Saturday, August 4, 2012


Posted By WP


By Michael Thompson
Think the economy is doing just fine? And that taxpayers are happy trusting government to address problems?

Residents of the Atlanta area have spoken loudly on such issues with this week’s overwhelming rejection of a proposed 1 percent sales tax – a plan that in booming economic times might not even have been noticed.
The proposal was for the sales tax in the 10-county metro Atlanta area to raise some $7.2 billion to pay for 157 transportation projects designed to make it easier to get around.
But all 10 counties rejected the idea, finishing with a margin of 63 percent opposed to the Transportation Investment Act, with only 37 percent in favor.
Barbara Payne, executive director of the Fulton County Taxpayers Foundation, told WND the idea was a “poorly constructed plan put forth by elected officials who weren’t qualified to address the concerns of the entire region.”
One of the projects that would have been funded was the Atlanta Beltline project, which would have impacted only residents of the city of Atlanta. A whopping $602 million, some 8 percent of the total taxes, would have gone to fund it.
The tax was up for a vote in Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry and Rockdale counties.
“We don’t need metro counties paying for people in Atlanta to feel good about themselves by riding the Beltline,” Payne told WND.
“Let this send a message,” Debbie Dooley told the Atlanta Journal Constitution. “We the people, you have to earn our trust before asking for more money.”
Dooley is a tea party leader who organized opposition to the tax plan.
WND reported the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) system stood to get some $1.3 billion. But MARTA currently only serves DeKalb and Fulton counties, meaning that nearly $2 billion of the $7.2 billion in tax revenue would have gone to improving the transportation in only two counties.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution broke down the voting by county, showing that the predominantly Republican-leaning metro counties soundly rejected the tax increase: Fayette County 76 percent to 24 percent; Cherokee County 79-21; Douglas 68-32; Cobb 69-31; Rockdale 70-30; Clayton 54-46; Henry 71- 29; Gwinnett 71-29; DeKalb 51-49; and Fulton 51-49.
“I was surprised that it failed in every county, but the fact is the citizens of these 10 metro Atlanta counties aren’t interested in tax increases right now,” Payne said.
The taxpayer dissatisfaction also was reflected in a vote by residents of Brookhaven to follow the lead of Sandy Springs, Dunwood, Johns Creek, Milton and Chattahoochee Hills to incorporate.
According to a report from WSB-TV in Atlanta, residents want more local control of government services and greater efficiency. So Brookhaven residents have voted to join a growing trend in Atlanta-area cities that are breaking free of fiscal mismanagement and elected officials who aren’t accountable to citizens.
WND CEO Joseph Farah wrote a column July 5 praising the city of Sandy Springs, which incorporated in 2005 and has successfully privatized services by outsourcing virtually every government position to contractors.
Brookhaven residents’ decision to demand more government accountability by voting to incorporate is a trend that will only grow across the nation, Dick Williams, host of “The Georgia Gang” political show on WAGA-TV in Atlanta, told WND.
“What they want and what they are getting from their county (DeKalb County) are two different things,” he said. “With public services not working and the roads not being fixed, folks are tired of waiting for counties to do the right thing.”
With the success of Sandy Springs, Johns Creek and Dunwoody, residents of other unincorporated neighborhoods of Fulton and DeKalb County are becoming more cognizant of the problems of non-localized government that isn’t accountable, Williams said.
“It’s been building since the housing problem [of 2008], the economic downturn, and job loss in the area. The more people are not being able to bounce back, the more people become aware that they want to become involved in government to see where their taxes are going.
“The counties cannot govern urban areas. The counties can run courts, libraries, jail, but they can’t deliver services to residents, which is one of the driving forces behind this move to incorporate and outsource government for greater efficiency and accountability,” said Williams.
He added, “I hope this is the wave of the future. I say that because, with five years of experience with five new cities, not one has raised taxes despite the worst [sustained] economic downturn since the Great Depression and each of the new cities operates at a surplus.”
One aspect in the bid to create new, more efficiently run cities has many people taking notice. USA Today leveled a veiled charge of racism against Brookhaven, Sandy Springs, Dunwoody and Johns Creek.
“Cityhood is a contentious issue in metropolitan Atlanta, one rooted in and shaped by politics and race,” the paper said. “Wealthier, largely white communities on the city’s north side, which watched for years as their tax dollars were spent in poorer, mostly minority areas elsewhere in the two counties, had sought for years to break away and incorporate as cities with more local control.”
Williams asserted it’s “not the racial angle that drives it, it’s the delivery of services or the neglect of services that is compelling the citizens of these cities the USA Today attacked to make a move for more localized control of our tax dollars, so that we actually get a return on our investment in the community.”
WND acquired the breakdown of 2012 employment for Fulton County and found that of the 4,851 full time county employees, 3,980 of them are black (82 percent). Fulton County has a population that is only 47 percent black. Of the 916 county employees who are classified as “other than full-time employees,” 787 are black (85 percent).
A quick breakdown of certain departments shows a trend of exclusion in Fulton County public jobs, with 86 percent of the Arts and Culture Department personnel black; 93 percent of 140 people in the Behavioral Health Department black; 81 percent of the 98 people in the County Managers Department black; 90 percent of the 65 people in the Emergency Services black; 89 percent of the 118 in the Finance Department black; of the 353 in the Health and Wellness Department, 306 are black; of the 37 people in the Purchasing Department, 100 percent are black; of the 19 in the Registrations and Elections Department, 100 percent are black; of the 150 employed in the Tax Assessor Department, 84 percent are black; of the 185 employed in the Tax Commissioner Department, 94 percent are black.
“The city of Dunwoody has seven employees, plus 45 police. All the other services are contracted out, whether that be for zoning, finance, development, or purchasing. As opposed to having huge pension problems, the city has the cops on 401k’s,” said Williams.
In 2011, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus filed a lawsuit against the state of Georgia seeking to dissolve the city charters of Dunwoody, Sandy Springs, Johns Creek, Milton and Chattahoochee Hills.
The lawsuit claimed, the paper reported, that the state “circumvented the normal legislative process and set aside its own criteria when creating the ‘super-majority white’ cities within Fulton and DeKalb counties.”
As a result, according to the lawsuit, minority votes in those areas are diluted, violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Williams said the “point of these cities moving to incorporate is simply this: Brookhaven doesn’t have a single DeKalb County elected official living within its boundaries. A city council member now in Brookhaven will represent a district of 10,000 people, meaning they’ll probably know their council member.”
“Government should be localized and accountable, and it looks like Sandy Springs, Dunwoody, Johns Creek, and hopefully Brookhaven are providing a way to restore that type of control to cities tired of seeing tax revenue exported to another part of the county. It’s a model that will be replicated nationwide,” said Williams.


