Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Yes you read that headline correctly. Barack Obama is headed off to Hawaii for a 17 day long vacation...17 days. Apparently his 10 day swanky Martha's Vineyard vacation back in August just wasn't enough. No wonder Obama likes Europe so much, he acts just like them. This will be Obama's 10th vacation in three years as president.
While most Americans are lucky to get a few weeks of holiday every year, it seems the country’s leader gets a little more freedom in the matter.
President Barack Obama has announced his Christmas vacation to Hawaii – for a staggering 17-day trip.
Obama, who visited the island just two weeks ago for an economic summit, will head to Honolulu on Saturday December 17 until Monday January 2.
And the cost:
The President's family covers the cost of a private beach front residence in Kailua, Oahu, for their vacation - a ‘Winter White House’ that costs up to $3,500 a day, or $75,000 a month.
But the local and federal taxpayers help pay the bill for travel and security.
Last year the trip cost more than $1 million,according to the Hawaii Reporter.
Say it with me: Out. of. touch.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
Well considering, Clinton's eyes glazed over about mid way through Cain's response to his incorrect math, then Clinton cut Cain off and finished rambling about the same numbers that Cain already pointed out were wrong... I'd say Round 1 goes to Cain!
We could learn so much from this amazing woman. She rips apart her critics and exposes them for the economic fools they are, all while referring to them as "honorable"... Awesome!
Well if I had Melvin in my name, I'd probably be nervous about women defending themselves with guns too.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
From The Cult of Che (Don't applaud The Motorcycle Diaries) By Paul Berman
Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale. read more
Monday, October 17, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
So everyone knows how Republicans/Conservatives are rich, greedy people who only care about themselves and how Democrats/Liberals are the sweet, compassionate ones, right? Well I personally never really bought the whole, republicans are for the rich and liberals are for the poor line, so I decided to do a little research on the matter... Yep, I googled it and here's just one of the many articles that I found that not only showed that Conservatives give more time and money to charity than Liberals do but... That's right, on average Liberals have higher incomes than Conservatives.
-- "Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227"). Read full article here
So in other words, Liberals are great at giving away other peoples money but when it comes to their own... Eh, not so much!
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Can't wait to see what the Congressional White Caucus has to say about this...
Obama‘s speech to the annual awards dinner of the Congressional Black Caucus was his answer to increasingly vocal griping from black leaders that he’s been giving away too much in talks with Republicans — and not doing enough to fight black unemployment, which is nearly double the national average at 16.7 percent... President Barack Obama told blacks on Saturday to quit crying and complaining and “put on your marching shoes” to follow him into battle for jobs and opportunity. Click Here For The Full Story
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
via daily caller Well, they are white kids, except for the one who’s not white. And they’re wearing white. That’s (whiteness x 2) – 1. I call that a formula for racism. Remember: An accusation of racism is its own proof. The more you protest it, the more real it becomes to those who are more enlightened than you. Enjoy the next 18 months…
Oh wait, this was in Santa Cruz, now it makes sense.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Your choices are a) that the SS (no pun intended) is monitoring the facebook pages of 13 year olds -- and quite likely everyone else b) that they have nothing better to do with their time but to actually track down and "interview" a 13 year old over what is clearly an innocuous comment c) that they honestly think a mother of a minor would "not take such a call seriously" and decide to go ahead without her.
In the words of a 13 year old who is now wise beyond his years: "be careful what you post" .... hmm, I have the feeling that is exactly how they'd like it.
Friday, May 13, 2011
"Jaden" refuses to say the pledge of allegiance, which according to his teacher, means he finds the American flag offensive. Well, my guess is that he finds freedom offensive too -- maybe we should just ban freedom.
And am I the only one that doesn't understand how you could be offended by a flag that's not even anatomically correct?
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Via Big Government Useful idiots. That’s what Vladmir Lenin called western sympathizers of the Soviet cause. He must have been smiling from his cave in Hell Sunday when he saw the Soviet flag – and Communist Party signs – being carried in honor of May Day.
