Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Obama Paving the Way for Muslim Takeover of America - Tom O'Halloran

Obama Paving the Way for Muslim Takeover of America - Tom O'Halloran

Obama Paving the Way for Muslim Takeover of America

April 28, 2013
Email This Page
“The Muslim world is saying that President Obama is currently paving a way to bring in tens of millions of illegals from the Middle East to the United States, leading to 50 to 100 million Muslims living in the U.S. before the end of Obama’s second term…”

By Glenn Beck
img_Muslim-BH3Muslim Brotherhood & the Threat to America .
THE UNITED STATES OF ISLAM?: How Obama Is Carrying Out a Troubling Plot To turn over America to the state of Islam.
On the surface, the fact that the U.S. Commerce Department is considering granting “disadvantaged minority” business status to Arab Americans so it wont elicit a cause for alarm.
Apart from maintaining his circles within Israel and the international diplomatic community is closely monitoring various media transmissions throughout the Arab world.
Combining the content of those transmissions with American domestic developments under the Obama administration—from Obama’s policy decisions right down to his infamous 2009 bow to the Saudi king—the notion that Obama could be executing a plot to Islamize America becomes increasingly unnerving.
Obama’s plan to secure America for a take over by the Mulim Brotherhood. According to Arabic language broadcasts intercepted and interpreted “The Muslim world is saying that President Obama is currently paving a way to bring in tens of millions of illegals from the Middle East to the United States, leading to 50 to 100 million Muslims living in the U.S. before the end of Obama’s second term…”
A source with a senior United Nations official that has also said the U.S. will be a Muslim country by 2016—a scenario that makes the Commerce Department’s latest deliberation to grant Arab businesses a leg up rather peculiar in its timing.
Obama is carrying out a three-phase Saudi plan that involves the following:
See to the end of the Iranian Shi’ite threat, be it with assistance from Israel or via the rise of a fanatic Muslim Brotherhood Sunni Regime born out of the Arab Spring.
Following the takeover of the regimes in the Middle East and the Arab Spring unrest, allow the inevitably massive exodus of Sunni Muslims in Egypt and other nations to find amnesty in America.—thus bringing about Muslim majorities in the U.S., Europe, Canada and Latin America.

Amendment 64: Colorado legislature piling on legal pot restrictions | Complete Colorado - Page Two

Amendment 64: Colorado legislature piling on legal pot restrictions 

Amendment 64: Colorado legislature piling on legal pot restrictions


By Jacob Sullum
A bill setting out guidelines for regulation of marijuana stores in Colorado received a second vote of approval from the state House of Representatives on Saturday and needs one more before it heads to the state Senate.
In addition to amendments creating an unfair and misguided new legal standard for driving under the influence of marijuana and extending a rule requiring retailers to grow most of the marijuana they sell, the latest version of H.B. 1317 requires limits on advertising that the original version merely suggested, including a ban on “mass-market campaigns that have a high likelihood of reaching minors.” It is doubtful that such a far-reaching rule, suppressing communication with adult customers because it might be seen by minors, would be upheld by Colorado’s courts. Such an approach is inconsistent with the way the U.S. Supreme Court has read the First Amendment, and Colorado’s courts historically have read the state constitution’s free-speech guarantee even more broadly.
Similarly, the bill now requires, rather than merely allowing, the Colorado Department of Revenue to “minimize the market for unlawful marijuana” by limiting the total number of retail licenses, the amount produced by each grow operation, and statewide cultivation capacity. Toward the same end, regulators are charged with creating and maintaining “a seed-to-sale tracking system that tracks retail marijuana from the immature plant stage until the marijuana is sold at a retail marijuana store.” Such a system is already supposed to exist for medical marijuana, but it never quite got off the ground.
Under the vertical integration requirement, also supposedly aimed at preventing diversion, pot shops have to grow at least 70 percent of their inventory while selling no more than 30 percent of the marijuana they produce to other stores. That requirement currently applies to medical marijuana centers (MMCs), some of which lobbied to keep it. The bill extends the 70 percent rule through September 30, 2014. It also gives existing MMCs a head start in the recreational market, barring new entrants from seeking licenses for three months.
The new version of H.B. 1317 elaborates on yet another anti-diversion measure: the quarter-ounce limit for marijuana buyers from other states (as opposed to residents, who can buy up to an ounce). The bill now says pot stores may not sell more than a quarter of an ounce at a time to “a person who does not have a valid identification card showing that the person is a resident of the State of Colorado.” That way of wording the rule seems to be aimed at reconciling it with Amendment 64, the ballot initiative (now part of the state constitution) that set this whole process in motion. Amendment 64 says the state “shall not require a consumer to provide a retail marijuana store with personal information other than government-issued identification to determine the consumer’s age.” Here the state arguably is not requiring pot buyers to provide proof of residence. A visitor could use a passport, for example, to prove he is 21 or older without revealing where he lives. But if he wants to buy more than a quarter of an ounce in one transaction, he will need an ID listing a Colorado address.
Other restrictions on marijuana retailers that have been added to the bill since it was introduced include bans on deliveries, Internet sales, on-site consumption, and the sale of “any consumable product,” including tobacco, alcohol, and non-cannabis-infused foods or drinks. These rules, together with the proposals to restrict advertising, suggest that Colorado is moving closer to the discreet, buttoned-down version of legalization laid out in I-502, Washington’s marijuana legalization initiative.
A companion bill making its way through the Colorado legislature, H.B. 1318, would authorize, subject to voter approval this fall, a 15 percent excise tax and a special 15 percent sales tax on marijuana. As Matthew Feeney noted on Friday, some legislators have hatched a scheme to present voters with an initiative that would repeal Amendment 64 unless the new taxes are approved. That’s only fair, they argue, since Amendment 64 passed based largely on (possibly overblown) promises of additional tax revenue, which will be necessary to fund enforcement of all those nifty new regulations. “The whole purpose of it was to raise money for education and so forth,” says state Sen. Larry Crowder (R-Alamosa), “so if there’s no money, we shouldn’t have marijuana.” Others see the effort to make marijuana legalization contingent on new taxes as a blatant attempt to subvert the will of voters, who should be able to choose legal marijuana without additional taxes if that is what they want. “That’s almost like saying to voters, ‘Vote for this, or else,’” says Sen. Cheri Jahn (D-Wheat Ridge). “I don’t think you threaten voters like that. When over 55 percent of the people vote for something, I think we have to respect that.”
While Crowder plots to cancel legalization, his fellow Republicans in the state House are putting their party’s resistance to taxes above its aversion to cannabis, pushing to reduce the excise and sales tax rates by one-third, to 10 percent.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a nationally syndicated columnist.  This article was originally published at reason.com

