Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Armed citizens get their 2nd Amendment point across to city council

Coach is Right ^ | 2/12/13 | Doug Book

“All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.” This language from the Washington State Constitution failed to impress one city councilman from Oak Harbor as he demonstrated the petulance inherent in liberals by walking out of a January council meeting because one of the attending citizens was legally armed. (1)
At issue was a 2009 lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) against the City Of Seattle for having broken state law by placing a ban on the carrying of firearms in city parks. A 3 decade old Washington State Preemption Law makes it illegal for jurisdictions within the state to pass any ordinance which conflicts with state law. As the State of Washington declares it legal to carry weapons in state parks, the Seattle ordinance against that law is illegal...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

State of the Union Cheat Sheet

Townhall.com ^ | February 12 2013 | Mona Charen

I haven't been able to pilfer an advance copy of the president's State of the Union address, but I hereby offer some guesses as to what he'll say tonight.
The president will assert, against the evidence, that the state of our union is strong. He will boast that during his first term, we averted another great depression, achieved history-making reforms of health care and banking, saved the auto industry and began to conclude two wars. He will caution though, that we face great challenges. Obama will acknowledge that our economy is not as vibrant as it could be and will stress that the way to achieve prosperity for all, not just for the few, is to focus on the great middle class. He will say that it's time to do "nation building" here at home and that we must reduce deficits in a "responsible" way.
Here's what he won't acknowledge: Labor force participation is at a three-decade low. Poverty is higher than at any time since the 1930s. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reports that long-term unemployment is at the highest levels since World War II with the average length of joblessness having doubled to 40 weeks under Obama, compared with an average of 20 weeks during the three previous recessions. And we are technically in a recovery, not a recession. Obama will not mention that health insurance premiums are going up, not down, as promised, and that many employers are preparing to cease offering insurance after 2014 (again, in contrast to Obama's pledge that "if you like your health insurance, you can keep it").
President Obama knows that Americans are more concerned about the economy and jobs than about gun control, immigration, gay rights or "climate change," though each of those will get a mention, along with "making college more affordable" (which inevitably makes it less affordable) and universal preschool so that every child arrives at school "ready to learn." (Note: Real spending on education has tripled since 1970 with no effect on scores.)
My guess is that the president will address Americans' economic anxiety by attempting to use it as a cudgel against Republicans. In the past, he has blamed the tsunami, the European debt crisis, automatic teller machines, oil prices and, most popular, George W. Bush for the economy's terrible performance under his leadership. Tonight the president will tweak this theme by arguing that constant partisan bickering in Washington -- lurching from one crisis negotiation over taxes and spending to another -- has undermined confidence in American leadership. He will say that this discord has created terrible uncertainty and that this uncertainty accounts for the economy's doldrums. He will pledge that he wants to end these high-wire acts and pass a big compromise that will apply a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases.
It's a seductive theory, and the press will believe it. But look at the GDP growth chart from Obama's first term. The great recession ended in the third quarter of 2009. By early 2010, before any of Obama's policies had been implemented, the economy was growing at almost 4 percent (an acceptable, though hardly vigorous, recovery). If Democrats had simply done nothing at that point, the economy would probably have resumed the kind of snap back growth that has characterized previous responses to recessions.
That's not what happened. With Democrats controlling both houses of Congress, Obama got the policies he wanted. No fiscal cliffs, no drama. Democrats added 11,327 regulations to the Federal Register in the first three years of the Obama administration (and that was before the big drivers -- Obamacare and Dodd/Frank really got going). As the Economist magazine noted, America "is being suffocated by excessive and badly written regulation," including "flaws in the confused, bloated law (Dodd/Frank) passed in the aftermath of America's financial crisis."
Democrats also passed an $800 stimulus bill and extended unemployment benefits. They vitiated the work requirement for welfare, vastly expanded food stamp eligibility and dramatically increased the number of working age Americans receiving disability payments. What was the result?
The Obama administration added more to the federal debt that all previous administrations combined. As for economic growth, it slumped after the first quarter of 2010 and has remained mostly anemic since. Economic growth slipped into negative territory in the last quarter of 2012.
This is the Obama economy -- a shrinking private sector drowning in regulations, a voracious public sector always in search of new ways to waste money (wind cars! solar stethoscopes!) and the inexorable ticking, louder every passing day, of the debt bomb.

