Saturday, February 23, 2013

Remember the Alamo! February 23 – March 6, 1836

The Alamo ^ | February 23 1836 | The Alamo

On February 23, 1836, the arrival of General Antonio López de Santa Anna's army outside San Antonio nearly caught them by surprise. Undaunted, the Texians and Tejanos prepared to defend the Alamo together. The defenders held out for 13 days against Santa Anna's army. William B. Travis, the commander of the Alamo sent forth couriers carrying pleas for help to communities in Texas. On the eighth day of the siege, a band of 32 volunteers from Gonzales arrived, bringing the number of defenders to nearly two hundred. Legend holds that with the possibility of additional help fading, Colonel Travis drew a line on the ground and asked any man willing to stay and fight to step over — all except one did. As the defenders saw it, the Alamo was the key to the defense of Texas, and they were ready to give their lives rather than surrender their position to General Santa Anna. Among the Alamo's garrison were Jim Bowie, renowned knife fighter, and David Crockett, famed frontiersman and former congressman from Tennessee.

2013 Hot Shots Gun Calendar – Good Looking Girls for a Good Cause (Photos and Video)

Guns.com ^ | 2/22/13 | Chris Callahan

Smith Optics Elite who produces the annual “Hot Shots” calendar got in contact with us and asked if we could post their 2013 edition. This years calendar is inspired by vintage pin–ups and WWII bomber art. All proceeds from this years calendar will be going to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation. You can purchase the calendar online for only $12.

The Nature of Rights: The Debate We Have to Win, Otherwise We Lose the Country!

Townhall ^ | 02/23/2013 | Steve Deace

Recently a discussion of this story about DC Comics being pressured by homosexual activists to fire one of its writers because he’s on the board of the National Organization of Marriage prompted vigorous debate on my Facebook wall. While perusing through the various comments, it was obvious there still exists much confusion in our country today about the term “rights.”

There are two types of rights: unalienable and contractual.

Sometimes referred to as a natural right (i.e. “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” reference from The Declaration of Independence), an unalienable right is a right that comes from God and thus can be accessed in your natural state without consent from another party because it existed before you were born, and will still exist in nature after you die. It’s inherent to being made in the image of God.

Should another party attempt to stop you from accessing your unalienable (or natural) rights they are guilty of a crime, oppression, tyranny, or all of the above. For example, I do not require anyone’s consent to breathe air for it is foundational to my natural state of being. However, should you attempt to stop me from breathing then you are guilty of assault, battery, manslaughter, or murder if you’re ultimately successful.

If it requires consent from another party to access it then it is not an unalienable (aka natural) right, because you have to impose upon someone else’s unalienable (aka natural) rights in the process. Taking someone else’s person or property without their consent is what we call a crime.

Nowadays some are claiming unalienable (or natural) rights that don’t exist.

For example, you do not have an unalienable (or natural) right to marry or have sex with whomever you want, because partaking of each of those activities requires consent from another party. We call people who believe they can have sex (aka “physical intimacy”) with whomever they want rapists and put them in prison whenever we can. We call people who believe they can marry whomever they want cult leaders, sultans, kings, and tyrants because they’re acquiring harems and concubines.

Likewise, you also don’t have a natural right to live where you want as I’ve heard some claim on issues like immigration. To believe that requires you to believe that private property doesn’t exist. You can’t have it both ways. If you believe I have the right to defend my own property (which our founders absolutely did), then you also have to believe that “we the people” have the right to defend our own property as well. In a “government by the consent of the governed” that property in this case are the borders and lands of these United States of America. We own them and they are our private property. Therefore, we have a right to possess and police them accordingly.

Rights that require the consent of another party are contractual rights.

A good example of contractual rights would be the U.S. Constitution, which begins with the words, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union.” Immediately the parties involved in the contract are established: the people, the states, and the federal government (or union). From there each party states in the contract the terms, jurisdictions, and liabilities each are responsible for and permitted to perform. Some of the rights in the Constitution are unalienable (natural) rights like the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship, because you don’t require consent to access them. That’s why the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law” prohibiting or establishing those things, because Congress has no power to either establish or take away that which “the Law of Nature and Nature’s God” alone bestows.

However, other rights in the Constitution are purely contractual, but where people get confused here is they fail to understand this language is intended to bind the government and not the individual. For example, the government consents to saying it has no right for “unlawful search and seizure” as other governments in human history have indulged. It is not saying you as a private person have a right to therefore store crack cocaine in your locker or illicit pictures of children on your computer. This is the government contracting with its citizens to limit its own means, not the other way around. In fact, that is the theme of the entire Bill of Rights. Just because the state promises not to exceed its authority over the individual does not give the individual the right to exceed his authority over “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”

That is always the highest authority.

For example, should the U.S. Federal Court hear a civil suit between two murderous drug cartels because one failed to deliver the promised narcotics to the other and thus violated the contract? Of course not, because their very activity violates “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” therefore the proper response is to arrest them as criminals instead.

Similarly, just because someone consents to having sex with you doesn’t mean that suddenly you have a contractual right to have sex with them. Is the person just a child and therefore unable to make a mature decision? Is that person mentally unstable or disabled, and thus unsure of what it is they’re really consenting to? Is that person married to someone else?

In conclusion it comes down to this, if our rights first and foremost come from “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” then anything we do to indulge or claim those rights that violates that law isn’t a right. It’s a transgression—even if the other party(s) consents to it. That simply means they’re just as guilty as you are.

You have no right to do that which God says is wrong. Never have, never will, and should an earthly authority contradict this and permit your fallen nature to manifest itself, the God the “father of the Constitution” James Madison referred to as “the Governor of the universe” will ultimately adjudicate your case in eternity.

The Solution To California's Problems Is Beneath Its Feet — But Rich Environmentalists ......

Business Insider ^ | Feb. 18, 2013, 9:39 AM | The Economist

SHALE exploitation in North Dakota has lifted incomes and brought unemployment down to 3.2% of the workforce, the lowest level in the country.

Californians are rarely found looking longingly towards the Midwest. But the revelation that their state, with unemployment at 9.8% and America’s highest poverty rate, may be sitting on the largest deposit of shale oil in the continental United States has led some to wonder if their salvation lies 10,000 feet (3,000 metres) beneath them.
California has been an oil state since 1865. Thanks largely to reserves that can still be tapped by conventional means, it remains the third-largest producer in the country. Output has lately been declining by 2-3% a year, according to the state’s Energy Commission. But in 2011 the federal Energy Information Administration declared that the Monterey shale formation, which spans 1,750 square miles (450,000 hectares) in southern and central California, held 15.42 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 64% of the total estimated to be in the 48 contiguous states.
That should be an attractive prospect for a state with a history of unemployment and fiscal woe. But environmental scruples have long been as characteristic of California as budgetary mismanagement, and a battle is brewing. Opponents of the hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") technique often used to extract oil and gas from shale rock in "unconventional" drilling say regulations proposed by the state in December do not adequately protect against groundwater contamination or air pollution. Some mutter about earthquakes. Such concerns find receptive ears in a seismically active state with a large farm sector.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Obama: If Republicans don’t give me what I want I will make planes fall from the sky

Flopping Aces ^ | 02-23-13 | DrJohn

obama alter 1a
Barack Obama is warning America of the devastation that the sequester will visit upon the country, including

Furloughs of 800,000 civilian Pentagon employees; Meat inspector furloughs from which food shortages will result; Air Traffic Controller furloughs resulting in three-hour waits at airports to clear security; Reductions in embassy protection and border patrols; Cutting the Persian Gulf Naval presence from two aircraft carriers to one; Diminished emergency services; fewer police and firefighters on the streets; Reduced military readiness; Criminals going free because federal prosecutors will have to close cases; Thousands of teacher and educator layoffs Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids; Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings; and Job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research.
And soon we're likely to hear that global warming will accelerate and comets will strike the Earth if Republicans don't acquiesce to Obama's demands for more taxes. He has hinted that planes will fall from the sky:

"Air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays at airports across the country," Obama continued. "Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids. Hundreds of thousands of Americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings."
How much is to be "cut"? $85 billion on a budget of $3.6 trillion. That's 2.4%. As of August household income was down 8.2% under Obama and the country had to make do. Now Obama tries to tell us that government can't do with 2.4% less? Seriously?
He has been lying about the sequester since the debates. The sequester was Obama's team's idea:

Page 326 (July 26): At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone.
“We have an idea for a trigger,” Lew said.
“What’s the idea,” Reid asked skeptically.
“Sequestration.”
Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. “A couple of weeks ago,” he said, “my staff said to me that there is one more possible” enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”
Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.
What would the impact be?
They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department….The idea was to make all of the threatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee [tasked with making additional cuts] would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan.
Lew and Nabors went through a laundry list of programs that would face cuts.
“This is ridiculous,” Reid said.
That’s the beauty of a sequester, they said, it’s so ridiculous that no one ever wants it to happen. It was the bomb that no one wanted to drop. It actually would be an action-forcing event.
“I get it,” Reid said finally.
Short version: Once tax increases were off the table, the White House staff came up with a sequestration plan that only had spending cuts and sold Harry Reid on the idea.
And since then, Obama continues to double down on the threats of damage the sequester will cause.
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

Obama’s Minimum Wage Welfare State

American Spectator ^ | 2/19/2013 | Brandon Crocker

The data doesn’t support Obama’s proposal, but his party won’t waver in its commitment to the mythology of left-wing class struggle.


Real median household income in the United States has fallen more than 8 percent since Barack Obama was first sworn in as president, and has even fallen during the course of the Obama “recovery.” That, of course, is the fault of George W. Bush, John Boehner, rich people, and ATM machines. Fortunately, President Obama and his economic advisors have come up with a solution to this problem: force businesses to pay their employees more.

The president talks a lot about public/private partnerships, like he did during his state of the union address. What he means is compelling businesses to become partners in the Welfare State. Through Obamacare, he and his Democratic allies have mandated that it is the responsibility of businesses to provide their employees Obama-approved insurance, which must include all the bureaucrats’ favorite bells and whistles, like free contraceptives (not having free contraceptives, after all, is tantamount to “denying women access to birth control”). With that accomplishment under his belt, he has now come forth with a perennial favorite of the Democratic Party, raising the minimum wage.

Already hit hard by the impending costs of the Obamacare mandates, industries with large low-wage workforces, such as food service, janitorial, landscape maintenance, and low-end retail, are now facing the possibility of a 24 percent rise in the minimum wage, from the current $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour. This could, it would seem, bust many a company’s labor budget. But not to fret. According to the president, this will be good for business because “it would mean customers with more money in their pockets.”
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...

What Is Liberalism? (Answer: A Mental Disease!!!)

Townhall.com ^ | February 23, 2013 | John C. Goodman

President Obama is said to have made the case for a liberal public policy agenda in his State of the Union speech the other night. But what is liberalism?
The conventional view is that liberalism is an ideology. In fact it is a sociology.
An ideology is a set of ideas that cohere. Socialism is an ideology. So is libertarianism. Suppose I told you that socialists believe the government should nationalize the steel industry and the auto industry. You would have no difficulty inferring what their position is on nationalizing the airline industry. Right? Suppose I told you that libertarians believe in a free market for tinker toys and ham sandwiches. You would have no difficulty inferring that they also believe in a free market for Rubik's Cubes.
Sociologies are different. They represent a set of ideas that are often incoherent. These ideas are likely to come together not because of reason, but because of history or happenstance. Not only do the ideas not cohere, they may be completely contradictory.
Take the issue of preschool education — forcefully endorsed by the president the other night. As David Brooks explained, the issue is really about allowing poor children to escape from the anti-education atmosphere of their homes to a place that will at least give them a chance to learn. Given a person’s position on preschool education for four year olds, shouldn’t you be able to predict how he will think about allowing poor six- and seven-year-old children to escape from bad schools? As it turns out you can’t.
Brooks explains the preschool issue this way:

This is rude to say, but here’s what this is about: Millions of parents don’t have the means, the skill or, in some cases, the interest in building their children’s future. Early childhood education is about building structures so both parents and children learn practical life skills. It’s about getting kids from disorganized homes into rooms with kids from organized homes so good habits will rub off. It’s about instilling achievement values where they are absent.
Okay, so how is that different from the situation faced by slightly older children trapped in lousy schools where teachers couldn't care less what they learn? It isn’t. Yet so many of those who favor preschool education (a new and expensive entitlement) are reliable opponents of vouchers, charter schools, firing bad teachers, closing bad schools or any other remedy that offends the teacher’s unions. And that includes President Obama.
Then there is the issue of the minimum wage. The minimum wage does almost nothing to relieve poverty. That’s because almost no one who is a head of household is earning the minimum wage for any length of time. However, I think it is fairly well-established that a higher minimum wage gives teenagers in above-average income households more pocket change, even as it closes off job opportunities for poor, minority teenagers. (Remember, the black teenage unemployment rate is about twice that of whites.) If you want to maximize job opportunities for low-income youngsters, as President Obama says he does, you certainly wouldn’t want a minimum wage standing between a minority youth and his first job. Yet creating that barrier and making it permanent is part of the Obama agenda for the labor market.
A related issue is public policy toward unions. There is no mystery about what a union is. It is an attempt to monopolize the supply of labor to employers. In most all cases, unions confer special (monopoly) status on workers who are solidly middle class, allowing them to seek above-market wages by closing off competition from those who earn less and have less. Yet encouraging labor unions is another core pillar of the Obama presidency.
Finally, our federal deficit is almost totally caused by entitlement spending on the elderly. Our government routinely sends Social Security checks to billionaires and pays their medical bills to boot — paid for in part by a 15.3% payroll tax imposed on the parents of the children to whom the president would like to provide preschool education.
The zip codes in America where people cash the largest Social Security checks are the very same zip codes where Medicare spends the most dollars on the average enrollee. And unlike the income tax, every worker pays the payroll tax — no matter how poor. Yet these are the programs that President Obama resists reforming.
Some readers will be quick to point out that the Democratic Party — dating back to the days of Franklin Roosevelt — consists of a coalition of interests and that winning elections requires satisfying each of those interests. Fair enough. But we are here talking about thinking, not winning elections.
Politicians will invariably search for some intellectual justification for what they do. Since their policies are incoherent, no ideology will serve their purpose. What they need is a sociology — a way of thinking about the world that defends the indefensible. They need intellectuals who will apologize for the mixed economy welfare state without any obvious sense of embarrassment. For the Obama administration, that sociology is liberalism. Its adherents once called themselves "liberals." Today, they are "progressives."

Stem cell heart repairs: 21st century medicine in action!

Miami Herald ^ | February 22, 2013 | LIDIA DINKOVA

Gerard Cuomo loves to dance.

Until recently, however, the 70-year-old couldn’t even do a two-step.

After having three heart attacks in the early 1990s, Cuomo’s heart was severely damaged. The scar tissue that had formed around his heart left him easily fatigued.
“I felt like an old man,” said Cuomo of Aventura. “I could barely climb the stairs. I could walk for about a quarter of a mile. Shopping at the mall — I wish I did not have to sit down all the time.”
In May 2010, he participated in a University of Miami Miller School of Medicine’s clinical trial in which doctors injected stem cells directly into his heart muscle. The stem cells, because they are not fully formed, have the potential to grow into different kinds of cells, internalizing information from their environment to determine their future growth.
The study found that the injections built up the healthy heart tissue and reduced scar tissue by 33 percent — a “dramatic improvement,’’ said Dr. Joshua Hare, director of UM’s Interdisciplinary Stem Cell Institute, which conducted the study with Johns Hopkins University. The new tissue remodeled the heart to look more like a healthy, football-shaped heart.
“This is a real example of 21st century medicine,” said Hare, the Louis Lemberg Professor of Medicine in the Cardiovascular Division. “Without doing any specific manipulation, we didn’t coax them, they knew where to go. They work in ways that make a lot of sense.”
The results of the study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, were published in November by the Journal of the American Medical Association. Half of the 30 men enrolled in the study received injections of their own stem cells, while the other half got stem cells from a third-party donor.
“Using a donor is a huge convenience factor,” Hare said. “We can store large quantities of the stem cells in a cell bank and use them whenever the need arises.”
Cuomo’s stem cells were extracted from his bone marrow. He had to wait about six weeks after extraction to have them re-injected into his heart. During that time, doctors cultivated and tested the cells.
Now, UM doctors are working to take their research a step further — combining bone marrow stem cells with stem cells taken directly from the heart. Preliminary results of heart/stem cell studies at the University of Louisville have been encouraging.
“The bottom line is, can we do something to further help patients?” Hare asked.
The research into stem cells dates back to late last century. Previously, once an organ was damaged from a heart attack, the scarring was permanent unless the patient underwent a heart transplant — a relatively rare procedure.
Doctors have studied embryonic stem cells as well as adult stem cells stored in the bone marrow, umbilical cord blood and body fat.
The Food and Drug Administration has not approved these stem cell treatments. Rather, researchers are trying to determine if this is a valid protocol for treating a damaged heart.
Cuomo said he would rather be enrolled in a clinical trial of a non-FDA-approved treatment than live the limited life he was living.
“I’d rather take the shot and have a better quality of life,” he said.
Today, he enjoys daily long walks with his dog, Muffy, and has been on several cruises with his family.
“We didn’t travel before I had the treatment,” he said. “You are reluctant to travel when you feel gingerly about your condition.”
Hare said it would take about five years to receive FDA approval if stem cells are cleared as a drug, perhaps less time if stem cells are approved as a non-drug.
“We are envisioning a time when this could become an established treatment,” he said. “The point is that the results are very exciting and very promising.”

Firearms Companies Restricting Sales To GOVERNMENT Agencies In Areas That Restrict Gun Rights!

CNS NEWS ^ | 02/22/2013 | Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens' rights to own them.
According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.
Extreme Firepower Inc., located in Inwood, WV has had a longstanding policy that states:
"The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms...If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction."
York Arms, located in Buxton, ME released a statement following new legislation in New York:
"Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York."
Quality Arms, located in Rigby, ID writes on their website, "elected officials have their own agenda to circumnavigate the truth and destroy the constitution of the United States."
The site states: "Quality Arms Idaho will not supply and firearm or product, manufactured by us, or any other company nor will we warranty, repair, alter, or modify and firearm owned by any State, County or Municipality who infringes on the right of its citizens to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment."
private individuals of that same city or state."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

Sheriff warns of second American revolution if gun confiscation laws pass

The Examiner ^ | February 20, 2013 | Joe Newby

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke warned of a second American revolution if gun control and gun confiscation passed and said he would not enforce laws requiring confiscation in his county while speaking with Alex Jones, Infowars reported Tuesday.
“First of all, to me that would be an act of tyranny," he said of the gun control measures currently under consideration. "So the people in Milwaukee County do not have to worry about me enforcing some sort of order that goes out and collects everybody’s handgun, or rifles, or any kind of firearm and makes them turn them in.”
“The reason is I don’t want to get shot, because I believe that if somebody tried to enforce something of that magnitude, you would see the second coming of an American revolution, the likes of which would make the first revolution pale by comparison," he added.
Sheriff warns of second American revolution if gun control passes.
In January, Clarke issued a public safety message urging citizens to get training from a certified gun safety course so they could properly defend themselves....
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...

20 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments In The History Of The Democrat Party

Townhall.com ^ | February 23, 2013 | John Hawkins
For example, one will virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena. These are sins America itself must atone for. Meanwhile, real or alleged “conservative” misdeeds — say McCarthyism — are always the exclusive fault of conservatives and a sign of the policies they would repeat if given power. The only culpable mistake that liberals make is failing to fight “hard enough” for their principles. Liberals are never responsible for historic misdeeds because they feel no compulsion to defend the inherent goodness of America. Conservatives, meanwhile, not only take the blame for events not of their own making that they often worked the most assiduously against, but find themselves defending liberal misdeeds in order to defend America herself. -- Jonah Goldberg

1) The Trail of Tears (1838): The first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren, herded Indians into camps, tormented them, burned and pillaged their homes and forced them to relocate with minimal supplies. Thousands died along the way.

2) Democrats Cause The Civil War (1860): The pro-slavery faction of the Democrat Party responded to Abraham Lincoln's election by seceding, which led to the Civil War.

3) Formation of the KKK (1865): Along with 5 other Confederate veterans, Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest created the KKK.

4) 300 Black Americans Murdered (1868): "Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor."

5) The American Protective League and The Palmer Raids (1919-1921): Under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, criticizing the government became a crime and a fascist organization, the American Protective League was formed to spy on and even arrest fellow Americans for being insufficiently loyal to the government. More than 100,000 Americans were arrested, with less than 1% of them ever being found guilty of any kind of crime.

6) Democrats Successfully Stop Republicans From Making Lynching A Federal Crime (1922): "The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure."

7) The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-1972): Contrary to what you may have heard, Democrats in Alabama did not give black Americans syphilis. However, the experimenters did know that subjects of the experiment unknowingly had syphilis and even after it was proven that penicillin could be used to effectively treat the disease in 1947, the experiments continued. As a result, a number of the subjects needlessly infected their loved ones and died, when they could have been cured.

8) Japanese Internment Camps (1942): Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that led to more than 100,000 Japanese Americans being put into "bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards."

9) Alger Hiss Convicted Of Perjury (1950): Hiss, who helped advise FDR at Yalta and was strongly defended by the Left, turned out to be a Soviet spy. He was convicted of perjury in 1950 (Sadly, the statute of limitations on espionage had run out), but was defended by liberals for decades until the Verona papers proved so conclusively that he was guilty that even most his fellow liberals couldn't continue to deny it.

10) The West Virgina Democrat primary is rigged by John F. Kennedy (1960): From an interview with the late, great Robert Novak.

John Hawkins: You also said that without question, John F. Kennedy rigged the West Virginia Democratic primary in (1960), but that the Wall Street Journal killed the story. Do you think that sort of thing is still occurring with great regularity and do you wish the Journal had reported the story when it happened?

Robert Novak: In my opinion, they should have. They sent two reporters down to West Virginia for six weeks and they came back with a carefully documented story on voter fraud in West Virginia, buying votes, and how he beat Humphrey in the primary and therefore got the nomination. But, Ed Kilgore, the President of Dow Jones and publisher of the Wall Street Journal, a very conservative man, said it wasn’t the business of the Wall Street Journal to decide the nominee of the Democratic Party and he killed the story. That story didn’t come out for many, many years — 30-40 years. It was kept secret all that time.

11) The Bay of Pigs (1961): After training a Cuban militia to overthrow Castro, Kennedy got cold feet and didn't give the men all the air support they were promised. As a result, they were easily defeated by Castro's men and today, Cuba is still ruled by a hostile, anti-American dictatorship.

12) Fire Hoses And Attack Dogs Used On Children (1963): Birmingham, Alabama's notorious Commissioner of Public Safety, Democrat Bull Connor, used attack dogs and fire hoses on children and teenagers marching for civil rights. Ultimately, thousands of them would also be arrested.

13) Escalation In Vietnam (1964): Lyndon Johnson dramatically escalated our troops’ presence in Vietnam while he simultaneously put political restrictions in place that made the war unwinnable. As a result, 58,000 Americans died in a war that ultimately achieved none of its aims.

14) Stand In The Schoolhouse Door (1963): Democrat George Wallace gave his notorious speech against integrating schools at the University of Alabama in which he said, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

15) Chappaquiddick (1969): The Democrats’ beloved "Liberal Lion" of the Senate, Ted Kennedy ran off the road into a tidal pool with passenger Mary Jo Kopechne in the car. Kennedy swam free and then spent 9 hours plotting how he would reveal the news to the press while she slowly suffocated to death.

16) Democrats Deliver South Vietnam To The North (1975): "In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies." -- Newt Gingrich

17) The Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-1981): 52 Americans were held hostage by the government of Iran for 444 days. After Jimmy Carter’s disastrous, failed rescue attempt, the hostages were finally released after Ronald Reagan's inaugural address.

18) Bill Clinton turns down Osama Bin Laden (1996): In Bill Clinton's own words, "'Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.' — Bill Clinton explains to a Long Island, N.Y., business group why he turned down Sudan’s offer to extradite Osama Bin Laden to America in 1996." Had Bill Clinton accepted Sudan's offer, 9/11 would have likely never happened.

19) Bill Clinton was impeached (1998): Clinton became only the 2nd President in American history to be impeached after he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

20) America loses its AAA credit rating (2011): The United States was first given its AAA credit in 1917, but it couldn’t survive Barack Obama's record breaking spending. In 2011, America lost its AAA credit rating.

The Big Con

Townhall.com ^ | February 23, 2013 | Bill O'Reilly

Please listen up. We are all being conned by the Obama administration. This year, the American taxpayer will fork over about $571 billion to pay for educating children in the nation's public schools. All told, the country spends close to $16,000 per student every year on primary through college education. That's the highest per-student spending rate in the world.
However, according to President Obama, it's not enough. He wants more tax dollars, especially for "early education." He said so in his State of the Union address, and it drew big-time applause from his crew. Of course we need to spend more on education. And anyone who opposes that hates kids!
The centerpiece of the president's early-education vision is the "Head Start" program, which has been in place since 1965. Over the past 48 years, the feds have spent close to $200 billion on Head Start. But there's one big problem: The program is not working.
According to a recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services, by the end of third grade, Head Start children remain academically disadvantaged compared to their same-age peers. So why did the president not mention that? Why is he still pounding the drum for more funding for a program that is not cutting it?
The answer is social engineering.
Obama will not say this, but one of his devoted followers, Columbia University professor Joseph Stiglitz, will. What the left really wants is to redistribute income through the public education system.
In a recent New York Times column, Stiglitz called for the following:
--More spending on preschool education.
--More spending on before- and after-class programs.
--More entitlements to ensure that pregnant women are protected from "environmental hazards." That means increased payments to prospective moms for better food, housing and medical care.
And the topper:
--Direct cash payments to parents of poor children who make sure their kids participate in school programs and show up for class. If that ever comes to be, America essentially will be paying parents to parent.
It is all about control. Obama believes the deck in America is stacked against the poor and wants to get lower-income citizens as much cash and as many entitlements as he can. Masking those payments under "more money for education" is a clever way to do that.
It is certainly true that poor children have a much tougher academic road than affluent kids. And smart educational policy can close that gap. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told me the reason Head Start is not delivering is that it doesn't concentrate enough on reading. In many school districts, it is primarily a babysitting service.
As a former high school teacher and a student in a class of 60 urchins at St. Brigid's grammar school, I know that education is all about discipline and motivation. Disadvantaged students need extra attention, a stable school environment and enough teacher creativity to stimulate their imaginations. Those things are not expensive.
But that's not all of what federal education spending is about, is it? It's also about redistributing income. We are being conned big time. And it's the kids who suffer the most because of it.