Thursday, February 28, 2013

Obama Release of Illegals ‘An Impeachable Offense’!

NewsMax ^ | 27 Feb 2013 | Todd Beamon

Conservative radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh said on Wednesday that the Obama administration’s release of hundreds of illegal aliens from local jails to save money before huge budget cuts take effect was “an impeachable offense.”

“This is in direct violation of the oath of office,” Limbaugh said on his radio show. “Defend and protect the Constitution of the United States and the people.

“We're opening the doors of prisons before the sequester has even happened, before there have even been any budget cuts,” Limbaugh added. “This is so childish, except the consequences are real for people that live near these detention centers. This is in-the-ground, hard, cold reality.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


ZeroHedge ^ | 2/28/2013 | Tyler Durden

Usually, when the administration needs a distraction from just how broke and insolvent in reality the country is, it sends the stock market soaring higher. As such it is beyond ironic that as the S&P is set to hit an all time high, Detroit - that shining symbol of the Obama administration's bailout of General Motors - effectively goes broke.

Detroit Mayor Dave Bing says Michigan Governor Rick Snyder will announce a state takeover of the city of Detroit on Friday.
Bing says the governor told him his decision during a phone conversation this morning. Bing was talking with reporters following a speech before the Detroit Regional Chamber at the MotorCity Casino.
The city will have 10 days to appeal the decision to the governor.
7 Action News has teams working the story to get more details.
If only Detroit had gone all in the stock market when Bernanke made it his life's crusade to take the Dow to 36,000 and blow up everyone else, trying...

STUDY: America Is Just At The Beginning Of A Gas Boom That Will Last For Decades!

TBI ^ | 2-28-2013 | Rob Wile

A new study from the University of Texas and the Sloan foundation suggests Texas' Barnett shale oil and gas play has barely reached a third of its potential.
However, it also concedes that the area's production rate has peaked.
The study's finding's were first reported by the Wall Street Journal's Russell Gold.
"We are looking at multi, multi decades of growth," Scott Tinker, director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the university and a leader of the study, told Gold.
The study looked at every one of the 16,000 wells in the Barnett, and found that the area is ultimately capable of producing 44 trillion cubic feet of oil and gas, three-times more than it currently puts out, assuming a break-even price of $4.
That's actually about 25 cents above the current Henry Hub price.
The study argues natural gas prices are still low enough to produce a gently declining production curve in the Barnett, located in north-central Texas. Here's the chart:

University of Texas

Sloan said it found no conflict of interest among the studies co-authors despite one having ties to BP.
"The consensus from those meetings was that the quality of the research was excellent and that there was no indication that it was influenced by conflicts of interest," the foundation said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

You Idiot!

Feel the need!

Now Playing

Out of Office!

Get ready for the Obamacollapse!

Vanity | 02/27/2013 | struggl

Hey guys, can you feel it?

There's that smell in the air...the acrid stench of desperation.

This Friday marks the first time the Republicans MIGHT ACTUALLY STAND UP TO OBAMA!
Guess what has happened in the last day alone? 1. Bob Woodward has called the Obama Admin's actions "madness" and compared them to Nixon. 2. Bob Woodward was threatened by Glen Sperling, Obama aide. 3. The media is in full a**-cover mode, trying in anyway possible to spin the slam of Woodward, THEIR HERO, as some kind of fluke. 4. @SharylAttkisson is back on the question track with #Benghazi 5. McConnell seems adamant that there will be sequestration, regardless. 6. It's been revealed that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WERE RELEASED FROM PRISON because of sequestration, before it even happened. Obama threw DHS under the bus, and some no-name got blamed.

Proverbs 4:19 But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble.

Lawmakers introduce bill to demote Pentagon's new medal

Stars and Stripes ^ | February 27, 2013 | Joyce Tsai

Lawmakers are lashing out at the Pentagon’s creation of the Distinguished Warfare Medal - intended to honor the contributions of drone pilots and cyber warriors who haven’t set foot on the battlefield - by introducing legislation that would ban it from being rated on par with or above the Purple Heart.
A trio of veterans serving in Congress, Reps. Duncan Hunter, D-Calif., Tom Rooney, R- Fl., and Tim Murphy, R-Pa., introduced the bill on Wednesday, in response to what has been a public outcry against the creation of the medal, which was announced on Feb. 13.
“Combat valor awards have a deep and significant meaning to those who serve in America’s military,” said Hunter, a former Marine, in a statement. “These awards represent not just actions, but also the courage and sacrifice that derive from experiences while in harm’s way. And those engaged in direct combat put their lives on the line, accepting extraordinary personal risk.”
According to Pentagon officials, the medal, which ranks immediately below the Distinguished Flying Cross, was intended to recognize “extraordinary achievements that directly impact on combat operations, but do not involve acts of valor or physical risks that combat entails.”
But that has led to public outrage over it from groups such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Military Order of the Purple Heart, which have expressed fears that it cheapens the significance of other combat medals that are awarded at risk of physical harm, injury or loss of life.
Rooney, an Army veteran, urged the Pentagon to reconsider its ranking of the new medal, which would be ranked above the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, in a letter to military top brass earlier this month. And the number of petitions demanding a change have continued to grow online on the White House’s “We the People” website. However, Pentagon officials have not said they would reconsider the medal’s placement.
Rooney said in a statement on the new bill that he and other veterans “had grave concerns” about the ranking of the medal.
“There is no greater sacrifice than risking your own life to save another on the battlefield,” he said, “and the order of precedence should appropriately reflect the reverence we hold for those willing to make that sacrifice.”
Murphy, a Navy veteran, said he strongly believed from his personal experiences of serving with “combat-wounded veterans at Walter Reed (Army Medical Center), that their Purple Heart should and must rank above the Distinguished Warfare Medal.”
"If the Pentagon will not reconsider the decision to rank this medal above the Purple Heart, the House will take action,” he said.

The nuclear reactor in your basement

Vortex-L ^ | Thu. 21 Feb 2013 10:15:58 -0800 | Mark Gibbs

[Vo]:Gizmag: "NASA's basement reactor"
Mark GibbsThu, 21 Feb 2013 10:15:58 -0800
BTW, did everyone see the Gizmag article "NASA's basement reactor" ( It's a bit fluffy and hand-waving but I
was intrigued by this section:

According to Zawodny, LENR isn’t what was thought of as cold fusion and it
doesn't involve strong nuclear forces. Instead, it uses weak nuclear
forces, which are responsible for the decay of subatomic particles. The
LENR process involves setting up the right conditions to turn these weak
forces into energy. Instead of using radioactive elements like uranium or
plutonium, LENR uses a lattice or sponge of nickel atoms, which holds
ionized hydrogen atoms like a sponge holds water.

The electrons in the metal lattice are made to oscillate so that the energy
applied to the electrons is concentrated into only a few of them. When they
become energetic enough, the electrons are forced into the hydrogen protons
to form slow neutrons. These are immediately drawn into the nickel atoms,
making them unstable. This sets off a reaction in which one of the neutrons
in the nickel atom splits into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.
This changes the nickel into copper, and releases energy without dangerous
ionizing radiation.

The trick is to configure the process so that it releases more energy than
it needs to get it going. “It turns out that the frequencies that we have
to work at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility,” Zawodny said.
“Between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources
to make our own controlled frequency.”

Let the comments begin ...


Here's the original article.

The nuclear reactor in your basement

February 19, 2013 by Bob Silberg

How would you like to replace your water heater with a nuclear reactor? That's what Joseph Zawodny, a senior scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center, hopes to help bring about. It would tap the enormous power of the atom to provide hot water for your bath, warm air for your furnace system, and more than enough electricity to run your house and, of course, your electric car.

If your thoughts have raced to Fukushima or Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, let me reassure you. Zawodny is not suggesting that you put that kind of reactor in your house. What he has in mind is a generator that employs a process called Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions. (The same process is sometimes called Lattice Energy Nuclear Reactions. We'll just call it LENR.) So what is LENR and how might it one day fill all your energy needs without risk of blowing up, melting down, or irradiating the neighbors?

Nuclear energy in a nutshell

The nuclear generators which currently provide some of the world's electricity use a type of fission in which a very heavy nucleus (meaning one with lots of protons and neutrons) such as uranium breaks up into two or more lighter nuclei, releasing energy in the process. The sun and all the other stars use nuclear fusion, in which two light nuclei (such as those of hydrogen) fuse together in an environment of very high temperature and pressure which overwhelms the mutual repulsion of their positive charges. Again, energy is released in the process—even more than in fission. We know how to use fusion in hydrogen bombs, but so far we lack the technology needed to harness it for more civilized purposes. In the 1980s, two scientists named Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann announced that they had developed a "cold fusion" process that could create fusion through chemical means, without the high temperature or pressure of stars and bombs. There was no theory to explain how that could be possible, and other scientists were unable to reliably reproduce the experiments, so cold fusion lacked credibility for most physicists. Some scientists have continued working on this idea though, and they sometimes call it "LENR." But this process is not what Dr. Zawodny is exploring. "There are a lot of people who are trying to just build something without understanding anything," Zawodny said. "It worked for Edison and the light bulb, but it took him a long time and that was a simple system. This is very complex. And if they make something that just barely works, and accidentally one in a thousand works really, really well, it's going to take down a house with their trial-and-error method."

In theory, a metal (gray) holding hydrogen ions (purple) as a sponge holds water (called a metal hydride) can provide one potential fuel for LENR."Several labs have blown up studying LENR and windows have melted," according to Dennis Bushnell, Langley's chief scientist, in an article he wrote for NASA's Future Innovation website. This, he wrote, indicates that "when the conditions are 'right' prodigious amounts of energy can be produced and released." But it's also an argument for the approach that the Langley researchers favor: master the theory first. The epiphany "For NASA Langley," according to Bushnell's article, "the epiphany moment on LENR was the publication of the Widom-Larsen Weak Interaction LENR Theory," which was published in 2006.

According to Zawodny and Bushnell, this theory provides a better explanation than "cold fusion" for the results which researchers have obtained over the last couple of decades. And it might explain much more than that. At a meeting of the American Nuclear Society in November 2012, the theory's co-developer, Lewis Larsen, speculated that LENR may occur naturally in lightning—not only on present-day Earth, but also in the primordial cloud of gas and dust that became our solar system. If true, LENR might solve a mystery uncovered by NASA's Genesis mission, that the pattern of oxygen isotopes on the sun differs greatly from that of Earth. The theoretical underpinnings of LENR are complex, but the basics are pretty easy to understand. Instead of splitting an atomic nucleus apart or ramming two mutually repelling nuclei together, Widom-Larsen's LENR simply offers a very slow-moving neutron to a nucleus.

According to Zawodny, nuclei presented with sluggish neutrons slurp them up like a hungry Texan with a bowl of firehouse chili. But like many a chili consumer, the nuclei can find that their indulgence makes them, shall we say, unstable. And while I am too polite to continue the chili metaphor past this point, the nuclei do find that emissions relieve their distress. With rare exception, Zawodny said, a nucleus which has lapped up one too many neutrons spits out an electron, which it gets by breaking up one of its neutrons into an electron and proton (and an anti-neutrino, but we can ignore that). So where it once had an extra neutron, making it an unstable isotope of whatever element it was, it now has an extra proton instead, which makes it a more stable isotope of a different element. This process releases energy which, hypothetically, can be used to generate electricity. EnlargeConcepts for an LENR-driven spaceplane developed by NASA and Spaceworks.

According to Zawodny, the challenge in making this work lies at the beginning of the process, generating those ultra-slow neutrons without expending more energy than the process yields. There are several hypothetical versions of the procedure, but here's a good example: We start by processing nickel so that it can hold hydrogen the way a sponge holds water. The hydrogen is ionized, meaning that each hydrogen atom has its electron stripped away, leaving only a proton. Electrons in the metal are made to oscillate together in such a way that the electromagnetic energy stored in tens of thousands of them is transferred to a relative few, giving them enough energy to merge with nearby protons (the hydrogen ions) and form slow-moving neutrons. Those neutrons, as we noted, are immediately captured by nuclei of the metal atoms, setting in motion a chain of events which turns the nickel into copper and releases useful energy.

The 1 percent solution

One percent of the nickel mined each year could meet the world's energy requirements at around a quarter of the cost of coal, according to estimates cited by Bushnell. There are other interesting options as well, like turning carbon into harmless nitrogen, the main component of our atmosphere. "I don't know what could possibly be cleaner than that," Zawodny said. "You're not sequestering carbon, you're totally removing carbon from the system." In fact, this would be a great way to dispose of some toxic carbon compounds, such as those that were used in electrical transformers. "It's just a nasty sludge that everyone doesn't know what to do with," he said. "That's perfect fuel, in theory." So what's the hitch? It's creating the right oscillation. "It turns out that the frequencies that we have to work at are in what I call a valley of inaccessibility," Zawodny said. "Between, say, 5 or 7 THz and 30 THz, we don't have any really good sources to make our own controlled frequency."

But solving that problem can wait until the theory is better understood. "From my perspective, this is still a physics experiment," Zawodny said. "I'm interested in understanding whether the phenomenon is real, what it's all about. Then the next step is to develop the rules for engineering. Once you have that, I'm going to let the engineers have all the fun." And he is sure that if the Widom-Larsen theory is shown to be correct, resources to support the necessary technological breakthroughs will come flooding in. "All we really need is that one bit of irrefutable, reproducible proof that we have a system that works," Zawodny said. "As soon as you have that, everybody is going to throw their assets at it. And then I want to buy one of these things and put it in my house."

More information: More information about energy-related innovations at NASA and Caltech is available at Provided by JPL/NASA

Read more at:

Why Blacks and Women Should Not Have Guns

American Thinker ^ | February 28, 2013 | William A. Levinson

The Democratic Party believes that it owns the African-American vote, and it also looks to women for much of its support. This support requires serious reconsideration. The Colorado Democratic Party, as represented by State Rep. Joe Salazar, has said openly that women are too mentally unstable to handle firearms responsibly.


Mfume's NAACP is not, however, the only source of African-American collaboration with racist gun laws. Pennsylvania House Bill 521 would require concealed-carry permit holders to purchase $1 million in liability insurance. Sponsors (we have not checked all of them) Waters, Brownlee, Thomas, and Brown are all African-Americans from Philadelphia who agree with racists that the basic right of self-defense should be contingent on one's socioeconomic status:
In 1879, the General Assembly of Tennessee banned the sale of any pistols other than "army or navy" model revolvers. This law effectively limited handgun ownership to whites, many of whom already possessed these Civil War service revolvers, or to those who could afford to purchase these more expensive firearms. These military firearms were among the best made and most expensive on the market, and were beyond the means of most blacks and laboring white people.
Racist swill from purported black leaders like Mfume and the above-named legislators is far more dangerous than that from traditional white supremacists, because most people recognize the latter for what they are and reject their words accordingly. We encourage African-American voters to look instead to people like Ken Blanchard ("Black Man with a Gun"), and the authors of this piece at BlackPlanet, for guidance on the Second Amendment.
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

 photo BAN_DEMOCRATS_FROM_OWNING_GUNS_zpsd32d0019.jpg

Soooo- Which White House Hoodlum Threatened WaPo's Bob Woodward?

Reaganite Republican ^ | 28 February 2013 | Reaganite Republican

"You don't go around trying to say to reporters
'you're going to regret this'...
...makes me very uncomfortable"


Arrogant people tend to think they're invincible once they fall in love with their own empty legend. It's called 'delusions of grandeur', and man does Barack Obama seem the textbook example. Throw-in Chicago Machine training and you've got a delusional-n-dangerous fool who won't brook a micron of dissent.

But when this morally-warped megalomaniac ALWAYS gets his way by hectoring Republicans, the media, or anybody else in the way, where's the motivator for the guy to ever change?

Obama also thinks he owns the press, and I guess he's mostly right there- yet pride cometh before the fall: Rule #1 if you're going to pick a fight would be 'know what you're getting into'-
and maybe -just maybe- famed Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward wasn't the one to screw with, huh-

Mr Woodward is of course currently engaged in -and winning- a very public debate with the White House, and came out with a scathing indictment yesterday of Obama Administration disinformation and reckless fiscal brinkmanship ("madness"), i.e. delaying military deployments (before the sequester even hits) due to the 'budgetary situation'.

Of course it's pure propaganda stagecraft designed to pressure Republicans into making a deal (on Obama's terms), since hitting the sequester deadline with no real catastrophes materializing -and current White House charades exposed- would be the worst possible thing that could happen in 'progressive' eyes (betraying the fact this country can survive
-even prosper- with a few cuts here and there).

Indeed, the increasingly skeptical Woodward -one of the few old-school journalists left in DC who actually attempt to do their job instead of just licking Obama's ass all the time- seems genuinely shocked by this administration's escalating lawlessness, underhanded maneuvering, media manipulation, and habitual dishonesty, all of which could be summed-up as a lack of good faith/duty/loyalty towards anything (or anybody) but themselves.
Bob Woodward: 'Color me a bit baffled...
I don't understand this White House- do you?'

When Woodward attempted to call and give the WH a heads-up that he was going to question some of the Administration's statements and assumptions re. sequester in his WaPo column, the reporter said the same WH 'senior' staffer that later threatened him "yelled at me for about an hour".

The reason for all the anxiety? Seems Obama was initially successful -as he too often is- at getting the country to believe the Republicans were at fault for Friday's looming deadline, when the idea for sequester initially sprang from his own sinister mind.