Democratic House chairwoman Wasserman Schultz caught in deception with reporters!

http://washingtonexaminer.com ^ | february 10, 2012 | susan ferrechio

Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz attempted a bit of deception Monday in an effort to criticize GOP rising star Marco Rubio ahead of his State of the Union rebuttal Tuesday night. But on this occasion, the press wasn't falling for it.

In a conference call Monday, Wasserman Schultz enlisted the help of Annette Capella, described by party officials as a "Medicare recipient from Florida," to warn of the "extreme budget priorities," they believe Rubio is likely to outline in his televised response to President Obama's address.

The truth was uncovered when the call was opened up to questions. The first query came from a Palm Beach Post reporter, who asked Wasserman Schultz if Capella was the same person listed as the head of the St. Johns Democratic Party.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Please Don’t Secede, Texas—We Need You

The American Interest ^ | 02/13/2013 | Russell Mead

The Lone Star state boasts all-star status when it comes to job creation and economic growth. Writing for City Journal, Wendell Cox brings us a great in-depth look at one of the healthiest state economies in the U.S. Texas job creation is well above the national average, with the number of jobs having grown 31.5 percent since 1995. Even more impressive, many of the new jobs were high-paying, coming from professional and technical fields. Cox explains why:
A pro-business climate has unquestionably been a substantial advantage. In its annual ranking of business environments, Chief Executive has named Texas the most growth-friendly state for eight years in a row. (California has been last for the same eight years.) The reasons included low taxes and sensible regulations; a high-quality workforce (Texas ranked second only to Utah in that category in 2012); and a pleasant living environment….
Part of the explanation for the high living-environment score is doubtless Texas’s low cost of living…. More than three-quarters of the cost-of-living difference between Texas and California can be explained by housing costs….
Read the whole thing. Cox makes well-supported points about why this particular state is doing so well.
Other states should be looking to Texas for inspiration. It’s no coincidence that Cox compares Texas and California so frequently in his article. California may still have the biggest economy, but at the moment Texas has all the momentum.
[Image courtesy of Shutterstock.com.]

More Coverage from Via Meadia:

Fraud and abuse grow after subsidized telephone program expands (Obama phones)

The Washington Times ^ | Feb 5, 2013 | By Luke Rosiak -

Fraud and abuse grow after subsidized telephone program expands!

A federal program subsidizing phones for the poor increased from 6.8 million to 18 million recipients from 2008 — the year it was expanded to include cell phones — to May 2012.

And fraud and abuse from the expansion have been far more extensive than expected, to the extent that tougher enforcement of long-existing rules is projected to bring in enough money to finance the expansion of the program to provide low-income users with free Internet service, according to the Federal Communications Commission report released last week. Up to 15 percent of subscribers in the program are ineligible, the FCC found.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

The electric car mistake!

WaPo Opinions ^ | 2-11-2013 | Charles Lane

The Obama administration’s electric-car fantasy finally may have died on the road between Newark, Del., and Milford, Conn.
The New York Times’s John M. Broder reported Friday that the Tesla Model S electric car he was test-driving repeatedly ran out of juice, partly because cold weather reduces the battery’s range by about 10 percent.
Broder’s trip turned into a nightmare, including a stretch with the conked-out car riding the back of a flatbed truck.
Tesla chief executive Elon Musk fired back on Monday, tweeting that Broder’s report is a “fake” and that “vehicle logs” show he “didn’t actually charge to max & took a long detour.”
The Times is standing by its story. My take is that even if Musk is 100 percent right and Broder is 100 percent wrong — which I doubt — Musk loses.
Who wants a $101,000 car that might die just because you feel like taking “a long detour”?
President Obama repeatedly declared that, with enough federal aid, we can put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. His administration has invested about $5 billion in grants, guaranteed loans — including $465 million for Tesla — and tax incentives to buyers.
Yet Americans bought just 71,000 plug-in hybrids or all-electric vehicles in the past two years, according to GreenCarReports.com. That’s about a third as many as the Energy Department forecast in a 2011 report that attempted to explain why Obama’s goal was not preposterous.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

TARP: The bailout success story that wasn’t!