“Union members, pro-labor groups, and even anarchists” participated, according to Fox41.
A couple of anarchists, dressed as clowns (how fitting), were arrested after they scribbled anti-capitalist slogans on downtown buildings in chalk. Meanwhile, in Berlin, Germany, protesters “threw stones at banks and shops, and in isolated incidents police officers were targeted with bottles and fireworks,” according to published reports.
Chalk, schmalk. Is that the best these crazies can do? Put some heart into it! Make a difference for the cause. Or are they merely the type of useful idiots that bemused Lenin?
Call me a cynic, but I have a hard time seeing how the average American will sympathize with those who carry the flag of an empire that was bent on destroying the western way of life. But I suppose that’s a minor detail.
Elsewhere in the United States, AFL-CIO heavy Richard Trumka, began his remarks: “Brothers and Sisters, May Day is our day!”
He, along with other six-figure leaders of the “middle class” rallied their members against government spending reforms.
While it’s easy to laugh at these nutcases blocking the entrance of the Chow Wagon and marching under red banners, look how far they’ve come. Just a couple decades ago, they would have been accused of being traitors. Now they’re interviewed on the 6 o’clock news and have positions of real power.
10 ways Obama botched the aftermath of the masterful Bin Laden operation
Via The Telegraph The past few days have seemed like an extended amateur hour in the White House as unforced error after unforced error has been made in the handling of the US Government’s message about the killing of bin Laden.
We should not forget the bottom line in this: bin Laden was justifiably and legally killed by brave and skilled US Navy SEALs. The operation was audacious and meticulous in its planning and execution. President Barack Obama made the call to carry out the raid and his decision was vindicated in spades.
Having said that, the messiness since then has taken much of the sheen off this success, temporarily at least. Here’s a summary of what went wrong once the most difficult bit had been achieved:
1. It took nearly three days to decide not to release the photographs. I think there was a case for not releasing the pictures, though on balance I think disclosure would have been best. But whichever way Obama went on this, the decision should have been made quickly, on Monday. By letting the world and his dog debate the issue for so long and then say no made the administration look indecisive and appear that it had something to hide. It will fuel the conspiracy theories. And the pictures will surely be leaked anyway.
2. To say that bin Laden was armed and hiding behind a wife being used as a human shield was an unforgiveable embellishment. The way it was expressed by John Brennan was to mock bin Laden as being unmanly and cowardly. It turned out to be incorrect and gave fuel, again, to conspiracy theories as well as accusations of cover-ups and illegality. Of all the mistakes of the week, this was by far the biggest.
3. It was a kill mission and no one should have been afraid to admit that. Bin Laden was a dead man as soon as the SEAL Team landed. There’s nothing wrong with that but the Obama administration should have been honest about it rather than spinning tales about bin Laden having a gun, reaching for a gun (the latest) and resisting (without saying how he resisted).
4. Too much information was released, too quickly and a lot of it was wrong. When it made the administration look good, the information flowed freely. When the tide turned, Jay Carney, Obama’s spokesman, clammed up completely. I’m a journalist; I like it when people talk about things. But from the administration’s perspective, it would have been much better to have given a very sparse, accurate description of what happened without going into too much detail, especially about the intelligence that led to the compound (an account which is necessarily suspect).
5. Obama tried to claim too much credit. Don’t get me wrong, he was entitled to a lot of credit. but sometimes less is more and it’s better to let facts speak for themselves. We didn’t need official after official to say how “gutsy” Obama was. Far better to have heaped praise on the CIA and SEALs (which, to be fair, was done most of the time) and talked less about Obama’s decision-making. And a nod to President George W. Bush would have been classy – and good politics for Obama.
6. Proof of death was needed. The whole point of the SEAL operation, rather than a B2 bombing that levelled the compound, was to achieve certainty. The administration has DNA evidence, facial recognition evidence and photographic evidence. Some combination of that evidence should have been collated and released swiftly. It’s not enough to say, effectively, “Trust me, I’m Obama” – especially given all the misinformation that was put out.
