Saturday, January 26, 2013

An Army Veteran Plus a 9mm Handgun Equals a Bad Day for a Robber

The Blaze ^ | 1/26/13 | Jason Howerton

‘You Came Real Close to Losing Your Life’

A wheelchair-bound war veteran in Bogart, Ga. was targeted as a robbery victim. Given the fact that he is handicapped, the home burglar may have thought it would be the easiest job of his life.
Army veteran Mark Sikes told WAGA-TV he heard someone breaking down his front door. That’s when he pulled his 9mm handgun out of his drawer.
“Next thing I know there’s a man standing in the hallway of my house, looking in my bedroom,” he said. “I reached and got the gun out of my drawer and kind of raised it up…He took off and ran out the front door.”
The vet, who served as a military police officer in Korea, said he didn’t think twice about what action to take.
“It’s either gonna be me or him. One of us have got to go,” he said. “And this is my house, this is my home.”
Athens-Clarke County Police are investigating the incident and looking for the suspect, who Sikes says was wearing all black and possibly had a getaway car waiting for him.
Now Sikes keeps his handgun even closer. In his interview with WAGA-TV, the veteran also told the man who tried to rob him he should be thankful he’s still alive.
“Find something else to do besides try to rob people,” he said. “Because you came real close to losing your life yesterday.”

Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Could Be the Start Of a Total Gun Ban

PolicyMic ^ | January 26, 2013 | Matt MacBradaigh

Gun rights advocates worry that an assault weapons ban — like the one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein (r-Calif.) — would be the start of a slippery slope that would end with a total gun ban in the U.S., as has happened in the UK and Australia.
There already have been some calls for outright confiscation, including from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo as well as from other lawmakers. Feinstein says this isn't her intention. But do gun owners have anything to worry about?
Feinstein said on PBS Newshour that she would not attempt to ban and confiscate all guns. But is this political posturing — a falsehood meant to lull Americans into accepting her bill? Can Feinstein be trusted not to attempt gun confiscation, when she has stated that her true wish is for all American's to turn in their guns — if only she could just get the votes?
PBS Newshour's Gwen Ifill asked Feinstein directly about gun owners’ fears of banning all guns.
Ifill: What do you say to people who support the right to own arms that this is the 'camel's nose under the tent' — that the next thing, you'll be after concealed carry weapons, you'll be after other kinds of gun rights?"
Feinstein: Well that's just not true. It wasn't true with the prior bill that was the law for 10 years, and I just think, candidly, 'that dog doesn't hunt.
Ifill: Why shouldn't it be true? Why wouldn't you go after those other laws?
Feinstein: Because it's not what I've done in the past and it's not what I'm doing right now.
Taken at face value, Feinstein isn't going after all guns...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

15 Lies of Liberalism

By John Hawkins

Liberalism offers up a utopian vision of the world and then invites its practitioners to feel good about themselves for embracing it. Not only does this beautiful fantasy world never come to pass, liberalism fails to address the root causes of the problems it sets out to solve while creating whole new disasters in the process. In other words, it's a never ending circle. There's a problem, liberalism is offered up as the solution, it doesn't work and creates more problems, for which liberalism is offered up as the solution, etc., etc., etc. until you're starving, bankrupt, or your society is tearing itself apart at the seams.

