Archive for the ‘News’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

An excellent essay dealing with the times that we live in.

October 16, 2010

Every so often, someone, somewhere writes so eloquently that it is difficult to comprehend just how they did it. What follows are snips, be sure to follow the link to the entire essay.

FULL STORY HERE.

On Feb. 7, 2009, the cover of Newsweek magazine proclaimed, “We Are All Socialists Now.” Since then, much has transpired, including the sale of Newsweek (the business entity) to the highest bidder for $1. Now, 1 1/2 years later, a more poignant cover story might be “We Are All Tea Partiers Now.”

The Tea Party is the leading edge of a “Great Awakening” in America. In many ways, it appears to have the force and vitality of one of the religious awakenings that have occurred throughout our nation’s history. It is more than a populist movement. It is more than a reactionary group expressing voter dissatisfaction and anger. It can’t be boiled down to election results. It will not be co-opted neatly by the Republican Party. It is something much, much bigger.

The Tea Party movement represents a resounding declaration of the end of big, overreaching government.

~snip~

The Tea Party movement represents a resounding declaration of the end of big, overreaching government.

Our nation is in the grip of an overwhelming, seemingly inescapable malaise, not because our government hasn’t done enough for us, but because it has tried to do too much. Over the decades, “government” has mutated into “big government,” and its weight is killing us. Recent massive efforts to stimulate the economy or save certain sectors of it through increased government intervention and spending, far from helping us, have only added to the fog of uncertainty and oppression.

Washington’s presumed role of always knowing what is best for every aspect of our lives is over. One by one, people are waking up and realizing that perhaps they know what is best for themselves, their families, their local communities and their states. The Tea Party movement is not just an expression of disfavor with how things get done in government. It is the promise of a tectonic shift of decentralization and reduction of government.

~snip~

For more than 200 years, the United States has been a repository of the most incredible truth in the world about man’s desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and how to secure these as a nation. In some ways, this truth has been in a deep freeze just as a steak might safely be saved in your freezer at home. If you offer a frozen steak to a hungry guest, it’s of no practical use to him. But if you put that steak on the grill with a fire under it, suddenly the fat starts to sizzle, the juices begin to run, and you begin to smell the aroma of the roasting meat. That steak becomes enticing to the hungry person. The Tea Party movement is the vehicle, the tiny match, by which the fire is lit under old truths so that even those who have never given a thought to their unalienable personal rights and the role of government now have a voracious hunger to experience these truths in their own lives.

~snip~

Many people now see that our nation is at a crossroads: Our personal liberties, economic prosperity and the place of the United States within the world are at risk. Their eyes have been opened to the reckless stewardship of the political class in Washington, which, by creating an ever-growing government with massive, unsustainable entitlements, sweeping unintelligible legislative reforms and volume after volume of free-market-choking regulations, has charted this ill-fated course toward its progressive vision for America.

~snip~

For the past year and a half, the media and other detractors have dedicated themselves to snuffing out the Tea Party movement through tactics of mockery, dismissiveness and false accusations. From Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi insinuating that grass-roots protesters at town-hall meetings last summer were Nazis to President Obama using mocking sexual innuendo, calling the Tea Partiers “tea baggers”; from the unsubstantiated claims of Tea Party violence and racism during health care reform protests on Capitol Hill in March to the NAACP’s unwarranted charge of Tea Party racism to the constant drone of politicos and pundits about Tea Party extremism during the primary elections, the assault on the Tea Party has been relentless. If Tea Partiers were a protected class rather than a targeted one, most of the media, academia and political intelligentsia would be on trial for hate crimes.

~snip~

The Tea Party is more than an angry political movement, as it is frequently described. Something much deeper is going on here. It is a living expression of bedrock truth about humanity’s rights and our own human nature – that men and women have a yearning to be free and to self-govern while participating in and enjoying civil society.

My hats off in appreciation to Doug Manwaring.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, States Rights, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Colorado Election : Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives

October 16, 2010

As directed by the Libertarian Party of Colorado Constitution, the Board of Directors has reviewed the 2010 amendments and propositions on the ballot for voter consideration.  There are seven proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and two propositions to change the Revised Statutes.