7. The mission should have been a ‘capture’ one. Notwithstanding 3. above and the legitimacy of killing bin Laden, I think a capture of bin Laden was probably possible and, in the long term, would have been better – not least because of the intelligence that could have been gleaned from interrogating him and the couriers. My hunch is that Obama didn’t want him alive because there would have been uncomfortable issues to address like whether he should be tried, where he should be held (it would have been Guantanamo – obviously) and the techniques for questioning him.
8. Obama’s rhetoric lurched from jingoistic to moralistic. During the initial announcement, Obama said that by killing bin Laden “we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to”. If Bush had said that, he would have been mocked and laughed at, with some justification. But by today Obama was all preachy and holier than thou saying: “It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool. That’s not who we are. We don’t trot out this stuff as trophies.”
9. Triggering a torture debate was an avoidable own goal. Following on from 3. by discussing the intelligence, the administration walked into the issue of whether enhanced interrogation techniques yielded important information. That was certainly something they could have done without. Politically, it gave something for Republicans to use against Obama.
10. The muddle over Pakistan. Everyone I talk to with knowledge of these things tells me that Pakistan had to have given the green light for the raid in some form. But the Pakistanis, for good reasons, would not want this made public. Rather than say it would not comment on whether Pakistan had harboured bin Laden or was playing a double game, the White House poured petrol on the flames by encouraging criticism of Pakistan. That might have been deserved, but in terms of managing the region it was impolitic. The Pakistanis are clearly riled and the contradictions between the US and Pakistani accounts, again, fuel the conspiracy theories.
All this has meant that this week’s media story has become one about Obama and the White House more than one about the SEALs, the CIA and what killing bin Laden means. That’s exactly the wrong way round.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
via Big Peace When President Obama announced the death of Osama Bin Laden to the nation Sunday night, he referenced himself more than 25 times during the speech. At the same time, he referenced the U.S. military only 3 or 4 times.
It was almost as if he really believed credit was due him for cornering and killing Bin Laden, but the obvious truth is that the military personnel he scorned in that speech, the very ones that he has scorned throughout his days on the national stage, deserve the credit. And they deserve it not only for killing Bin Laden, but for doing so despite the many obstacles Obama has thrown up along the way.
The cold hard truth is that Obama has done all he can, to date, to hinder our success in the War on Terror "Overseas Contingency Operation”
Perhaps a few simple examples will suffice to make my point:
In 2007, when the troop surge that turned everything around in Iraq was being promoted by President Bush, then-Senator Obama opposed it, and arrogantly asserted: “We can send 15,000 more troops, 20,000 more troops, 30,000 more troops, [but] I don’t know any expert on the region or any military officer that I’ve spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference.”
Despite Obama, the surge was implemented and the surge worked.
Around the same time, Obama opposed funding the troops because he wanted President Bush to set a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq but Bush refused. (In other words, Obama was willing to withhold funds to the point of hurting our troops unless he got his way.)
On the presidential campaign trail, Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay, end military tribunals, and ban the enhanced interrogations techniques that some of our troops had used on terrorists, and which Obama believed violated human rights.
For the record, I always found it strange that members of our military, a.k.a., the good guys, were supposedly violating human rights by “placing hoods or sacks over [terrorists’] heads, [placing] duct tape over their eyes, [or subjecting] them to total sensory deprivation,” while the terrorists, a.k.a., the bad guys, were to be handled with kid gloves although they had a penchant for decapitating and otherwise mutilating the bodies of captured U.S. personnel.
Nonetheless, just months after Obama was sworn into office in 2009, he further tied the hands of our military (and intelligence communities) by requiring that “Miranda rights [be read] to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan.”