Democrat majority sticking it to rural Coloradans on energy

Democrat majority sticking it to rural Coloradans on energy 

Democrat majority sticking it to rural Coloradans on energy

Democrat majority sticking it to rural Coloradans on energy

By Mark Hillman
Now that they have regained total control of the State Capitol, Democrat leaders in the legislature just cannot resist kicking rural Colorado every time they get a chance.
It was necessary, they told us, for rural Coloradans — and gun owners everywhere — to compromise our lifestyle and our freedom as part of their irrational quest to make us safer by passing laws that will continue to be ignored by cold-blooded killers like James Holmes, Adam Lanza and the Boston bombers.
Now, Democrats are feeding their green-energy fetish by imposing drastically higher energy costs — 15 to 20 percent higher — on rural families, schools and the farms and ranches that put food on their dining room tables.
This is the price, they have determined, that we must pay to “save the planet” from global warming.
Senate Bill 252, which was introduced barely a month before the legislature mercifully adjourns, would require rural electric associations (REAs) to obtain 25 percent of their electricity from “renewable” sources in just the next six years. Rural cooperatives say the change will cost the average consumer about $400 a year.
In 2004, voters required most Colorado utilities to obtain at least 10 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020; REAs were added, with their support, in 2007. The 16-year implementation horizon recognized that utilities cannot simply flip a switch on solar, wind and other renewable sources. Building wind and solar “farms” takes time. Building transmission lines also takes time — even longer when the very environmentalists who lobby for renewable energy file lawsuits to block construction of transmission lines.
So, just as REAs are preparing to meet the 10 percent standard, sponsors of this bill more than double the requirement without allowing any additional time for implementation.
All of this is terribly wasteful. REAs get their power from Tri-State Generation and Transmission, which has built enough generation facilities to meet its members’ needs. Under this bill, Tri-State will have to build or buy renewable resources that it doesn’t need, while idling those that it’s already built. Those costs must be passed along to customers.
Sponsors of this bill — all Democrats, mostly from metro areas — didn’t bother to consult with REAs when crafting this plan. Instead, they arrogantly adopted a “we know better than you do” attitude, deferred to the green lobby, and chose to cram it down the throat of rural Colorado.
That’s ironic because Xcel Energy, the state’s largest utility, helped craft legislation that increased its own renewable mandate to 30 percent.
The difference between Xcel and the REAs is that the rural cooperatives are owned and governed by their customers. That’s a very effective system of checks and balances — far better than being governed by legislators who know little about REAs and even less about rural communities.
Advocates often tout renewable energy as an economic boost to rural Colorado. The fact is that wind farms provide a short-term boost during construction and a paycheck to a small handful of landowners — while increasing costs to everyone else.
Rural schools, too, will also suffer from higher energy costs. Sen. Greg Brophy (R-Wray) calculated the cost to his hometown school at $30,000 a year. Schools served by REAs will pay a combined $1 million or more annually — at a time when Democrats in the legislature profess concern for school funding.
The bill passed the Senate by a mere one vote margin as two Democrats — Mary Hodge of Brighton and Lois Tochtrop of Thornton – joined Republicans in voting no. Sadly, several rural Democrats — Sen. Gail Schwartz (D-Snowmass Vilalge), Rep. Millie Hamner (D-Dillon), Rep. Mike McLachlan (D-Durango) and Rep. Ed Vigil (D-Fort Garland) — are already pledged as co-sponsors.
Perhaps Democrat leaders in Denver have concluded that they can write off rural Colorado and the voters who live here. This bill certainly gives us one more reason to think so.
Former Colorado treasurer and senate majority leader Mark Hillman farms near Burlington. This op-ed originally appeared in the Sterling Journal-Advocate.  For more info, go to MarkHillman.com.

No oil and gas reps on oil and gas commission? The ban plan is back - Denver Business Journal

No oil and gas reps on oil and gas commission? The ban plan is back - Denver Business Journal

No oil and gas reps on oil and gas commission? The ban plan is back

Colorado state Rep. Mike Foote, D-Lafayette.








A prohibition against industry employees serving on the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is back in a proposal to change the mission of that state agency.
And the bill, which arguably has created the largest divide between supporters and detractors of all measures in the 2013 legislative session, continues to advance.
The Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee gave party-line approval Monday to House Bill 1269, sponsored by Rep. Mike Foote, D-Lafayette.
The measure removes promotion of the oil and gas industry from the COGCC’s mission. It also changes the definition of waste so that state public-safety regulations can get in the way of all resources from being pulled from a well, and also aims to eliminate conflicts of interest on the commission.
Foote originally proposed banning anyone paid by the industry from serving on the COGCC, but removed that provision and strengthened conflict-of-interest disclosure rules instead because he said he wanted to achieve some compromise with opponents.
However, sponsoring Sen. Matt Jones, D-Louisville, got committee Democrats to reinsert the outright industry ban after seeing polling results that showed 84 percent of respondents agreed with the full ban.
“I think we all agree that oil and gas companies should take accountability,” Jones said. “I think this bill does that.”
Actually, testimony at the lengthy afternoon hearing showed there is little upon which backers and opponents of HB 1269 agree.
Changes in 2007 that lessened industry representation on the COGCC and added protection of the environment and wildlife resources already added the balance between industry promotion and public-health considerations for which HB 1269 appears to be shooting, said Mike King, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, which oversees the commission.
And there have been no assertions since then of an individual COGCC member having a conflict on a specific vote, he said.
(Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Arvada, actually questioned whether King testifying against a bill that affected his department was a conflict of interest. However, Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, pointed out that state education officials testify all the time for Democratic-sponsored bills heard in the Senate Education Committee that Hudak chairs.)
Changing the definition of waste to one that allows the state to step in and stop mineral-rights owners from taking all of their property out of the ground constitutes a government taking of private property, argued Scott Campbell, a natural resources attorney with Poulson, Odell & Peterson LLP of Denver.
Plus, making protection of public health and safety the sole mission of the COGCC could allow it to deny well permits if there is found to be even a minor impact on a human, animal or the environment, said Howard Boigon, a partner with the Denver office of Hogan Lovells US LLP and past president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
“This change, while sounding good on the surface, would open almost every decision made by the commission to questions,” Boigon said. “It would unsettle Colorado law, invite obstruction in the regulatory process and create regulatory uncertainty in the industry.”
Yet, Judith Blackburn, a volunteer with the Our Health Our Future Our Longmont campaign that got voters in that city to pass a ban on fracking in November, summarized the feelings of many bill backers when she said: “Maybe Colorado law in this realm needs a little unsettling.”
Former COGCC member Tracy Houpt said that while the commission has the power to regulate how drilling is done in many sites, it has little ability to deny permits — something she believes HB 1269 finally would give it, especially as oil rigs creep closer to homes and neighborhoods.
And many of the Longmont residents who testified for the bill painted it not just as a conflict-of-interest measure but as a law that is needed to curb the power of the oil and gas industry in the state.
Michael Belmont of Longmont said the COGCC “ignores” public-health problems because of industry influence.
And Kaye Fissinger, also of the Longmont citizens’ group, said the COGCC “has never considered the constitutional rights of the state’s citizens.”
She accused drillers of not helping America by selling some products overseas and said that Gov. John Hickenlooper, who sued Longmont for imposing drilling restrictions harsher than the state’s and has expressed concerns with HB 1269, “should be ashamed of himself.”
“I suggest that if you put this vote to people throughout Colorado, at least people in populated areas, you would see something similar in every city, every community,” to the landslide margin of victory with which Longmont passed the fracking ban, Fissinger said.
The attacks on the Democratic Hickenlooper got so harsh, in fact, that Sen. Larry Crowder, R-Alamosa, said: “As a Republican, can I defend the governor? Since the Democrats aren’t, I think maybe I should.”
HB 1269 is headed now to the Senate floor, and if it makes it through there, it is likely to land on Hickenlooper’s desk.
But regardless of what happens, it is fair to say that some people are likely to be very happy and some very angry over what has turned into the most divisive bill of the session on business issues.
Ed Sealover covers government, health care, tourism, airlines and hospitality for the Denver Business Journal and writes for the "Capitol Business" blog. Phone: 303-803-9229.