Liberalism says that....
1)'s all about choice -- unless you want to choose which gun or lightbulb to use, which school your child will attend, or you’d prefer more freedom and smaller government.
2) cares about the environment, when in practice, not only do liberals like Al Gore live some of the most resource-wasting and ostentatious lifestyles on the planet, but they hurt the environment by blocking environmentally friendly energy production here in favor of energy sources from nations that care little about pollution.
3) can have lots of free government services and somebody else will pay for them. The trillion dollar deficit we're running every year that will have to be paid back says otherwise.
4) long as you use birth control that someone else is forced to pay for, there are no consequences whatsoever to having lots and lots of sex. Meanwhile, more than 50 million children have been killed by their own mothers via abortion and 1 out of every 4 adults in New York City has herpes.
5) .... "government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn." Do you know anyone with crabgrass on his lawn? DO YOU?
6)'s all about compassion and taking care of the less fortunate, unless liberals have their own money on the line, in which case they give less to charity than those stingy, greedy, heartless conservatives.
7) shouldn't take your Christian faith seriously, that political correctness matters more than the Bible, and that mocking God has no consequences. Ever heard someone say, “Don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel?” Well, if liberals were smarter, they wouldn't be picking a fight with an omnipotent God who buys lightning bolts by the barrel and has a well earned reputation for getting fed up every once in awhile and dishing out "Old Testament style wrath" on His enemies.
8) much our country spends can be dictated by our wants, as opposed to what we can afford. Of course, if the world really works this way, Greece would be fine, nobody would have ever heard of the word "bankruptcy," and the banks wouldn't even bother to write down your name when you borrow money from them.
9) ...liberals want unity and bipartisanship, which they apparently believe they can accomplish by spewing pure hatred and smearing, demonizing, threatening, and lying about anyone who disagrees with them.
10)’s going to deliver equality of outcomes for everyone, which is true, if by "delivering equality of outcomes" you mean "make everyone poorer."
11) cares about women -- unless they're conservative women, in which case liberals will insult them in the vilest of terms, attack their children, call them whores and laugh and hoot at the most grotesque sexist attacks against them. Every last insult ever hurled at someone like Sandra Fluke probably wouldn't amount to what women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coulter put up with on any given week with the full support of the same liberals who run off at the mouth about a "war on women."
12)'ll help the poor -- and it does. Liberalism helps poor Americans live in ghettos with just enough food and money to survive so they can stay dependent on liberals. It's the same sort of help a farmer gives a chicken while he harvests its eggs and waits for the right time to wring its neck and toss it in the frying pan.
13) ...liberals are the only people who care about black Americans and want to help, which doesn't seem to square with the fact that just about anywhere and everywhere liberals have been in charge for decades, like Detroit or New Orleans, most black Americans are in dire straits.
14) ...small business owners were able to build their businesses because they were lucky. But of course, if that's true, why do we have such a high unemployment rate? Why doesn't everyone who loses his job just set up his business and grab that easy money? Since bankers don't deserve the big salaries they make, why doesn't the Occupy movement set up its own bank and show the "banksters" how it's done?
15) can fix crime by taking away guns, but by definition, the people who will voluntarily give up guns are law abiding citizens who have no intention of committing a crime in the first place. Besides, if that can work, why doesn't Barack Obama set the example by asking his Secret Service agents to disarm?

John Hawkins

John Hawkins is a professional writer 

How Liberals Divide America with Hatred, and How Republicans Can Put it Back Together!

Anonymous Conservative Blog ^ | January 26th 2013 | Anonymous Conservative

This post requires that an individual understand the concept of political ideology as an r or K-selected Reproductive Strategy, presented here, under the link r/K Selection Theory.

Republicans are holding meetings now on how to move forward. A fundamental question is, how do we appeal to the Asians, Hispanics, Blacks, and whatever sub-group supposedly doesn’t like us of late. We will assume, for the sake of argument that the Republican Party, and the United States government is worth saving, which I will concede is arguable at this point. We will also assume that Republicans actually want to win, which, as Vox points out, is probably an even more dubious proposition.
There are several things to consider. First, you need to read and understand the material Heartiste presents. Social Dynamics are incredibly important. If you approach an individual as if they are an authority and you desperately want their approval, they will downgrade your stature to below their’s. They will then likely view you as unworthy of their approval as a result. If you approach them as an equal or superior, and seek an alliance, the dynamic is different, and many times, it will produce a different outcome. You are not trying to curry favor with these communities, you are explaining why you are better than the Democrats, and that you want to ally with them.
Second, it is probably most illuminating to examine the Liberal’s strategy, to see what they are trying to do and what they have done. From an r/K perspective, the r-strategy in Cuttlefish is to first get the K-strategists fighting. Then, the r’s avoid the fight themselves, and sneak in and mate on the sly while the K’s are occupied fighting each other.
Here, Liberals have sought to get K’s within these sub-groups fighting (because only K’s form in-groups, and then loyally fight for their own in-group’s interests). How have they done this? They first fracture the culture, by intimating that it is not only OK to be different, and celebrate your Non-Americanism, but it would be disloyal to your foreigner friends to not do this.
Suddenly, you have American K’s dividing up into Latino Ks, Black Ks, Asian Ks, and so forth. r’s, meanwhile play a strategy of currying favor with the newly fractured groups, against the evil interests of the American people. K’s fight while Liberals curry favor all around, hoping to avoid the damage. K’s endure the hardships of battle with each other, and Liberals endure nothing adverse. It is a brilliant strategy.
Note, some have made the case that various minority groups are r, but if the individuals within these groups were, they would be actively seeking to betray their own group’s interests, to curry favor with outsiders. Merely by showing loyalty to an in-group, these individuals are demonstrating a fundamental K-drive which would indicate a psychology that would naturally lead to Conservatism – if that loyalty were directed to America. Indeed, many of their kids, when taken into the Marine Corps, or other service branch are innately primed to throw that loyalty to America. Loyal Americans, primed to show loyalty to America, regardless of race or creed, do not vote for Liberals or Democrats, as evidenced by the Republican surge after 9/11. It was then that we all pulled together as a country, patriotically (something Libs at the time found terrifying).
Unfortunately these things are best headed off before they begin. Now today, however, Libs have the country fractured, and groups are fighting. What to do? You could try to use shame to appeal to the groups to throw their loyalty back to the nation. This will work with any group, but to make this interesting we will deal with Hispanics, who have been much more successfully made to view America as a foreign country, second in importance to their Latino/Mexican cohort.
First, approach the Latino group’s leaders as equals, but apologetically, and explain, we feel deeply that we can’t do anything about immigration now, because we have a real jobs crisis in this country. To support bringing more workers into the country, when Americans now can’t find work, would be disloyal to America, and fellow Americans, and you just can’t do that, on principle. Notice, you don’t call them disloyal outright, you just point out apologetically, that you can’t do what they want, because you feel it would be disloyal to your country, ie their country too.
This drives Narcissists (as will gravitate to lead such movements) wild, because you didn’t out and out call them disloyal or unpatriotic, so they can’t explode in rage. In fact, although they will see the implication immediately, they will feel that most people may not have noticed that this is a logical conclusion of your argument. As a result, they will be hesitant to oppose what you said, for fear of calling attention to this fact. To stand up and say you called them unpatriotic is to finish a line of logic you left unfinished, and point out to everyone that there is a line of logic which says they are a traitor to their countrymen.
In my experience, Narcissists will first be quiet, and stop all opposition. Second, they will be horrified inside that someone just said they are disloyal, and yet they can’t respond to contradict it. And third, the aversive stimulus their amygdala will release will make them try to avoid that line of dialog in the future, and that will often entail dropping the entire subject. As this occurs, the fractured grassroots base, which is more composed of misdirected K’s, will see their leaders abandon this line of activity, as well as see the logic implying that such a line of action is disloyal to America, and they will care less about it themselves. It would need to be repeated, but that is what talking points and standard answers are for. Over time, they would develop an contravening amygdala pathway associating lobbying for foreigners over fellow Americans with being out-grouped in America, and the support for this would diminish in a manner proportional to the frequency of conditioning.
There is a second way to bring the Hispanics back into the American fold, however. Presently, Liberals have caused the Hispanic amygdalae to flag Republicans as an enemy. That is bad, because amygdala pathways are nearly impossible to erase. However, from a Cognitive Neuroscience perspective, note that the amygdala flags items according to importance. As a result, the easiest way to shut off that “Republican enemy” flag, is to replace it with a bigger flag, by creating a bigger battle, with a bigger enemy.
Presently Liberals are doing all sorts of things noxious to any normal person, if it is pointed out. They are basically destroying small business, so appeal to Latino business owners, showing them what an enemy the Obama administration is to them. Jobs are crap, because of Leftist economic policy, so argue Latinos can’t find jobs because of Leftism, and show them why. Healthcare is going to be an abomination shortly because of Leftist policy, if England is any measure. Highlight, in personal terms, how bad that is going to get, and show, in personal terms, that this Leftist push will, inevitably, result in health rationing that will kill some of the people Latino Americans care about. Highlight that Leftist don’t care. I could go on, but you get the picture. Liberals are the enemy. Programming like this is surprisingly easy to do. Look at how George W. Bush is now viewed as an empty-headed, callous, war-mongering tool, and you get the idea. All it takes is repetition, and these neural pathways are laid.
Right now, probe the Hispanic amygdala, and you will find a part dedicated to immigration, which sees Republicans, and fires off aversive stimulus, flagging them as an enemy. But there is much more amygdala there, sitting empty, and just waiting to be filled with aversive stimulus towards the Liberal movement.
You need to look at it like programming Pavlov’s dog, and begin creating perceptions that their beef with Republicans is minor compared to how the Liberals are screwing them – and especially their kid’s futures. As you do, subtly nudge them to view these problems of theirs as America’s problems as well. Once we have common problems, and common enemies, you can pull them in as allies, and begin to fuse the fractured America together again into one nation, allied against leftism. Nothing can unite two people like a common enemy who needs to be destroyed, and so it will be with the fractured parts of America which the Left has created for their own ends.
This is why I cringe when I see what Rove did with that $300 million in the last election. That could have been a ton of aversive stimulus for Liberals, which would have proven additive every election cycle, since amygdala pathways cannot be easily overwritten, and even if overwritten, are reactivated with the slightest reinforcement stimulus. Instead, that money was all wasted – and worse – it was wasted in a way which yielded no long term demonization of Liberals, that would have stayed with the populace. It was totally wasted, with no effect.
Which brings me to my final point. To do this, Republicans have to want to win. They have to be willing to stand up and call Liberals cowards and traitors, and highlight that they seek to fracture our country for their own personal benefit, and destroy our economic system out of envy for the successful. They have to be willing to get in an argument with Bob Sheiffer, and then use dog whistles and amygdala hijacks to give him a stroke, live on air. They have to view Liberals as worthless traitors who deserve a lot more than the mere outcast status the Republicans are inflicting upon them. In short, Republicans have to want to save this country so badly, that they are willing to speak simple truths.
Sadly, given their performance thus far, I think we are all best served merely preparing for the collapse.

A Nation Run By Idiots!

 by gorush

This applies to all political parties & their representatives...

You Live In A Country Run By Idiots that we elected !

You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... A seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools of a “home”.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while some slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You can write a post like this just by reading the news headlines.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iPhones, TV's and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe".
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... An 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burka is only subject to having her neck and head searched.
==================================== You know you live in a Country run by idiots if... Using the "N" word is considered "hate speech" but writing and singing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered "art".

Hundreds of thousands join record-breaking U.S. March for Life!

Life Site News ^ | January 25, 2013 | BEN JOHNSON

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 25, 2013, ( –

Huddled under winter coats and hats and scarves, hundreds of thousands of pro-life activists gathered on the Mall in Washington D.C. this morning to send a clear message to politicians in the Capitol, and the whole country: 40 years is too long, abortion must end! But despite the frigid January temperatures, the crowd, made up largely of teens and young adults, was boisterous, with many groups chanting pro-life slogans and singing hymns as they walked.
This year's March marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, since which an estimated 55 million babies have been killed by abortion in America.
While accurate estimates of the number of attendees at the march are hard to come by, organizers had said in the days leading up to the event that all signs pointed to a record-breaking crowd. Hotels in the D.C area sold out far in advance of when they normally do, and organizers installed two jumbotrons just to ensure that all marchers could get a glimpse of what was happening on the stage.
Last year's march was estimated at around 400,000 participants, likely putting this year's at the half million mark, or even beyond. The popularity of the event could be seen on social media, with the March for Life trending on Twitter for a time in the early afternoon, and Facebook exploding with photos and status updates from attendees.
Before opening the march rally with an opening prayer, Cardinal Sean O'Malley announced to cheers that Pope Benedict had just tweeted his support for the marchers. "I join all those marching for life from afar, and pray that political leaders will protect the unborn and promote a culture of life," the pontiff tweeted from his @Pontifex account.
And while the chances of a national pro-life political victory seem as bleak as the weather on the overcast winter day, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul and the other activist and political leaders who addressed the crowd were certain they are on the right side of history.
“One day, we will be here and triumph, because love and truth always triumph,” said former Pennsylvania senator Santorum, who made a strong showing for the Republican presidential nomination last year.
Santorum spoke alongside his wife, Karen, and four of their children – but his speech revolved around his absent daughter Bella, who was born with Trisomy-18. “The response to this little girl and the struggles she was going through and who she was...was just amazing to us, and affirmed to us the goodness of the people in this country,” he said.
“We were encouraged to abort, because she would be saddled with disabilities and it would be better for her – but we all know death is never better,” he said, “What it's about is it would be easier for us.” “Bella is better for us, and we are better because of Bella.”
He asked anyone faced with the prospect of special needs children to “give them a chance. Welcome them in to your home.”
After leaving the campaign trail, Santorum founded the advocacy group Patriot Voices, which carried an enormous banner in today's march.
“This country is in search of truth, and they're not finding much of it in Washington, D.C.,” he said.
Those who love the unborn are instead making the world a better place through their own initiative. “Everyday [they] go out and open up their arms...and reach out their hands in love for little children,” Santorum observed.
The highest ranking public servant to address the crowd – Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY – had some philosophical questions about how our policies affect the soul of our country.
“Can a nation long endure that does not respect the sanctity of life? Can a nation conceived in liberty carry its head high if its denies protection the youngest and most vulnerable of its citizens?” he asked.
“I believe great nations and great civilizations spring from a people who have a moral compass. Our nation is adrift, adrift in a wilderness where right and wrong have become subservient to the hedonism of the moment,” he stated.
Polls show the vast majority of abortions occur – not for rape, incest, or maternal health – but out of personal convenience.
“I believe our country is in need of a revival,” Senator Paul said. “I believe our country is in need of a spiritual cleansing.”
The senator, like his father, credits his medical career with influencing his pro-life worldview, remembering days when he held one-pound babies in the palm of his hand.
“I defy [pro-abortion ideologues] to come to the neonatal nursery with me and look at these tiny little miracles and say, 'We're not going to protect that,'” he said.
Four other members of Congress addressed the crowd, a significantly lower number than in years past.
Rep. Diane Black, R-TN, promised to reintroduce H.R. 217, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, which would bar U.S. family planning dollars from financing any organization that performs abortions. Former Congressman Mike Pence, who was elected governor of Indiana in November, encouraged her to take up the charge.
Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!
House Speaker John Boehner addressed the gathering by video, promising he was busy at work “putting together a bipartisan pro-life majority and getting to work. In accordance with the will of the people, we will again work to pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, formally codifying the Hyde Amendment.”
The March featured a bipartisan moment, as Congressman Dan Lipinski, an Illinois Democrat, spoke to the crowd in a recorded message.
“We mourn the 40th anniversary of a talking away of a most basic and essential right to our most vulnerable sisters and brothers,” he said. “There are legislative battles to be fought, and I will continue to fight them as a pro-life Democrat, because life should not be a partisan issue.”
Lipinski was the only Illinois Democrat to vote against ObamaCare in March 2010.
Democrats for Life of America had a breakfast Friday morning before the march, as well.
However, the March's close proximity to Barack Obama's second inauguration drew sometimes heated remarks on the part of speakers – and marchers.
The chairman of the House Pro-life Caucus, Chris Smith, R-NJ, gave a stirring speech that commemroated the “horrific legacy” of Roe v. Wade 40 years and 55 million abortions later – “a death toll that equates with the entire population of England.”
His speech directly challenged President Obama.
“Know this,” he said, addressing the president, “the pro-life movement is comprised of noble, caring, smart and selfless people. It is an extraordinarily powerful, non-violent, faith-filled human rights struggle that is growing in public support, intensity, commitment and hope.”
“And know this Mr. President: The pro-life movement is not only on the side of compassion, justice, and inclusion; we are on the right side of responsible science and of history.”

Eyeing the Golden Goose (Tax Hikes) ^ | January 26, 2013 | Ed Feulner

Are tax hikes on the way? Some federal lawmakers hope so. “It’s a great opportunity to get us some more revenue,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently said of the upcoming debate over the federal budget.
You know what that means: calls to raise taxes on the rich. Lawmakers can’t seem to refrain from eyeing the golden goose.
It seems fair to most Americans that those who earn more should pay more taxes. But how much more?
In a report that drew on 2006 tax data, Heritage Foundation scholar Curtis Dubay showed that a family in the top 20 percent of income-earners earned 50 percent more than a family in the next 20 percent, but paid 253 percent more in taxes.
Even more strikingly, a family’s income in the top 20 percent income bracket was 122 percent higher than a family in the third 20 percent bracket. Yet it paid a staggering 943 percent more in income taxes.
Are these huge differences justified? Do they help make America a more just society, or is their real purpose to help politicians win votes by redistributing other people’s incomes?
One way of making sure the rich pay more is through a proportional tax, also known as a flat tax. With a 10 percent flat tax, for example, someone earning $40,000 would pay $4,000 in taxes, while someone earning $80,000 would pay $8,000.
The United States, however, has a progressive income tax. The tax rate you pay depends on how much you earn. The more you earn, the higher your rate.
The people who pay the highest rates are often unfairly vilified. But they shouldn’t be. “In America, ‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people -- entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. -- who have gained their higher incomes through intelligence, imagination and hard work,” the late Robert Bork once pointed out.
Depriving these Americans of their hard-earned financial rewards through higher tax rates does not seem particularly moral. Rather, it seems unjust.
The moral argument against progressive taxation is strongly reinforced by the economic argument. As tax rates at the higher end go up, incentives to work, save and invest go down. As a result, fewer new jobs are created. Both rich and poor wind up worse off.
Even small changes in the tax code can have a major impact. For example, shortly after he became New York City's mayor, Rudy Giuliani cut the city’s hotel tax from 6 percent to 5 percent. “Within months, net revenue from the hotel tax was actually higher at 5 percent than it had been at 6 percent, since far more visitors were coming to the city,” he later said.
True reform will move us toward a flatter tax code. “Under a flatter tax system, those who pay more income still pay more taxes, but that difference will be more proportional to income,” Dubay writes. “A code more in line with the flat tax is necessary to remove the barriers that block entrepreneurship and innovation.”
Americans usually oppose attacks on the financially successful because they hope to be financially successful themselves someday. And the statistics show they may well be. “Soak the rich” policies often just end up hurting the poor. After all, only people with money can invest and create jobs and opportunities.
“Entrepreneurs must be allowed to retain the wealth they create,” writes George Gilder, author of Wealth and Poverty, “because only they, collectively, can possibly know how to invest it productively among the millions of existing businesses and the innumerable visions of new enterprise in the world economy.” Money flows to those who can use it best and create the most value.
If lawmakers are smart, they’ll keep this in mind as they move through the budget process. They have a “great opportunity,” all right, for real budget cuts and genuine tax reform. Let’s hope they take advantage of it.

Women and ‘Appropriate’ Combat Standards

Nationalreview ^

The makeover is already underway. The armed services are “now developing gender-neutral standards for all of their jobs,” reports the New York Times, replacing the less demanding physical standards for women that each branch has been using heretofore (oh, you mean you didn’t know about those lowered standards?) with a single standard for men and women. The Pentagon “has vowed” that the new gender-neutral standard will not be crafted in order to make it easier for women to join combat units. If you believe that, you probably also believe that colleges hire professors on a race- and gender-blind basis.

Here’s how you create a single gender-neutral standard: You universally apply the existing one that was developed based on a sole criterion — combat readiness. What was wrong with the standard that men had to meet? Nothing, other than the fact that an insufficient number of women can pass it.
Apart from the obvious problems of sexual attraction and rivalries while on a fast-moving mission, it is absurd to think that putting women into a group of men doesn’t radically change the dynamics of that group We obsessively celebrate “the sisterhood.” Strong women together create a special vibe and special power, we are told; thus the ongoing existence of all-female schools and clubs at a time when any remaining all-male organizations are in the crosshairs. The concept of male bonding, however, once glorified in epics and drama, is now viewed as simply exclusionary, of no value to society whatsoever.

Obama Campaign Merges with George Soros

Front Page ^ | 1/25/13 | Greenfield

George Soros has leased the White House as a summer home for eight years, and appointed a number of his stooges to Cabinet positions, including Chief of Staff. 

It’s a great triumph for the wanted criminal who has gone from collaborating with the Nazis to controlling the greatest country in the world.
And now Soros will be funding the Permanent Campaign to transform America into a Socialist country.
Obama rolled out his new political outfit last week, he and his allies declared it would be powered by grassroots activists and change politics from outside Washington.
Not exactly.
In its first days, Organizing for Action has closely affiliated itself with insider liberal organizations funded by mega-donors like George Soros and corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Citi and Duke Energy.
Because it’s all about the money. It always was.
At the Newseum, Messina name-checked the Common Purpose Project, a non-profit which convenes weekly meetings of such groups regularly featuring White House officials, as “the model that we’re basing this off.” That group, which POLITICO has learned is considering merging with Organizing for Action, is run by Erik Smith, a Democratic operative who also sits on the board of OfA and Business Forward.
Erik Smith ran the Media Fund, whose biggest donor was George Soros. The Common Purpose Project is also funded by Soros and which received help from Soros’ Democracy Alliance. Common Purpose was already closely coordinating with the Soros funded Center for American Progress, which went on to shape the Obama White House.
The Obama campaign is being folded back into the swamp it came from as another of the Soros front groups being used by the left to control the country.
The Center for American Progress confirmed it’s already working with Organizing for Action, and sources say Media Matters founder David Brock during the panel offered to do the same.
And the gang’s all back together again. We’re getting a surreal glimpse of an entangled network in which a White House campaign is just another arm of a left-wing matrix of organizations funded by corrupt billionaires.
Told of the meeting, Fred Wertheimer, head of the money-in-politics watchdog group Democracy 21, expressed concern.
“This is the worst possible way for President Obama to start his second term in office,” Wertheimer said. He urged Obama to “immediately” shut down Organizing for Action, calling its creation “an inexplicable action by the president that directly contradicts the message President Obama has been taking to the country for years about the dangerous role played by corporate and special interest money in influencing the way business is done in Washington.”
That was Obama’s message. He just didn’t mean one word of it.

Paper Beats Barack!

Map: Which countries allow women in front-line combat roles?

The Washington Post ^ | January 25, 2013 | Max Fisher

When outgoing U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that he had lifted the Pentagon’s ban on allowing women to serve in front-line combat roles, one of several questions it raised was: Is that unusual? Do a lot of countries allow women to serve in combat? The answer is that many Western, developed countries have women on their front-line forces. But outside of the West, it’s rare.

The map at the bottom of this page shows in red which countries formally permit women in combat positions. Shown in orange are countries that allow women to serve in military roles that involve fighting but not front-line combat. That typically means fighter pilots. In South Korea, women also serve in artillery and armored units.

A note on the data: It comes from piecemeal sources, mostly gathered by Foreign Policy’s Joshua Keating in this great overview (see also: National Geographic, NPR, New York Times). Rules and their enforcement for military servicewomen vary in different countries. And it’s possible that women serve in de facto combat roles in some countries not included here.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Yes, Obama, the Constitution applies to you, too (Surprise, surprise. He's not the king)

FOX ^ | January 25, 2013 | Loyd Green

Sometimes, Barack Obama acts like the Constitution does not apply to him and the Congress is an imaginary being. Friday, the United States Court of Appeals brought the president back to Earth and reminded him that that the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and the U.S. Senate are very much part of reality by voiding three of Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

The D.C. Circuit ruled that the president could not end-run the confirmation process merely because at the beginning of 2012 the U.S. Senate was meeting every three business days in, what lawyers call, pro forma session. Oh, and during that pro forma session the Senate was also busy passing the payroll tax extension. Some pro forma session.

In its decision, the Court made clear that our president answers to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution which, in the words of the Court, “provides that the president ‘shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.’

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

University of Chicago Law School makes a radical change to its employment policy for law professors.

Retired Texas Vet

The University of Chicago Law School has decided to make a radical change to its employment policy for law professors. Because of the continued embarrassment the college has received from President Barrack Obama claiming that he was once a law professor who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, all potential new constitutional law professors will have to pass a test on constitutional law and certify that they have actually read the constitution before being offered a position.

Ivy League school law graduates will have to take and pass a remedial no credit course on constitutional law with the university before they take the qualifying constitutional law test. Applicants that take and fail the test three times will be deemed unqualified for the constitutional law professor position but may be considered for a position with Law Ethics and Professionalism.

Despite Media Claims, Survey Shows NRA Members United ^ | January 25, 2013 | Katie Pavlich

It's the common talking point from left leaning media and gun control advocates: NRA leaders are out of touch with NRA members and the organization is disagreement over top gun control issues. Turns out, the exact opposite is true. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action conducted a national scientific poll of NRA members this week and found the vast majority are on the same page regarding a wide range of issues, in particular when it comes to new gun control measures and how to prevent mass shootings. One-thousand members were randomly selected for the poll. The NRA is the only organization with access the membership list. From the survey:
Key Findings:

91% of NRA members support laws keeping firearms away from the mentally ill.
92% of NRA members oppose gun confiscation via mandatory buy-back laws.
89% oppose banning semi-automatic firearms, often mistakenly called “assault rifles”.
93% oppose a law requiring gun owners to register with the federal government.
92% oppose a new federal law banning the sale of firearms between private citizens.
Methodology – The national survey was conducted by OnMessage Inc. Telephone interviews were conducted January 13-14, 2013. This survey consists of 1,000 NRA members and was stratified by state to reflect voter distribution in the 2012 presidential election. The margin of error for this survey is +/- 3.09%.
The survey also showed the NRA is more favorable among members than President Obama by 93.6 percent. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is even more unfavorable to NRA members.
The NRA has seen 100,000 new members since December.

Utah Biz Owner Fires Employees Because They Supported Obama!

Reagan Coalition ^ | 1-23-13

From HuffPo:

Dead weight? A business owner in Utah has become the latest employer to blame President Obama's health care reform bill for layoffs and has doubled down on his public disdain for the current administration by admitting he singled out Obama supporters.
Terry Lee, owner of Cedar City-based Terry Lee Forensics, told the Salt Lake Tribune that he was so impressed by a Vernal, Utah, smoothie bar's policy of asking liberal patrons to pay more, that he, too, took action to recoup losses he said were incurred by Obamacare.
George Burnett, owner of I Love Drilling Smoothie & Juice Bar, said recently he is asking liberal customers to pay an extra dollar for their beverages.
Lee posted a commiserating comment on The Tribune's smoothie bar story this week:
Love it. We had to let two employees go to cover new Obongocare [sic] costs and increased taxes. Found two Obongo supporters and gave them the news yesterday. They wanted the idiot in the Whitehouse [sic], they reap the benefits.
Can you hire/fire based on political views?
No state or federal laws would protect employees against this sort of dismissal — unless they work for the government. [Source]
Gawker called the business owner "racist" though there is no proof of that.

Why All U.S. States Should Eliminate The Income Tax

Forbes ^ | 012413 | Francis DeLuca

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman, and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback have all called for their states to eliminate their income tax and replace it with a sales tax over the past week. They were joined yesterday morning by North Carolina, where the Senate President Pro Tempore, Phil Berger, confirmed the legislature and the Governor, Pat McCrory, would pursue serious tax reform this session. Indeed, a senate proposal being crafted into legislation includes a repeal of North Carolina’s personal and corporate income taxes along with an expanded sales tax.

If North Carolina, Louisiana, and Nebraska are successful in eliminating state income taxes, they could provide the momentum for a nationwide trend.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Obama Simulacrum - This administration sneers at reality and its consequences.

National Review Online ^ | January 25, 2013 | Mark Steyn

If I’m following this correctly, according to one spokesperson for the Marine Corps Band, at Monday’s inauguration Beyoncé lip-synced to the national anthem but the band accompanied her live. However, according to a second spokesperson, it was the band who were pretending to play to a pre-recorded tape while Beyoncé sang along live. So one or other of them were faking it. Or maybe both were. Or neither. I’d ask Chuck Schumer, the master of ceremonies, who was standing right behind her, but he spent the entire performance staring at her butt. If it was her butt, that is. It might just have been the bulge of the Radio Shack cassette player she was miming to. In an America with an ever more tenuous grip on reality, there’s so little to be sure of.

Whether Beyoncé was lip-syncing to the band or the band were lip-syncing to Beyoncé is like one of those red pill/ blue pill choices from The Matrix. Was President Obama lip-syncing to the Founders, rooting his inaugural address in the earliest expressions of American identity? (“The patriots of 1776 . . . gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.”) Or maybe the Founders were lip-syncing to him as he appropriated the vision of the first generation of Americans and yoked it (“preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”) to a statist pitch they would have found utterly repugnant...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Man dumps horse manure into cheating wife’s convertible!

Your Jewish News ^ | Jan 25th, 2013 | Ryan Lee Hall

Being caught cheating can be stinky. One man dumped a huge load of horse manure into his wife’s convertible after he found her on a dating website.

The husband sat down at the family computer to check his email. He found that his wife had left her email account open, so he snooped around.

Obama to cut medical benefits for active, retired military, not union workers! ^ | February 28, 2012 | Joe Newby

In an effort to cut defense spending, the Obama Administration plans to cut health benefits for active duty and retired military personnel and their families while not touching the benefits enjoyed by unionized civilian defense workers.
The move, congressional aides suggested, is to force those individuals into Obamacare, Bill Gertz reported at the Washington Beacon.
Gertz added:
The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.
Not everybody is happy with the plan, however.
Military personnel would see their annual Tricare premiums increase anywhere from 30 - 78 percent in the first year, followed by sharply increased premiums "ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Spouses Club Relents, Says Lesbian Army Wife Can Be 'Full Member' [Conservative America In Retreat?]

NBCNews ^ | January 25, 2013 | Bill Briggs,

Hours after same-sex Army wife Ashley Broadway was named Fort Bragg's 2013 “spouse of the year,” the on-base spouses club — that has for two months rebuffed Broadway's bid to join — fully reversed course and invited her "to become a full member," according to emails sent to NBC News and Broadway.

The decision comes one week after the Association of Bragg Officers' Spouses (ABOS) extended Broadway — who is married to Army Lt. Col. Heather Mack — a "special guest membership," an invitation she declined and called "extremely demeaning." Advertise | AdChoices
"After further reviewing the (club's) constitution, by-laws and internal procedures, the ABOS Board felt that in order to immediately support all military Officer spouses who are eligible for ABOS membership a more inclusive definition of spouse was needed. Therefore, any Spouse of an active duty commissioned or warrant Officer with a valid marriage certificate from any state or district in the United States is eligible for ABOS membership," the club's board said in a statement.

"ABOS does not discriminate based on race, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, creed, or sexual orientation. ABOS would like to publicly invite Ms. Broadway to apply for full membership to ABOS. It is and always has been our mission to support all military families."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

Newsweek ^ | January 25, 2013 | David Mamet

Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death. For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...