MarketWatch ^ | 2/12/13 | David Weidner

Remember the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP? When we last heard from the Treasury Department, on Jan. 23, TARP was being wound down. It was, in the estimation of Timothy Geithner & Co., a success: 93% of the $418 billion disbursed had been collected including $70 billion last year. Read the latest Treasury Department progress report on TARP .
Best of MarketWatch The 5 most and least affordable U.S. cities for housing Here's the one other story that you can't afford to miss today /conga/story_of_the_day.html 249502 But hold the Champagne. It ain’t over till it’s over.
The idea that TARP is somehow a wash because a few banks repaid the bailouts with interest is misleading. The reality is that bailed-out firms essentially wrote off their losses on taxes. As of Dec. 30, TARP was still owed $67.3 billion, including $27 billion in realized losses — which is to say, that money is gone and is never coming back. See the inspector general’s Jan. 30 report on TARP .
Now, TARP is losing money as it tries to exit the programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...

Obama wanted the sequester- give it to him. Straight down his throat!

Flopping Aces ^ | 11-24-13 | DrJohn

fiscal cliff 2
The White House has warned of the devastation that would result from sequestration:

The White House warned Friday that allowing the $85 billion sequester to happen would devastate the economy and disrupt the everyday lives of millions of people. In a move intended to intensify pressure on Congress to prevent looming spending cuts set for March 1, White House officials told reporters the cuts would hamper law enforcement, hurt federal education programs, withhold mental health services and furlough thousands of workers.
One horrible thing after another would come to pass:

In a fact sheet, the administration said some 373,000 “seriously mentally ill adults” and “emotionally disturbed children” would go untreated because of cuts in health care spending. Thousands of fewer food safety inspections would occur, and the FBI would see a workforce reduction of some 1,000 agents. Social safety net programs for the poor would be among the hardest hit by the sequester. More than half a million women and children would be dropped from food assistance programs, and 125,000 low-income families receiving rental assistance would lose their aid. Recipients of long-term unemployment would see benefits decrease by an average of $400, and more than 100,000 formerly homeless people would be removed from their current housing and emergency shelter programs.
Programs for seniors — including federally-assisted programs like Meals on Wheels and offices that process Social Security and Medicare claims — could see stark cutbacks. And while most Americans are unlikely to mourn the cuts to the Internal Revenue Service that would reduce the number of audits performed, the Justice Department would furlough hundreds of federal prosecutors responsible for trying criminal crimes.
Oh the humanity:

The White House also argued that sequestration would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of federal and contracting jobs and deal a blow to the overall economy, pointing to recent fourth-quarter gross domestic product projections — dragged down by a slowing of defense spending — as evidence of the danger.
Now for a little history. Barack Obama signed the sequester bill into law on August 2, 2011

This is a law Obama wanted:

(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

Obama Uses A Special Mirror While Getting Ready For The State Of The Union

Heart Attack Grill spokesman dies from heart attack!

http://m.lvsun.com/ ^ | February 11 2013 | Paul Takahashi

The second unofficial spokesman for the Heart Attack Grill in downtown Las Vegas has died from an apparent heart attack.

John Alleman suffered a heart attack last week as he waited at the bus stop in front of the restaurant, located inside the Neonopolis at Fremont Street and Las Vegas Boulevard.
Alleman was taken off life support shortly after 1 p.m. on Monday, said restaurant owner Jon Basso. He was 52.

"He lived a very full life,"

(Excerpt) Read more at m.lvsun.com ...

Food Stamp Rolls in America Now Surpass the Population of Spain!

http://cnsnews.com ^ | february 11, 2013 | Elizabeth Harrington

Since taking office in 2009, food stamp rolls under President Barack Obama have risen to more than 47 million people in America, exceeding the population of Spain.
“Now is the time to act boldly and wisely – to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity,” said Obama during his first joint session address to Congress on Feb. 24, 2009.
Since then, the number of participants enrolled in food stamps, known as the Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP), has risen substantially.
When Obama entered office in January 2009 there were 31,939,110 Americans receiving food stamps. As of November 2012—the most recent data available—there were 47,692,896 Americans enrolled, an increase of 49.3 percent.
According to the 2011 census, Spain had a population of 46,815,916.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

Obots Are So Deranged, They Issue A SOTU "Pre-Buttal" to the GOP Rebuttal!

