Thursday, July 26, 2012

A 'Twilight Zone-like' paradox....

There where two interesting headlines on Drudge Report today.  The first:

Rahm welcomes help from Farrakahn, ignores anti-Semitic remarks [sic]

For the last two Mondays, black men in dress suits and bow ties fanned out across violence-plagued Chicago neighborhoods — first Auburn-Gresham, then South Shore — to form a human wall of protection against any sudden outbreak of gunfire.
The army of men, know as the Fruit of Islam, were led by Farrakhan, who ordered the show of force in response to last month’s brutal murder of seven-year-old Heaven Sutton. 
Emanuel’s decision to steer clear of Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic remarks is a far cry from the 1994 controversy that followed former Mayor Richard M. Daley’s private meeting with Farrkakhan. [sic]
During the meeting, Daley prodded Farrakhan to work out his differences with Jewish leaders in talks arranged by the Commission on Human Relations. Daley even hinted that if those conversations did not take place, the Nation of Islam would have trouble winning the city approval needed for its planned development along the 79th Street commercial strip. (emphasis added) 
So, if I understand correctly the Nation of Islam, the same Nation of Islam whose leader is know for his anti-Semitic rhetoric is being allowed to patrol the streets of Chicago in the stead of the Chicago Police Department.  

Aside from the internal paradox of a Jewish mayor allowing the Army of the Nation of Islam to patrol city streets, there is this little gem...

The Nation of Islam did win city approval for its planned development along the 79th street commercial strip.

Which leads to the next headline:

Emanuel goes after Chick-fil-A for boss’ anti-gay views

On Wednesday, the tag team of Emanuel and Moreno joined the chorus, citing Cathy’s anti-gay views. The only question is whether they have a legal leg to stand on.
“Absolutely not,” said former Ald. William Banks (36th), the longtime chairman of the City Council’s Zoning Committee who presided over a massive re-write of the city’s 1957 zoning ordinance.
“Any alderman can hold a development issue for virtually any purpose. But if he’s doing it for the wrong reasons — if he’s citing a gay rights issue — there’s nothing illegal about that.” 
Moreno said he has an ace in his back pocket if he runs into legal trouble: traffic and congestion issues caused by the store that have been the subject of behind-the-scenes negotiations for the last nine months.

Hmmmm.... The Nation of Islam, a know group of anti-Semitic racists, can be approved for commercial development and even patrol the streets of Chicago instead of the Chicago Police Department, but Chick-fil-A cannot open a restaurant in Chicago because they support traditional family values.

WTF?  (Winning the Future?)

Dat ain't right....

Friday, July 13, 2012

More Proof of Obama's Economic Ignorance...

You really can't make this stuff up....

Obama: Romney not necessarily qualifies to think about "economy as a whole"

July 13, 2012 7:05 AM

Here is the quote that proves once and for all that Obama is the least qualified person to even discuss the economy, much less try to lead it:

"When some people question why I would challenge his Bain record, the point I've made there in the past is, if you're a head of a large private equity firm or hedge fund, your job is to make money. It's not to create jobs. It's not even to create a successful business - it's to make sure that you're maximizing returns for your investor. Now that's appropriate. That's part of the American way. That's part of the system. But that doesn't necessarily make you qualified to think about the economy as a whole, because as president, my job is to think about the workers. My job is to think about communities, where jobs have been outsourced.  [Emphasis added]
Yes, the President of the United States of America believes that:

  1. A by-product of successful businesses is not jobs, but profit.
  2. He doesn't need to think about creating a positive business climate, he needs to creates jobs.
Let's look at these statements:

 It's not to create jobs. It's not even to create a successful business - it's to make sure that you're maximizing returns for your investor. 

So your goal as a private equity firm is not to create a successful business?  While I agree, in principle, that a PE firm's main goal is to make a profit, I think BHO believes they make money by buying companies, closing them and selling their assets.  Certainly, Bain did not do this.  They bought companies and turned them around [or in some cases, funded start-ups] and eventually sold them for huge profits.  

BHO clearly does not understand that successful companies hire employees (or in his Marxist terminolgy "workers").  BHO has never run a business.  Aside from Valerie Jarrett, who parlayed her position as Commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development under the Daley administration into the CEO of The Habitat Company [to the tune of $800,000 per year) none of his close advisers have had a job in the private sector, much less had to turn a profit.  