For the 2010 election, the Colorado “Blue Book” contains succinct summaries of each of these.  There are also pro and con websites and other information being provided in numerous information media outlets.
The Libertarian Party of Colorado consists of free thinkers and responsible voters who seek as much information as possible about the pros and cons of every voting decision they will make.  We believe every libertarian and other voters will make up their own minds based on their careful review of the issues.
The following are the Libertarian Party of Colorado positions concerning each of the 2010 Colorado initiatives.
Amendment P –Regulation of Games of Chance. The LPCO takes no position either way on this amendment.
Moves bingo and raffle licensing from Sec State to Dept of Revenue (or other designated by the state legislature).  In addition to time, energy, and money already expended on this change to existing law, there will be a onetime $116,000 expenditure from bingo and raffle license fees.
The amendment makes no significant changes to the Colorado Constitution or the long term financial situation of the State Government-
Amendment Q –Temp Location of State Seat of Government.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Currently there is no provision in the Colorado Constitution for convening of the State Government if a major disaster emergency were to make Denver unusable.  This amendment provides direction for the Governor and the Legislature to designate a temporary location for the seat of government.
Amendment R –Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Eliminates property taxes for individuals and businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6,000 or less in market value.
The fiscal effects of this amendment are relatively minor, but should increase the efficiency of local governments by reducing the costs of assessing and collecting minor amounts of property taxes from numerous small assessments.
Ammendment 60 –Concerning Property Taxes. The LPCO recommends a YES vote on this amendment.
Strengthens TABOR by adding a new section (10) to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.
-Requires audit and enforcement of this section.
-All owners of real property would be entitled to vote on all proposed property taxes affecting their property.
-Voters may petition to lower property taxes
-Property tax issues shall have November election notices separate from debt issues
-Property Tax bills list only property taxes and late charges
-Enterprise and authorities shall pay property taxes.  Lower mil-levy rates to offset income to taxing dist
-10 year expiration on property tax rate increases
-Extending expiring property taxes, is a tax increase
-Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue are expired; future actions are tax increases expiring in 4 years.  Local governments and enterprises will have to make serious adjustments to their budgets and seek direct voter approval of property taxes on at least a four-year cycle.
-by 2020, non-college school districts phase out ½ of their 2011 property tax rate for operating expenses.  State aid replaces the revenue.  Shifts school operating costs to State general fund from local resources.
Amendment 61 –Limit State and Local Government Borrowing. The LPCO recommends YES on this amendment.
-Repeals existing Article XI Section 3 and re-enacts the original 1876 version of this section to read, “The state shall not contract any debt in any form.”
-Repeals Article XI Sections 4, 5, 6(2), and 6(3) as obsolete and superceded.
-Repeals and re-enacts Article XI Section 6(1) to require voter approval for local governments to contract debt.  Also requires ballot title to be specific.
-Adds further specific requirements concerning debt to Article X section 20(4)
–November Ballot approval
–10 year limit on new local debt
–borrowing can’t exceed 10% of assessed valuation
–Tax Rates must be reduced when borrowing is repaid
Amendment 62 Application of Term Person. The LPCO recommends NO on this amendment.
Would define person as at the beginning of biological development and entitled to full protection of Colorado law.
This is an effort to insert the State into the intensely personal decisions concerning the beginning of human life.  It would only further complicate already difficult decisions.
Amendment 63 -Health Care Choice. The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Adds Article II section 32 to make health care choice a constitutional right.  Prohibits the state from requiring a person to participate in health plans.  Restricts the state from limiting a person’s ability to make or receive direct payments for health services.  Exempts emergency treatment and Workers’ Compensation from this new right.
This is in response to the recently enacted Federal health care decrees.  It is unfortunately now necessary for Colorado to take a stand to protect individual and state rights associated with US Constitution Article I and Amendments 9 and 10.
Proposition 101 -Income, Vehicle, and Telecommunication Taxes and Fees.  The LPCO recommends YES on this Proposition.
-Reduces state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.5% in 2011 and then over time to 3.5%.
-reduces and eliminates vehicle taxes and fees over next 4 years.
-eliminates all state and local taxes on telecommunications service, except 911 fees
-requires voter approval to for future vehicle and telecomm fees.
–Proposition 102 –Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs.  The LPCO recommends NO on this proposition.
Adds requirements to Colorado Statutes to prohibit release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to pretrial services program unless it is a first offense and is nonviolent misdemeanor.
If passed this measure will reduce the ability of Judges to release those accused of crimes while awaiting trial.  Those unable to afford additional bonding expenses would remain in custody.  Additional total costs to the State are estimated at $2.8 million.
Retention of Colorado Supreme Court Judges.
For the 2010 November election, voters are asked to consider retention/non-retention of a number of Judges.  The LPCO encourages all voters to carefully consider each judge.
Several of the Citizen initiated amendments on the 2010 November Ballot are in response to Supreme Court decisions contrary to the intent of existing constitutional provisions.  The activist nature of the recent Colorado Supreme Court and it’s decisions appears to be more focused on predetermined outcomes rather than the Rule of Law.
-The LPCO recommends NO on each of the 3 Supreme Court Judges to be considered.
SOURCE:
Date: 12 Oct 10
From: LPCO Board of Directors
To:   Colorado Libertarians and interested Voters
Subj:  Libertarian Party of Colorado Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives.