Monday, April 29, 2013

Is the Oil Industry Really Getting a Sweet Deal on Taxes? - US News and World Report

Is the Oil Industry Really Getting a Sweet Deal on Taxes? - US News and World Report


Is the Oil Industry Really Getting a Sweet Deal on Taxes?

Data shows that despite the breaks Big Oil gets, the industry still pays some of the highest taxes

April 24, 2013 RSS Feed Print

Debate continues on Capitol Hill over if Big Oil should continue reaping the benefits of billions of dollars in tax incentives all while reporting billions in profits.
Debate continues on Capitol Hill over if Big Oil should continue reaping the benefits of billions of dollars in tax incentives all while reporting billions in profits.
With average fuel prices still more than $3.50 a gallon across the nation, oil and gas giants such as Exxon and Shell are often vilified for gouging customers at the pump while their company coffers swell with profits.
As first quarter company earnings trickle out this week and next, that chorus of criticism is only likely to get louder, especially as debate continues to brew on Capitol Hill over whether Big Oil should continue reaping the benefits of billions of dollars in tax incentives all while reporting billions of dollars in profits.
[RELATED: Americans Say Slow Down on Increasing the Gas Tax]
"At a time when oil companies are making more money than ever before, how can we justify giving them billions more in taxpayer subsidies every year?" Obama energy and environment adviser Heather Zichal wrote in a recent post. "And if Congress doesn't vote to eliminate these tax breaks now, then when? How much bigger do oil company profits need to be?"
But the Big Oil is punching back in a new report from industry trade group American Petroleum Institute, arguing that the oil and gas industries already contribute more than their fair share when it comes to taxes and reap pretty average returns compared with other sectors.
Between 2007 and 2012, the oil and gas industry paid an effective tax rate of almost 45 percent according to the API report, compared to the healthcare industry, which paid about 35 percent and pharmaceuticals, which paid around 21 percent. Why the big discrepancy? Oil and gas companies have to go where the oil and gas are, which is sometimes overseas, subjecting U.S.-based firms to higher taxes on overseas income. In addition, oil companies pay state and local taxes.
[ENJOY: Political Cartoons on Energy Policy]
Indeed, of the top 10 companies paying the highest income taxes in 2012, oil industry companies took the first two slots, according to rankings by USA Today. ExxonMobil was number one, paying more than $31 billion in income taxes last year followed by Chevron, which paid $20 billion. Computer hardware company Apple came in third, paying about $14.2 billion in income tax.
"The oil and gas sector is a heavily-taxed sector, and what critics call 'tax loopholes' available to the oil and gas industry are available to all other manufacturing and mining [companies]," says Bernard L. Weinstein, associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University.
While the industry's tax bill might be monstrous, its profit margins aren't, according to API, at least compared to other industries. Oil and natural gas companies posted a 7.3 percent profit margin as a group, according to data from Standard & Poor's Research Insight. That's compared to 8.6 percent for the manufacturing sector, 16 percent for pharmaceuticals and a whopping 19.3 percent for beverage and tobacco companies.
[OPINION: Obama Recycles Old Plan to Tax Oil and Gas]
Those figures translate to relatively unexceptional earnings overall according to experts, especially given the size of the industry as a whole and the high cost associated with energy exploration and production. Over the past five years, average net income in the oil and gas industry has averaged about 8 cents for every dollar of sales according to S&P, roughly in line with U.S. Census data for the broader manufacturing sector. More recently, that's fallen to about 5.5 cents on the dollar compared to 7.7 cents on the dollar for manufacturing.
"The common perception is that the oil and gas industry earns unreasonably high profits, but that comes from the nominal numbers," Weinstein says. "There are huge costs associated with energy exploration and production, so it's not appropriate to look at profitability in gross terms."
But despite the disparities in tax rates and profit margins highlighted by the API report, aggregate numbers comparing industries aren't terribly meaningful according to Clint Stretch, senior tax policy counsel at premier tax publisher Tax Analyst. According to Stretch, the diversity of companies operating in the oil and gas space makes it difficult to make accurate sweeping statements about the entire industry. It's just not apples to apples.
"It'd be like looking at your kid's high school and saying all the kids have IQs of 110," Stretch says. "The average might be 110, but there are going to be some kids with 120 IQs and some kids with 100 IQs."