... my job is to think about the workers.

Really?  I thought his job, at least as outlined in the constitution was to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  He doesn't seem to understand how his policies have business leaders frozen in their tracks.  It is his policies that are setting the foundation of this economy.  History will show that under BHO, the government intrusion into the affairs of business through the regulatory agencies (EPA, OSHA, DOT, EEOC, HHS, etc...), the implementation of the largest tax increase in the history of the world with the Obamatax, and his continued bashing of the free enterprise system is undermining the U.S. economy.  

Thursday, July 12, 2012

He's Baaaack...

Alan Grayson for Congress (?)

This Alan Grayson?

Yes, that Alan Grayson....

According to, a Democrat fundraising website and, he's raking in the money....

Of course, he is getting big time backers.  Like Anthony Weiner:

"One fry short of a happy meal" response:

I doubt he was the dumbest man in congress, but he is certainly the dumbest man in this race:

Alan is clearly in denial...

The truth (mostly):

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Big Government Logic............

Vilsack sets aid for livestock producers, but holds firm on ethanol

By Rita Jane Gabbett on 7/11/2012

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced programs to aid farmers and ranchers hit by this year’s drought and urged Congress to work faster on the farm bill to free more disaster aid tools, but he held firm on the need to continue making corn-based ethanol. 
Asked by Meatingplace on a conference call if USDA would support easing the Renewable Fuel Standard if the corn crop continues to deteriorate, Vilsack said, “We are not at that point. Certainly the renewable fuels program is an extraordinarily important aspect of our efforts to rebuild and revitalize the rural economy. The reality is, we are still looking at the third largest corn crop on record and we are still looking at a very large soybean crop … . So, at this point, we have no plan to adjust the Renewable Fuels Standard.”
USDA earlier today cut its corn crop estimate by 1.8 billion bushels to 12.97 billion bushels and lifted its average farm price forecast for corn by $1.40 per bushel at the top end to a range of $5.40 to $6.40. Corn futures for July delivery traded around $7.34 per bushel at midday on the Chicago Board of Trade. ....
 [Emphasis added ]
First, I didn't know that the renewable fuel program was designed to "rebuild & revitalize the rural economy".  I thought we needed to use ethanol for all the reasons the greenies have said, "Lower our dependence on foreign oil, lower green house gases, etc...."

But, my point in posting this is to point out that the USDA on one hand reduces the corn crop estimate by 1.8 billion bushels and on the other hand the USDA says they are not going to reduce the Renewable Fuels Standard.  Which means there will be 1.8 Billion fewer bushels of corn available for our food supply.  The "Smartest People in the Room" at the Department of Agriculture are choosing to feed our cars rather than feed our people  with corn.  

Which leads to the obvious question, "Why don't we pump actual oil from the ground for our cars and eat the corn?"

A Short History of Congress's Power to Tax

A Short History of Congress's Power to Tax

The Supreme Court has long distinguished the regulatory from the taxing power.


I find it amazing that until the early 1900's (nearly half the country's history) there were no federal taxes aside from tariff's on foreign goods.  It's astonishing that even until the 1930's there were relatively few federal taxes.  It seem that it was the left's 20th century hero (not to be confused with BHO, the left's 21st century hero), FDR was the one who got the ball rolling.  I suppose that should come as no big surprise.  Another great read is, The Forgotten Man, by Amity Shlaes

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

What's wrong with Democrats?

Example #1:

Typical Democrat thinking.  No accountability, just put in your time and you'll be rewarded.  It sounds like a union...

The New Media Model

How does a Podunk like me get to interact with people so much smarter than myself?

Easy, you email them.

So last night I was watching Hannity interview Dick Morris.  As per usual, Morris ignored Hannity's final question and commandeered his last minute on the show to highlight something, he wrote about in his book, "Screwed".  He mentioned how Hillary Clinton is about to sign an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on July 27th, 2012 and how it will effect our 2nd amendment rights here in the U.S.  

I got a little spooked about my right to bear arms, so I Google 'Arms Trade Treaty' and I see that The Heritage Foundation has a released a background report called The  U.N. Arms Trade Treaty's Criteria for the Transfer Pose Problems for the U.S. the same day Dick Morris is talking about it.  So Dick's comments must have some validity, right?