Perhaps the LPCO has regained some semblance of sanity? Time will tell.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Hoplophobia, Law, Local Politics Colorado, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Colorado Election : Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives

When orders from HQ change… Enviro whacko’s and Texas fights back!

October 16, 2010

Texas is firing back after the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would apply the 1970s clean air laws to carbon regulation and effectively seize permitting authority from states that don’t comply quickly enough. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA’s national office chooses priorities, but state regulators run the relevant programs and issue the necessary permits. When orders from HQ change, as with carbon over the last year, states get three years to revise their ‘implementation plans.’ But in August, [EPA Administrator Lisa] Jackson decided that the law posed too long a climate wait and decreed that if these plans aren’t updated by an arbitrary January 2011 deadline, her office will override the states and run the carbon permitting process itself.”

Given the EPA’s current lack of permitting resources, the Journal notes that this decision “is tantamount to a ban on major construction or building expansion — not merely Texan refineries but any kind of carbon-heavy utility, industrial production, manufacturing plant or even large office buildings.” Indeed, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality projects that the new regulations will end 167 current projects in 2011 alone. In response to Jackson’s fiat, the Lone Star State has filed a lawsuit with the DC appeals circuit, arguing the EPA went “beyond [its] powers” and is asking for an emergency stay of the new regulations.

The EPA itself admits that its actions “may have adverse consequences for the economy.” Of course, we’ve seen how little “adverse consequences” mean to an administration convinced that when it comes to federal bureaucracy, bigger is always better.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, States Rights, Stupid is as Stupid Does, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on When orders from HQ change… Enviro whacko’s and Texas fights back!

The First Amendment allows too much speech of the wrong sort..?

October 16, 2010

“‘The president was not suggesting any illegality,’ insisted White House Counsel Bob Bauer. In other words, when Obama said ‘one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign sources,’ he was not implying any connection between the ads and the money. He was just stringing sounds together randomly. … [I]t is of a piece with his frequent complaints that the First Amendment allows too much speech of the wrong sort. ‘If we just stand by and allow the special interests to silence anybody who’s got the guts to stand up to them,’ Obama said in his Maryland speech, ‘our country is going to be a very different place.’ What the ‘special interests’ are actually doing is speaking, and the president regrets that they have the freedom to do so. Who wants to silence whom?” –columnist Jacob Sullum

“We have a lousy Supreme Court decision that has opened up the floodgates, and so we have to deal within the realm of constitutionality. And a lot of the campaign finance bills that we have passed have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I think the Constitution is wrong. [emphasis added] I don’t think that money is the same thing as human beings. I don’t think money equals free speech. I don’t think corporations should have the same equality as a regular voter in this district.” –Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) on campaign-finance regulation and the January U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission

See the video and tell us what you think.

Democrats are in such dire straits headed into November’s elections that they’re resorting to outlandish fear mongering about foreign money influencing the campaign via the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents 300,000 American businesses. Considering the Democrats’ record of cap ‘n’ tax legislation, financial sector regulations and the takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, it’s no wonder they’re focusing on a non-issue such as the Chamber.

After a leftist blog reported that the Chamber had received $300,000 in annual dues from foreign companies, the Democrat National Committee ran an ad that warned, “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce. They’re shills for big business. And they’re stealing our democracy, spending millions from secret donors to elect Republicans to do their bidding in Congress. It appears they even have taken secret foreign money to influence our elections. It’s incredible: Republicans benefiting from secret foreign money. Tell the Bush crowd and the Chamber of Commerce: Stop stealing our democracy!” And here we thought we lived in a republic.

CBS anchor Bob Schieffer played the ad for White House adviser David Axelrod and then asked, “If the only charge three weeks [before] the election that the Democrats have to make is that somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do?” Yes, Bob, it is. Furthermore, Democrats have a long history of blaming opponents for engaging in all the dastardly practices they themselves have done for decades, a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” (“pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”). Foreign money has been flowing to Democrat coffers, especially labor unions, for many election cycles. Yet the White House indicates that it will continue this theme for the next few weeks.