These Obama-era policies are so harmful to our military that it seems fair to ask whom Obama is really at war with? Especially when we add the attacks he leveled at our military tribunal system by trying to move the most high profile terror trial on record – that of “professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-conspirators” – from military hands to civilian courts in New York City where everyone would be guaranteed the chance to lawyer up and plea bargain (and to use the subsequent media coverage as an opportunity to propagate “anti-U.S. and anti-Semitic rants that would have served as a rallying cry to Islamists everywhere”).
Of course there are others things Obama has done to hinder our military or damage its morale, but the constraints of this post don’t allow them all to be to be covered here.
Suffice it to say Obama’s speech about the death of Bin Laden should have contained 3 or 4 references to himself, at most, and 25-plus references to our brave military personnel, at a minimum.
For not only did they kill Bin Laden, they overcame Obama to do it.
Friday, April 29, 2011
What has these San Francisco hippies in a bunch this week? Well, apparently the treatment of Wikileaks military leaker dude, pfc Bradley Manning. And yes, they seem to have each paid $5,000 for a seat at that table and for what was likely a fabulous gluten-free vegan meal.
The cute thing is, in the end "they still love Obama".
When did it become cool (and tolerable) for a former president to accuse his country of human rights violations when they won't send food to a cruelly insane dictator who lives a life of luxury, and has a tendency to create man-made famine?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism by Kevin D. Williamson
Stalin’s gulag, impoverished North Korea, collapsing Cuba...it’s hard to name a dogma that has failed as spectacularly as socialism. And yet leaders around the world continue to subject millions of people to this dysfunctional, violence-prone ideology.
In The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Socialism, Kevin Williamson reveals the fatal flaw of socialism—that efficient, complex economies simply can’t be centrally planned. But even in America, that hasn’t stopped politicians and bureaucrats from planning, to various extents, the most vital sectors of our economy: public education, energy, and the most arrogant central–planning effort of them all, Obama’s healthcare plan.
In this provocative book, Williamson unfolds the grim history of socialism, showing how the ideology has spawned crushing poverty, devastating famines, and horrific wars. Lumbering from one crisis to the next, leaving a trail of economic devastation and environmental catastrophe, socialism has wreaked more havoc, caused more deaths, and impoverished more people than any other ideology in history—especially when you include the victims of fascism, which Williamson notes is simply a variant of socialism.
If you thought socialism went into the dustbin of history with the collapse of the Soviet Union, think again. Socialism is alive and kicking, and it’s already spread further than you know. Available on Amazon
Friday, April 22, 2011
When his neighbors were asked about the smell coming from his apartment they said "yeah, it stunk real bad... But what hippie apartment doesn't?"... Ok, so his neighbors never said that... But it doesn't mean they didn't think it.
"Ira Einhorn was on stage hosting the first Earth Day event at the Fairmount Park in Philadelphia on April 22, 1970. Seven years later, police raided his closet and found the "composted" body of his ex-girlfriend inside a trunk.
A self-proclaimed environmental activist, Einhorn made a name for himself among ecological groups during the 1960s and '70s by taking on the role of a tie-dye-wearing ecological guru and Philadelphia’s head hippie. With his long beard and gap-toothed smile, Einhorn — who nicknamed himself "Unicorn" because his German-Jewish last name translates to "one horn" —advocated flower power, peace and free love to his fellow students at the University of Pennsylvania. He also claimed to have helped found Earth Day.
But the charismatic spokesman who helped bring awareness to environmental issues and preached against the Vietnam War — and any violence — had a secret dark side. When his girlfriend of five years, Helen "Holly" Maddux, moved to New York and broke up with him, Einhorn threatened that he would throw her left-behind personal belongings onto the street if she didn't come back to pick them up.
And so on Sept. 9, 1977, Maddux went back to the apartment that she and Einhorn had shared in Philadelphia to collect her things, and was never seen again. When Philadelphia police questioned Einhorn about her mysterious disappearance several weeks later, he claimed that she had gone out to the neighborhood co-op to buy some tofu and sprouts and never returned..."