I read the report and did not see any mention of the 2nd Amendment issues Dick Morris discussed.  So, I did what any curious citizen would do.  I emailed the author, Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D.  I mean, he is only a Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations with The Margret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a Heritage Department.

I sent the following (cryptic) message at 9:28 PM EDT, July 9, 2012:

Dr. Bromund, 
I saw Dick Morris state on Hannity tonight, July 9, 2012, that U.N. Arms Trade Treaty could be used as a “back door gun regulation”.  
I did not reach that conclusion when I read your report. 
Do you have an opinion?  Back door gun regulation or not?
I figured I would get the obligatory, "We have received your correspondence and will get back to you shortly" auto-response.  

Well, much to my surprise, at 9:37 AM EDT, July 10, 2012, I received the following:

Dear Mr. Xxxxxx, 
Thanks for your note. I'm answering from my personal account, as I'm at the UN ATT conference now and Blackberry is a tedious way to type a reply. 
I've addressed this question in a number of pieces: 
1. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty’s Criteria for Transfers Pose Problems for the U.S.2. 
And will be writing a blog about it later today (if UN work allows). 
In short, I would say that my view is that the foreign policy reason for opposing the ATT are more salient than those related to the 2nd Amendment. But there are reasons to be concerned about the treaty's domestic impact. That is sometimes framed as a sort of 'black helicopter' issue, which is ridiculous. The much more realistic concern is 'death by a thousand cuts': that the ATT will require or facilitate administrative restrictions, or be used as a legal source by judges of a transnationalist bent, in ways that will restrict the effective use of 2nd Amendment rights, without being 'gun confiscation.'
I didn't see Dick Morris's appearance, but I hear [sic] about it.  In my view, exaggerated concern about the domestic effects of the ATT is self-defeating, in that it is too easily dismissed as silly, and because it detracts from the foreign policy issues.
 Best, Dr. Bromund
I have to say, I LOVE technology.  The internet is the great equalizer.  Just as the printing press contributed to to England's hold over the colonies, so will the internet free us from the political class.

Here I am writing to one of the foremost experts in International Security Studies from the comfort of my living room and I get an authoritative answer some 12 hrs later.  Amazing.

In addition, I would say you should go sign the petition on Dick Morris' website, as the ATT is a horrible deal for the U.S., but one would expect that when our current regime believes it is 'managing the decline of the U.S.", not building up the U.S. as has been our policy for most of the last 236 years.

How to ensure permanent 8-9% unemployment...

The following is from:

If one wanted to ensure permanent 8 percent to 9 percent unemployment, one might try the following:
1. Run up serial $1 trillion deficits
2. Add $5 trillion to the national debt in three and a half years
3. Impose a 2,400-page, trillion-dollar new federal takeover of health care, with layers of new taxation, much of it falling on the middle class and employers, even as favored concerns are given mass exemptions.
4. Scare employers with constant us/them class warfare rhetoric about a demonized one-percenter class and its undeserved profits; constantly talk about raising new taxes and imposing regulations, ensuring uncertainty and convincing employers of unpredictability in regulation and taxes. You cannot convince a country to go into permanent near-recession, but President Obama is doing his best to try.
5. Appoint a bipartisan committee to study the fiscal crisis and then neglect all its recommendations.
6. Subsidize failed green companies, while denigrating successful gas and oil concerns, as well as putting rich oil-and-gas federal leases off limits.
7. Vastly increase unemployment insurance, disability, and food-stamp constituencies, while promising all sorts of mortgage, credit-card, and student-loan bailouts.
8. Borrow hundreds of billions for stimulus programs that are not shovel ready, but are rather aimed to bail out state budgets, pensions, and unions.
9. Federalize elements of non-profitable private companies, while threatening to shut down profitable plants for supposed union or environmental incorrect behavior.
10. Do not address changing the above policies, but rather blame others for such self-induced stagnation.

Thursday, July 05, 2012

Why are the Chinese building ghost towns in foreign countries?