George Washington's Visions and Prophecies

George Washington's Visions and Prophecies

George Washington's Visions and Prophecies



George Washington's vision is recorded at the Library of Congress









Valley Forge, the winter of 1777, American forces were fighting against the British, the most powerful nation in the world. Many believe that only 3% of the American people took part in the struggle for independence, while "Tories" gave aid and comfort to the British cause.
"This afternoon, as I was sitting at this table engaged in preparing a dispatch, something seemed to disturb me. Looking up, I beheld standing opposite me a singularly beautiful female. So astonished was I, for I had given strict orders not to be disturbed, that it was some moments before I found language to inquire the cause of her presence. A second, a third and even a fourth time did I repeat my question, but received no answer from my mysterious visitor except a slight raising of her eyes.
"By this time I felt strange sensations spreading through me. I would have risen but the riveted gaze of the being before me rendered volition impossible. I assayed once more to address her, but my tongue had become useless, as though it had become paralyzed.
"A new influence, mysterious, potent, irresistible, took possession of me. All I could do was to gaze steadily, vacantly at my unknown visitor, Gradually the surrounding atmosphere seemed as if it had become filled with sensations, and luminous. Everything about me seemed to rarify, the mysterious visitor herself becoming more airy and yet more distinct to my sight than before. I now began to feel as one dying, or rather to experience the sensations which I have sometimes imagined accompany dissolution. I did not think, I did not reason, I did not move; all were alike impossible. I was only conscious of gazing fixedly, vacantly at my companion.
"Presently I heard a voice saying, `Son of the Republic, look and learn,' while at the same time my visitor extended her arm eastwardly. I now beheld a heavy white vapor at some distance rising fold upon fold. This gradually dissipated, and I looked upon a strange scene. Before me lay spread out in one vast plain all the countries of the world; Europe, Asia, Africa and America. I saw rolling and tossing between Europe and America the billows of the Atlantic, and between Asia and America lay the Pacific.
" `Son of the Republic' said the same mysterious voice as before, `look and learn,' At that moment I beheld a dark, shadowy being, like an angel, standing, or rather floating in mid-air, between Europe and America. Dipping water out of the ocean in the hollow of each hand, he sprinkled some upon America with his right hand, while with his left hand he cast some on Europe. Immediately a cloud raised from these countries, and joined in mid-ocean. For a while it remained stationary, and then moved slowly westward, until it enveloped America in its murky folds. Sharp flashes of lightning gleamed through it at intervals, and I heard the smothered groans and cries of the American people.
"A second time the angel dipped water from the ocean, and sprinkled it out as before. The dark cloud was then drawn back to the ocean, in whose heaving billows it sank from view. A third time I heard the mysterious voice saying, `Son of the Republic, look and learn,' I cast my eyes upon America and beheld villages and towns and cities springing up one after another until the whole land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was dotted with them.
"Again, I heard the mysterious voice say, `Son of the Republic, the end of the century cometh, look and learn.' At this the dark shadowy angel turned his face southward, and from Africa I saw an ill-omened spectre approach our land. It flitted slowly over every town and city of the latter. The inhabitants presently set themselves in battle array against each other. As I continued looking I a saw bright angel, on whose brow rested a crown of light, on which was traced the word `Union,' bearing the American flag which he placed between the divided nation, and said, `Remember ye are brethren.' Instantly, the inhabitants, casting from them their weapons became friends once more, and united around the National Standard.
"And again I heard the mysterious voice saying, `Son of the Republic, look and learn.' At this the dark, shadowy angel placed a trumpet to his mouth, and blew three distinct blasts; and taking water from the ocean, he sprinkled it upon Europe, Asia and Africa. Then my eyes beheld a fearful scene: from each of these countries arose thick, black clouds that were soon joined into one. Throughout this mass there gleamed a dark red light by which I saw hordes of armed men, who, moving with the cloud, marched by land and sailed by sea to America. Our country was enveloped in this volume of cloud, and I saw these vast armies devastate the whole country and burn the villages, towns and cities that I beheld springing up. As my ears listened to the thundering of the cannon, clashing of swords, and the shouts and cries of millions in mortal combat, I heard again the mysterious voice saying, `Son of the Republic, look and learn.' When the voice had ceased, the dark shadowy angel placed his trumpet once more to his mouth, and blew a long and fearful blast.
"Instantly a light as of a thousand suns shone down from above me, and pierced and broke into fragments the dark cloud which enveloped America. At the same moment the angel upon whose head still shone the word Union, and who bore our national flag in one hand and a sword in the other, descended from the heavens attended by legions of white spirits. These immediately joined the inhabitants of America, who I perceived were well nigh overcome, but who immediately taking courage again, closed up their broken ranks and renewed the battle.
"Again, amid the fearful noise of the conflict, I heard the mysterious voice saying, `Son of the Republic, look and learn.' As the voice ceased, the shadowy angel for the last time dipped water from the ocean and sprinkled it upon America. Instantly the dark cloud rolled back, together with the armies it had brought, leaving the inhabitants of the land victorious!
"Then once more I beheld the villages, towns and cities springing up where I had seen them before, while the bright angel, planting the azure standard he had brought in the midst of them, cried with o loud voice" `While the stars remain, and the heavens send down dew upon the earth, so long shall the Union last.' And taking from his brow the crown on which blazoned the word `UNION,' he placed it upon the Standard while the people, kneeling down, said, `Amen.'
"The scene instantly began to fade and dissolve, and I at last saw nothing but the rising, curling vapor I at first beheld. This also disappearing, I found myself once more gazing upon the mysterious visitor, who, in the same voice I had heard before, said, `Son of the Republic, what you have seen is thus interpreted: three great perils will come upon the Republic. The most fearful is the third, but in this greatest conflict the whole world united shall not prevail against her. Let every child of the Republic learn to live for his God, his land and the Union. With these words the vision vanished, and I started from my seat and felt that I had seen a vision wherein had been shown to me the birth, progress and destiny of the United States."
In his farewell address, Washington spoke of several avenues of tyranny, including selfish ambition (with pretended patriotism,) collusion of powers, usurpation and precedence of usurpation, debt, foreign influence, and rank party politics.
As for collusion of powers, he warned, "The habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism."
On usurpation, he warned, "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield."
George Washington's last words were "Tis well."

An Open Letter To The U.S. Secret Service

An Open Letter To The U.S. Secret Service

An Open Letter To The U.S. Secret Service

President with Secret Service Detail SC An Open Letter To The U.S. Secret Service
Dear Sirs and Madams,
It must be getting tougher by the day to serve two masters. On one hand, you must serve the American people by upholding the U.S. Constitution; you have sworn to God that you would defend and protect it while serving in the capacity of protecting the office of the President of the United States. On the other hand, you must protect the Muslim/Communist plant who currently holds this office. It must be an extremely tough job, knowing that you may have to take a bullet for someone who is hell-bent on destroying America. You must not get very much sleep at night.
You are bound by your oath to protect a man who wouldn’t think twice about throwing you under the bus, such as he did with the Latin America hooker scandal. You are forced to go out and investigate average American citizens just because they have the GUTS to stand up and voice their opinions against this illegal regime. I believe that your efforts would be better served if you upheld your OATH to the Constitution and investigated the DOMESTIC ENEMY in the White house (a  job that Congress and the mainstream media couldn’t seem to find time to do.) You may be surprised.
Why don’t you start with Obama’s ties to the Weather Underground TERRORIST Bill Ayers. Or maybe the illegal gunrunning operation known as Fast and Furious. Or, if you get bored with that, try the illegal gunrunning operation through Turkey into Syria, during which our U.S. Ambassador and three other brave Americans were killed in Benghazi, Libya (the Obama regime continues to cover this up.) Or maybe you can look into the reasons why LTC. Terry Lakin, the chief surgeon for the joint chiefs of staff, refused to deploy to Afghanistan because he had reason to believe that Barack Hussein Obama is not a legal POTUS.
How about going back to basics and just starting the vetting process of Obama himself? I’m sure that Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ could help you out with that one. Much to investigate there, from a FORGED birth certificate to a stolen social security number and forged draft card. Or how about studying what the Constitution says about a President of the United States heading up the United Nations Security Council? No need to chase your tails around the U.S. to make sure that NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZENS are not a threat to the office of the President. THE REAL THREAT TO AMERICA IS THE PRESIDENT, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA! Godspeed, my friends, if you do your jobs and investigate the man whom YOU are supposed to take a bullet for. As I always tell my readers, stay safe and be aware of your surroundings.

Iraq 10 years later: George W. Bush is still right | Washington Times Communities

Iraq 10 years later: George W. Bush is still right | Washington Times Communities


Iraq 10 years later: George W. Bush is still right

On anniversary ten of the Iraq War, let's cut out the lies. It was and still is the right war at the right time with the right President. Photo: George W. Bush
WASHINGTON,  March 20, 2013 — Ten years ago, after seventeen broken United Nations resolutions, President George W. Bush enforced Resolution 1441. America was now engaging in regime change designed to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq. It took about three weeks to realize that goal, and in 2004 Hussein was caught in a spider hole.
Soon after that Saddam was hung.
Like America in 1776, Iraq got off to a very rocky start. President Bush hired General David Petraeus to salvage things, and the 2007 surge of troops was a spectacular success. The Iraq War was won, and Iraq is now on its way to becoming a functioning if imperfect democracy.
Ten years later the Iraq War was still absolutely the right thing to do. Saddam was a madman and a monster. He had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He used them, and they are probably in Syria now. Yet liberals still hate the Iraq War and America’s involvement in it more than they hated the genocidal lunatic we removed.
Their cries are still shrill, and still false.
“The war was illegal.” No it wasn’t. We went through the U.N. that liberals worship.
“The war was immoral.” No it wasn’t. We freed people held captive and liberated them.
“The war was for oil.” No it wasn’t. We could have taken the oil. We didn’t.
“Bush lied.” No he didn’t. Liberals still cannot point out any actual lie. Perhaps they meant Fast and Furious or Benghazi.
“WMD.” Nobody cares. That’s not why we went to war. That’s the excuse liberals invented to give themselves an out. Besides, Saddam did have them. Republicans who apologized should be blamed for doing so when no apology was necessary. Saddam acted like he had them. If he lied, he got what he deserved anyway.
“We should have gone after Iran instead.” Wrong. We should have gone after both of them. Vice President Cheney wanted to hit Iran in 2008 and the liberals howled about another war. In the five years since the left has had control and President Obama did nothing to slow Iran.
“It created more terrorists.” No it didn’t. It killed them. Days after Saddam was captured, Ghadafi voluntarily turned over his weapons program. He got the message.
“Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.” Nobody said he did. Saddam did have everything to do with worldwide terrorism. He funded Palestinian suicide bombers to blow up Israeli citizens.
“We’re not the United States of Israel.” The anti-Semitic left is so classy, and not worthy of having their comments dignified.
“Afghanistan was the good war.” The minute the left retreated from Iraq, the Code Pink (Democratic) Party planned the surrender from Afghanistan. The modern Democratic Party would have lost World War II if given the chance.
“I’m glad Saddam is gone, but…” No but. Either one stood with Dubya or one stood with Saddam. I’ll stand with “The Dub.”
It is hypocritical for liberals to say they are glad Saddam is gone without praising George W. Bush for removing him. Saddam was not removed by osmosis. He was removed by force. Liberals wanted to lose the war because they hated Bush more than they loved this country.
The Bush-bashers lost and the Saddam-bashers won.
The Neoconservatives were validated everywhere but in the liberal media. Where it mattered, on the battlefield, the Neocons got it right. Liberals unable to accept this should break out their peace pipes and Ouija boards, hold a seance, bring Saddam back, and live under him in Iraq.
Bush Derangement Syndrome prevents liberals from living principled lives. Human rights goes out the window if it means giving Bush an ounce of credit. Liberals wanted to lose the war so they could win the White House in 2004. Bush refused to allow any of that to happen.
In another decade, liberals will still be bashing what Dianne Feinstein called “Bush’s war.” She was right about that. It was his war. Thanks to his leadership and the greatest military on Earth, it was won.
Forcibly removing Saddam Hussein was, is still now, always, and forever will have been the right thing to do. 

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2013/mar/20/iraq-10-years-later-george-w-bush-still-right/#ixzz2Rr02Khnf
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Donna Brazile, George W. Bush, and the truth about Hurricane Katrina | Washington Times Communities

Donna Brazile, George W. Bush, and the truth about Hurricane Katrina | Washington Times Communities