Read Full Article Here
via big peace This is the latest in a series of exclusive interviews with Dr. Paul Kengor, professor at Grove City College, on his latest work, Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, based on a shocking volume of declassified materials from Soviet and Communist Party USA archives and FBI files.
Kengor: The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970, the centennial of the birth of Vladimir Lenin, Bolshevik godfather, architect of the communist totalitarian state.
Big Peace: The first Earth Day occurred on the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s birth?
Kengor: Yes. The anniversary was a huge deal to the global communist movement and the USSR, where the man’s wretched entrance into this world was treated like the advent of Christ. Speaking of the number “100,” Lenin’s ideology killed over 100 million worldwide.
Big Peace: Lenin was not an environmentalist.
Kengor: No, he was a collectivist. He was also an atheist, who hated human beings, mowing them down, filling land-fills with them.
He did, however, share the penchant for central planning championed by environmentalists.
("Lenin is only green when they forget to change his embalming fluid.")
Big Peace: Was it a coincidence that the first Earth Day occurred on Lenin’s birthday?
Kengor: That’s a question that didn’t escape notice at the time, from the eye of J. Edgar Hoover at the FBI to Time and the New York Times and other publications. A lot of people were suspicious. read more
Thursday, April 14, 2011
I'm not sure which I am more annoyed with, the fact that they are taking the Easter out of... Well Easter. Or the fact that a school thinks an egg is the same shape as a sphere.
"Show most children an Easter egg and they'll refer to it as just that, regardless of their cultural background.
So when one teacher asked 16-year-old Jessica, who was volunteering at their elementary school in Seattle, to refer to the eggs as 'spring spheres' she was stunned."
Read Full Article Here
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Monday, April 4, 2011
via Daily Caller In an effort to get closer to the local population, American female soldiers stationed in Afghanistan are being encouraged to wear a Muslim headscarf when interacting with civilians. But some question whether the practice constitutes cultural sensitivity or a form of appeasement that is degrading to U.S. soldiers.
Major Kyndra Rotunda, executive director of the Military Law and Policy Institute and AMVETS Legal Clinic at Chapman University, told The Daily Caller that while the women are not being ordered to wear the head scarf, encouragement is tantamount to a demand. “They say they are encouraging women to wear the headscarf when they are out and about and on patrol. But the problem is — and I think anyone who has been in the military understands that being encouraged to do something is about the same thing as being ordered — it really puts them in an uncomfortable position when their commander says, ‘We really want you to do this, technically you don’t have to, but we really want you to do this,’” she said.
Lt. Col. Michael Lawhorn, a U.S. Central Command spokesman, stressed to TheDC that while commanders are encouraging American women to wear headscarves while engaging with civilians, they are not having them wear the headscarf in lieu of their kevlar helmets.
“Nobody is saying, ‘Okay as we head out onto this dangerous street, you wear a hijab instead of your kevlar helmet,’” Lawhorn said. “As women are on some of these engagement teams and they are going to go into places where are going to predominantly be dealing with other women, like giving them medical information or finding out their concerns are in the local community. Local commanders are encouraging them — not demanding, but encouraging — if they feel more comfortable — ‘Feel free to wear a headscarf.’”
Rotunda remained unconvinced, telling TheDC that helmets are always the preferred head wear among soldiers. “Even if it is outreach, you never know what to expect. You really should be wearing your kevlar helmet, it is a safety issue,” she said.
Retired Col. Martha McSally, whose grievance about being forced to wear the Muslim abaya while stationed in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s resulted in 2002 legislation outlawing the practice of making female soldiers wear Muslim religious garb in Saudi Arabia, told The Daily Caller that the sanctity of the uniform should not be sullied with outside accessories like the hijab. “Another thing that makes this inappropriate is that they are wearing it with their uniform,” she said. “All the services have several-hundred-page regulations about what is appropriate and is not appropriate to wear with the uniform, and we have very strict guidelines … You are representing the United States government. You are wearing the U.S. military uniform, and it confuses what you are representing when you add this to the uniform.”
