The
pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, free markets and individual
liberty
"There is but one straight
course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
48% Think Federal Budget Can Be
Balanced Without Tax Hikes
Recent Rasmussen poll nearly half (48%) of Americans still
believe it is possible to balance the federal budget without raising taxes.
~~~~~~
Study Documents NY Times’ Anti-Israel Bias
A new study by a
media-monitoring organization exposes the New York Times’ consistent
anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias in its coverage of the Middle East conflict.
The study was
conducted by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle Eastern Reporting in America
(CAMERA), which claims 65,000 U.S. members across a broad political spectrum.
CAMERA investigated
the Times’ coverage between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2011, and says the probe “reveals empirically that there
is real cause for concern. The dominant finding of the study is a
disproportionate, continuous, embedded indictment of Israel that dominates both
news and commentary sections. Israeli views are downplayed while Palestinian
perspectives, especially criticism of Israel, are amplified and even promoted.”
Among the findings
of the CAMERA study:
- The Times presents criticism of Israel more than twice as often as it criticizes the Palestinians. Of 275 passages in the news pages classified as criticism, 187 were critical of Israel while 88 criticized the Palestinians.
- Of 37 articles mentioning Israel’s border policies and naval blockade of Gaza, just six cited Israel’s goal of preventing weapons from entering Gaza and even fewer noted that weapons in Gaza often are fired into Israel.
- When the Times reported on the Israeli military boarding a Turkish ship carrying pro-Palestinian activists, only eight of 37 articles mentioned the activists’ violence that precipitated the use of firearms by the Israelis.
- Twelve headlines mentioned Palestinian fatalities in the conflict, while none explicitly mentioned Israeli deaths, even though 14 Israelis were killed during the study period.
- Israeli actions frequently were cited as obstacles to peace, but the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to recognize a Jewish state was never described as an obstacle.
- On the paper’s opinion pages, editorials consistently blamed Israel for the Palestinian-Israel conflict. Of 20 editorials, columns, and Op-Eds cited by CAMERA, 15 predominantly criticized Israel and none predominantly criticized the Palestinians.
CAMERA concludes: “Although the [Israeli-Palestinian]
conflict is a matter of great controversy, with loud voices on all sides
seeking to make their case, only one side’s concerns are promoted in The Times,
while the opposing side is marginalized.”
~~~~~~
If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad…Why Does DHS Want to Buy
7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’?
The Department of
Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal
defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians.
The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the
Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high
capacity magazines. Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire”
firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close
quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and
automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.
~~~~~~
Palin: ‘We Haven’t Yet Begun to Fight!’
In my research for
the film I made on Governor Palin, The Undefeated, I was constantly
amazed at the anti-establishment stands she took at every step in her rise to
power. Moves that a conventional politician would run from, she embraced: in
Wasilla, in Juneau, and in the rise of the Tea Party. Her ability to see “over the hill” to what is really important, what
really matters, is what sets her apart. Andrew Breitbart embraced the Governor
as a fellow warrior in the long struggle against a detached and venal
political/media complex. He lives on in spirit and through the work of
those he inspired—including, but not limited to, those who report and
contribute at his site. The Governor has
been at the forefront of the fight against the Permanent Political Class
and, as such, inspired Peter
Schweizer and myself in our work last
night on Fox News with Sean Hannity’s special “Boomtown.” We
consider ourselves honored at Breitbart News to have her share with us her
thoughts on the road ahead in this exclusive Q & A.
~~~~~~
Defeating the NRA is Like ‘Defeating the Nazis’
by Gary DeMar
Bob Schieffer
compared Obama’s gun control speech to “passing civil rights legislation, as
Lyndon Johnson was able to do; and before that, surely, defeating the Nazis,
was a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby.”
When young people study the history of what the Nazis did
to the Jews, one of the first questions they ask is, “Why didn’t the Jews fight
back?” With what? The guns had been taken from them by law. The only people who
could legally own guns were non-Jews who were loyal to the State. Alex Seitz-Wald at
SALON doesn’t like comparing what Obama and Co. are doing with new gun
regulations to Nazi Germany. Who would? He
says the NRA and others have their history wrong. “[P]eople were shocked when the Drudge Report
posted a giant picture of Hitler over a headline speculating that the White
House will proceed with executive orders to limit access to firearms. The
proposed orders are exceedingly tame, but Drudge’s reaction is actually a
common conservative response to any invocation of gun control.”
Incremental
tyranny is still tyranny. Tyranny by the inch leads to tyranny by the mile.
Universal gun registration was part of Hitler’s strategy to put the German
people under his thumb.
Gun ownership in
Germany has an interesting history. It’s true that prior to Hitler, gun laws
were very strict, but not because Germany had anything to do with them. To
comply with the Treaty of Versailles, the German Weimar government was required
to restrict gun ownership:
“In
1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which
declared that ‘all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are
to be surrendered immediately.’ Under the regulations, anyone found in
possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years’ imprisonment
and a fine of 100,000 marks.”
Some historians
contend that the draconian economic and military conditions of the Treaty of
Versailles, which the Weimar government accepted and the German people hated,
were a factor in elevating Hitler to power and creating German aggression that
led to World War II. Hitler was gearing
up for war. He wanted Germans armed except for enemies of the State. Who were
the biggest enemy of the German Master Race? Jews.
~~~~~~
Pax Obama – An Illusion
by Robert Owen
Neville Chamberlain
was Prime Minister of England from 1937 to 1940. He became infamous because of
one much quoted sentence, “Peace in our
time”. He went to Munich in 1938 and negotiated a treaty with Hitler. He ceded
to Germany the right to invade the Sudatenland in exchange for peace for
England. Well, we all know how that worked out. Not well at all. In his
inauguration address, President Obama used that same unfortunate phrase.
Whether this was from a flawed sense of
history or an overwhelming sense of arrogance I do not know or care to think
on. It is a free standing fact that needs no further examination. That it was said is more than enough.
The story that we are told
is that we are out of Iraq. We will
soon be out of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda is defeated. Obama led from behind in Libya. Ten years of war is over. We have “peace in our time”. I
do not buy this story. It is belied by too many facts.
I think that Al Qaeda is a good place to start. Not to be
too extreme, but I
have some lingering doubts on the complete truth of the Bin Laden story. I am
pretty sure that he was captured. I am not so sure that he was killed. It has
not been proven to my satisfaction. I am not completely convinced that they
don’t have him tucked away someplace. But that is probably unimportant either
way. As long as he is out of circulation.
The story that Al Qaeda is defeated is very much more
problematical. It seems that Al Qaeda is over-running North Africa especially as Al Qaeda in the
Islamic Maghreb. From Yemen to
Algeria and down into Mali, Al Qaeda and their franchise groups are spreading
like wildfire. Certainly Benghazi
was the result of this. Even though our Secretary of State declared
“it doesn’t matter”. The latest fiasco in Algeria is another example.
Every time they make the news it becomes a terrorist recruiting drive both for
men and money. But the fact is that it is all Al Qaeda
related. They are bigger, stronger, and better trained than ever.
While the weapons
preference for assault weapons runs to the ubiquitous AK-47, they seem to be
getting a number of heavier arms like RPGs and mortars that are of US
manufacture. Possibly through Egypt and Libya. Now for some perverse reason we
are giving Egypt F-16 fighter jets. After the words of Prime Minister Morsi
about Israel, this strikes me as not a wise move. While we are bringing troops home
from two countries in the middle east, it has been reported that we are sending
over four thousand troops into thirty-five countries in Africa. So the administration
is exporting small groups of military into some of the world's most violent
areas. Will groups of just over one hundred men be able to operate
successfully and see to their own security twenty-four/seven. If they cannot, more Americans
will be killed on foreign soil and no doubt the number of troops sent in will
escalate. I can’t help but
think of Viet Nam. We were just sending in just a few advisers. That is we were
until we found ourselves mired down in a full blown war.
So
“Peace in our time” is just an illusion of peace.
They use words that are spoken to
assuage those gullible enough to believe them, such as referring to planned
attacks as mob actions. There is a too willing press that is going to just walk
on by keeping eyes and cameras front. Nothing to see and nothing to report
there. And our great country will go on
being a laughing stock to those that would harm us, watching continued
unrest and increased attacks through the mid-east and Africa. And possibly seeing more coffins unloaded at Andrews Air
Force Base.
~~~~~~
A Sterile View of Collective Action
by Newt Gingrich
Three things in
particular amazed me about President Obama’s inaugural address.
First, I was surprised
how much President Obama had to say that I agreed with. His theme of making “real for every American” the promise of our
Declaration — “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – is central to the
Republican credo. What Republican could dispute that? He’s the only president who has ever
quoted the passage in full in his inaugural address. President Obama may very well draw something different from that
passage than we would, but that’s the heart of the argument we’re about to
have.
Second, I was surprised by
all the paragraphs that were missing.
The president made virtually no
mention of the economy, at a time when millions of Americans are struggling
and unemployed. All he said was, “An economic recovery has begun.” He said,
“The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes
difficult,” but he failed to mention the
oil and gas revolution taking place in the United States that offers the
promise of low cost oil and natural gas for many decades to come, if we’ll only
seize it. The president said, “A decade of war is now ending,” and spoke of
“winning the peace,” but ignored the
violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention new danger in Mali, Algeria,
Yemen, Pakistan, Iran — and for that matter, Libya. He said nothing of Mexico,
where just below our border lawlessness continues to rule. These omissions
recalled in my mind the Trotsky line: “You may not be interested in war, but
war is interested in you.” President Obama
won’t have the choice to ignore these matters in the real world, even if he
could in his speech.
Finally, I was amazed at
the gaps in his discussion of “collective action.” Much of it we could agree
with: “No single person can train all
the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future.”
This is undeniable. Nor, the president argued, could a single
person “build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs
and businesses to our shores.” No Republican could dispute this. In fact, no
thinking person could dispute this.
Yesterday wasn’t the first time President Obama has
appealed to the importance of “collective action.”
We’ve heard often from him in the past few years that “there are some things we
do better together.” Indeed, as a Republican I would agree and extend
the claim: we do virtually everything better together.
Collective action, the cooperation and collaboration of
many millions of people, is the rule, not the exception, in the modern world.
It is so common that President Obama seems not to have noticed how many people
are already peacefully working together every day on their own volition. Yesterday
as he was inaugurated, thousands of Americans worked to get all the necessary
food into New York City. They didn’t even have to be told. Somehow,
without any vote in Congress, those well-fed New Yorkers could drive to the gas
station and pump fuel into their cars which thousands of people collaborated to
refine from oil. Still more people worked together to extract that oil from two
miles below ground, and still others worked to transport it to each of the
hundreds of gas stations in the New York area. All so that their fellow
Americans could drive their cars wherever they liked, on a whim.
And those cars:
Somehow they were assembled from pieces made all over the world, in China and
Japan, in Germany and Mexico and in the United States. Probably tens of
thousands of people worked together to make each of those cars which crowd the
streets of New York City. None of them could have done these things
on their own. All required collective action.
But the president’s definition of “collective action” runs into
trouble when he limits it to things we can do “as one nation, and one people.”
When the president
speaks of doing things as one people, it doesn’t sound like he’s talking about
the kind of collective action that feeds New York City, provides it with
affordable energy, and builds its cars — the collective action of small groups
and large groups, businesses and charities and variously associated
individuals. The “collective action” the president speaks of is actually an
inversion of real collective action, of true cooperation, of genuinely working
together. Obama’s “collective action” transfers to the federal government, to
someone else, tasks that we the people now do together, ourselves. The vision he describes outsources cooperation among
citizens, to government — to him, and an army of federal bureaucrats. Those items he listed as
things we must do “as one nation, as one people” are precisely the things the federal government is poorly equipped to
do. The “networks” he referred to?
They’re known as the internet, and we didn’t make it “as one nation.” Millions
of us, collaborating in small groups, created it together. Training the math and science graduates of
the future? For decades, government has failed
to provide equal opportunity in education for all Americans. When we achieve that goal, it will be because government
frees students and teachers and parents to choose the education that’s best for
them, as charter schools have done in many communities across the country. The
federal government is not, as President Obama implied, the only sphere for
collective action. It is not the only place where we work together. Go through his speech and replace the words “together,”
“one nation,” and “one people” with “the federal government,” or “bureaucrats”
and you will have a better sense of why he is wrong.
~~~~~~
"Inauguration 2013: A Bad Lip Reading: — A Bad Lip
Reading of Barack Obama's
~~~~~~
Admonishing A Terrorist, Like Spitting in the Wind by
Audrey Russo
“Only two things
are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the
former.” -Albert Einstein
I love naive people … they approach the world in such a
childlike manner. The
only problem occurs when they are in a position of authority…and we, and our
friends, receive the consequences of their actions. Egyptian President
Mohammed Morsi said in 2010: “No reasonable person can expect progress on this
track. Either (you accept) the Zionists and everything they want, or else there
is war. This is what the occupiers of the land of Palestine know, these blood
suckers who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, these descendants of
apes and pigs.” This statement has never
voluntarily been renounced or retracted by Morsi. Sadly, it took the NY
Times to bring attention to Morsi’s statements before he became president,
for the State Dept. to address this issue.
Egyptian authorities
subsequently issued two statements, the first of which said the comments were
taken out of context, but stressed Morsi’s commitment to full respect for
religions and freedom of belief and worship. Their second statement said the
Egyptian government rejects “all forms of discrimination and incitement to
violence or hostility on the basis of religion.”
Hmm … 72% of the
Egyptian government are extreme supporters of Sharia Law which does NOT permit
religious tolerance of any religion except Islam, so their second statement is
moot. But some segments of our
government have more faith in their words…
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters: “That
statement was an important first step to make clear that the type of offensive
rhetoric that we saw in 2010 is not acceptable, not productive, and shouldn’t
be part of a democratic Egypt.” Really,
Ms. Nuland? “An important first step?”
First, these
statements did NOT come from Morsi. Second, they engaged in paltering. The comments were NOT taken out of context.
In what context would they have been appropriate? This is what Morsi believes
and that’s precisely why he made those comments. Nuland continued: “That said, we look to President Morsi and
Egyptian leaders to demonstrate in both word and deed their commitment to
religious tolerance and to upholding all of Egypt’s international obligations.”
That
statement clearly demonstrates that the State Dept. is utterly clueless to the
true nature of the Muslim Brotherhood, their history or their commitment to
their creed: “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the
Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the
highest of our aspirations.” To Ms. Nuland and her low-info comrades:
Your naiveté may be quaint to your
colleagues, but it is highly pernicious to the US and our only Middle Eastern
ally, Israel. Diplomatically admonishing a Muslim terrorist is like spitting in
the wind … and your faces have unequivocally been drenched.
Shalom through strength…
~~~~~~~
MSNBC Host Thanks God & Country That Abortion Was
There to ‘Save Him’
“I thank God and
country that when I fell into a bad situation, abortion was there to save me
and keep me on a path toward building a strong family I have now. And I pray
that safety net stays in place,” Toure said. Listen in shock!
~~~~~~
The Renewable Energy Myth:
According to government forecast, abundant and reliable
fossil fuels will supply 80% of U.S. energy demand in 2040 Mark
J. Perry
The Department of
Energy released it Annual Energy Outlook today for 2013, with updated
estimates of U.S. energy consumption by fuel source out to the year 2040 in
Table A1 of the report (data
here) . Based on the government forecast, the fossil fuel (coal,
natural gas and oil) share of U.S. energy consumption will fall only slightly
in the future, from 84.3% of total U.S. energy demand in 2010 to 80.1% in 2040
(see chart above). On the other hand, the future of renewable energy as a
fuel source is not looking so bright, in terms of its contribution to America’s
future energy demand. In 2010, renewables (wood, municipal waste,
biomass, hydroelectricity, geothermal, solar, and wind for generation in the
electric power sector; and ethanol for gasoline blending and biomass-based
diesel in the transportation sector), contributed only 6.8% of U.S. energy
consumption. Even by 2035, almost
30 years from now, all renewable energies together are expected to contribute
less than 11% of the total energy demand in the U.S.
Bottom Line:
The scientific and economic realities (and even the
government’s own forecasts support this) are that affordable, abundant, and
reliable hydrocarbons will continue to be the major source of energy that will
fuel America’s economy well into the future. Despite the Obama administration’s
embrace of alternative energies like solar and wind power as the “energies of
the future,” and the President’s dismissal of oil as a “fuel of the past,” it
should be clear from today’s Department of Energy forecast that hydrocarbon
energy is America’s future, and renewables will continue to make a relatively
minor contribution to U.S. energy demand. I
t’s the rich oceans
of energy treasures beneath the ground (fossil fuels) that will continue to
power the U.S. economy for generations to come, and not the taxpayer-dependent sources of energy that come from above the
ground (like wind and solar).