For the Chamber of Commerce to use foreign funds to pay for campaign ads would be a crime. Obama knows this, though it doesn’t stop him from calling the Chamber’s latest free-market advocacy campaign a “threat to democracy.” Joe Biden challenged the Chamber to “tell us how much of the money they’re investing is from foreign sources.” “None,” would be the answer. Even the “fake but accurate” New York Times reports, “[A] closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.”

Ever since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling overturned parts of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, Democrats have been looking for ways to repeal the First Amendment for businesses, and publicly demonizing the Chamber of Commerce and other faceless corporations is the first step. Whether it’s this pathetic episode, or Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) ordering investigations into tax-exempt groups for political activities, or Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threatening “zero tolerance” for health insurance companies blaming ObamaCare for increasing premium rates, Democrats have a plan. And there’s little “democratic” about it.

SOURCE

This is the best that the epic failure obama and crew can do..?

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!* sort of…

October 16, 2010

 

Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!*

(*Well, sort of…  one editor (of 5 total), endorsing 2 out of 3 recommendations plus all of the analysis, pretty much adds up to one endorsement.  Fun with fractions!)

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

 

On Wednesday October 13th, the Denver Post, in what is the closest thing to an official position on the three Colorado Supreme Court incumbents (justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) seeking an additional 10-year term on this year’s ballot the newspaper is likely to take, endorsed two of the three recommendations advanced by Clear The Bench Colorado.

The editorial (“No clean sweep of justices“) endorsed the “compelling indictment of Michael Bender and Alex Martinez” but differed with Clear The Bench Colorado’s recommendation on Justice Rice.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether Justice Rice deserves another 10 years on the bench (CTBC’s analysis of her opinions in key constitutional cases shows a split result, leaning narrowly towards non-retention; Attorney General John Suthers had also earlier endorsed a “retain” vote on Justice Rice while advocating a “do not retain” vote on Justice Michael Bender and Justice Alex Martinez, as well).

Most importantly, the Denver Post editorial strongly complimented the Clear The Bench Colorado Evaluations of Judicial Performance analysis as a superior resource to the sham “Blue Book” reviews:

“In every election, voters go to the polls with virtually no knowledge of the judges up for retention – thanks to the nearly useless evaluations issued by the state’s judicial performance commission. So voters do owe Clear the Bench Colorado their thanks for actually offering substantive analysis.”

 

The ultimate responsibility – and authority – rests with the voters.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges all Colorado citizens to become informed about how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted assaults on their rights (and wallets!) with a consistent pattern of not following the Constitution where it doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda – and drawing the necessary and logical conclusions.

As a Citizen, you DO have the right to vote “NO” on these incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices as they seek an additional 10-year term this November.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges Colorado voters to exercise their rights on the ballot this November.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!* sort of…

Follow the money! : Professor Emeritus agrees

October 14, 2010

The man made global warming fiasco took one heck of a shot from a real scientist.

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

~SNIP~

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

Full story HERE

This entire scam was, and is, nothing more than a money making fraud committed on a world wide scale, and yet there still are people here trying to pass laws, taxes etc. That would choke an already battered economy based upon this criminal foolishness. Be sure to read the entire article.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Follow the money! : Professor Emeritus agrees

Why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

October 12, 2010

Why The Gun In Civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat — it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

SOURCE

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

NRA Endorsements: Single issue organization fallacy

October 12, 2010

The National Rifle Association recently released it’s political endorsements for the upcoming elections. There is an excellent discussion about this HERE. Be sure to read through the comments as they are a bot more than enlightening. I had planned on an in depth posting on the subject, however Dave Kopel really beat me to it! 🙂

Now, speaking as a Life Member I have one thing to say about the NRA being a “single issue” organization. BOVINE FECES Mister Cox and Mister LaPierre. I seem to remember something about “It’s not about hunting ducks.” Yet, the NRA has an entire division devoted to hunting. Let’s not forget about the various marksmanship  and safety programs that are offered. Single issue? Hardly! Stop the hypocrisy, please!

Then we have the NRA rolling over time and time again; The NRA supported ex post facto law. The NRA has supported so-called “reasonable” restrictions on your Second Amendment rights on so many occasions that I won’t bother with citation.

Now, I happen to like many of the programs noted above, and believe that they are quite valuable resources. Just stop playing the game that, for all appearances, looks to simply be more pandering to high dollar donors. While at the same time going into damage control mode when the membership decides to take you to the wood shed over yet another action that is so clearly against their (the membership’s) wishes. And or dealing in appeasement politics.