Posted By WP


10 Reasons Gabby Douglas Should Not Make Money off Her Gold Medal Performance

Olympics Day 2 - Gymnastics - ArtisticBegin sarcasm:
I’m outraged. Gabby Douglas, affectionately known as the “Flying Squirrel,” is going to make millions of dollars after her gold medal Olympic performance.
This should not be.
First, she didn’t do it on her own. You know, “you didn’t build that.” She had help from other people. There was her mother, her coach, and teammates. The Olympic outfits she wore were paid for by the United States Olympic Committee. If NBC hadn’t broadcast the results of the competition, very few people would have seen her gold medal performance and her infectious smile. They were with her when she flipped upside down and landed on the four-inch balance beam. I even saw President Obama there.
Second, Gabby is small in stature. This is a huge advantage to anyone doing gymnastics. Her ability to rotate quickly puts a tall person at a disadvantage. The Russian girl who came in second was even shorter. I abhor size discrimination. There is no way that I could ascend the ranks of elite gymnastics at my height and weight. I had to pick the shot put. There’s no money in endorsements from shot putters.
Third, Bob Costas made the point that Gabby is the first African American to win the women’s all-around gymnastics crown. Did her race play a role in the judging? I want to know. The judges should be questioned. Some might argue that compensation was made for her race and the fact that no black had ever won the coveted all-around gold medal. If this is true, then reverse discrimination played a role in the judges’ decision.
Fourth, there is no reason why anyone should be paid so much money for doing something that can’t be shared by the community. Hillary said it best, “it takes a village.” That money could be better spent on the poor and homeless. She should be protested against by the Occupy Wall Street crowd because she is now an evil one-percenter.
Fifth, as everybody knows, women gymnasts always get paid more than men gymnasts do post-Olympics. Mary Lou Retton is worth nearly $6 million. Nastia Liukin is worth more than $2 million. Hardly anyone remembers the names of the men gold medal winners let alone how much they’re worth. This is blatant sexism.
Sixth, there is beauty discrimination. All these girls are cute. Girls who aren’t cute don’t get the endorsements. It’s time that we all read J.P. Hartley’s 1960 novel Facial Justice that “depicts a post-apocalyptic society that has sought to banish privilege and envy, to the extent that people will even have their faces surgically altered in order to appear neither too beautiful nor too ugly.”
Seventh, “The gymnast has a healthy, wholesome and all-American image which would be attractive to plenty of companies.” This smacks of “American exceptionalism.”
Eighth, Gabby gave “all the glory to God.” She said, “It’s kind of a win-win situation. The glory goes up to him, and all the blessings fall down on me.” The owners of Chick-fil-A also believe in God and support the biblical definition of marriage. Unless she tells the world that she is for homosexual marriage the companies that pay her for endorsements should be boycotted.
Ninth, I hear she eats at Chick-fil-A.
Tenth, I’m just trying to keep it real.
/ Sarcasm


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Beat GSA!

Beat GSA!

If America had a “Spend Like a Drunken Sailor Award,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus would win hands-down, for blowing $12 million on biofuel for Navy ships.
Even as the armed services face drastic budget cuts under “automatic sequestration” and other proposed reductions, further undermining our national security, Mabus and President Obama clearly believe “it’s only taxpayer money.”
“Beat GSA” may have to replace Navy’s “Beat Army” football battle cry.
In fairness, Secretary Mabus’s “Great Green Fleet” of ships and fighter jets performed well during recent military exercises off Hawaii, burning blends of 50% biofuels and 50% conventional fuels. But the price tag makes the fleet a poster child for wasteful government spending.
The exercises cost the Navy nearly $27 per gallon for 450,000 gallons of biofuels produced from algae and waste grease and animal fat – versus around $3.50 a gallon for standard petroleum fuels.
The only way the Navy fiasco looks good is by comparison to the Air Force spending $59 a gallon for alcohol-to-jet fuel and $67 per gallon for camelina-based F-22 Raptor fuel – or the Navy’s 2009 purchase of 20,000 gallons of renewable diesel for $424 per gallon!
If Mabus achieves his “goal” and “persuades” the Navy to make half of its fuel “green” by 2020, the higher cost biofuels could add $1.9 billion annually to Navy’s fuel bill, according to a Defense Department study. That extra outlay would pay for a new DDG-51 destroyer and comes as the Defense Department budget faces $13 billion in cuts for Navy shipbuilding over the next four years.
Add to that boatloads of additional taxpayer dollars that would be wasted if the Army, Air Force and Marines also switch from abundant, affordable, reliable, proven petroleum fuels to untested, impractical, unaffordable, unsustainable biofuels. The Pentagon’s green spending spree makes the General Services Administration binge on lavish conferences and entertainment look like chump change.
Worse, on top of paying these enormous sums for biofuels, the Navy and Departments of Agriculture and Energy agreed that each would “invest $170 million directly in biorefineries to kick-start the flagging industry,” Wired magazine reported. The $510 million total nearly equals the Solyndra debacle.
What’s next in the drive to end Defense Department fossil fuel use? Using fuel efficiency to justify “slimming down” armor and armament for personnel vehicles, tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers and missile cruisers – making them more vulnerable to enemy fire? Or shrinking the US military to the size and capability of its French, German or Greek counterparts?
Granted, the Navy biofuels program doesn’t turn 40% of the US corn crop into ethanol – sending corn prices to record highs during this year’s prolonged drought. However, our nation does not have enough chicken fat and waste grease to fuel the Navy; collecting and refining this refuse would be a budget-busting logistical nightmare; and camelina and other non-food crops still require vast amounts of land, water, fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuel energy.
Growing sufficient quantities of algae to meet the Mabus-Obama green fuel pipedreams would require enormous onshore and offshore algae ponds. That would likely send environmentalists storming into courthouses.
Protecting the military from oil price spikes is an equally specious justification. If every $1 in higher oil prices costs the DOD $30 million, as White House climate czarina Heather Zichal claims, a $23 to $63 per gallon price differential between conventional and bio fuel will cost $690 million to $1.9 billion.
As to enhancing supply lines and thus national security, does Secretary Mabus intend to build enough biofuel refineries to equal the conventional refineries and fleet servicing ports worldwide that supposedly do not safeguard supplies? Or perhaps he is planning to commission specialized ships that strain algae from seawater like baleen whales, convert it to fuel onboard, and store it in tankers marked with green crosses that would protect them from enemy fire, as red crosses presumably safeguard hospital ships.
Even ignoring the absence of empirical evidence for catastrophic CO2-driven global warming, it beggars belief that the White House, Congress or DOD would even consider subjugating military preparedness, missions and safety to manmade climate change ideology. Moreover, any net carbon dioxide reductions via DOD biofuels would be more than offset by increases from China, India and other rapidly developing countries.
Fortunately, many in Congress understand that “adopting a ‘green agenda’ for national defense is a terrible misplacement of priorities,” as Arizona Senator and former Navy pilot John McCain aptly put it. House-passed legislation would bar the Defense Department from buying biofuels that cost more than conventional fuels, and Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) has proposed similar action in the Senate.
Inhofe’s amendment to the FY-2013 National Defense Authorization Act was approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee. However, the amendment faces mostly Democrat opposition in the full chamber, and the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee approved continued biofuels funding.
The usual alliance of hydrocarbon adversaries is just as vehemently opposed to bills to address national security, oil prices and over-reliance on foreign sources in a far more commonsense manner: by producing more of America’s abundant but untapped and off-limits petroleum resources. They oppose hydraulic fracturing for the centuries’ of oil and gas our nation has in its extensive shale deposits – as well as drilling for conventional deposits off our Pacific, Atlantic, Alaskan and Gulf of Mexico coastlines, within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or anywhere in the Western US states.
Rather than ensuring that our armed forces can defend America without wasting billions, President Obama and his alliance prefer to wage war on fossil fuels.
Instead of promoting biofuels, the Navy and Defense Department should be calling on Congress and the White House to increase domestic leasing and drilling in all these areas. Even a drunken sailor would understand this.


Posted By WP


America’s Olympic Athletes Should Be Taxed on Their Winnings (but Not by the IRS)

My friends at Americans for Tax Reform have received a bunch of attention for a new report entitled “Win Olympic Gold, Pay the IRS.”
In this clever document, they reveal that athletes could face a tax bill – to those wonderful folks at the IRS – of nearly $9,000 thanks to America’s unfriendly worldwide tax system.
The topic is even getting attention overseas. Here’s an excerpt from a BBC report.
US medal-winning athletes at the Olympics have to pay tax on their prize money – something which is proving controversial in the US. But why are athletes from the US taxed when others are not? The US is right up there in the medals table, and has produced some of the finest displays in the Olympics so far. … But not everyone is happy to hear that their Olympic medal-winning athletes are being taxed on their medal prize money. Athletes are effectively being punished for their success, argues Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican, who introduced a bill earlier this week that would eliminate tax on Olympic medals and prize money. …This, he said, is an example of the “madness” of the US tax system, which he called a “complicated and burdensome mess”.
It’s important to understand, though, that this isn’t a feel-good effort to create a special tax break. Instead, Senator Rubio is seeking to take a small step in the direction of better tax policy.
More specifically, he wants to move away from the current system of “worldwide” taxation and instead shift to “territorial” taxation, which is simply the common-sense notion of sovereignty applied to taxation. If income is earned inside a nation’s borders, that nation gets to decided how and when it is taxed.
In other words, if U.S. athletes earn income competing in the United Kingdom, it’s a matter for inland revenue, not the IRS.
Incidentally, both the flat tax and national sales tax are based on territorial taxation, and most other countries actually are ahead of the United States and use this approach. The BBC report has further details.
The Olympic example highlights what they regard as the underlying problem of the US’ so-called “worldwide” tax model. Under this system, earnings made by a US citizen abroad are liable for both local tax and US tax. Most countries in the world have a “territorial” system of tax and apply that tax just once – in the country where it is earned. With the Olympics taking place in London, the UK would, in theory, be entitled to claim tax on prize money paid to visiting athletes. But, as is standard practice for many international sporting events, it put in place a number of tax exemptions for competitors in the Olympics – including on any prize money. That means that only athletes from countries with a worldwide tax system on individual income are liable for tax on their medals. And there are only a handful of them in the world, says Daniel Mitchell, an expert on tax reform at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank – citing the Philippines and Eritrea as other examples. But with tax codes so notoriously complicated, unravelling which countries would apply this in the context of Olympic prize money is a tricky task, he says. Mitchell is a critic of the worldwide system, saying it effectively amounts to “double taxation” and leaves the US both at a competitive disadvantage, and as a bullyboy, on the world stage. “We are the 800lb (360kg) gorilla in the world economy, and we can bully other nations into helping enforce our bad tax law.”
To close out this discussion, statists prefer worldwide taxation because it undermines tax competition. This is because, under worldwide taxation, individuals and companies have no ability to escape high taxes by shifting activity to jurisdictions with better tax policy.
Indeed, this is why politicians from high-tax nations are so fixated on trying to shut down so-called tax havens. It’s difficult to enforce bad tax policy, after all, if some nations have strong human rights policies on privacy.
For all intents and purposes, a worldwide tax regime means the government gets a permanent and global claim on your income. And without having to worry about tax competition, that “claim” will get more onerous over time.
P.S. Just because a nation has a right to tax foreigners who earn income inside its borders, that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to go overboard. The United Kingdom shows what happens if politicians get too greedy and Spain shows what happens if marginal tax rates are reasonable.


Posted By WP


The Truth About Guns

The Truth About Guns

The tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, has led to a lot of unfortunate misinformation about firearms. Let's try to add some facts to the justified emotion. Are Some Guns More Dangerous than Others? The shooter in Aurora had three firearms when he entered the theater: a pump action shotgun, a semiautomatic rifle and a semiautomatic handgun. In a closed, crowded setting like a movie theater, the shotgun was probably the most lethal of the three. Every shotgun shell can spray a half-dozen or more pellets, each capable of killing or maiming a person. Twelve-gauge shotguns often fire five shells, and sometimes more, before needing to be reloaded. And unlike semiautomatics, they don't typically jam. Yet in most American cities, just about anybody can buy a shotgun at the drop of a hat. Antigun activists and politicians almost never propose banning them. Instead, the focus these days is on so-called "assault weapons." Should We Be Especially Worried About Assault Weapons? Assault weapons are not usually the weapon of choice. Neither of the two worst shooting sprees in U.S. history involved assault weapons. James Huberty, who killed 20 people at a McDonald's restaurant in San Ysidro, California, in 1984, used a shotgun, a pistol and a hunting rifle. George Hennard, who killed 22 people at a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, in 1991, used two ordinary pistols. Still, gun opponents seem obsessed about them. So what exactly is an "assault weapon"? What Are Assault Weapons? You would think that the definition would hinge on a weapon's fire power or its capacity to maim or kill. Not so. Assault weapons are mainly defined by their appearance. As Steve Chapman explained the other day:
Assault weapons are functionally indistinguishable from ordinary semiautomatic hunting rifles. They don't fire more rapidly, they don't deliver more lethal rounds, and they don't spray bullets. They only look like military arms. The features that disqualified a gun under the federal ban were ones that didn't affect destructiveness, such as pistol grips and bayonet mounts. If accused [Aurora] killer James Holmes had been prevented from buying this gun, he could have found plenty of others that would have served his purpose just as well.
Basically, what disqualified a weapon when the short-lived assault weapons ban was in effect was looking like a military weapon. The offensive features included plastic stocks, extended ammunition clips, collapsible butt-stocks, and other decorative devices that made them look like, but not operate as, a fully functional assault rifle. Contrary to the claims that military-looking weapons are only designed to kill human beings, they are, in fact, the fastest growing segment of the hunting rifle market! What About Machine Guns? Most TV commentators who decry assault weapons imply that they are automatic — that you just pull the trigger and bullets start flying. Not so. It has been illegal to buy a machine gun on the open market in the United States for more than 80 years. However, you can obtain one under special permit and there are about 250,000 in private hands. Now here is something interesting: despite all those guns in private hands, there appears not to be a single instance of a legally owned machine gun being used to commit a crime throughout the entire 80 year period. This illustrates two things: (1) the bumper stickers have it right: guns don't kill, people do; and (2) we can have reasonable restrictions on access to guns without banning them altogether. That brings us to another obsession: the insistence that guns are useless as tools of self-defense. Are Guns Useful for Self-Defense? As it turns out, they are. According to research by renowned Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, guns are used between 800,000 and 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. A study by John Lott and David Mustard found that handguns appear to help women more than men. While murder rates drop when either sex carries more guns, the effect is especially pronounced when women carry. Each additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women three to four times more than an additional armed man reduces the murder rate for men. Do More Guns Cause More Crime? In the typical Western movie, everyone has a gun. When they go into a bar, they start drinking. Then, they start insulting each other. Before long, they start shooting each other. It may be good theater, but it's lousy history. Turns out, 19th century Dodge City was more peaceful than most American cities are today! Robert Heinlein explained why: "An armed society is a polite society," he wrote. Overall, some of the most heavily-armed states have very low violent crime rates and vice versa. Also, it appears that when the good guys are armed there is less gun violence. Research by John Lott shows that allowing citizens the right to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crime. In those states that passed right-to-carry concealed handgun laws, the average murder rate dropped from 6.3 per 100,000 to 5.2 per 100,000 nine to 10 years later — about a 1.7% drop in the murder rate per year for 10 years. In states that enacted right-to-carry laws between 1977 and 1999, the overall occurrence of multiple-victim shootings dropped by a remarkable 67% with deaths and injuries from such shootings plummeting by 75% and 81%, respectively. And since 1997, two of eight school shootings were both stopped by citizens with guns (before police even arrived at the scene). What Does the International Evidence Show? Switzerland actually requires young males to keep weapons in their homes, as part of the country's militia. Yet no one has ever accused Switzerland of being a host to Wild West shootouts. Finland has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. Yet it too has a very low rate of violent crime.


Posted BY WP


Gunning For Tyranny

July 31, 2012 by
Gunning For Tyranny
Your current magazines are “grandfathered in.”
Late last week, as Democrats and their media minions jockeyed for position at the front of the macabre post-Aurora-massacre line of people who reflexively oppose the Bill of Rights, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) grabbed his moment in the glare. It’s well known that the space between Schumer and a working camera is far more dangerous than any place frequented by people with firearms, and Schumer’s latest publicly expressed folly was hardly surprising under the circumstances. A tragedy had occurred; and come hell or high water, Schumer was loath to miss a chance to use the coffins of the victims as a soapbox for yet another mind-numbing liberal pronouncement on the dangers of law-abiding citizens owning firearms. Worse yet, Schumer and a number of his fellow Senators were loath to miss an opportunity to force their anti-Constitutional criteria on a citizenry already suffering their presence in the halls of Congress.
Thus did Schumer proclaim:
(The) basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns. I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it known that that’s not true at all.
Personally, I think it would be smart for all of us to recognize that the Chuck Schumers of the world have hardly hidden their desire to take away our guns. In fact, the Chuck Schumers of the world are joined by Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) of the world, among others. And they are backed by the Brady Campaign and fellow fringe anti-Bill of Rights groups in their endeavors. That’s how the Chuck Schumers of the world get away with remarks like “rational gun control” while pushing for anything but.
While Schumer took to the floor to once again rail against things he doesn’t understand (which is hardly uncommon), he did so in an effort to throw a rhetorical blanket over an offensively secretive plan to do far more than simply abrogate the right to keep and bear arms. Following the Senate approval for amendments of the abominably invasive Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (itself a redressed version of the similarly appalling Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which Representative Ron Paul rightly identified as “Big Brother writ large”), Schumer and his friends pulled a fast one. They tacked an amendment onto the bill which might as well be known as the “Aurora Amendment.” Rather than try to take on the 2nd Amendment from the front, Schumer and his accomplices pinned their pusillanimous program to ban everything north of your daughter’s pink .22 Crickett onto the Federal cyberspying bill.
If Schumer, et al.’s S.A. 2575 seems familiar to observers of dastardly Democrat deeds, that’s because it is essentially a backdoor attempt to reintroduce the infamous “assault weapons ban” of years past. The new amendment is, in fact, virtually identical to the gun-ban bill introduced by Lautenberg. Feinstein sponsored the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. S.A. 2575 would, without a separate vote, “make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition,” according to The Hill. It’s worth noting that your current magazines, whether they be the 30-rounders most of us use for our ARs or one of those unwieldy 31 round monsters the Koreans make for the Glock 22 .40 caliber, are “grandfathered in.”
Before you panic and open a new tab on your browser so you can begin ordering replacement magazines for your AR-15, keep in mind that the bill still has to pass the Senate. That means the Senate will actually have to do something proactive — not exactly a strong suit under the listless leadership of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). And even if it does manage to make its way out of that wrinkled group, it’s as likely to pass the House as Chuck Schumer is to win the next 3-gun match at the local range.
The real problem with Schumer’s latest attempted abrogation of our Constitutionally protected rights — his protestations to the contrary be damned — is the same one that has plagued the Nation for decades: The basic premise of gun-ban proponents is fatally flawed. While liberals would ultimately prefer to relieve us all of our weapons, they know that will fly like a stone kite. So they try their usual incrementalist tack. They can’t get the guns, so they’ll limit the magazine capacity.
(Author’s aside: Stop saying “clips.” They’re not clips; they’re magazines. Your use of inaccurate descriptives reveals much more about you than it does about your intended targets. Likewise, weapons like my AR and my 1911 are not “automatic,” they’re semi-automatic: one round per trigger pull. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the United States without specialized permits since the early 1930s. Your argument might resonate more if you sounded even vaguely like you knew what the hell you were talking about. Imagine how you would feel if a conservative suggested cutting off taxpayer funding for the liberal twaddle on PBS with references to “Oliver the Grouch” on “Sesame Lane.”)
Some of Schumer’s carrion-feeding compatriots have even attempted to point to Aurora, Colo., suspect James Holmes’s ownership of a 100-round drum as proof of the need to limit magazine capacity. That argument falls apart fairly quickly when you realize the magazine wasn’t used during the shooting. The shooter didn’t need it; he had the advantage of knowing that anti-Bill of Rights activists like Schumer had already disarmed his victims through draconian restrictions that disallow any carry inside the Aurora city limits. It’s also worth noting that anyone who has tried to fire an AR with a 100-round drum magazine has recognized fairly quickly that it’s a fairly miserable experience — and that’s just the drudgery of loading the magazine itself.
For his part, Schumer added another amendment to his defense of the indefensible, suggesting:
We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle…Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties.
Pardon my saying so, Senator, but the moment you and your cabal of Brady-backed gun grabbers began discussing limiting my Constitutional rights, you put “reasonableness (sic)” in the rearview mirror. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about agreeing to abrogate the Bill of Rights. There is no middle ground. And perhaps if people like you didn’t consistently focus on guns as opposed to criminals who misuse them, we “might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties.” My suggestion is to arrest the Attorney General. At the very least, you’d be sending a strong message that arming homicidal narcoterrorists is generally frowned upon.
And once anyone offers Schumer and the Democrats “an agreement in the middle,” where does that leave the end? Should we agree to “the middle” on free speech? Perhaps allow some quartering of troops in our homes, but only squad-sized or smaller? Possibly we could compromise on… Come to think of it, the Federal government has already made a practice of doing everything to the Bill of Rights besides murdering it and burying it in Schumer’s backyard. Anyone who has watched as Transportation Security Administration agents have searched a handicapped person’s colostomy bag for explosives can testify that the 4th Amendment is certainly on life support, if it isn’t dead already.
Democratic attempts to institute limitations on the Bill of Rights routinely devolve into the dangerous or the absurd — as often as not, both. S.A. 2575 will have precisely the same prophylactic effect on violent crime as Aurora’s ban: none, at best. Meanwhile, the liberal arguments backing Schumer border on the absurd. Of course the Framers of the Constitution lived in a world with flintlocks and the like. Lest anyone stand on that wobbly rhetorical table, imagine the Framers’ reaction to the liberal argument in favor of Constitutionally protected partial-birth abortion.
The late, great Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) said “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” He was right. But defending liberty against the encroachment of people like Schumer is anything but extreme.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


The False Flag Gun Grab

July 30, 2012 by
The False Flag Gun Grab
With the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty negotiations ongoing (and going badly for the gun grabbers and elite power brokers), a game-changer was needed. It came in the form of James Holmes, “The Joker” who allegedly shot up a Colorado movie theater July 20.
Holmes is almost certainly a patsy — a term used to describe those used by government agents to pull off their hits or staged false flag events. There are just too many questionable aspects to the whole story — and Holmes himself — for the incident to have gone down as depicted by government authorities.
The shooting has given President Barack Obama the cover he needs to both go after guns and sign the treaty. He was receiving a lot of pressure from his American gun-grabbing constituency to sign the treaty. But he was also receiving a lot of pushback from Congress — no doubt pressured by the powerful and much-feared National Rifle Association lobby — and a growing number of Americans concerned about Obama’s gun-grabbing proclivities.
Here’s what we know: Holmes was operating under a government grant that paid him $26,000 per year to work in the study of neurosciences. He was a medical student seeking a Ph.D. at the University of Colorado. Several agencies of the U.S. government have long funded neuroscience research.
For more than 20 years, beginning in the 1950s, the CIA funded a project called MK-Ultra. The research for those mind-control experiments was undertaken at 80 institutions, including 44 colleges and universities, as well as hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies. This program came to light during the Senate’s Church Committee hearing and the Presidential Rockefeller Commission in the 1970s.
While that program was supposedly suspended in the 1970s, CIA whistleblowers, including 14-year veteran CIA agent Victor Marchetti, have stated in various interviews that the agency routinely conducts disinformation campaigns and that CIA mind-control research continued. In a 1977 interview, Marchetti specifically called the CIA claim that MK-ULTRA was abandoned a “cover story.”
In MK-Ultra, researchers used mind-altering drugs, hypnosis and other methods on test subjects. Many people believe that Robert Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan, Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho, Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner and Jim Jones and the Jonestown cult were part of CIA MK-Ultra operations.
In fact, Holmes is behaving much like Sirhan did after shooting Kennedy. He’s telling guards he has no memory of the shooting and doesn’t understand why he’s in jail. During his court appearance, he behaved oddly, much like someone under the influence of drugs.
Holmes amassed an arsenal of weapons, costing as much as $20,000 by some estimates, even though his only known source of income was the grant. He also apparently was trained in the use of explosives. His apartment was booby-trapped with devices that police called “sophisticated” flammable devices like none they had ever seen.
Eyewitnesses claim Holmes had help. Various news agencies quote witnesses as saying someone opened the emergency door for him and that at least two people were throwing tear gas grenades in the theater. A second gas mask and bloody knife were found on ground at the end of a blood trail on the far end of the theater from where Holmes was arrested. This indicates an accomplice who may have been injured or taken an injured hostage with him. Police say Holmes bought a ticket and propped open the emergency door himself.
Holmes calmly walked through the crowd firing his shotgun, then his Glock, then his rifle. After the shooting, he surrendered to police and told them about the booby traps in his apartment.
The assault was obviously well planned and well financed. But Holmes was described by those who know him as shy and introverted and incapable of pulling off such an attack.
“There was no way I thought he could have the capacity to commit an atrocity like this,” said [Billy] Kromka, who is from Aurora. Mr. Kromka said that Mr. Holmes’s “disposition was a little off” and that he could be socially awkward, one of the quieter people in the lab. He spent much of his time immersed in his computer, often participating in role-playing online games.
Beyond a traffic ticket, Holmes had no criminal history. In fact, it appears he has no history at all. Google searches reveal nothing about him. This is highly unusual in today’s society where personal privacy is nonexistent.
And then there’s the curious incident of the disappearing FBI warning about a possible movie theater shooting issued May 17 but pulled from Federal websites when bloggers brought attention to it.
Law enforcement also claims Holmes sent a package to a psychiatrist that outlined his plans. But stories about that are being changed faster than a baby’s diaper: It sat on a dock; it sat in a mail room; it didn’t get there until Monday.
The bodies had not even been removed from the theater before New York City nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg was calling for stronger gun-control laws and encouraging police officers to go on strike until gun laws were passed. Of course, neither strong gun laws nor police saved movie-shooting victims.
Aurora, Colo., has some of its State’s most stringent gun laws:
  • “Dangerous weapons” including firearms prohibited.
  • Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.
  • Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.
  • Unlawful to carry concealed “dangerous weapon.”
  • Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.
  • Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant.
  • Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.
  • Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.
And, of course, all the explosives Holmes had planted in his apartment were illegal.
The theater had a no-guns policy, ensuring that the shooter would be able to carry out his attack unmolested. The police who Bloomberg wants to be the citizen’s only defense sat outside assessing the situation and waiting on gas masks while shots were heard from inside.
The Aurora theater shooting has all the marks of a false flag operation designed to shred the 2nd Amendment and give impetus to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which Obama has said he wants to sign. Just like Operation Fast and Furious, it’s a concerted effort by the elites to instigate violence against innocent people to further their goal of disarming Americans.
And this government and others throughout history have used false flag events to advance their agendas. Among them the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building, 9/11 and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
The FBI is known to create terrorists so it can swoop in to save the day. And governments have lied to their subjects from the beginning of time.
More and more, it looks like the American people are once again victims of their own terrorist government.

 by wp:   Once again we face the probability that the Federal Government, to advance its progressive agendas , is using methods of trying to control what we think that have gone past the bounds of decency and morality.  This has become the favored way to force their ideology on the American People as they continue their program of the subjugation of America to their Communist philosophy.  How much longer will we let them get by with causing the death of American citizens in their grab for total power???

Friday, August 3, 2012


Posted by BH

Here Are 5 Christian Companies That Join Chick-fil-A in Publicly-Proclaiming Their Bible-Based Views

Chick-fil-A isn’t the only company willing to share its Christian faith with the world. While attaching a specific religious view to a product or service holds the potential to turn a portion of consumers off, some business leaders and companies stick to their values and intentionally include them in their packaging and messaging. Some of these brands include: Forever 21, Interstate Battery, Tyson Foods, In-N-Out Burger and Hobby Lobby.

5 Companies Like Chick fil A That Share Their Christian Faith
Forever 21:  Forever 21 is a clothing store that was founded by Don and Jin Chang, devout Christians who moved to America from Korea in 1981. The small store they opened in Los Angeles in 1984 has grown into a mass business comprised of hundreds of locations across the globe.
On the bottom of each bag, shoppers will find “John 3:16,” the popular Bible verse that reads, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Image Credit: Los Angeles Times
Interstate Battery: Norm Miller, chairman of Interstate Batteries, a company that sells — you guessed it, batteries — is also a believer who discusses his faith and salvation publicly. In fact, he even takes to the company’s web site to invite customers and visitors to write to him for prayer advice.
5 Companies Like Chick fil A That Share Their Christian Faith“Norm Miller is also a believer in God’s power to change lives, because it was that power that turned his own life around after years of drinking as hard as he worked,” reads Miller’s personal testimony on Interstate Batteries’ web site.
But, the company goes well beyond merely mentioning God. Miller encourages everyone to accept Jesus Christ as personal savior — a central tenet of the Christian faith. Here’s more from the site:
You can accept Him right now, just like I did, by repeating this prayer and making it the commitment of your heart. Just pray…
“Dear God, I want freedom from the slavery of my sin. I believe Jesus is the Truth, and I accept Him now as my Lord and Savior. I ask you for forgiveness of my sins, because He paid for them for me. Please give me the power to live a life pleasing to You. Thank you for this gift of new and eternal life in Christ! In Jesus’ name, Amen!”
If you prayed this prayer, I’d like to send you some additional information that will help you grow in your understanding of Christianity and in your faith in God. Write to: Norm Miller, “Growth,” 12770 Merit Dr. Suite 1000, Dallas, Texas 75251.
5 Companies Like Chick fil A That Share Their Christian Faith
Tyson Foods: Tyson, yet another company that refuses to hide its faith, offers employees chaplain services at plants across America. If people are saddened after the loss of a loved one or coping with a family emergency, these individuals are brought in to pray and assist those in need with coping.
John H. Tyson, the current chairman of the company, is a born-again Christian who believes his values shouldn‘t be pushed to the side when he enters Tyson’s doors.
“My faith is just an ongoing evolution, trying to understand what faith in the marketplace looks like, giving people permission to live their faith seven days a week,” Tyson said back in 2010. “If people can talk about the football game on Monday, why can’t they talk about their faith?”
Tyson Foods is also known for donating mass amounts of food to America’s poor.
5 Companies Like Chick fil A That Share Their Christian Faith
In-N-Out Burger: Much like Forever 21, In-N-Out Burger, a fast-food chain based in California, uses John 3:16 as a way to advertise its faith. In fact, the company places the popular verse on the bottom of cups. Here’s what reports about the popular business:
Western U.S. burger chain In-N-Out has printed citations of Bible passages on cups, wrappers and other pieces of packaging since at least the late 1980s. For instance, “John 3:16″ appears on the bottom of soft drink cups, a reference to the Bible passage…
5 Companies Like Chick fil A That Share Their Christian Faith
Image Credit:
Hobby Lobby: Last, but not least, is Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma City-based crafts store chain that very-openly embraces Christianity. Like Chick-fil-A, the company closes its more than 500 stories on Sundays and vocally mentions God on its web site. Here are just a few of the proclamations presented Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose:
Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles. [...]
Providing a return on the owners’ investment, sharing the Lord’s blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.
We believe that it is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, we trust Him for our future.
As TheBlaze recently reported, Hobby Lobby’s owners are also preparing to build a Bible museum in Washington, D.C., just blocks away from the National Mall. The museum, which is currently being organized, planned and designed, will provide visitors with thousands of Biblical artifacts along with a better understanding of the Old and New Testaments.
5 Companies Like Chick fil A That Share Their Christian Faith
While these certainly aren’t the only Christian companies out there, they are some of the most notable. Do you know of any other faith-based businesses that operate at the national level? Feel free to tell us about them in the comments section and we may include them in a future edition of “5 Christian Companies That Publicly-Proclaim Their Christian Faith.”


Posted by BH


Posted by bh


The Democratic Party today announced that it is changing  its symbol from the Donkey to a Condom because it more:

Accurately reflects the Party's political stance.  

A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of dicks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed!

Damn, it just doesn't get more accurate than that!


Posted by WP


NEW YORK – At lease 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, have been killed in clashes with Syrian forces this week, claimed a senior Syrian official who spoke to WND.
The claim comes as Reuters reported President Obama signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, quoting U.S. sources familiar with the matter.

According to the report, Obama’s order was approved earlier this year and gives the CIA and other U.S. agencies authority to provide broad support that could help the rebels oust Assad.
Get Aaron Klein’s “Fool Me Twice: Obama’s Shocking Plans for the Next Four Years Exposed” at WND’s Superstore
The White House continues to deny directly arming the rebels, stating it is only providing non-lethal aid.
Any U.S. aid to the rebels is highly controversial.
The Syrian official, speaking to WND yesterday, claimed the Afghan mujahedeen died fighting Syrian troops in Aleppo.
Also, WND has learned that Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, earlier this week declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent days.
There are now widespread reports of al-Qaida fighters among the ranks of the opposition, with some jihadist branches reportedly officially joining the U.S.-supported Free Syrian Army.
WND reported in May there is growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official who previously spoke to WND.
Amid the fighting in Aleppo, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced he is quitting as international peace envoy for Syria. Annan said he is frustrated by “finger-pointing” at the United Nations while the armed rebellion against Assad becomes increasingly bloody.
WND reported that Assad held a meeting last week in which he set the goal of entirely quelling the opposition targeting his regime by October, according to a senior Syrian official.
The official, speaking to WND on condition of anonymity, said Assad ordered his military to rid the Damascus region, including Aleppo, of rebels by the end of Ramadan on Aug. 18. He said Assad believes he can clear the opposition from the region of Homs by Sept. 10 and end the insurgency by October.
The official admitted the coming weeks will be “bloody.” He confirmed Russia stands squarely in the Syrian camp.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...