There's been a lot written about ghost towns in China. 
Now, state-owned China International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC) has built a town in Angola. And it's fairly empty.
Just outside Angola's capital city of Luanda is Nova Cidade de Kilamba a residential development of 750 eight-story apartment buildings, a dozen schools, and more than 100 retail units, reports the BBC's Louise Redvers.

Here is the story
Here are the pictures.

Weird.  Suspicious.  Evil?

Monday, June 11, 2012

Very piercing piece... Too bad no U.S. newspaper has the cojones to publish this.....

Could Barack's Religious Beliefs be Any More Anti-Christian or Un-American?

Obama’s Sinister “Religion”—Racist Marxism Under a Faux Biblical Veneer

The author's conclusion:

We must conclude that Obama’s religion is simply a virulently racist Marxism hiding under the banner of Christianity, not unlike Vodun or Santaria. Further, such syncretism cannot be labeled as mere Christianity. Instead, as Comte and Nietzsche proved, to scheme to kill God and elevate mankind to His throne is a crazy task that will drive such plotters insane.

I believe this is also the ideology of the Attorney General of the U.S., Eric Holder.  This can be further confirmed in J. Christian Adam's book, "Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department".  

Saturday, May 05, 2012

This graph confirms that Reaganomics works 
and Obamanomics does not.  


"It is just getting sad now. In April the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000.  This is the highest on record. 
The flip side, and the reason why the unemployment dropped to 8.1% is that the labor force participation rate just dipped to a new 30 year low of 64.3%."

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Liberal ignorance on display....

Madison Tax Day Tea Party Rally on Saturday, April 14, 2012. 
As per usual, liberals who espouse their "open mindedness" show their true colors by saying what they really believe. I'm not surprised, are you?
[Warning - Explicit Language!!!]

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Race Baiters Exposed....

Finally, someone from the black community calling out the race baiters "Reverends" Sharpton & Jackson....

Now if we could find someone to call out the radical Islamic terrorists.....


Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Putting the "Cool" back in Coolidge....

I find myself with a little more time on my hands these days.  So, between seeking my next source of income, studying The Book of Romans and other of life's responsibilities, I decided to enroll in Hillsdale College's online course: "Constitution 101"(free - BTW).  In the process I stumbled upon (required reading, actually) a speech from the apparently often overlooked president, Calvin Coolidge.  In the speech, President Coolidge says the following:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.... 
No other theory is adequate to explain or comprehend the Declaration of Independence. It is the product of the spiritual insight of the people. We live in an age of science and of abounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our Declaration. Our Declaration created them. The things of the spirit come first. Unless we cling to that, all our material prosperity, overwhelming though it may appear, will turn to a barren scepter in our grasp. If we are to maintain the great heritage which has been bequeathed to us, we must be like-minded as the fathers who created it. We must not sink into a pagan materialism. We must cultivate the reverence which they had for the things that are holy. We must follow the spiritual and moral leadership which they showed. We must keep replenished, that they may glow with a more compelling flame, the altar fires before which they worshipped.  [all emphasis added]  - Calvin Coolidge, “The Inspiration of the Declaration,” in Foundations of the Republic: Speeches and Addresses (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1926), 441–54 
What a great argument against those who believe the founding documents are "living breathing" documents whose meanings are subject to change with the times.  No.  Not at all.  Not even close.  That was precisely what the founding fathers where attempting to keep from happening when they declared:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 
Wow.  Powerful stuff....  Thank you Hillsdale.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Must see videos:

The Path to Prosperity: An overview:

The Path to Prosperity: A visual future of our two choices:

The Path to Prosperity: The truth about Medicare & how to save it:

The Path to Prosperity Pro-growth Strategy:

How come all politicians can't be as clear and concise when they speak as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)?  

Why do typical politicians always want to talk about past failures and place blame, rather than take an honest look at where we are, where we need to get to and paint a picture of that path for us to follow, like  Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) does?

Wednesday, March 07, 2012

So what is after the loony left's nationalization of healthcare?

The pretext:  “Food is one of the only base human needs where the American government lets the private market dictate its delivery to our communities.”

So, now we know.  They are not just going after children's school lunches or soldiers meals.  No, now it is time to get the government involved in food distribution.  As what is the motivation?  Well, it's a "food justice" thing.  a class warfare thing - only the rich can afford to eat well.  