“It is clearly within Congress’s realm to pass another provision like what they passed in 2002,” she said. “If the military on its own doesn’t stop this nonsense.”
Read More via Daily Caller
Friday, April 1, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
My favorite line: "why should he have to?"
Dude, you now have to show your birth certificate every time you renew your driver's license in the state of Utah. That's right, you have to show it for renewal .... damn, that state is sooooo racist!
And for the record, the Donald is now officially my favorite pseudo politician.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
via Townhall While the President refuses to lift a 7-year ban on offshore drilling here in the United States, continues to demonize the oil and gas industries, as energy prices continue to rise and as unemployment still hovers around 9 percent, Obama told a group of Brazilian businessmen at a CEO Summit during his trip to South America over the weekend they should begin drilling in their offshore oil reserves so the United States can be a paying customer in the future, adding that the United States would help them do it.
“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.”
Not only is President Obama going against those in his base who believe offshore drilling is bad for the environment and that the burning of oil contributes to global warming, Obama is blatantly supporting the economic growth of another country while purposely hindering the economic growth of the American economy.
Doc Hastings, Natural Resources Committee Chairman, is not impressed: “Rather than creating American energy and American jobs, President Obama is in Brazil advocating for deepening the United States’ reliance on foreign energy."
Let's not forget Obama has blocked access to U.S. oil and natural gas production by issuing a moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and has revoked onshore leases since taking office. Don't be fooled when the Administration says they have been working to open up energy resources in the United States as the Administration has only issued three permits allowing for deep water exploration, not drilling.
So much for keeping jobs from going overseas and so much for lessening our dependence on foreign oil.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Wow! why did it take us so long to think of that, I mean Russia had that idea waaaaay back in 1917 -- maybe American's really are slackers.
Friday, March 11, 2011
The first one is my personal favorite.
via American Solutions President Obama held a press conference today to discuss rising gasoline and oil prices. Gasoline at the pump now costs an average of $3.50 per gallon nationwide, and experts project prices to eclipse $4 per gallon this year, possibly by the beginning of the summer driving season.
But instead of providing a solution that most of America wants -- more domestic drilling -- President Obama used his presser to recite misleading talking points to justify his anti-energy policies, arguments that have all been thoroughly debunked.
Here are the three biggest myths from President Obama's remarks this afternoon:
- "We can't escape the fact that we control only 2% of the world's oil." This is a common refrain among anti-drilling Democrats and environmentalists, and it's repeated enough that many people accept it as true. In reality, it's 100% false. The number comes from a highly conservative estimate from the Energy Information Administration totaling America's proven reserves where we are already drilling. It does not include the 10 billion barrels available in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It does not include most of the 86 billion barrels available offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, most of which President Obama has placed under an executive drilling ban. And it does not include the 800 billion barrels of oil we have locked in shale in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Those shale resources alone are actually three times larger than the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia, so the claim that the U.S. only has 2% of the world's oil is clearly false.
- "Industry holds leases on tens of millions of acres both offshore and on land where they aren't producing a thing." President Obama adds to this whopper by saying he wants to "encourage companies to produce [on] the leases they hold." While this sounds like a common sense fix, it's actually just blind rhetoric reserved only for people with a shocking ignorance of drilling. You can read more about this here and here, but it basically boils down to this: A lease is for exploration and production, not just production, and because oil is not equally distributed across the globe, one parcel of leased acreage may not hold any oil. Moreover, due to the circuitous and needlessly complicated permitting process, it can take years for companies who own a lease to complete their exploration activities. To get to the production phase, it could take as long as ten years. Ironically, President Obama wants to tax companies for not producing on their leases, even if the federal government's refusal to grant permits is the reason why those companies are not drilling.