Michelle Obama's Mirror | 2-12-2013 | MOTUS

Our political partisanship has become so predictable that the response to the official response to the speech that Big Guy won’t deliver until tonight is already on the wires:

In preparation for President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night, the Democratic National Committee on Monday gathered lawmakers for a conference call with reporters to offer a “prebuttal” to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s not-yet-delivered Republican rebuttal to Obama’s not-yet-delivered national address.

Just as Obama's speech and Rubio's response will likely be full of focus-grouped buzzwords, the Democratic prebuttal contained typical partisan rhetoric repackaged for the occasion. For instance, Wasserman Schultz said Rubio wanted to "gut Medicaid" and would "devastate seniors" by supporting "an extreme view of government that would dismantle America's social safety net in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires."

She went on to say that Rubio's plans would put "nursing homes at risk" and that services for "disabled children" could be eliminated.

A pre-buttal? Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? What ASSet accumulation plan has she presented to earn that privilege?

I’m not saying she doesn’t have the goods to be considered a future contender:

big_butt_thumb2_thumbbutt debbie

And with those cankles, she may even have a shot at becoming the First Female non-Black President. Butt come on! If anyone has earned the right to offer a “pre-buttal” it surely isn’t DWS.

Allow me to submit the following as evidence:







I rest my case.

Don’t feel bad if you don’t have time to listen to the SOTU speech tonight; I’ve already heard it and it’s a repeat.

State of the Union: Horrible

American Thinker ^ | Feb 12, 2013 | Jerry Philipson

President Obama is giving the annual State Of The Union Speech tonight.
No need to listen though.
The state of the union is clear for all to see.
It is horrible.
It is deplorable.
It is disgraceful.
It is vulnerable.
It is battered.
It is essentially bankrupt.
It is, in short, lousy.
That's the state of the union, no matter what Obama might say to the contrary.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

White House: All questions answered on Benghazi attack!

Washington Times ^ | 2/11/13 | Dave Boyer

The White House has heard enough about Benghazi.

White House press secretary Jay Carney on Monday blasted Senate Republicans for threatening to block Defense Secretary-nominee Chuck Hagel and John Brennan, nominated to head the CIA, in a quest for more information about what President Obama did on the night that terrorists killed four Americans in the U.S. Consulate in Libya.

“We have answered these questions,”

 Mr. Carney said. “The president found out about the attack in Benghazi in a meeting with his secretary of defense and chairman of the Joint Chiefs from his national security adviser.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Five Million College Grads in Jobs that Don't Require a High School Diploma!

Breitbart's Big Government ^ | February 11, 2013 | Wynton Hall

A new study finds that 48% of recent college graduates are now in jobs that do not require a bachelor’s degree, and 37% hold jobs that require just a high school diploma.
The study, titled “Why Are Recent College Graduates Underemployed? University Enrollments and Labor Market Realities," was conducted by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity using employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"Student-loan programs and federal assistance programs are based on some sort of implicit assumption that we're training people for the jobs of the future," says Richar Vedder, director of the center and a professor emeritus at Ohio University. "In reality, a lot of them are not."
The study found that the proportion of over-educated workers is on the rise. In 1970, less than 1% of taxi drivers and 2% of firefighters held college degrees. Today, over 15% do in each profession. Moreover, five million college graduates are now in jobs that don’t even require a high school diploma.
Kristopher Del Campo, 23 and a senior majoring in psychology at DePaul University, says that many of his classmates fear today’s dismal job market and are instead opting for graduate school, which will make them even more overqualified for jobs...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Arizona Gov. Brewer Refuses to Back Down on Denial of Licenses to Illegals!

Stand With Arizona ^ | 02-12-2013 | John Hill

"Take your DACA and shove it!"
by John Hill
Stand With Arizona

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says she won't change her mind and allow illegal aliens granted administrative amnesty by President Barack Obama to get driver's licenses. And a court ruling last week has strengthened her case in doing so.
Brewer's comments Monday came after she was asked if she would change her mind following a January "clarification" by the Department of Homeland Security. That memo says illegal aliens granted "deferred action'' status ("Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals", or DACA) are "legally in the country".
Brewer says that didn't impress her and she's standing behind her August executive order barring them from getting licenses.
How typical for Obama's lapdog media to treat a DHS "memo" as if it were an act of Congress, with the full force of law, and hammer with Gov. Brewer questions for for not kowtowing to it.
Obama last July said people younger than 30 brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 could apply for "deferred action". They will be granted work permits and Social Security numbers. As SWA detailed at the time, Obama's amnesty order is ripe for abuse, as it has almost no safeguards against fraud.
Currently, Arizona, Iowa, and Nebraska prohibit driver's licenses to DACA recipients, while California, Texas and Florida grant the licenses. Michigan initially denied licenses - until the meaningless DHS memo was released, whereupon they reversed course and will now grant them. North Carolina is currently waffling over whether or not to do so.
Each state must decide the issue for itself, according to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which said, "At the end of the day, it’s a state-issued document, and the state has the authority to determine who is eligible for that document."
But groups representing illegal aliens such as the ACLU (which should stand for Alien Criminals Liberation Union) don't see it that way, and have filed suit against Gov. Brewer and Arizona.
But last week, a federal judge blocked illegal aliens in the new "deferred action" program from arguing in court that they are being "irreparably harmed" by Gov. Jan Brewer's refusal.
Illegals in that case tried to argue that Brewer's order "severely frustrates their ability to obtain employment and achieve economic self-sufficiency." But they also got the judge to agree that they could not be questioned on HOW they gained employment and HOW they managed to be driving when it was illegal to do so - likely because they knew that such scrutiny might reveal numerous other criminal activities, such as identity theft.
But the judge wisely said they can't have it both ways - a BIG victory for Arizona's case:
"Plaintiffs will not be permitted to argue that they were forced to drive or work illegally and that they are irreparably harmed by the inability to work or drive illegally," the judge wrote. He said if information on how they were able to drive and get to work is off-limits to the governor, then the plaintiffs themselves cannot use it for their own legal purposes.
So once again - as with S.B. 1070 - Arizona took the lead in opposing Obama's lawless amnesty moves for illegals, is blasted by the media for doing so and strong-armed at every turn by the Feds. But Arizona and its Governor will NOT back down when it comes to enforcing the rule of law against illegal aliens.

Is There a 'Positive Right' to Own Firearms?

American Thinker ^ | February 11, 2013 | Timothy C. Daughtry

Emboldened by Obama's easy re-election despite a radical first term, liberals are finally removing the mask of moderation and talking openly about abandoning the Constitution altogether -- or, at a minimum, amending it to include what they call positive rights...
If citizens have a positive right to government-provided health care, free contraceptives, and a guaranteed income, do we not also have a positive right to self-defense?
Let's make the question more real and less theoretical. Does a woman driving home from work late at night have a positive right to carry a concealed handgun in order to defend herself against potential carjackers and rapists? The negative language of the current Second Amendment says that government shall not infringe upon her right to purchase and carry a firearm, if she chooses to do so. But what if the woman cannot afford a firearm, or what if she chooses to spend her resources on other priorities? Would a positive right obligate the government to provide her with a free firearm to carry next to her free contraceptives and her national health care card?
Absurd as these questions may sound at first, it would be worth the price of admission to hear liberals forced to take the position that one citizen should not be obligated to buy something against his will for another citizen. Besides, the questions above are simply logical extensions of the left's implied position that, if something is good, government should ensure that we have it.
How could liberals handle a question about a positive right to self-defense? They could claim that there is no such right, in which case they would have to explain why they omit this one right amidst their long list of new ones. Or they can argue that there is such a right...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Our Southern Border

Posted Image

Just one of these...

Posted Image

Nanny State

Posted Image

Up Shit's Creek

Posted Image


Posted Image

Attack on Fox

Posted Image

He's from the government

Posted Image

Jobs in Texas

Posted Image

First Abortion

Posted Image

Really Expensive

Posted Image

Back on Track

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

The Emperor is naked!

Posted Image

Snake Oil

Posted Image