Donna Brazile, George W. Bush, and the truth about Hurricane Katrina

Al Gore's former 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile finally revealed the truth about President George W. Bush and Hurricane Katrina. Photo: AP
LOS ANGELES, April 26, 2013 — One day after a beautiful ceremony commemorating the George W. Bush presidential library, a bombshell was dropped by one of his former fiercest political opponents.
Donna Brazile wrote a column praising President Bush for his handling of Hurricane Katrina. The 2005 hurricane devastated New Orleans. It also ruined Bush’s second term by obliterating the rationale for his original candidacy: competence.
The Bush team told the world that the adults were back in charge, and the narrative out of Katrina was that Bush had failed to lead. The worst accusation came from rapper Kanye West, who claimed that Bush left people to die in New Orleans because he did not care about black people.
The man who promised to “restore honor and dignity to the White House” was now a bumbling, racist, Southern dumb hick, the very caricature his leftist critics always wanted him to be.
The problem is this was never true.
West has since apologized for his remarks about Bush.
Donna Brazile is no ordinary woman. She is a partisan Democrat and proud of it. As Al Gore’s 2000 campaign manager, over a period of two years, her life was dedicated to keeping Bush out of the White House.
She currently is a commentator on CNN, a network every bit as liberal as MSNBC without admitting it. Brazile also happens to be a black woman who grew up in the South. New Orleans was not just a symbol. It was her home. 
So her words about how Bush really handled Hurricane Katrina should be read over and over until those images are seared into every human mind. 
“Every member of my family was displaced by Katrina. Last year, I lost both my father and sister. But I had them with me that much longer because they were rescued from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
“Bush understood the need for civility. I joined him despite my frustration because the need was too great for finger-pointing and blame-making. He flew to New Orleans and addressed the nation.
“George W. Bush was good as his word. He visited the Gulf states 17 times; went 13 times to New Orleans. Laura Bush made 24 trips. Bush saw that $126 billion in aid was sent to the Gulf’s residents, as some members of his own party in Congress balked.”
“Bush put a special emphasis on rebuilding schools and universities. He didn’t forget African-Americans: Bush provided $400 million to the historically black colleges, now integrated, that remain a pride, and magnet for African-American students. Laura Bush, a librarian, saw to it that thousands of books ruined by the floods were replaced.”
“Our recovery can be credited to the civility and tireless efforts of President Bush and other Americans…”
Once again, a myth concocted by liberals to destroy Bush personally and drag down his presidency has been proven false. He did and does care about people. People of all races. The dignity of every human being a a creature of God matters to him. He did get the job done during Katrina.
Capable Mississippi Republican leaders cooperated with him while incompetent Democratic Louisiana leaders fought him every step of the way and let the Big Easy get washed away. 
The Bush White House was guilty of lousy public relations, because Bush believed deeds mattered more than words. He still believes this, and refuses to defend himself against scurrilous attacks.
Brazile should have spoken up sooner. I interviewed her at the 2008 GOP Convention in Minneapolis, and she volunteered that Trent Lott “saved her family.” 
She did not mention Bush. She was as gracious as can be, but she had elections to win. 
I delayed publishing my interview with her until after the 2008 election specifically to avoid praising a high-ranking liberal Democrat during the campaign. So throwing stones at her from my glass house is not going to happen.
Late is better than never, and conservatives should be grateful to Ms. Brazile for (belatedly) allowing integrity and the truth to supersede partisanship. 
It it is too late to undo the poison inflicted on a good, decent man trying to lead the War on Terror. It is not too late to make sure that the history books view this man with the kindness and praise he deserves. 
READ MORE: The Tygrrrr Express by Eric Golub

Read more: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2013/apr/26/donna-brazile-george-w-bush-and-truth-about-hurric/#ixzz2RqzUlYTX
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In Favor Of Redistribution - Forbes

Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In Favor Of Redistribution

Why the Fuss? Obama Has Long Been On Record In F

In 2001, then state senator and University of Chicago law lecturer, Barack Obama, sat down for a public radio interview. At the time, he did not anticipate a near-term run for the presidency. He spoke candidly and deliberately about how to “break free” of Constitutional constraints against redistribution to provide “economic justice.” In the course of his interview, Obama laid out the electoral strategy of cobbling together the  “power coalitions” that have been the hallmark of his 2012 re-election campaign.
Politicians are said to speak the truth only by mistake. As his political career took off unexpectedly, Obama subsequently hid his views on redistribution, except in unguarded moments, such as “you didn’t build that” or “spreading the wealth around is good.” But on that day in 2001 in a Chicago public radio station, Obama candidly expounded his political and social philosophy as shaped by his critical-legal studies professors at Harvard and his experience as a community organizer in Chicago.
The 2001 “Obama Raw” interview remains the one definitive Obama soliloquy on the Constitution, redistribution, and economic justice. Strangely, it has not entered the discourse of the 2012 campaign, although a diluted version (“I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot,” Loyola University, October 1998) is currently making the rounds.  But it is Obama’s 2001 interview that represents, if ever there was one in politics, the smoking gun.
Obama’s radio interview offers four main take aways, which I summarize using his own words where possible:
First: “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” (Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy).
Second, Obama regrets that the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights and that “we have not broken free” of these Constitutional impediments.  Obama views the absence of positive economic liberties that the government must supply as a flaw in the Constitution that must be corrected as part of a liberal political agenda.
Third, Obama concludes that we cannot use the courts to break free of the limited-government constraints of the Founders. The courts are too tradition and precedent bound “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the liberal Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”  Obama opines that the civil-rights movement’s court successes cannot be duplicated with respect to income redistribution: The “mistake of the civil rights movement was (that it) became so court focused” and “lost track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground…In some ways we still suffer from that (mistake).”
Fourth, Obama argues that economic rights that the state must supply are ultimately to be established at the ballot box. Those who favor redistribution must gain legislative control through an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” The electoral task of a redistributive President is therefore to craft coalitions of those who stand to benefit from government largess. The legislature, not the courts, must do this “reparative economic work.”
In sum, Obama views the Constitution as a flawed document from which we must “break free.” We need, instead, a “living” Constitution that refocuses from “negative rights” to requiring income redistribution from the Haves to provide “positive economic rights” to the Have Nots.
Obama’s 2001 interview provides a clear statement of a judicial philosophy that displays little interest in the original intent of the Constitution. A second-term Obama would surely nominate judges who share his “living Constitution” principles.
The 2012 election is the first test of Obama’s “slice and dice” strategy of assembling power coalitions in favor of redistributive change. In 2008, extreme voter disaffection with George Bush and the alarming economic downturn allowed him to run as the “Hope and Change” candidate, reaching across party lines and racial divides.
Three and a half years later, “power-coalition” Obama has replaced “president-of-all-the-people” Obama.  His administration has granted government largess to organized labor (the GM bailout), green environmentalists (Solyndra), minorities of all stripes (racial quotas), and single women (free birth control). He counts on each to deliver their bloc votes. He is, apparently, prepared to write off major voting groups, such as white men and married women, but if he can patch together enough disaffected interest groups, he can win.
Obama must, however, attract enough voters who do not stand to gain materially from his electoral victory. He needs idealists, feel-gooders, and others so oriented who buy his argument that the government must take care of  his coalition members as a positive right.
The candid 2001 Obama openly conceded that positive economic rights and redistribution are part and parcel of the same package. The 2012 Obama argues for positive rights to income, jobs, health care, food, and other transfers without admitting they require massive redistribution. Instead, he intimates they can be covered by “those who do not pay their fair share.”
Crafting an electoral majority from power coalitions in favor of redistribution is not an easy matter. Obama’s disaffection with the Constitution and his pleas for larger  unconstrained government go against the grain of American thinking. Public opinion polls show that Americans favor limited government, are not jealous of success (which they hope to achieve for themselves), and fear big government “as the greatest threat.” If Obama clearly admitted that positive economic rights require fundamental redistribution, he would lose too many votes from outside of his power coalitions.
The 2012 election stacks up as a stark choice between two competing political philosophies. The Democrats favor expanding entitlements, big government, and redistribution. The Republicans carry, albeit inarticulately, the banner of limited government, less redistribution, and protection of private property. Voters must decide whether they want a government that “first…controls the governed; and in the next place obliges it to control itself” or to “break free” from the Constitution’s “negative liberties” that constrain redistribution. If we want to be protected from government, vote Romney/Ryan. If we want government protect us, as government sees fit, vote Obama/Biden.
An Obama electoral victory based on “power coalitions” unconstrained by “negative rights” would fulfill the Founders’ dread of  an “overbearing majority.” As James Madison warned in 1787:  “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.…. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”
The Constitution’s framers used the separation of powers and the Bill of Rights (most importantly the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment) to render “the overbearing majority …unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.” It is these “negative rights” that Obama proposes to eliminate. With them disappear restraints on limited government, and anything goes.
The Obama administration has given us a taste of an overbearing majority’s “schemes of oppression” (to use Madison’s words) not decided “according to rules of justice and the rights of the minor party:” the blackmailing of Chrysler bondholders, the transfer of property from creditors and shareholders to organized labor in the GM bailout, the attempted destruction of whole industries, such as coal,  through regulation rather than legislation, transfers of income from lenders to borrowers under forced loan renegotiations, and the use of unelected and unapproved economic czars to redistribute income and wealth by executive fiat.
The “overbearing majority” will not understand the destructive consequences of positive economic rights and redistribution until it is too late. In the meantime, they will have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. People are prepared to voluntarily redistribute income through private charity, but large-scale forced redistribution has always led to economic catastrophe, irrespective of time and place. If lenders are forced to renegotiate terms of loans, why should they lend? If manufacturers are required to hire only expensive union labor, why should they not relocate abroad? If political decisions are dictated by a majority that does not pay taxes, why should tax payers not earn less, report less, or move elsewhere?
In a burst of what today might be regarded as political incorrectness, Madison wrote in 1787: “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties (by what Obama calls “negative rights”) is the first object of government.” In modern English: It is government’s job and duty to protect the rights of those who succeed, even if the majority wishes to take these rights away. That is the test of character of a democratic government.
Paul Gregory’s new book The Global Economy and its Economic Systems will be published shortly by Cengage.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Obama Signs Firearm And Ammo Killswitch | International

Obama Signs Firearm And Ammo Killswitch | International

Obama Signs Firearm And Ammo Killswitch

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 18:12
President Obama has side-stepped Congress by implementing portions of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty through an executive order which can be used to ban the import of all firearms, ammunition and related supplies and accessories.
While patriots across the nation rejoiced when the US congress rejected flat on its face an attempt to force the United States into the UN Small Arms Treaty just weeks later a more sinister ulterior motive has been revealed.
Today, President Obama by passed congress and signed an executive which gives the federal government a power to completely ban the importation of guns, ammunition and even parts and accessories related to firearms.
While the UN Small Arms Treaty would have prevented the United States from both importing and exporting weapons, Obama has effectively signed on to the treaty with his new executive order while allowing the United States to export weapons of deaths to covertly funded clandestine operations in overseas nations where it seeks to further its imperialistic agenda.
At the same time, with nearly every other nation in the world signing on to the UN Small Arms treaty, other nations are now banned from doing the same which further leverages the United State’s power of shotgun diplomacy in nations that refuse to be puppets for the globalist elites that control America.
Back in the homeland Americans now face a dire situation.
With the United States government already having complete control over domestic corporations the power to ban all international imports effectively create what is nothing short of a firearm and ammunition killswitch.
At the same time, despite our elected representatives rejecting such legislation flat on its face, dictatorial executive orders continue to be enacted.
Not only are we being subject to international rules and regulations mandated by the UN, without any representation in the process, we also not longer are being represented in major political decisions being made at home.
This comes as the media has spent the last several days repeatedly selling the public on the notion that it is okay for the government to suspend the constitutional rights of a citizen at anytime and haul them off to a CIA blacksite to be tortured in the wake of the Boston Bombings.
In this video BeforeItsNews.com staff writer Alexander Higgins joins Arch Angel to discuss the newly signed executive order and how it has effectively set the stage for the government to completely suspend the constitution.

This hard hitting piece from Mac Slavo at ShtfPlan.com explains the order in detail.

Obama To Ban Importation of Ammo, Magazines and Accessories Without Congressional Approval

Over the course of the last month, while Americans were distracted with the threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and the devastation wrought by the Boston bombings, President Obama was quietly working behind the scenes to craft laws and regulations that will further erode the Second Amendment.
Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March which aimed to outlaw most semi-automatic rifles, restrict magazine capacity, and force national registration, but that didn’t stop the President from ceding regulatory control over firearms importation to the United Nations just two weeks later. What the UN Arms Trade Treaty, passed without media fanfare by 154 counties, would do is to restrict the global trade of, among other things, small arms and light weapons. Opponents of the treaty argue that loopholes within the new international framework for global gun control may make it illegal for Americans to purchase and import firearms manufactured outside of the United States.
To further his gun-grabbing agenda, however, President Obama and his administration didn’t stop there.
Now they’re taking another significant step against Americans’ right to bear arms – and they’re doing it through Presidential Executive Action, a strategy that, once again, bypasses Congressional oversight and the legislative process.
…it appears that the BHO Administration is taking executive action on firearms importation. Take a few minutes to read this: After Senate setback, Obama quietly moving forward with gun regulation. Here is the key portion of the article:
“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services — U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]
Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use. That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.
I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket.
Source: James Rawles’ Survival Blog via The Prepper Website
Just five days ago the President vowed to push forward on gun control without Congress and Nancy Pelosi argued that no matter what Congress says, gun control is inevitable.
This latest round of Executive Actions is what they meant.
A direct on attack on the Second Amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade so we can’t import new firearms, by restricting access to accessories and gun parts, by heavily taxing ammunition and gun purchases, by mandating policies like forcing gun owners to have liability insurance, and of course, by identifying potentially dangerous gun owners and simply taking their firearms because of public safety concerns.
The President recently suggested that the American people have spoken, and that they want guns to be restricted, banned and heavily regulated.
If that’s so, then how is that a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly rejected the President’s bid to restrict and outlaw private ownership of millions of weapons and gun accessories?
Going through the United Nations and now implementing Executive Actions to bypass America’s Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances is an act of desperation.
Those who would take our rights have been left with no choice but to try and force their agenda upon us through dictatorial means.
Source: SHTF Plan

WND » Americans fear government more than terror

WND » Americans fear government more than terror 

Americans fear government more than terror

Astonishing poll results for 1st time since 9/11 hijackings

According to a pair of recent polls, for the first time since the 9/11 terrorist hijackings, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.
Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing – in which a pair of Islamic radicals are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 280 – the polls suggest Americans are hesitant to give up any further freedoms in exchange for increased “security.”
A Fox News survey polling a random national sample of 619 registered voters the day after the bombing found despite the tragic event, those interviewed responded very differently than following 9/11.
For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”
Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45 percent answered no to the question, compared to 43 percent answering yes.
In May 2001, before 9/11, the balance was similar, with 40 percent answering no to 33 percent answering yes.
But following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the numbers flipped dramatically, to 71 percent agreeing to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism.
Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. Yet the numbers were declining from 71 percent following 9/11 to only 54 percent by May 2006.
Now, it would seem, the famous quote widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin – “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” – is holding more sway with Americans than it has in over a dozen years.
A similar poll sampling 588 adults, conducted on April 17 and 18 for the Washington Post, also discovered the change in attitude.
“Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”
The poll found 48 percent of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41 percent who worry it won’t go far enough.
And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a fresh development, as only 44 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27 percent worried the government would go too far in January 2010.
The Fox News poll was unique in that it further broke the responses down by political affiliation:
  • Bucking the trend, 51 percent of Democrats responded they would give up personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36 percent opposed.
  • Forty-seven percent of Republicans, on the other hand, opposed giving up freedoms, compared to only 43 percent in favor.
  • Yet independents were the most resistant, with only 29 percent willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58 percent stood opposed.
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.

Death by “Gun Control” | Alternative

Death by “Gun Control”

Death by “Gun Control”

Sunday, April 28, 2013 8:17
JPFO -
Why must all decent non-violent people fight against “gun control”? Why is the right to keep and bear arms truly a fundamental individual right? You can find the answers in this new book.
People frequently ask why we are so dedicated to our cause? This book answers that question by collecting the key facts and arguments in one place.
People have asked us to present the whole JPFO argument in one place. We have done it. Available now in an easy-reading format and a handy size, the new book is entitled Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament.
The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe – they become the criminals’ prey and the tyrants’ playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.
Professor R.J. Rummel, author of the monumental book Death by Government, said: “Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.” For power to concentrate and become dangerous, the citizens must be disarmed.
What disarms the citizens? The idea of “gun control.” It’s the idea that only the government has the right to possess firearms, and that citizens have no unalienable right to use force to defend against aggression.
Death by Gun Control carefully examines the “gun control” idea: its meaning, its purposes, its effects. It comes in many forms, but in every form it enables the evildoers and works against righteous defense.
smalline
Back to Top

The Mother of All Stats
The Human Cost of “Gun Control” Ideas
The Genocide Chart © JPFO.org 2002
Government Dates Targets Civilians Killed   “Gun Control” Laws  Features of Over-all “Gun Control” scheme
Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians       (mostly Christians) 1-1.5 million Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866 & 1911 Proclamation, 1915 • Permits required •Government list of owners •Ban on possession
Soviet Union 1929-1945 Political opponents;       farming communities 20 million Resolutions, 1918       Decree, July 12, 1920       Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 •Licensing of owners •Ban on possession •Severe penalties
Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Political opponents;       Jews; Gypsies;       critics; “examples” 20 million Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928       Weapon Law, March 18, 1938       Regulations against Jews, 1938 •Registration & Licensing •Stricter handgun laws •Ban on possession
China, Nationalist 1927-1949 Political opponents;       army conscripts; others 10 million Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914       Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935 •Government permit system •Ban on private ownership
China, Red 1949-1952       1957-1960       1966-1976 Political opponents;       Rural populations       Enemies of the state 20-35 million Act of Feb. 20, 1951       Act of Oct. 22, 1957 •Prison or death to “counter-revolutionary criminals” and anyone resisting any government program •Death penalty for supply guns to such “criminals”
Guatemala 1960-1981 Mayans & other Indians;       political enemies 100,000-       200,000 Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932       Decree 386, 1947       Decree 283, 1964 •Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees •Prohibit carrying guns •Bans on guns, sharp tools •Confiscation powers
Uganda 1971-1979 Christians       Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955       Firearms Act, 1970 •Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions •Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers
Cambodia       (Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 Educated Persons;       Political enemies 2 million Art. 322-328, Penal Code       Royal Ordinance 55, 1938 •Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions •Photo ID with fingerprints •License inspected quarterly
Rwanda 1994 Tutsi people 800,000 Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 •Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify  need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers
Back to Top
  Addition – For easier chart printing, download the Genocide Chart PDF file, it includes a text synopsis of this page.
When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime stats to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses. Death by Gun Control works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.
Read More: jpfo.org
2013-04-28 06:45:22
Source: http://www.oneworldchronicle.com/?p=13882

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming | The Daily Caller

Scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming

Climate scientists come to terms with the lack of global warming

Michael Bastasch
 
Despite the heated rhetoric from the Obama administration and environmental groups about the urgency of global warming, climate scientists have begun to come to terms with the lack of evidence of catastrophic global warming over the last decade.
“While some climate scientists continue to resist the obvious that the climate system is more complex than they assumed, others are starting to accept that the multi-decadal climate projections provide very incomplete simulations has to how the real climate system works,” Roger Pielke, Jr., environmental studies professor at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Establishment media outlets have been reporting about the unexpected stabilizing global surface temperatures over at least the last decade, and even former NASA scientist and environmental activist James Hansen has recognized the decade-long lull.
This has frustrated some environmentalists who recently sent a letter to major news networks urging them to have more coverage on global warming, and to stop portraying the issue as a “two-sided debate” by featuring global warming skeptics.
“The divergence of the real world observations from the multi-decadal climate predictions, both in terms of forecasting the magnitude of global warming and of changes in regional climate, is finally initiating a much overdue scientific debate on the level of our knowledge of the climate system,” Pielke added. “While there is no doubt that humans are altering the climate system, it is in a diverse variety of ways besides that caused by adding greenhouse gases such as C02.”
Pielke said that climate scientists are beginning to recognize that the natural climate forces and feedbacks play a larger role than previously thought.
“This is a highly complex calculation to make in the first place. The short period of time, only 10 years in which the increasing temperature has leveled, really doesn’t tell us very much other than the fact that temperatures may still be rising but just not as fast as they were before,” said Elgie Holstein, the senior director for strategic planning at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Fox News.
“The mainstream media cannot maintain the official man-made global warming narrative any longer,” Marc Morano of the climate skeptic website ClimateDepot.com told TheDC News Foundation. “With the lack of warming and the failure to shift the climate debate to ‘extreme weather,’ warmists are now losing once stalwart members of the media in promoting man-made climate fears.”
A study by Norwegian researchers from earlier this year found that global warming is less severe than was predicted by the United Nations climate authority. In fact, studies have been lowering their warming forecasts since the 2007 UN estimate.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/26/climate-scientists-come-to-terms-with-the-lack-of-global-warming/#ixzz2RfaGWLsP