- "Last year...our oil production reached its highest level in 7 years." This is pure spin. President Obama is deliberately trying to take credit for actions unrelated to his policies. The increased level of production is due to the actions of previous administrations and production in the Dakotas where most drilling is occurring on private land. By contrast, the Energy Information Administration projects that there will be a decline in production of 220,000 barrels of domestic oil per day in 2011, and in 2012 America will produce 150 million fewer barrels in the Gulf of Mexico, all because of President Obama's policies to discourage or ban domestic drilling. In addition, President Obama's drilling moratorium (and subsequent refusal to issue drilling permits) has forced at least 7 rigs to leave the Gulf and sign contracts in other countries, taking much needed jobs and revenue with them.
No amount of White House spin or misleading talking points can change that tragic fact.
via Daily Mail The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has been accused of allowing guns to slip across the border and fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
The allegations made by senior agent John Dodson came after it was discovered that the gun used to kill a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Mexico was first bought in a Dallas, Texas store.
Agent Dodson made his allegations to CBS News, saying that he was ordered to lets guns through during his time stationed at the ATF’s Phoenix offices.
He said: ‘I'm boots on the ground in Phoenix, telling you we've been doing it every day since I've been here.
‘We just knew it wasn't going to end well. There's just no way it could.’
CBS also said it had a video it claims was filmed by ATF agents showing AK47s being smuggled into Mexico, while the authorities looked on.
Attorney General Eric Holder has now asked top Justice Department officials to rethink their strategy against gun traffickers along the U.S. border with Mexico after some in Congress said the current strategy endangers law enforcement officers.
It is understood the reason the weapons were allowed to be smuggled was in the hope of following them up the chain of command, leading to arrests of more senior criminals.
Wow, that's a plan that sounds just crazy enough it .... just might get hundreds of innocent people killed.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
"YOU WILL DIE!!! : Shocking email sent to Wisconsin GOP Senators
via the blaze The following is a shocking, scary e-mail sent to Wisconsin GOP senators last night at around 9:30 pm, shortly after the Senate passed an anti-union bill. Not only does the e-mail threaten the senators with death, but it also vows “your familes [sic] will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks.”
Local station WTMJ in Milwaukee obtained the e-mail, and has redacted the sender’s name pending an investigation by the police (emphasis added and spelling and grammar mistakes have not been corrected):
Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM
To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen
Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!
Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your families will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.
WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we’ve had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it’s going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it’s a matter of public records.
We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn’t leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so “high” on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent.
This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won’t tell you all of them because that’s just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it’s necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will “get rid of” (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it’s worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!
WTMJ confirmed police are investigating several death threats, including the e-mail above.
Wisconsin GOP senators were told to flee the Capitol almost immediately after their vote because police said “it was not safe."
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
The U.S. Border Patrol is under fire for allegedly ordering its elite, SWAT-style units to use non-lethal bean bag ammunition before responding with deadly force – even against suspects armed with high-powered semi-automatic and automatic weapons like AK-47s.
The controversy over the agency’s “bean bag” policy began in the days following the Dec. 14 killing of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry and has escalated recently as more information is uncovered in the investigation of the fatal shooting.
"When the suspected aliens did not drop their weapons, two Border Patrol agents deployed ‘less than lethal' beanbags at the suspected aliens,” according to a FBI search warrant request filed in the U.S. District Court in Tuscon on Dec. 29. “At this time, at least one of the suspected aliens fired at the Border Patbrol agents. Two Border Patrol agents returned fire, one with his long gun and one with his pistol. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was shot with one bullet and died shortly after.”Read more via FoxNews.com
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Recently a purple heart recipient spoke at a town hall meeting at Columbia University on whether or not to allow the ROTC back on campus. He was laughed at, mocked and called a racist by the students. Now remembering this is the same University that invited Ahmadinejad to speak there, I decided to make a video so everyone can see back to back how Columbia University treats a United States war hero vs. Iran's President who not only denies the Holocaust, sponsors Hezbollah, incites the murder of Jewish people around the world, but also took part in the government organized murder of thousands of Iranian children. I wonder if Obama is proud of his Alma Mater...