Before the Food Arrives on Your Plate, So Much Goes on Behind the Scenes

Ms. McMillan’s chapters about Walmart and Applebee’s are the book’s best. She is not a slash-and-burn critic of either company: both provide needed jobs and treat their employees at least moderately well. But you will steer clear of both places after reading about her travails.


Monday, March 05, 2012

Finally, The Vetting Begins...

Andrew Breitbart's final legacy...  The vetting of President Barack Hussein Obama.

The Vetting Begins


It turns out "State Senator Baraka Obama" was part of guest panel after the play....

The play, of course, was all about what a great person Mr. Alinsky was.

I'm sure "Baraka" was there to refute what Saul Alinsky stood for, much like I'm sure Hillary Clinton's thesis in college was a refutation of Alinksky as well.  (Go ahead, click the link and read for yourself.  Then ask yourself, "Is she really a moderate?")

I encourage the you to read Breitbart's article.  Please help spread the word about the REAL Barack Hussein Obama.  And remember to watch for future installments on Breitbart's websites:
Big Government, Big Journalism, Big Hollywood and Big Peace.

Porn Stars: The Death of a Sex-Industry Profession

This is a good thing, right?

Not really.  When you read the story you find out the reason the "Porn Star" is a dying breed (pardon the pun) is because of "over supply".  In other words, it is the perfect storm for girls who want to become "Porn Stars".  It seems there is a "near unlimited supply" of girls who will do this kind of work.

The main reason for the oversupply is pretty disturbing.  Our society has finally accepted porn as mainstream, so instead of there being a stigma against "actresses" ending up doing porn as a final desperate act, girls are now growing up aspiring to work in the porn industry (i.e. have sex with strangers for money and have it videoed for distribution on the web).

If this is not a sign our society is in deep trouble, I do not know what is.

Here is the complete article:

Porn Stars: The Death of a Sex-Industry Profession

The Daily Beast
Richard Abowitz
February 28, 2012

The pull quote:

[Mark Spiegler] now turns away more aspiring porn stars than ever before. He notes that if a lot of people are willing to do a task, the star aura of the performers quickly vanishes. “A few years ago there were 100 girls in the entire industry, and now 100 girls enter the industry each week. They used to all be stars; now they all just think they’re stars.” The result, Spiegler says, is that “they’ve become interchangeable.”{Emphasis added}
He talks as if describing the parts of a machine.  'They are interchangeable', like windshield wipers.  Toss out the out worn out ones and plug in the new squeaking clean ones - until they too become old, worn and ineffective.  Like a commodity to be consumed.  

Remember, the "they" he is talking about are you daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, moms and dads.  These are human beings, treated and traded as things.  

For those of us who believe, the "they" he is describing are people created in the image if of God. Desecrated temples....

Friday, March 02, 2012

This ought to scare the bejesus out of you...

I've always held that abortion is murder.  The reason abortion is equivalent to murder is bumper sticker simple:  "If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant".  

So now that we have established abortion is murder all we are arguing about is, "At what point in time does the mother have the right to murder their child?"  Is it less than 26 weeks?  Or maybe it should be less than 3 years old?  The logic is pretty simple.

I guess my argument has gone mainstream....

From The Telegraph:

1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 201

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.
The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.[Emphasis Added]
The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

 From the Abstract of the actual paper:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled. 

So, given the moral relativism of the modern-day liberal (whether it is the Supreme Court Justice who says the U.S. Constitution is a 'living breathing document' subject to interpretation based on changing mores or it is a president who equates the burning of a Quran with the killing of American soldiers) none of this should especially be surprising.  

Now, let's think about this...  According to this report, "After-birth Abortions" are ethical and moral and Obama's Independent Payment Advisory Board [i.e., "Death Panels"] are charged with limiting the cost of health care to the federal budget by determining who qualifies for the expense of caring for certain illnesses.  

Now, cleared of the moral and ethical responsibility of killing children who may be born with "severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to not be worth living..." the IPAB [Death Panels] can require doctors to kill the child using approved 'After-birth Abortion' techniques. Just think about that....

Do any of us wonder why our nation may have fallen out of favor with our Creator?  

Thursday, March 01, 2012

Federal Checkpoints on the "Interstate" Highway system in the U.S.? Maybe...