Who will truly protect your rights on a national level? Gun Owners of America does. As does the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Association for Gun Rights. There are also regional and state organizations that refuse to kow tow to along the lines of the NRA. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and Wyoming Gun Owners come to mind, and there are others out there that I am not familiar with.

Sure, vote freedom first! Just make sure that is actually what you are doing, and support those organizations that truly defend your rights!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Violence, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Local Politics Wyoming, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, States Rights, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

The Stolen Valor Act

October 11, 2010

The Stolen Valor Act was written with, and for the express purpose of punishing those people that make false claims about their military service, particularly such claims that claim combat decoration.

The law has been challenged, supposedly based upon free speech rights. I think that the real reason is that the damned posers that were convicted are not man enough to do the time for their crime.

Poser’s, don’t do anyone any good. I don’t care if you are an academic poser, such as those that use mail order degrees in order to gain an edge in employment. A Public Service poser, such as the idiots that claim to have been a Paramedic but in fact, barely passed Advanced First Aid… Then, we have those that embellish their actual service. Sometimes even when they did have a very good past in the military, but sullied it by making false claims. A Navel Veteran, that actually was a “River Rat” made claims that he had been a SEAL. Then, there are the real con artists. People that were never even near a military base but make all sorts of claims…

I think that all of the above, are dishonorable, and despicable, and, if used for social or monetary gain criminal.

Well, the Stolen Valor Act is going before the SCOTUS.

Read about that HERE.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Military Science, News, Politics, Uncategorized, War, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Income Redistribution: A Stimulating Look at Utopian Economics

October 9, 2010

Albert Einstein purportedly stated, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Apparently, the Obama administration disagrees, especially in light of its new report claiming that the spending-upon-spending “stimulus” plan is on-time, under budget and relatively fraud- and abuse-free — other than sending $18 million to dead people, anyway. Moreover, the measure worked as planned, and the economy is back on track. No doubt it’ll be even more robust after even more government spending.

Silly us for believing that double-digit unemployment, depressed markets and unprecedented budget deficits are all indicators of an economy nowhere close to being “back on track.” Our mistake, it seems, was neglecting to use the “jobs-saved” new math that has been the hallmark of the Chosen Administration since its inception. White House officials touted the relatively small number of complaints — less than 2 percent in over 200,000 contract awards — as evidence of the success of the drunken-sailor spending program. We would like to offer a different explanation as to the paucity of complaints, namely, that few complain when a gift horse (read: big government) is throwing billions of dollars at them. Independent of the degree to which spending is “fraud-free,” it’s still spending.

On a completely unrelated note, tens of thousands of workers have just been shown the door, courtesy of the termination of stimulus-subsidized employment programs. A $5 billion program, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,” is drawing to an end, and with it approximately 250,000 more will hit the streets and unemployment lines, highlighting yet again that government does not produce jobs. Any jobs it claims to “produce” will both cost more and be less sustainable than would otherwise be true in the free market. Meanwhile, in September, another 95,000 jobs were lost.

In contrast, Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden’s Pollyanna-ish chief economist, stated that the report on stimulus spending affirms that “the recovery act has accomplished much of what it set out to do.” Sadly, we must agree: Hamstringing the free market while redistributing wealth to Democrat constituency groups? Check. Helping the economy to actually recover? Not so much.

And then we have;

The Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency announced last Friday that they are considering regulating fuel mileage for vehicles even further — to an eye-popping 62 mpg by 2025 — so that CO2 emissions per mile might possibly be reduced by 3 to 6 percent. The Associated Press reports, “The government envisions gas-electric hybrids making up about half the lineup of new vehicles under the most aggressive standards, while electrics and plug-ins would comprise about 10 percent of the fleet.” These changes would add about $3,500 to the price of every vehicle, though the government claims owners would save $7,400 over the vehicle’s lifetime.

Meanwhile, in the government’s version of Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Roadrunner, the Obama administration appears to be simultaneously trying to “stimulate” interest in higher mileage vehicles by choking off oil supplies through dragging out its offshore drilling ban, which artificially drives up gas prices. We can only hope this scheme will blow up in the their face too. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is “reviewing” the moratorium just as Europe’s energy chief is considering putting a ban in place.

In other oil news, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling released a report on the federal response to April’s oil spill and, not surprisingly, the administration comes in for criticism. The report said, “The federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem.” That, in a nutshell, is the essence of Hope ‘n’ Change.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Czar Wars, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »