Friday, March 15, 2013

Harry Weathersby Stamps (could have been a helicopter pilot)

Harry Stamps Obituary

December 19, 1932 — March 9, 2013

Harry Weathersby Stamps, ladies’ man, foodie, natty dresser, and accomplished traveler, died on Saturday, March 9, 2013.
Harry was locally sourcing his food years before chefs in California starting using cilantro and arugula (both of which he hated). For his signature bacon and tomato sandwich, he procured 100% all white Bunny Bread from Georgia, Blue Plate mayonnaise from New Orleans, Sauer’s black pepper from Virginia, home grown tomatoes from outside Oxford, and Tennessee’s Benton bacon from his bacon-of-the-month subscription. As a point of pride, he purported to remember every meal he had eaten in his 80 years of life.
The women in his life were numerous. He particularly fancied smart women. He loved his mom Wilma Hartzog (deceased), who with the help of her sisters and cousins in New Hebron reared Harry after his father Walter’s death when Harry was 12. He worshipped his older sister Lynn Stamps Garner (deceased), a character in her own right, and her daughter Lynda Lightsey of Hattiesburg. He married his main squeeze Ann Moore, a home economics teacher, almost 50 years ago, with whom they had two girls Amanda Lewis of Dallas, and Alison of Starkville. He taught them to fish, to select a quality hammer, to love nature, and to just be thankful. He took great pride in stocking their tool boxes. One of his regrets was not seeing his girl, Hillary Clinton, elected President.
He had a life-long love affair with deviled eggs, Lane cakes, boiled peanuts, Vienna [Vi-e-na] sausages on saltines, his homemade canned fig preserves, pork chops, turnip greens, and buttermilk served in martini glasses garnished with cornbread.
He excelled at growing camellias, rebuilding houses after hurricanes, rocking, eradicating mole crickets from his front yard, composting pine needles, living within his means, outsmarting squirrels, never losing a game of competitive sickness, and reading any history book he could get his hands on. He loved to use his oversized “old man” remote control, which thankfully survived Hurricane Katrina, to flip between watching The Barefoot Contessa and anything on The History Channel. He took extreme pride in his two grandchildren Harper Lewis (8) and William Stamps Lewis (6) of Dallas for whom he would crow like a rooster on their phone calls. As a former government and sociology professor for Gulf Coast Community College, Harry was thoroughly interested in politics and religion and enjoyed watching politicians act like preachers and preachers act like politicians. He was fond of saying a phrase he coined “I am not running for political office or trying to get married” when he was “speaking the truth.” He also took pride in his service during the Korean conflict, serving the rank of corporal—just like Napolean, as he would say.
Harry took fashion cues from no one. His signature every day look was all his: a plain pocketed T-shirt designed by the fashion house Fruit of the Loom, his black-label elastic waist shorts worn above the navel and sold exclusively at the Sam’s on Highway 49, and a pair of old school Wallabees (who can even remember where he got those?) that were always paired with a grass-stained MSU baseball cap.
Harry traveled extensively. He only stayed in the finest quality AAA-rated campgrounds, his favorite being Indian Creek outside Cherokee, North Carolina. He always spent the extra money to upgrade to a creek view for his tent. Many years later he purchased a used pop-up camper for his family to travel in style, which spoiled his daughters for life.
He despised phonies, his 1969 Volvo (which he also loved), know-it-all Yankees, Southerners who used the words “veranda” and “porte cochere” to put on airs, eating grape leaves, Law and Order (all franchises), cats, and Martha Stewart. In reverse order. He particularly hated Day Light Saving Time, which he referred to as The Devil’s Time. It is not lost on his family that he died the very day that he would have had to spring his clock forward. This can only be viewed as his final protest.
Because of his irrational fear that his family would throw him a golf-themed funeral despite his hatred for the sport, his family will hold a private, family only service free of any type of “theme.” Visitation will be held at Bradford-O’Keefe Funeral Home, 15th Street, Gulfport on Monday, March 11, 2013 from 6-8 p.m.
In lieu of flowers, the family asks that you make a donation to Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College (Jeff Davis Campus) for their library. Harry retired as Dean there and was very proud of his friends and the faculty. He taught thousands and thousands of Mississippians during his life. The family would also like to thank the Gulfport Railroad Center dialysis staff who took great care of him and his caretaker Jameka Stribling.
Finally, the family asks that in honor of Harry that you write your Congressman and ask for the repeal of Day Light Saving Time. Harry wanted everyone to get back on the Lord’s Time.

Tyranny: The Founding Fathers Took A Stand Against It. Now It Is Our Turn

Freedom Outpost ^ | Mar. 15, 2013 | Jim Stachowiak

The Department of Homeland Security and police forces label anyone who they disagree with or who disagrees with government policies as terrorists.We have already seen how FEMA refers to the Founding Fathers as terrorists.
In the early years leading up to the first American Revolution our founding fathers were demonized by the majority of their fellow citizens. In fact the media of their day (newspapers) even went so far as to label them as kooks, wack jobs and people who needed to be institutionalized. This was an ad hominem attack in an attempt to destroy their creditably and turn their fellow citizens against them. Sounds like what we have been hearing from the TRAITORS in D.C. for years from members of both parties.
Patrick Henry in his historic speech Give me liberty or give me death said:
Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Unfortunately, many who call themselves PATRIOTS are, in fact, not our fellow countrymen, but should be considered TRAITORS as they are afraid to speak out and criticize government policies out of fear of what may happen if they do. Many who do speak out are being politically correct when they do, and tout the fact they have not been labeled wack jobs by the media and fellow Americans. This clearly shows they are not doing enough to shake up the tyrants, based upon historic precedents.
One opposes tyranny, or one enables it. There is no middle ground and time is not an ally. Wrapping tyranny in the flag and calling it security makes it no less evil.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

New Sequester Diet Cuts Royal Food Taster

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 2-15-2013 | MOTUS

Stop the madness! Big Guy’s Royal Food Taster has been sequestered!

royal food taster copy

The entire charm offensive fell apart yesterday when BO was unable to break bread with the loyal opposition because he suspected them of trying to poison him. Mark my words; when the entire government shuts down because the R-words won’t roll over and give Big Guy the tax increase he wants accept Big Guy’s magnanimous compromise and agree to a balanced approach to the budget, it will be due to this foolish – and probably racist - sequester cut.

Let me explain: yesterday Big Guy reached way across the aisle and agreed to actually go to Capitol Hill and have lunch with a select group of R-words. The Daily Caller reports that Senator Susan Collins (RHINO-ME) arranged the special menu:

“University of Maine recipe for healthy lobster salad (snip)

Sounds yummy and right up Big Guy’s alley. BUTT, his SS bosses wouldn’t let him eat anything because his Royal Food Taster had been sequestered. (snip)


Sen. Collins reflected the R-words reaction to Big GUy’s refusal to eat: “...apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over.

In addition to the lost yardage in Big Guy’s charm offensive, our SS storm troopers are “claiming” that Lady M ordered them to sequester the taster.

I don’t know why she would do that either.

ObamaObama-eating-pizzaimagesCABJNS1Ttumblr_mascqaTh9V1r7vrbro1_400food-tasterObama 2008

Presidents never used to have food tasters, butt a few months back, after learning that throughout history the most powerful emperors, monarchs and dictators had them, Big Guy put one in the budget. Before that, he just let others start eating first.


“So, your waffle’s good, huh? Still feelin’ ok buddy?”

obama  have dinner with barack

“Go ahead and start. Don’t wait for them to bring my plate. No, really, I insist.”


“Have her try this Belgian waffle…and the sausage links”

Don’t worry though, Big Guy didn’t have to go hungry. He enjoyed...Read the Rest Here>>>

Where Democrats GO

NRA Chief To Biden: 'You Keep Your Advice, We'll Keep Our Guns'!

CNS News ^ | 3/15/13 | Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice-President and CEO of the National Rifle Association (NRA), has a message for Vice-President Joe Biden: 'You keep your advice, we'll keep our guns."
Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), LaPierre criticized Biden's advice on gun-control, namely his suggestions to women who may find themselves in a life-and-death situation.
LaPierre used the example of Vice-President Joe Biden telling women to shoot two shotgun blasts into the air should they be attacked.
"Honestly, have they lost their minds over at the White house?," LaPierre asked rhetorically.
"You keep your advice, we'll keep our guns," LaPierre said to an applauding crowd.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

What Part of the Second Amendment is so Hard to Understand?

Illinois Review ^ | March 14, 2013 A.D. | John F. Di Leo

The Second Amendment is completely misunderstood by half the country. People who would never dream of challenging the meaning of freedom of speech, or the right to be from search and seizure, assume all sorts of imaginary limitations to the right to keep and bear arms, limitations that, upon thoughtful consideration, would be detrimental to the nation’s health and safety.
Others have written whole books on the subject, but for those who don’t need a whole book, just a quick clarification, here it is, part by part.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, so let’s start by remembering what the Bill of Rights was. In the days of our Founding, we were part of the British Empire, a limited monarchy in which the monarch had gone off the rails and forgotten (actually, “consciously circumvented” might be nearer the mark) most of his limits. Our Founders therefore set up constitutions for each of their respective colonies, and added bills of rights to each of them, sometimes passing their bills of rights first, because they viewed these as being more important than, say, how many senators they had or how long a judge’s term should be.
In designing a national government for the United States, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 debated whether to include such a list in this final document as well. Many of the delegates had arrived in Philadelphia – George Mason in particular, as the foremost champion of such things – with the natural expectation that such inclusion was a foregone conclusion.
But the Framers made the conscious decision not to do so for a very good reason. A Bill of Rights is a wall built around things that you don’t want the government to get at, when the government is otherwise able to get at anything else. An otherwise unrestricted government needs to be told, point blank, “these things are off limits to you!”
Our Framers, however, were writing a Constitution. The Constitution was a wall, not built around the things that are off limits for their protection, but around the government so that it could not expand beyond its enumerated powers! The Constitution was itself, by its very nature, even better than a Bill of Rights, because if the government can’t expand beyond these seven articles of enumerated powers, then you don’t NEED to list what’s off limits. By definition, everything else is off limits!
So the Framers decided, almost unanimously, that a Bill of Rights would be counterproductive in this document. It would send a mixed message: on the one hand the first seven articles say “the national government can’t exceed these bounds,” but then on the other hand a Bill of Rights would say “but on the off chance that it does exceed these bounds, here are several excesses that are really really off limits, we really mean it here.” The Framers therefore decided that a Bill of Rights in this context would be schizophrenic, and they voted it down (losing the endorsement of the great George Mason as a result).
When the Framers returned to their respective states, however, to pursue ratification, they found that this explanation was too complicated to make in the public square, and found that most states would simply refuse to ratify without a Bill of Rights. So the leading federalists (the supporters of the Constitution) agreed, state by state, to ratify only on the condition that a Bill of Rights would be added, thinking that it would be no serious loss to the logical strength of the Constitution. That choice is debatable to this day, but as the Constitution would not have been ratified without the agreement, it’s probably moot.
The Constitution was ratified, the new government was elected and installed, and during President Washington’s first term, the first ten amendments were added as the Bill of Rights.
Some argue that there is a special order of importance to the Bill of Rights, but this too is a stretch. The first is no more important than the tenth; the fifth no less important than the second. Rather, the Founders organized them in what they considered to be a logical range of the kinds of threats of which they feared a future government capable, in a manner that seemed sensible.
The first and last of the ten are logical bookends for the group, beginning with the rights to free speech, assembly, and religion, and closing with the fact that these ten are not our only rights, but that in fact any choices not specifically given to the government in the first seven articles is reserved to the states and the people.
So don’t think that the 2nd Amendment is the second most important freedom, less important than free speech and more important than the ban on government confiscation of private property found three amendments later. No, all ten are equal; all ten make up a clear reminder that the government is severely limited in its activities and powers; limited in fact to those specifically mentioned in the first seven articles.
The first clause of the 2nd Amendment is probably the most commonly misunderstood. The word “militia” conjures up the idea of a military; it shares the same root, after all… but it is in fact the opposite of a military.
In the summer of 1775, George Washington, a member of the Continental Congress representing Virginia, was commissioned as a general and sent to command the patriot forces at Boston, then in its seventh year of martial law under the British governor. Washington was amazed to discover that most of our troops – farmers, ranchers, handymen – had minimal experience with weapons. They needed basic training, at a time when their nation had neither time nor funds to provide it.
A dozen years later, the Framers recollected this experience, and the many difficulties involved in teaching patriots to handle arms in case of war; they decided to ensure that such problems never arose again.
So they established an expectation that the public must always be ready to take up arms as needed. Whether that means a posse of civilians, deputized to hunt down a killer in the Wild West, or a locally raised platoon to defend a town from invaders, or one or two members of a family, defending the family farm from a band of thugs, or the townsfolk banding together to overthrow a corrupt or tyrannical territorial governor… the people must be ready before the event. They cannot be expected to learn on the fly.
The militia, as cited in the 2nd Amendment, is therefore "the civilian citizenry." The Founders meant for it to cover all law-abiding citizens, all free Americans. The term had a couple of different legal meanings over the years… it was specifically defined by federal statute in the 1790s, for example, as all free men between age 18 and 45. That definition would change and expand as women gained property rights and voting rights, as the evil of slavery was finally ended, etc.
But the underlying, basic fact remains: in this context, the militia refers to the civilian citizenry. When they say “a well-regulated militia,” then, they’re making a distinction between a bunch of citizens who can be called on to collect arms from the local armory at a moment’s notice – willing but perhaps not able – and a bunch of citizens who are already accustomed to the handling of arms.
Like our friends Switzerland and Israel today, our Founders expected our civilians to be armed, to have their own stores of weapons and ammunition at home, and to be experienced enough with their use to be helpful if needed in any struggle.
Just drafting a kid at 18 and putting a gun in his hands for the first time was to be avoided at all costs; the early years of the War of Independence were a nightmare because of this; they never wanted that experience to be repeated. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that, if this 17 or 18 year old was called upon to serve, he had been handling weapons for years, and would therefore need minimal further training.
The government will always have weapons. They set up a nation with a minimal standing army, but it would soon become clear that a larger standing army – and navy – would be needed. And the citizenry must always be at least as well equipped and as well practiced as that military.
Now this context makes more sense. The word “security” has so many different definitions today – financial security, emotional security, security guards and Social Security. In this case, the meaning is clearly all forms of defense against the physical security threats that a huge country – already larger than any of the nations of Europe – might encounter. The 2nd amendment is to enable the civilian citizenry to provide for their own security, from robbers and killers, from other governments and our own.
The gun rights debate often concentrates on self-defense, on target marksmanship, on hunting rights. But these went without saying in the Founding era. The Founders thought of these as parts of that regular practice with firearms that would produce the well-regulated militia that the nation would need.
If we go out on weekends for target practice, if we go deer hunting during the season, all this is just practice so that the militia is in fact well-regulated enough to provide for the security of a free state – that is, the security that keeps the state free. Free of what? Of threats from without and within. Free of threats from enemy nations and from our own government.
Remember, not all our states were free at the time of the War of Independence. If they all were, we would have had no such revolution. But Massachusetts had been under martial law for seven years; the Virginia territorial governor had dissolved the popularly elected House of Burgesses at Williamsburg. Our primary threats were seen as being from our own government, even more than from other governments. The Founders rightly believed that only if the government knew that the people were better armed than they were, would they respect the rights of the free people, and keep it a free state.
In essence, guns in civilian hands make a state free. Guns only in government hands turn it into a police state, a tyranny.
This is a right, not a privilege. The Founders made it clear that the right of the people to be armed is not some generous frill, to be granted or removed by law, on the whim of a legislature, an executive, a judge or a bureaucrat.
Since all the people make up the militia, all the people have this right. The Founders intended for children to be raised in houses with guns, so that they are comfortable with weapons, so that they are already “well-regulated” the second they reach the age at which they may be called upon to help secure their homes, their neighborhood, or their nation.
Note that they said both “to keep” and “to bear.” The Founders encountered problems with shared armaments. There were towns in which the townsfolk had armories that the territorial governors confiscated, leaving the people defenseless. The Founders were therefore quite adamant that people should have their own guns in their own homes – both plenty of guns and plenty of ammunition.
If on a typical suburban block, only a quarter of the homes are armed, then the Founders would hope that this quarter would be very well armed, so that they have enough to share with their neighbors if the need should arise. Since all the citizens of the neighborhood are potentially part of the militia, it’s helpful for some residents to be gun collectors with a selection large enough to share; the very idea of any limit on the quantities of guns in a household, or the ammunition stores or magazine size, would be an unconscionable outrage to those who risked their lives that this nation could be free.
Just as there is no question that the Framers intended for us to keep arms; it says also, just as clearly, that we may bear them.
This means that we can carry them with us, whether openly or concealed, whether at home or in public. The government must not force us to lock our guns in a safe where we can’t get at them; we must be able to reach them at need. Laws against concealed carry or open carry are therefore unconstitutional as well, since the Framers knew that it was the knowledge that civilians are armed that keeps those who might impinge on our liberty in check.
Look at the crime statistics: states with open-carry or concealed-carry have fewer crimes and fewer assaults than states with neither. States with both open-carry and concealed-carry have the best of all. Chicago and Washington D.C., cities with neither, cities in which most firearm ownership is illegally banned outright, have the worst crime statistics of all. There’s nothing surprising about this. Consider:
If a mugger looks at thirty people on a street, sees five with visible holsters, and knows that another ten probably have their holsters hidden, he’ll do the math and realize that hoping to guess which ones constitute the unarmed half would be pretty poor odds. Eventually, he’ll choose a different line of work.
This is the beauty of it; you don’t have to be armed yourself to be protected by concealed-carry and open-carry; the knowledge that you might be among the armed protects you as well as your neighbor who is armed… as long as the local papers don’t publish a list of one or the other so that criminals know whose houses to rob and whose not to.
After all this, does this final part need to be explained? Note that the 2nd Amendment names no specific party here. Many other amendments say "Congress shall make no law…" But just to be absolutely clear in their meaning, they left that part out in this one. In the 2nd Amendment, the Framers allowed for no misunderstanding: NOBODY can infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Not Congress, not the Executive Branch, not the Judiciary. Nobody.
As we have seen, the 2nd Amendment was among the ten conditions for the ratification of our Constitutional government. We would have no Congress, no President, no Courts, if it weren’t for the agreement to include a Bill of Rights that counted the right to be armed among them.
This is among the plainest, clearest, most important of freedoms, and its importance is demonstrated daily, as millions of crimes are averted or thwarted in America by civilians practicing this right, and as millions of foreigners, denied such rights by their governments abroad, are tyrannized, unable to defend themselves.
Would the rape rooms of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the killing fields of Communist Cambodia, the holocaust of Hitler’s Germany, the starvation camps of the Soviet gulag, have been possible without the prior disarming of their citizens? Never.
It is the unlimited possession of firearms in the hands and homes of free citizens that keeps a nation safe, and any attempt to restrict that right, whether by local, state, or federal authorities, is unconstitutional and illegal, and must be nullified by other responsible government bodies to preserve the legitimacy of our form of government.
Copyright 2013 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Customs broker and international trade compliance lecturer. His columns appear regularly in Illinois Review.
Permission is hereby granted to forward freely, provided it is uncut and the IR URL and byline are included. Follow John F. Di Leo on LinkedIn or Facebook, or on Twitter at @johnfdileo.

Does this pope sound like a liberal to YOU? (not to me)

 by dangus

The left is certain to claim Pope Francis to be a socialist, since he professes and demonstrates a profound love for the poor. But that's not socialism. Every Christian should have a love for the poor; socialism is merely a kleptocratic movement which usurps and perverts that. Unfortunately, it seems that not a lot of Jesuits appreciate that. Pope Francis sounds like he is one that does.
So before the Left (or the anti-Catholic elements of the far right) convince you otherwise, here is what Pope Francis actually says:
The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers. The challenge to eradicate poverty cannot be truthfully met as long as the poor continue to be dependents of the State. The government and other organizations should instead work to create the social conditions that will promote and protect the rights of the poor and enable them to be the builders of their own future. To those who are now promising to fix all your problems, I say, ‘Go and fix yourself.’ Have a change of heart. Get to confession, before you need it even more! The current crisis will not be improved by magicians from outside the country and nor will [improvement] come from the golden mouth of our politicians, so accustomed to making incredible promises. "
Sounds like Ronald Reagan's speech-writers found a new employer, huh? Now, this is an admittedly old speech, from the Argentine currency crisis. Does he still preach that line? His first mass as pope didn't get into economics, but it did explicitly chastise those who seek government intervention as the cure for social ills:
We can walk as much we want; we can build many things, but if we do not confess Jesus Christ, nothing will avail. We will become a compassionate NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of Christ. When one does not walk, one stalls. When one does not built on solid rocks, what happens? What happens is what happens to children on the beach when they make sandcastles: everything collapses, it is without consistency. When one does not profess Jesus Christ – I recall the phrase of Leon Bloy – “Whoever does not pray to God, prays to the devil.” When one does not profess Jesus Christ, one professes the worldliness of the devil.

When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord. I would like that all of us, after these days of grace, might have the courage – the courage – to walk in the presence of the Lord, with the Cross of the Lord: to build the Church on the Blood of the Lord, which is shed on the Cross, and to profess the one glory, Christ Crucified. In this way, the Church will go forward.
That's quite a notion of devil worship: replacing the spread of the gospel with a "compassionate NGO." Not exactly FDR, here. I realize that these statements will not be soon confused with Milton Friedman, either. Economic policies are not the purview of the Church, and Pope Francis, for one, seems to understand that. But Pope Francis also understands that the busybody state chokes off the gospel, which is the true source of joy. And he is willing to fight to remind his fellow priests of that.

‘Leading by Example’ and the Keystone Pipeline : If we don’t use Canadian oil, someone else will!

National Review ^ | 03/15/2013 | Jonah Goldberg

While many have long seen America as the global bad boy, everybody likes Canada. If Uncle Sam tucks his pack of Marlboros under his T-shirt sleeve and plays by his own rules, the Canadian moose — or whatever their Uncle Sam equivalent is — always wears his blue blazer and school tie and does his chores without being asked. Canada is a global citizen, a good neighbor, a northern Puerto Rico with an EU sensibility that earns its gold stars from the United Nations every day.
This fact should have relevance below the 49th parallel. Right now, we’re all waiting for President Obama to decide on whether the Keystone pipeline can go forward. The pipeline would take oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta and deliver it to refineries in the U.S. It would extend all the way down to ports in Texas.
The prospect that Obama might approve the pipeline has environmentalists ready to handcuff themselves in a drum circle around anything that moves. For a while, they insisted that their core objections had to do with fears of spills in environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska and elsewhere. As many suspected, this was always political cover. When the proposed route was changed to accommodate these concerns, opponents weren’t mollified. They were only further enraged.
Opponents of the pipeline want America to lead by example, and the pipeline is a step in the wrong direction. “Who wants the U.S. to facilitate the dirtiest extraction of the dirtiest crude from tar sands in Canada’s far north?” asks New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
Well, first of all, the Canadians do! Second, if we won’t, the Chinese would be happy to facilitate (a point Friedman ignores). Canada and China have made it clear that if the U.S. doesn’t allow the pipeline to go south, they’ll make one that goes west to the Canadian coast. In other words, the oil is going to be pumped out no matter what. Moreover, the risks of a bad spill increase if we don’t build the pipeline. Oil tankers heading to China are a bigger threat to the environment than a pipe over or through dry land to American refineries.
But my aim isn’t to defend the pipeline, which strikes me as a no-brainer in every way. It’s to make a larger point. If the idea is that America is somehow “leading by example” when it kills projects like Keystone, or cracks down on oil drilling on federal lands, as Obama has done, then we’re not fooling anyone — not even the Canadians!
All around the world, governments are expanding their oil and gas operations. In Russia, oil output keeps going up. Brazil is racing to expand offshore drilling. Mexico recently announced another huge oil field it won’t hesitate to develop. Experts are predicting a South Atlantic oil boom to rival the North Sea craze of the 1980s.
Meanwhile, thanks to technological advances, the International Energy Agency predicts the U.S. will be the world’s largest oil producer by 2017 and a net exporter by 2030. And again, Greens, who’ve insisted for years that we need to wean ourselves off foreign oil, aren’t cheered by the news. They’re ticked off that they lost another convenient talking point.
While it’s true that President Obama brags about how oil and gas production are up, his policies have nothing to do with it. A new report from the Congressional Research Service confirms: “All of the increased [oil] production from 2007 to 2012 took place on non-federal lands.” Since 2010, federal oil production is down 23 percent.
To what end? As global-warming activists will be the first to admit, global warming is global. Whatever CO2 we’ve declined to pump into the atmosphere has been more than replaced by emissions from growing economies in Asia. We could cut our emissions to nothing, and in a few years the increase in China’s emissions alone would replace them.
You know what else are global? Oil and gas markets. Whatever oil we’ve denied ourselves has been made up for by development in other countries. All that we’ve done is make oil prices higher than they needed to be and denied ourselves billions of dollars that would have stayed here rather than go to the Middle East. No country, save the U.S., seems at all interested in denying itself or the world much-needed economic growth by letting oil and gas sit in the ground.
In other words, when you’ve lost Canada, you’ve lost the argument.
— Jonah Goldberg is the author of the new book The Tyranny of Clichés.

Sen. Ted Cruz: We shouldn't be implementing ObamaCare when it could throw us into a recession ^ | March 11, 2013

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Now to ObamaCare. It may be the law of the land, but that is not stopping Senator Ted Cruz. He is taking action against ObamaCare. Senator Cruz joins us. Nice to see you, sir.
SEN. TED CRUZ, R- TEXAS: Great to see you, Greta.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK, so you are proposing an amendment to the continuing resolution to slow down the funding of ObamaCare. Explain what you want and why.
CRUZ: Well, I think the top priority of every elected representative in Washington should be economic growth. If you look at the past four years, our economy's not growing. And in the last four years, it's grown 0.8 percent a year. And as a result of that stagnant growth, we're not able to get 23 million people back to work. Our federal balance sheet remains a train wreck.
The only way to solve the deficit, to solve the debt, to get people back to work, to get opportunity flowing again is to get growth. This last quarter, we had growth of 0.1 percent. So this week, on the continuing resolution, I'm introducing an amendment that is entitled Restore Growth First, and what it would do is delay funding "Obama care" until we get back to historic levels of growth.
With the economy stagnant, if we implement ObamaCare now, it will kill jobs! It will hammer small businesses! And it could well push us into a recession. That doesn't make any sense!
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cruz; economy; healthcare; obamacare; recession; tedcruz
"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

Trump: Rove ‘The Most Overrated Man in Politics’

Newsmax ^ | Friday, 15 Mar 2013 11:05 AM | Cyrus Afzali

Donald Trump has slammed Karl Rove as “the most over-rated person in politics” claiming the Republican strategist’s attack ads on actress Ashley Judd have increased her chances of winning a senate seat.

“This is the same mind that spent $400 million and didn’t win a race. He’s the most overrated person in politics,” Trump said during a press conference following his Friday morning speech at CPAC 2013.
Judd is widely expected to launch a bid for the Democratic nomination for the senate seat in Kentucky where she would take on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in 2014 if she was successful. …

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The High Cost of Higher Education Explained in One Simple Graphic

Daily Finance ^ | 03/15/2013 | Bruce Watson

A student rides a bicycle past the bell tower on the campus of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, U.S., on Monday, Oct. 22, 2012. Photographer: Daniel AckerA student rides a bicycle past the bell tower on the campus of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. (Daniel Acker, Getty Images)

For years, politicians and pundits have held forth about the high cost of higher education. Whether the issue du jour is rising tuition prices, falling returns on our educational investment, or the ballooning student debt bubble, the message has generally been the same: College is only getting harder to afford, even as it becomes more necessary.

Recently, CourseSmart, an e-textbook provider, created an infographic that lays out in simple terms the details of the college tuition explosion -- and they're truly frightening. Over the last 30 years, tuition has increased 1,120 percent; by comparison, even the "skyrocketing" cost of health care only rose 600 percent, and housing costs have gone up a paltry 375 percent.

Not surprisingly, college loan debt has grown explosively too, outstripping car loans and credit cards as the largest sources of personal debt. Given the much-trumpeted 2011 announcement that Americans owed more than $1 trillion in student loans, this shouldn't be all that surprising. Nor, for that matter, should it be shocking that almost one in five families is currently paying off student loans.

Yet, somehow, it is.

There are a lot of ideas being floated to get these problems under control: value report cards for universities; pay-it-forward tuition plans; a renewed focus on non-collegiate higher education. For now, however, tuitions continue to rise and students continue to take on back-breaking debt to cover the bills, as the graphic below explains.

High cost of higher eucation

Bruce Watson is a senior features writer for DailyFinance.

Why does Obama need 1.6 billion bullets?

WND ^ | March 14, 2013 | Diana West

Dear Mainstream Media,

Back in 2008, candidate Barack Obama went off his teleprompter and added a couple of sentences to the text of a speech about expanding the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. Over rolling applause, the soon-to-be president of the United States said: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
At the time, Joseph Farah of wrote a column calling on you to help shine a light on what this shocking statement really meant. In a permanent state of vapors over Obama’s candidacy, you were of no use when it came to extracting anything but press releases from Team Obama.
Nearly five years later, it hardly matters that candidate Obama’s promise to double the Peace Corps and the rest has come to naught. But the president’s unscripted determination to empower a civilian national security force is a different story. As far as you’re concerned, though, it’s also a nonstory.
This complacency or complicity has to stop. During the last 10 months, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, including millions of hollow-point bullets. The department also has purchased 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, and it has overseen the retrofitting of more than 2,000 light tanks, which, of course, were originally designed to resist the mines and ambushes of the battlefield. Why does DHS need such offensive and defensive firepower?
Remember, DHS stands for Department of Homeland Security, and “homeland,” just to be extremely clear, means the USA. Obama must be asked against which domestic enemy he is arming nonmilitary forces. It sounds incredible, to be sure, but are we watching administration battle
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Blood test tracks cancer!

Nature News ^ | 13 March 2013 | Heidi Ledford

Monitoring tumour DNA shows promise for following progress of disease.

A blood test for DNA shed by dying tumour cells might one day be used to track a patient's response to therapy, results from a pilot study in breast cancer suggest. The technique would provide an alternative to invasive biopsies that retrieve tumour tissue for analysis.
The study tracked free-floating tumour DNA isolated from the blood of 30 women with advanced breast cancer. The results indicate that the quantity of tumour DNA in the blood could reflect the extent of a patient’s cancer1.
The results will need to be replicated in a much larger, randomized trial before the technique can enter routine clinical use, says Carlos Caldas at the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, one of the leaders of the work. But the results of the current study, the largest of its kind, are cause for optimism that the technique could quickly and easily monitor the responses of patients to treatment, he adds, particularly when repeat biopsies would be prohibitively expensive and invasive.
“This is a powerful technology,” agrees Daniel Haber, a cancer researcher at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, who was not involved with the study. “It can be very scalable, inexpensive, and useful.”
Needle in a haystack
Depending on the extent of the disease, tumour DNA can make up anywhere from less than 1% to 50% of the cell-free DNA found in blood plasma, says Caldas.
In essence, the assay is analogous to the new wave of prenatal genetic tests that use tell-tale markers to find fetal DNA circulating in the mother’s blood. In the case of the tumour study, the researchers quantified the amount of tumour DNA in the blood by looking for cancer-associated mutations, focusing primarily on two genes, TP53 and PIK3CA...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Posted Image

White Smoke

Posted Image


Posted Image

Burning MONEY

Posted Image

Get off my back!

Posted Image

Minimum Wage

Posted Image

Becuse he's BLACK?

Posted Image