Unfortunately for Obummer, DC press legend Bob Woodward knew the truth, as he wrote about the 2011 deal that brought us to a mandatory sequester mechanism in his 2012 book. And he just blew to smithereens a fairy tale Obama worked quite hard to create -had over half the country bamboozled into thinking that the GOP was to blame (accordingly, they need to cave on new taxes)- exposing the serial prevaricator yet again.

Uh, isn't this the sort of thing Boehner and Musty Mitch ought to be doing?

Clearly the Obama regime is getting nervous as the sequester deadline draws near, and it seems that this -in combination with towering hubris- got them to thinking they could threaten and intimidate Bob Woodward into silence because his sole voice dared speak the truth.

Of course they cannot, and Woodward was on CNN within hours to talk about it. The only question now would be WHO is the White House SENIOR staffer that thinks he's Sammy The Bull?

Video/more at Reaganite Republican

Dr. Doom

Posted Image

On the road again...

Posted Image

STUPID, Indeed!

Posted Image

Maybe I am...

Posted Image

A Good Laugh

Posted Image

You're Kidding!

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

PIE Charts

Posted Image

Miss Take

Posted Image

Biggest Hypocrite

Posted Image

Miss Conception

Posted Image

The Little Chickens

Posted Image

Excited Obama

Posted Image

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Queer Liars and Liberal Idiots

Weird Republic ^ | February 22, 2013 | Thomas Clough

The most destructive ideologies of modern times have favored the notion that an essential human nature does not exist or, at most, is faint and extremely elastic. The enemies of civilization must subvert the idea that humans cannot be conditioned to accept any behavior, no matter how grotesque. These practitioners of human desensitization understand that getting humans to accept a repugnant behavior requires a slow and incremental and persistent exposure to behaviors that were previously felt to be disgusting. The enemies of civilization believe that humans as humans share no guiding moral sensibility. “Little by little we were taught all these things. We grew into them,” recalled the socialist mass murderer Adolph Eichmann.
Accommodating upstart subcultures that are hostile to the values of the core culture is a self-destructive behavior that no robust culture exhibits. The accommodation of homosexuality and homosexual counter-cultural perspectives by President Barack Obama and his political party is evidence that America is circling the drain pipe. When the president of the United States of America declares that sterile one-sex wedlock must be elevated to co-equal status with time-honored, fertile, and society-sustaining heterosexual marriage, the stink of decadence is in the air. One of every six of Mr. Obama’s big-bucks bundlers is a homosexual; homosexuals are six times more abundant among Mr. Obama’s financiers than in the general population; Mr. Obama is beholding to homosexuals for his continued hold on the presidency; Mr. Obama is bought and paid for by the homosexual radicals.
continues at link...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Founded By Geniuses And Run By Idiots (outstanding read alert!)

Monte Perlin's World ^ | February 27, 2013

H. L. Mencken correctly observed:

Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent.
Mencken also was prescient:

As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
But this is not about Mr. Mencken. Rather it is about some unknown individual who committed the following to the email world:

Food for thought ...

  • If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested “homes”… you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing, and free cell phones … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of Unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor buys iPhones, TV’s and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.
  • If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government … you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

How Obama Wins ^ | February 27, 2013 | Ben Shapiro

President Obama is one of the great political knife-fighters in modern history. He is a failed president -- his economy is bleak, his foreign policy bleaker, his vision for American even bleaker still. But he wins.

He wins by losing.

President Obama has only had two major policy victories during his tenure: the stimulus package and Obamacare. Both are massively unpopular. The stimulus package launched the tea party movement. Obamacare led to the Republican wipeout of 2010.
Then Obama began to lose. He wasn't able to push forward climate change legislation or immigration reform or gun control or increased taxes before the election of 2012. And he won a sweeping electoral victory. The strategy was -- and is -- simple. Obama pursues policies that are widely popular and then purposefully sinks them by casting Republicans as obstructionists.
He is not truly interested in immigration reform; Republicans are fools to think that he is. Obama wants to raise the issue of immigration reform so that he can demonize Republicans as anti-Hispanic. That's why Obama ignores the broad support for an immigration plan that would provide border security once and for all and then deal with the illegal immigrants who live here. Instead, he proposes an immigration plan that would do nothing for border security while essentially granting gradual amnesty to those already here -- and to millions more who will cross the border unmolested.
By doing so, Obama puts himself in a no-lose situation: If immigration reform passes, he takes credit; if not, he blames Republicans as racists who simply don't like Hispanics. The media will abet this little game. Suddenly a failed proposal from Obama becomes a political winner for him.
The same holds true of the sequester. President Obama originated the sequester. It was his idea to put into place an automatic cut in the rate of spending increase, and it was his idea to focus those cuts on the defense industry. Republicans, idiotically believing that Obama was interested in honest negotiation, voted for sequestration. Now Obama runs to the cameras to suggest that if these cuts go forward, the world will end. All he asks to avert this earth-shattering crisis is a few tax increases. The media helps him pimp this narrative.
Again, it's a no-lose for Obama. If sequestration is averted, Obama takes the credit. If not, he gets to cast Republicans as hard-hearted Scrooges who want Tiny Tim to starve to death. Another failed proposal, another victory for Obama.
What does all this achieve? It achieves electoral victory. Once Democrats have enough votes in the House and Senate to ram through their agenda, the game is over: Obama forces through his policies. America moves to the left.
Obama understands what Republicans do not: Politics is a waiting game. If nothing gets done with a split government, Obama is happy to live with that. Meanwhile, he'll demagogue each and every issue until he gets the votes he needs to truly transform America.

BOB WOODWARD: A 'Very Senior' White House Person Warned Me I'd 'Regret' What I'm Doing (on CNN)

Business Insider ^ | 2/2713 | Brett LoGiurato

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.
CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined. "I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.
Earlier today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Woodward ripped into Obama in what has become an ongoing feud between the veteran Washington Post journalist and the White House. Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.
The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.
"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on MSNBC.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

American Student Punished for Refusing to Recite Mexican Pledge

Fox News ^ | Todd Starnes

A Texas high school student has filed a federal lawsuit against her school and her teachers after she was punished for refusing to salute and recite the Mexican pledge of allegiance.
The Thomas More Law Center filed the suit on behalf of Brenda Brinsdon alleging the McAllen Independent School District violated the 15-year-old girl’s constitutional rights when she was forced to recite the Mexican pledge and sing the Mexican national anthem.
Click here to read the lawsuit.
Brinsdon, who is the daughter of a Mexican immigrant and an American father, refused. She believed it was un-American to pledge a loyalty oath to another country.
Ironically, the school district has a policy that prohibits a school from compelling students to recite the American Pledge of Allegiance.
The district also has a written policy that excuses students from reciting text from the Declaration of Independence if the student “as determined by the district, has a conscientious objection to the recitation.”
“There is a sad trend in public schools across our nation to undermine American patriotism,” said Richard Thompson president of the Thomas More Law Center. “But it’s encouraging to see students like Brenda stand up for America despite pressure from school officials.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Sure, the economy is creating jobs; guess where?

Hotair ^ | 02/26/2013 | Erika Johnsen

California Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration yucked it up when Texas Gov. Rick Perry offered an open invitation to California companies to come on down and check out the Lone Star state's business climate, chiding that maybe Texas should devote a little more of their time and resources to fixing their own domestic troubles and claiming that California is doing just fine in terms of job creation.
But in Forbes' latest survey of The Best Cities for Good Jobs, Texas totally spanked California, snagging the top four spots and five out of the top six, while only San Francisco managed to take ninth. Forbes looked at Moody's data on the hundred largest U.S. metropolitan areas, threw out the cities with high unemployment, and then ranked the contenders based on recent and expected job growth, current unemployment rate, and current and projected per-capita income. The winner?
This year’s winner is Dallas, which shrugged off the Nov. 2011 bankruptcy of American Airlines parent AMR Corp. to rack up 2.1% job growth last year and is projected to continue adding jobs at a 2.8% rate through 2019 – more than 300,000 on top of the 2.1 million already in Dallas and its Plano and Irving suburbs. …
The Texas unemployment rate rose from below 5% in 2007 all the way to a little above 8% in 2010, but now it’s falling back down again to a current 6.2%. The U.S. unemployment rate peaked at 10% and is still stuck at about 8%, with states like California, Illinois and New York well above that. …
One explanation that is definitely false: Texas isn’t growing on the backs of underpaid, non-union workers. While Texas is a right-to-work state, many of the highest paying jobs in the Dallas area are with unionized defense manufacturers like Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin, which produces the F-35 Lightning II fighter at a mile-long plant in Fort Worth. …
Not only is the Dallas-area per-capita income of $39,548 comfortably above the national average of $37,000, but it’s growing fastest in the top half of wages above $16 an hour.
Bazinga. In that same vein, Joel Kotkin‘s piece in today’s WSJ describes the economic trends pointing to four developing corridors that are “generally less dense, more affordable, and markedly more conservative and pro-business: the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, the Third Coast (spanning the Gulf states from Texas to Florida), and the Southeastern industrial belt.” Funnily enough, all of these areas experiencing better-than-average growth tend to be concentrated around states that have made especial efforts to be low-tax, business-friendly areas. Coincidence?
Overall, these corridors account for 45% of the nation’s land mass and 30% of its population. Between 2001 and 2011, job growth in the Great Plains, the Intermountain West and the Third Coast was between 7% and 8%—nearly 10 times the job growth rate for the rest of the country. Only the Southeastern industrial belt tracked close to the national average. …
The result is that corridor states took 11 of the top 15 spots in Chief Executive magazine’s 2012 review of best state business climates. California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts were at the bottom. The states of the old Confederacy boast 10 of the top 12 places for locating new plants, according to a recent 2012 study by Site Selection magazine. …
As a result, the corridors are home to most of America’s fastest-growing big cities, including Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City and Denver. …
… Yet over the past decade, the number of people with bachelor’s degrees grew by a remarkable 50% in Austin and Charlotte and by over 30% in Tampa, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta—a far greater percentage growth rate than in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago or New York.

Only Racists

Liberal credentials

11 million new democrats

Rewriting history

I had a dream...

Seniors Losses

Ban Assault Cars!


Wake Up, America


Select One!


Tuesday, February 26, 2013

A normal person’s perspective on the Sequester...Or How I Came to Love the Sequester

Flopping Aces ^ | 02-26-13 | Vince

Everett Dirksen famously said “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money.” If his billion here and billion there added up to $44 billion then he’d have been talking about the Sequester that seems to be everywhere in the news today.

For those not familiar with the Sequester, it is the mandatory cut in federal spending set to take place on March 1st. President Obama essentially warned that the country would likely come to a screeching halt if the mandated cuts actually occurred. Among the damage would be: thousands of teachers and firefighters losing their jobs, 800,000 Defense job losses, nursing home cuts, cuts to Medicare, airports close, hundreds of thousands would miss out on flu vaccinations and cancer screening. Apparently the Myans were just off by a couple of months.

Back to the real money… $44 billion is a lot of money. That’s the kind of money Mark Zuckerberg looks at and goes “Wow”. When you imagine that the Sequester is going to cut that much from the federal budget that seems like a lot… until it’s not.

In 2012 the federal government spent $3.538 trillion. If nothing is done and the Sequester kicks in, in 2013 the federal government will spend $3.553… yes, that’s right, $15 billion more! Somehow, President Obama is trying to suggest that if the country does not figure out how to dodge this $44 billion Sequester bullet, the foundations of our society are going to come crumbling down upon our shoulders. (The total 2013 "cut" includes the aforementioned $44 billion plus $41 billion cut in future years but attributed to 2013.)

That simply makes no sense.

To put this in some perspective, imagine that instead of talking about trillion dollar federal budgets here, we use numbers in the form of your paycheck. Let’s imagine that your family had an income of $50,000 in 2012. While it might have been a challenging year, that’s up 15% from the $43,600 you earned in 2009. (Remember, we’re using government spending as the measure here. If we were instead using actual household income numbers, the $43,600 you earned in 2009 would have instead shrunk to $41,500 by 2012 rather than growing to $50,000). In 2013 you are expecting a .4% raise, taking your income up to $50,211.

Given those numbers, are you going to spend a week knocking on your neighbor’s homes telling them they have to demand the homeowner’s association roll back the dues because you only received a $211 raise this year? Are you going to call your relatives and tell them that you are going broke and that you may lose your house because you only got a $211 raise this year? Are you going to go to your boss and tell him that you’re probably going to have to stop working if he doesn’t give you another $500?

Probably not.

(excerpt)

Testimony: DHS No Longer Uses Control of Border as Measure of Border Patrol!

CNS News ^ | 2/26/13 | Terence P. Jeffrey

( - The U.S. Department of Homeland Security no longer uses control of the actual border as a measure of how well the Border Patrol is doing its job, according to written testimony released today by the Government Accountability Office.
The GAO said that by the end of fiscal 2010, the Border Patrol had been able secure “operational control” of only 44 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border. Then, with 56 percent of the border not under “operation control,” DHS simply stopped using “operational control” as a measure of the Border Patrol’s performance.
Since then, DHS has counted the number of illegal border crossers the Border Patrol apprehends, and used this count as an “interim” measure of whether the Border Patrol is accomplishing its mission.
According to GAO, this “interim” measure limits DHS’s accountability and Congress’s ability to conduct oversight of the department.
“At the end of fiscal year 2010, DHS reported achieving varying levels of operational control of 873 (44 percent) of the nearly 2,000 southwest border miles,” Rebecca Gambler, the GAO’s director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Border.
“In fiscal year 2011, citing a need to establish new goals and measures that reflect a more quantitative methodology and an evolving vision for border control, DHS transitioned to using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border as an interim goal and measure,” Gambler said. “As GAO previously testified, this interim measure, which reports on program activity levels and not program results, limits DHS and congressional oversight and accountability.”
Starting in 2004, Congress provided the Border Patrol with a significant increase in resources, which until 2010 were focused on actually securing the physical border of the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

A Presidency Without… Guts

By Jim Geraghty

February 26, 2013 11:08 A.M.

So the secondhand tale of House Speaker John Boehner’s assessment that President Obama “can’t make a decision. He’s got balls made out of marshmallows” … has a certain precedent, as Exurban Jon reminds me:

“If Hillary gave him [Obama] one of her balls, they’d both have two,” Democratic strategist James Carville told the Christian Science Monitor at a breakfast on Thursday morning.
The editorial board of the Washington Post uses nicer language, but reaches the same conclusion:
… why is Mr. Obama not leading the way to a solution? From the start, and increasingly in his second term, Mr. Obama has presented entitlement reform as something he would do grudgingly, as a favor to the opposition, when he should be explaining to the American people — and to his party — why it is an urgent national need. Obama priorities such as health and energy research, preschool education and job training: Those come from the discretionary budget.
Why? Because it would mean telling his party and his supporters things they don’t want to hear. And he doesn’t have the, er… stomach for it.

Scientists Claim 72 Is the New 30

GM Visuals | Blend Images | Getty Images

Human longevity has improved so rapidly over the past century that 72 is the new 30, scientists say.
Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock, Germany, said progress in lowering the odds of death at all ages has been so rapid since 1900 that life expectancy has risen faster than it did in the previous 200 millennia since modern man began to evolve from hominid species.
The pace of increase in life expectancy has left industrialized economies unprepared for the cost of providing retirement income to so many for so long.
The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, looked at Swedish and Japanese men – two countries with the longest life expectancy today. It concluded that their counterparts in 1800 would have had lifespans that were closer to those of the earliest hunter-gatherer humans than they would to adult men in both countries today.
Those primitive hunter gatherers, at age 30, had the same odds of dying as a modern Swedish or Japanese man would face at 72.


A young woman went to her Grandmother and told her about her life and how things were so hard for her. She did not know how she was going to make it and wanted to give up. She was tired of fighting and struggling.

Her Grandmother took her to the kitchen. She filled three pots with water. In the first she placed carrots, in the second she placed eggs, and in the last she placed ground coffee beans.

She let them sit and boil without saying a word. In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She pulled the eggs out and placed them in a bowl. Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a bowl.

Turning to her Granddaughter, she asked, "Tell me, what do you see?"

"Carrots, eggs, and coffee," she replied.

She brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft and mushy. She then asked her to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hardened egg. Finally, she asked her to sip the coffee.

The daughter smiled as she tasted its deep flavor and inhaled its rich aroma. The daughter then asked, "What's the point, Grandma?"

Her Grandmother explained that each of these objects had faced the same adversity - boiling water - but each reacted differently. The carrot went in strong, hard and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, it became weak. The egg had been fragile. Its thin, outer shell had protected its liquid interior. But, after sitting through the boiling water, its inside became hardened.

The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they were in the boiling water they had changed the water.

"Which are you?" she asked her Granddaughter. "When adversity knocks on your door, how do you respond? Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?"

Think of this: Which am I? Am I the carrot that seems strong? But with pain and adversity, do I wilt and lose my strength? Am I the egg that starts with a fluid spirit but, after death, a breakup, a financial hardship or some other trial, I become hardened and stiff? Does my shell look the same, but on the inside am I bitter and tough with a stiff spirit and a hardened heart? Or am I like the coffee bean? The bean actually changes the hot water - the very circumstance that brings the adversity, the pain, the hardship – into something quite wonderful. When the water gets hot, it releases it's fragrance and flavor. If you are like the bean, when things are at their worst, you get better, and change the situation around you for the better.

When the hours are the darkest and trials are their greatest do you elevate to another level? How do you handle adversity?


~ Author Unknown

America's Red State Growth Corridors (The Low-tax, energy-rich regions in the heartland)

Wall Street Journal ^ | 02/26/2013 | JOEL KOTKIN

In the wake of the 2012 presidential election, some political commentators have written political obituaries of the "red" or conservative-leaning states, envisioning a brave new world dominated by fashionably blue bastions in the Northeast or California. But political fortunes are notoriously fickle, while economic trends tend to be more enduring.
These trends point to a U.S. economic future dominated by four growth corridors that are generally less dense, more affordable, and markedly more conservative and pro-business: the Great Plains, the Intermountain West, the Third Coast (spanning the Gulf states from Texas to Florida), and the Southeastern industrial belt.
Overall, these corridors account for 45% of the nation's land mass and 30% of its population. Between 2001 and 2011, job growth in the Great Plains, the Intermountain West and the Third Coast was between 7% and 8%—nearly 10 times the job growth rate for the rest of the country. Only the Southeastern industrial belt tracked close to the national average.
Historically, these regions were little more than resource colonies or low-wage labor sites for richer, more technically advanced areas. By promoting policies that encourage enterprise and spark economic growth, they're catching up.
Such policies have been pursued not only by Republicans but also by Democrats who don't share their national party's notion that business should serve as a cash cow to fund ever more expensive social-welfare, cultural or environmental programs. While California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota have either enacted or pursued higher income taxes, many corridor states have no income taxes or are planning, like Kansas and Louisiana, to lower or even eliminate them.
The result is that corridor states took 11 of the top 15 spots in Chief Executive magazine's 2012 review of best state business climates. California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts were at the bottom.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Designated Second Amendment Safe Zone

second amendment safe zone

President Obama’s sequester strategy: Divide and conquer!

Politico ^

President Obama’s sequester strategy: Divide and conquer By: Carrie Budoff Brown February 26, 2013 04:42 AM EST
President Barack Obama broke Republicans once on taxes — and his risky strategy for winning the sequester fight assumes he’ll do it again.
He will divide, isolate and defeat Republicans using all the powers of his office and all his skills as a political campaigner. As Americans grow frustrated with the cuts, Republicans will reject their party’s no-tax mantra and demand that Congress end the standoff, even if it means raising some new revenue – just the way Obama is demanding.
Obama’s trying to speed this result, by releasing state by state details of the pain and suffering the sequester will cause, all meant to get Republicans to cave. And he’s got the biggest megaphone, hammering this message over and over in a way the divided Republican party cannot.
Except that message could cut both ways.
What if the public agrees that yes, there is a lot of pain and suffering – and turns to Obama wondering, why didn’t you do more to prevent it? That’s what makes some Democrats nervous about the White House’s supreme level of confidence.
Democratic lawmakers, who are unclear about the end game, could succumb to the same public offensive that Obama has been ginning up against Republicans and start demanding that the White House cut its losses and move on to other important second-term initiatives. A GOP proposal to give flexibility to the agency heads on deciding how to administer the cuts could start looking attractive to Democrats as a way out.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Dr. Ben Carson Continues His Wisdom Tour ^ | February 25, 2013 | Armstrong Williams

Dr. Ben Carson, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner and legendary neurosurgeon, is now in the spotlight for his keynote address to the National Prayer Breakfast on February 7. It’s not brain surgery to figure out why.
Most notable was his criticism of Obamacare, one of the worst federal laws in decades, and one which, before its complete implementation, is already destroying our economy on a massive scale. Dr. Carson, relying on decades of medical experience, proposed health savings accounts for every American, which would fix two enormous problems in our system today: (1) regressive intergenerational transfers of wealth, and (2) half of our country not having a skin in the game, not having invested in their own futures. HSAs would incentivize efficiency, which is completely lacking in today’s broken health care system. Our country is being bankrupted by the health care industry, and Dr. Carson has a solution that needs to be taken seriously.
Dr. Carson came under fire for these remarks; people called them political, or partisan. What is wrong with a physician sharing his perspective on health policy? Is it partisan just because this is President Barack Obama we’re dealing with, whom the media has seemingly vowed to protect at any cost? Dr. Carson’s wisdom should be heeded by policymakers in Washington on both sides of the aisle.
Rush Limbaugh, in his typically bombastic style, warned afterward, as interest grew in Dr. Carson’s ideas,that “The Obama campaign team is gonna get into gear if this guy keeps talking, and they're gonna try to find ways to smear him and ruin his life and do to him what they did to Romney. That's all they can do. They can't beat him in the arena of ideas and superior intellect.”
It is a shame that Dr. Carson’s speech was considered only for its public policy content. The speech is full of wisdom on other topics, such as education, speech codes,and the importance of tithing.
I was intrigued by his discussion of tithing, and its relation to our 70,000-page tax code. Tithing is such a fair way to tax people is because it's proportional. As soon as you move away from proportional taxing, ideology takes over. As a result, ideology is—quite frankly—arbitrary and depends upon the latest trendy or fashionable prejudices. A growing number of people seriously think that the rich should pay more, while some feel they should pay less. One could legitimately make the argument that if the top one percent pay 37% of the income taxes and the top 5% pay 59%, this clearly demonstrates their tax base should be lower. The top 5% don't make 59% of the income and yet they pay 59% of the taxes. Therefore it is simple and fair to make the argument that they are being over taxed.Simplification is the only true and fair solution.
If you pay God 10% of your wealth, why should you pay the government more than that? Unlike our tax code, tithing is simple, and it is fair.
Tithing represents 10% of one's increase. A proportional tax system does not have to reside at 10%. It can be higher or lower depending on the needs of the government. Because it would be applied proportionally to the entire population, the government would be unlikely to raise taxes to a very high level, for it would effect everyone and not just a small group of voters. This is a clear advantage of a proportional tax rate, that everyone participates. A country where half of the population pay no income taxes, but are allowed to vote to make the other people pay more taxes, makes absolutely no sense.
When everybody has skin in the game, then everyone will be responsible: imagine if when you ate ice cream, somebody else got fat! That’s how our tax and spend government works: 51% of the people vote for spending paid for by the other 49%.
Dr. Carson says that he has not ruled out a run for office if “the Lord grabbed me by the collar and made” him do it. Whether or not he does, I think that our leaders in Washington need to listen to this man, and at least take a half hour to listen to his Prayer Breakfast speech. It is a large dose of common sense, something that has been lacking in Washington for many years.
I am proud to call Dr. Carson my friend, and, like just about everyone else, I hope to hear more such speeches from him in the future. I also strongly encourage you to read more about Dr. Ben Carson, especially his latest NY Times best selling book "America the Beautiful," which he wrote with his wife Candy, and which details the scholarship program that they have been running for fifteen years. I’m hoping that we’ll get a sequel sometime soon.

What happened to the Golden State?

Washington Examiner ^ | February 24, 2013 | Conn Carroll

California is no longer a model that other states want to or should emulate. It currently has the nation's third highest unemployment rate, its highest poverty rate and more than one-third of the nation's welfare recipients.
To make a long story short, the same political constituencies that have made Brown's Democratic Party invincible at the ballot box have also made the state unable to compete economically.
These unions also make it impossible to improve how government services are delivered to taxpayers. As a result, while California once had the most admired education system in the nation, it now ranks near the bottom in almost every measured educational category.
The state's powerful environmental lobby has secured a slew of green energy regulations, including strict clean air rules, the nation's first carbon cap-and-trade program and an ambitious renewable energy mandate. As a result, energy prices have shot up, consumers now have less to spend on everything else they need to survive, and many manufacturers can't stay profitable in the state
Over the next four days, The Washington Examiner will look at what ails California, and how it got to its current state of failure. We will look at the state's out-of-control budget and debt, the powerful union interests driving it, the decline of its education system, the failure of its "clean energy" initiatives and the environmental regulations that are wrecking the economy in many regions of the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Here are the United States’ 20 Most Miserable Cities of 2013:

Forbes magazine released its dubious 2013 list of the most miserable cities in the United States of America. With the new list for the new year came a new city listed at the top of the list as Detroit, Michigan replaces last year’s most miserable city of Miami, Florida. The magazine cites Detroit’s high unemployment, violent crimes, shrinking population, and its financial crisis as reasons for giving the city the title.

The list created by Forbes involves the scrutiny of the country’s largest urban areas which are then ranked via factors such as the city’s crime rates, foreclosures, taxes, home prices, commute times, weather, and decreasing populations.

Here are the United States’ 20 Most Miserable Cities of 2013:

  1. Detroit, Michigan
  2. Flint, Michigan
  3. Rockford, Illinois
  4. Chicago, Illinois
  5. Modesto, California
  6. Vallejo, California
  7. Warren, Michigan
  8. Stockton, California
  9. Lake County, Illinois
  10. New York City, New York
  11. Toledo, Ohio
  12. St. Louis, Missouri
  13. Camden, New Jersey
  14. Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  15. Atlantic City, New Jersey
  16. Atlanta, Georgia
  17. Cleveland, Ohio
  18. Poughkeepsie, New York
  19. Gary, Indiana
  20. Youngstown, Ohio

NRA Uses Justice Memo to Accuse Obama on Guns

NewsMax ^ | February 24, 2013 | Stafff

The National Rifle Association is using a Justice Department memo it obtained to argue in ads that the Obama administration believes its gun control plans won't work unless the government seizes firearms and requires national gun registration — ideas the White House has not proposed and does not support.
The NRA's assertion and its obtaining of the memo in the first place underscore the no-holds-barred battle under way as Washington's fight over gun restrictions heats up.
The memo, under the name of one of the Justice Department's leading crime researchers, critiques the effectiveness of gun control proposals, including some of President Barack Obama's. A Justice Department official called the memo an unfinished review of gun violence research and said it does not represent administration policy.
Urgent: Should Obama Ban Guns? Vote in Poll UrgentShould Obama Ban Guns? Vote in Poll
The memo says requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales. It says banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.
It also says that even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.
The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on "requiring gun registration," and says gun buybacks would not be effective "unless massive and coupled with a ban."
The administration has not proposed gun registration, buybacks or banning all firearms. But gun registration and ownership curbs are hot-button issues for the NRA and other gun-rights groups, which strenuously oppose the ideas.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How the Left Dupes Conservative Voters

American Thinker ^ | February 19, 2013 | J. R. Dunn

Too little serious conservative analysis of the 2012 presidential campaign has yet appeared. This is understandable. The results of the election were disheartening to the point of shock. The campaign defied all historical precedent, all commonsense interpretation...
In 2006, after two elections spent banging their heads against Bush's early popularity, the Democrats hit on the tactic of running Blue Dogs -- Democrats with a few surface conservative characteristics. One of the most important from an electoral standpoint was a good rating with the NRA, something possessed by a number of candidates, among them James Webb of Virginia. Although the NRA was questioned over this, it refused to modify its policy of endorsing highly-rated candidates and ended up doing exactly what the Democrats hoped: funneling voters toward an entire squadron of Trojan horse candidates. Numerous voters to whom gun rights were dominant voted according to their usual practice for candidates supported by the NRA, despite the fact that this new run of Blue Dogs opposed everything else they might believe. It was a case of missing the forest in favor of a single tree. While the candidate in question might well be a hunter or an avid gun collector, his election accomplished nothing beyond providing numbers and support for a party adamantly opposed to both the NRA and gun owners everywhere...
But then appeared Todd Akin, an engineer with a spotty and unimpressive political record. No sooner had Akin announced than a parade of TV ads appeared accusing him of being the "most conservative candidate", far more so than his rivals. The odd thing was that these were paid for by the Democratic Party. Opposing parties do not usually run ads involving one another's primaries. Yet the Democrats spent something on the order of $1.5 to $2 million on...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Best Performance

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

The Train

Posted Image

Solar Power

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image

Golf Outing

Posted Image

War Room