The TSA Is Coming To a Highway Near You
By Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Rep. Blackburn makes an effective argument as to why TSA's agents should not me considered TSO's (Transportation Security Officer's).  But to me, the most crucial paragraph is this one:

Interestingly enough, as TSA officials like to routinely point out, their agency’s acronym stands for Transportation Security Administration, not the Airport SecurityAdministration. This fact has extended the TSA’s reach has far beyond the confines of our nation’s airports. Many of my constituents discovered this first hand this past fall as those familiar blue uniforms and badges appeared on Tennessee highways. In October Tennessee became the first state to conduct a statewide Department of Homeland Security Visible Intermodal Prevention andResponse (VIPR) team operation which randomly inspected Tennessee truck drivers and cars.[Emphasis added]
 If I combine the two points Rep. Blackburn makes, I should not have to comply with a TSO on the roads anywhere in the state.  That is Municipal or State Police's territory only.  I wonder if she'll back me up if I get stopped by one and tell them they'll have to call the real authorities if they want to "inspect" anything.  

Just don't taze me bro'!!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012


All parents should watch this....  It is frightening.  Really frightening.

The Moral Authority of the Catholic Church and Obama

American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil

Paul A. Rahe · Feb. 10, 2012
 This article describes how the moral authority of the Catholic Church has been abdicated by equating the left's agenda for a nanny state and it's stance on the abortion issue.  It is truly fascinating.

Given that my father was a Catholic who could not partake in the Holy Sacrament because he was married to my mother who was a divorcee' I have always held a skeptical view of the Catholic Church.  Now being a born-again evangelical Christian, it weighs heavy on my heart that many of my relatives may never have that personal relationship with Jesus Christ I experience daily because religions like Catholicism which are steeped on rituals and legalistic interpretations of the Bible.     
Still, I was unaware of these history behind these decisions by the leaders of the Catholic Church, but it certainly does make sense.   Here are some excerpts:

In the 1930s, the majority of the  bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so with the best of intentions. In their concern for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins – a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent – Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post. And they welcomed Social Security – which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well-being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They did not stop to think.
In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.
I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.
In my lifetime, to my increasing regret, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state. In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernardin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many. Here is what Cardinal Bernardin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:
Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.
Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.
Upon reflection, he can accept the fig leaf that President Obama has offered him. Or he [Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York] can put Sister Keehan and her supporters in their place and fight. If he wants to regain an iota of the moral authority that the Church possessed before 1973, he will do the latter. The hour is late. Next time, the masters of the administrative entitlements state won’t even bother to offer the hierarchy a fig leaf. They know servility when they see it. 
Here is a follow-up to the controversial article above:

Paul A. Rahe · Feb 15, 2012 

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Was the Judge fired for this?

The Judge's show "Freedom Watch" was cancelled.  According to the Judge's own Facebook page, he said it was for business reasons, as a couple of his shows have been cancelled in the past.  Each time he was rewarded with bigger & better opportunities.

Still, it's a little unsettling....

Friday, February 10, 2012

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government
William W. Beach is Director of the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. 
Patrick D. Tyrrell is Research Coordinator in the Center for Data Analysis. 

I encourage you to click the links above and read the entire report.  It has many great graphs and charts that show how things are getting out of control.  We are at a tipping point in our country.  After looking through the facts, there is no doubt about the sense of urgency we need to have about the direction of the USA, lest we become yet another mediocre European style socialized democracy.  



The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009. This means that in 1984, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes; in 2009, 151.7 million paid nothing.

70.5 percent of federal spending now goes to dependence-creating programs, up dramatically from 28.3 percent in 1962, and 48.5 percent in 1990

Beginning in 2008, the federal government took over the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and has since then spent more than $150 billion to keep them afloat and allow them to continue to provide mortgage credit to finance home sales. More than 90 percent of all single-family residential mortgage credit is now provided by these two government-sponsored, government-controlled enterprises, thereby extending dependence on federal assistance to middle-class and upper-middle-class households.


 In 1970, 20.4 million individuals were enrolled in Medicare. By 2010, the number of enrollees had more than doubled to 47.5 million Over the next 10 years, the number of people enrolled in Medicare will increase dramatically. In 2011, the first of 81.5 million baby boomers became eligible for Medicare. In 2010, the size of the Medicare-eligible elderly population was 21.5 percent the size of the non-elderly adult population; the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that by 2035, this proportion will grow to 36.4 percent.

In 2010, 53.6 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid, an increase of almost 3 million individuals in just one year, and 20 million since 2000. Medicaid serves a diverse population of the poor, including children, mothers, the elderly, and the disabled. Combined, the total national cost of Medicaid and CHIP in 2010 is estimated at $413 billion, and is projected to rise to $914 billion by 2020.

By 2020, Medicare spending will reach $922 billion, and total spending for Medicaid and CHIP will reach $914 billion, at which point government spending will represent 50 percent of all health care expenditures.


The erosion of marriage and family is a primary contributing factor to child poverty and welfare dependence, and it figures significantly in a host of social problems. A child born out of wedlock is seven times more likely to be poor than a child raised by married parents, and more than 80 percent of long-term child poverty occurs in broken homes or homes where the parents never married. 

In 2009, 1.7 million children were born to unmarried parents. Contrary to popular conception, the typical single mother is not a teen, but in her twenties. Whereas in 1970, one-half of all out-of-wedlock births were to teens, in 2009, births to girls younger than 18 years of age comprise only 7 percent of such births. Sixty percent of out-of-wedlock births occur to women in their twenties. About 43 percent are high-school dropouts, and 36 percent are high-school graduates. Eighteen percent have had some college education; only 2 percent have a college degree.

In the TANF reauthorization, Congress, for the first time, enacted a healthy-marriage initiative, allocating $100 million in TANF funds per year—less than 1 percent of total TANF expenditures in FY 2006—to local organizations that provide voluntary marriage-centered services and skills training to recipients.
Yet, in February 2009, the Democrat-controlled Congress and the new Obama Administration enacted legislation that essentially overturned the fiscal foundation of welfare reform and reverted to an AFDC-style funding scheme. States now receive cash bonuses when they swell the welfare rolls.[Emphasis Mine]
Social Security
... the demographic forces that once made Social Security affordable have reversed, and the program is on an inexorable course toward fiscal crisis. To break even, Social Security needs at least 2.9 workers to pay taxes for each retiree who receives benefits. The current ratio is 3.3 workers per retiree and dropping because the baby boomers produced fewer children than their parents did and are now nearing retirement. The ratio will reach 2.9 workers per retiree around 2015 and drop to two workers per retiree in the 2030s.
Current retiree benefits are paid from the payroll taxes collected from today’s workers. Due to the effects of the recent recession, Social Security has not collected enough taxes to pay for all its promised benefits since 2010. Both the Social Security Administration and the CBO say that these deficits are permanent.
From 1983 to 2009, workers paid more in payroll taxes than the Social Security program needed in order to pay benefits. These additional taxes were supposed to be retained to help finance retirement benefits for baby boomers. But the government did not save or invest the excess taxes for the future. Instead, the government used the money to finance other government programs.
Higher Education
During the 2010–2011 school year, total federal spending on student aid programs (including tax credits and deductions, grants, and loans) was $169 billion—making total federal aid 142 percent higher than for the 2000–2001 school year (inflation-adjusted). In the 2010–2011 school year, federal grant aid increased to $49 billion, a 16 percent increase over the previous year—well ahead of the inflation rate.
Increases in federal student aid subsidies over the years have done nothing to mitigate ever-rising college costs. Tuition and fees at public and private four-year institutions rose by 7.9 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, after adjusting for inflation, from the 2009–2010 academic year to the 2010–2011 academic year.
Farm Subsidies
 In 2009, the average farmer had a net worth of $915,019 (159 percent of the national average of household wealth); in 2010, an annual income of $84,440; while living in a rural area with a significantly lower cost of living than that of suburban and urban areas. The failure rate for farms is about one-sixth the rate of other businesses.
Yet, farm subsidies have become one of America’s largest corporate welfare programs. The majority of subsidies go to commercial farms, which report average incomes of $200,000 and net worths of nearly $2 million.  The bottom 80 percent of farmers receive just one-fifth of the subsidies
Americans have reached a point in the life of their republic when the democratic political process has become a means for many voters to defend and expand the “benefits” they receive from government (read: their dependence). This can only lead to a corruption of government and of self-serving voters.