguous wording of the 1st Amendment is twisted to mean that anyone in America can say whatever they want, however powerful, and in whatever quantity and medium they want.
That doesn’t sound too good, does it?
Yet I can saunter into Walmart … and help myself to an armful of AR-15 assault rifles and magazines that can carry up to 100 bullets at a time.
Has Morgan shopped for guns at Walmart? Here in South Florida, there is only one Walmart in each county that sells guns. The others only sell ammunition (and are often out of stock for certain calibers). I went to the Walmart that sells guns. While they have several rifles and shotguns, there is only one AR-15 model. The AR-15 is generally a very expensive item, and Walmart is known for cheap products.
I tried to buy a shotgun but they said there would be a 5-day wait because I didn’t have a Florida concealed-carry license at that time. There are no “magazines” that carry 100 rounds or more. Most mags carry 30 or fewer. There are drums that carry such large quantities but Walmart doesn’t sell those either.
The weight of such a large drum also matters. Empty it weighs over 2 pounds, and with the ammo it’s over 5 lbs, nearly doubling the weight of the rifle and making it harder to handle, especially if you’re moving with it.
[The AR-15] has now been used in the last four mass shootings in America – at the Aurora cinema, a shopping mall in Oregon, Sandy Hook school, and the most recent, a dreadful attack on firemen in New York.
Morgan is playing with language again. First, the Oregon mall incident and the Webster firemen incident were not “mass shootings”. In Oregon three people were shot. In Webster it was four. Second, while an AR-15 was used in Aurora, it was not the only weapon. 70 people were hit, and the AR jammed after 30 rounds. This means the AR shot less than half of the rounds fired. The shooter also used a shotgun and two handguns. At Sandy Hook there is some question as to whether the AR-15 was used at all, as early reports indicate the shooter used 4 handguns and the rifle was found in the trunk of a car. We don’t trust the government or the media on this.
The AR-15 looks and behaves like a military weapon and should be confined to the military and police force. No member of the public has any need for a death machine that can fire up to six rounds a second when modified and can clear a 100-bullet magazine (as used in Aurora) within a minute.
The AR-15 does not behave like a military weapon. It is the civilian version of the M-16 which is used by the military. The AR is semi-automatic. It fires once for each pull of the trigger. The M-16 is selective fire. In addition to semi-auto, it can fire in “burst mode” which fires three rounds with one pull, and in full-auto keeps firing as long as the trigger is pressed.
In theory an AR could fire 6 rounds per second, that would be difficult (requiring 6 pulls of the trigger a second) and highly inaccurate. As I noted in a previous post, the AR-15 sustains a rate of fire of 12 to 15 rounds a minute. Higher rates of fire can be achieved for short bursts, but overly rapid shooting can cause problems due to overheating and fouling of the mechanism. That’s probably why the Aurora shooter’s rifle jammed at 30 rounds instead of clearing the drum.
The only apparent reason anyone seems to offer up is that using such weapons is ‘fun’.
No, that is not the reason we buy them. The AR-15 is a precise instrument. The best ones are able to hit their target with great precision which is why they’re so highly prized in shooting matches, such as the Service Rifle competitions conducted by the Civilian Marksmanship Program. AR-15s and other rifles are useful for many purposes, because they are effective weapons.
President Obama … said he’s keen to pursue a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And he wants a closure of the absurd loopholes that mean 40 per cent of all gun sales in America currently have no background checks whatsoever – meaning any crackpot or criminal can get their hands on whatever they want.
I previously responded to Gov. Cuomo, Obama and the NRA on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Here Morgan also brings up the issue of so-called loopholes. He does this in the context of the Sandy Hook shooting, where the guns were not obtained through sale at all. Lanza illegally stole the guns from his mother, who obtained them lawfully. How would a background check have mattered? It appears that the Webster shooter also obtained his rifle illegally. And this hits on what gun rights supporters have been saying quite a bit. Restricting law-abiding citizens doesn’t stop criminals from getting guns.
Morgan exposes his true agenda next:
These measures, which will be resisted every step of the way, won’t stop all gun crime. Nor all mass shootings. There are too many guns out there, and too many criminals and mentally deranged people keen to use them. But the measures will at least make a start.
This is why we don’t trust liberals on gun control. “A start” – meaning that Morgan, like most liberals, wants to ban all guns. They know if they were honest about this they’d never persuade anywhere near half the voters.
And Morgan shows the full extent of this next:
Obama should follow up by launching a Government buy-back for all existing assault weapons in circulation …. I would go further, confiscating the rest and enforcing tough prison sentences on those who still insist on keeping one.
Right. So not only does Morgan want to throw out the Second Amendment, but now he’s ready to toss property rights and the Fourth Amendment too. People, this is the government searching your homes. This is how the next civil war will start, and liberals like Morgan should think twice about what side the police and the soldiers will take.
Morgan closes with more dishonesty:
If you don’t change your gun laws to at least try to stop this relentless tidal wave of murderous carnage, then you don’t have to worry about deporting me. … I would, as a concerned parent first – and latterly, of a one-year-old daughter who may attend an American elementary school like Sandy Hook in three years’ time – seriously consider deporting myself.
Raise your hand if you think Piers Morgan will send his child to a public school. … Hmm … I don’t see any hands up. That’s because the wealthy and powerful send their kids to private schools with armed guards.
It would be nice if the liberal gun control nuts would be honest about what they really want. But would violate their standard operating procedures.

Study predicts Obama healthcare law will raise premiums on young adults

The Hill ^ | 7 January 2012 | Elise Viebeck

The study says a provision linking prices for older and younger patients could raise costs on the young.
Young adults will see higher health insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) because of a provision that links prices for older and younger patients, according to a new study.
Actuaries at management consulting firm Oliver Wyman predicted the law's age rating restrictions could mean a 42 percent hike in premium costs for people aged 21 to 29 when they buy individual coverage.
"This means that close to 4 million uninsured individuals … can expect to pay more out of pocket for single coverage than they otherwise would, even given the availability of premium assistance," study authors wrote.
President Obama's signature healthcare law limited the amount insurers can charge older people for their health insurance to a maximum of three times the amount younger people pay.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Hilarious: Obama Voters Furious About Tax Hikes

January 7, 2013 8:34 pm

5073-obama-laughingDemocrat voters received a dose of economic reality after their New Year’s hangovers wore off, when they looked down at their 2013 paystubs and saw not Obama bucks, but higher federal taxes.
How misplaced was their trust in re-electing defender of the middle class tax-raiser President Obama? Workers making $30,000 will take a bigger hit on their pay than those earning $500,000 under the fiscal cliff deal. And Democrats are seeking $1 trillion more in tax “revenue” by the end of this year.
Now, it’s not nice to laugh at other people’s shock and surprise, but this is about as delicious as it gets. Voters seem to think that the president can hand out massive freebies like bailouts, stimulus, cash for clunkers, green energy subsidies and Obamacare, while somehow winding up personally protected by President Nice Guy from massive tax hikes and rising inflation.
Even if you’re not one of the evil rich, you’ll still pay — whether in your paychecks or at the gas pump and supermarket. Well, unless you’re one of those few welfare recipients taking out cash at strip clubs, liquor stores and X-rated shops.
As the national debt clock overheats from spinning so fast, voters don’t need to see those flipping numbers represent more debt. That’s way too abstract. What they need to see in those numbers is the national taxes/inflation clock, which is much more accurate. And that clock only shows about $16 trillion of the future unfunded debts of about $86 trillion.
[Click here to read "Steyn: Congress Spent 2 Months Arguing for 10 Hours Worth of Spending Cuts."]
Some Tweets from the website Twitchy show some awesomely outraged Obama voters who were duped by their Supreme Leader (we’ll leave the NC-17 ones for Twitchy). Below pretty much sums them all up:

Obama’s $264 Billion Tax Bill for 2013 May Spark New Recession

Newsmax ^ | Monday, 07 Jan 2013 10:18 PM | David A. Patten

With the fiscal cliff deal and many Obamacare taxes taking effect, Americans will be slammed with an estimated $264 billion in new taxes this year alone—making 2013 memorable for delivering one of the largest one-year tax increases in American history.
The math breakdown of the new taxes is simple: Key parts of the Bush tax cuts will expire as a result of the new fiscal cliff legislation, hitting American taxpayers with a tax bill of about $39.5 billion each year for the next decade. …
Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi issued a projection that the tax burden will cut GDP growth by three-quarters of 1 percent, causing the creation of 600,000 fewer jobs in 2013. But the general consensus among economists is that the impact will be much worse—about a 1.5 percent loss of GDP growth. Such a serious dip could push an already lackluster economy close to the brink of actual contraction.
But the impact of the fiscal-cliff taxes are only part of the story. That’s because several of the taxes that Congress approved as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare, are also kicking in this year. …
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...

THIS is What Happens to People Who Don't Drink with Moderation on the Plane:

Reaganite Republican ^ | 08 January 2013 | Reaganite Republican

photo: Tumblr/Andy Ellwood

A 46-y.o. Icelandic man got loaded and completely flipped-out on a NYC-bound IcelandAir flight out of Rejkavik last weekend, running-about the cabin, screaming 'the plane's going to crash', even choking the poor lady sitting next to him. Witnesses said he had boarded with a substantial quantity of duty-free liquor and proceeded to drink it all...

After surrounding passengers had their fill of the dangerous shenanigans they took matters into their own hands and duct-taped his dumb ass to the seat... the man was arrested upon arrival at JFK, of course.

The Teleprompter

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

You set the fire!

Posted Image

If you build it...

Posted Image

The Plan

Posted Image

The Zone

Posted Image

First they came for the rich!

Posted Image

A good cry

Posted Image

Green Initiative

Posted Image


Posted Image

The Elephant

Posted Image

All the news?

Posted Image

Hit 'im again!

Posted Image


Posted Image

The Future!

Posted Image

Obama says: "You're Welcome"

Posted Image

Hottest woman?

Posted Image

Hammer Control

Posted Image

That was easy!

Posted Image

No Pork

Posted Image

I couldn't be prouder!

Posted Image