~~~~~~
Ryan: GOP Must Not Play 'Villain' to Obama By:
David Yonkman
Former GOP vice
presidential candidate Paul Ryan says the biggest challenge for his party over
the near future will be to buy time and remain united to promote their
conservative agenda.
The Wisconsin congressman said at the National Review Institute 2013 Summit that Republicans will continue advance modernization of entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security), implement tax reforms and propose a balanced budget that pays down the nation’s more than $16 trillion debt. “Unfortunately, the Democrats are unlikely to accept our proposals,” said Ryan, who serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee. “They refuse to consider real reform. But we will lay the groundwork for future endeavors. So when reform is possible, we will be ready.” He cited recent worthwhile, yet imperfect, gains such as avoiding a devastating tax-and-spending hike on Jan. 1 and forcing the Senate to pass a budget in exchange for a temporary increase in the nation’s borrowing limit. He said the debates demonstrate how the GOP can make incremental gains in its ongoing battle with the liberal agenda if it sticks together. “In the next four years, opportunity won’t come easily,” he said. “The latest comes with a challenge. We have to pay our bills today. And we have to make sure that we can pay our bills tomorrow. To do that, we need to cut spending and to budget responsibly. Our job—as we see it—is to help prevent a debt crisis.” He said that conservatives cannot succumb to Obama’s well-practiced tactics of dividing Republicans: Fight a straw man, avoid honest debate and win the argument by default. “We can’t get rattled,” Ryan continued. “We won’t play the villain in his morality plays. We have to stay united. We have to show that — if given the chance — we can govern. We have better ideas.”
The Wisconsin congressman said at the National Review Institute 2013 Summit that Republicans will continue advance modernization of entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security), implement tax reforms and propose a balanced budget that pays down the nation’s more than $16 trillion debt. “Unfortunately, the Democrats are unlikely to accept our proposals,” said Ryan, who serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee. “They refuse to consider real reform. But we will lay the groundwork for future endeavors. So when reform is possible, we will be ready.” He cited recent worthwhile, yet imperfect, gains such as avoiding a devastating tax-and-spending hike on Jan. 1 and forcing the Senate to pass a budget in exchange for a temporary increase in the nation’s borrowing limit. He said the debates demonstrate how the GOP can make incremental gains in its ongoing battle with the liberal agenda if it sticks together. “In the next four years, opportunity won’t come easily,” he said. “The latest comes with a challenge. We have to pay our bills today. And we have to make sure that we can pay our bills tomorrow. To do that, we need to cut spending and to budget responsibly. Our job—as we see it—is to help prevent a debt crisis.” He said that conservatives cannot succumb to Obama’s well-practiced tactics of dividing Republicans: Fight a straw man, avoid honest debate and win the argument by default. “We can’t get rattled,” Ryan continued. “We won’t play the villain in his morality plays. We have to stay united. We have to show that — if given the chance — we can govern. We have better ideas.”
~~~~~~
Lucy . . . There’s some “splainen’” to do! Posted
on January 24, 2013 by Reasons for Hope
OK., so I’m dating
myself! For you young folks that don’t remember the “I Love Lucy” TV series,
the phrase “you’ve got some ‘splainin to do” was a frequent response from the
zany redhead’s husband — usually when she did something that got her in
trouble. Well, this “Lucy” has been speaking to people ever since she was
discovered, and we think she “has some splainin’ to do.” Over the years I’ve
had to deal with the supposed evidence that is said to support the “Lucy”.
Before we examine that evidence, may I remind you that it’s imperative for
Christians to study to show themselves approved (2 Tim 2:15) and that we are always to be ready to give an
answer for what we believe (1 Pet 3:15). Let me hasten to say that the Bible is the
most important book that we can study. But, we also need to be aware of the
stumbling blocks that can keep us from effectively communicating to the lost.
Therefore, we must be aware of the information the world is using to cast doubt
on the Word of God. The best way to address unbiblical claims is to offer
knowledge and answers on the subject, from a biblical perspective, and then
encourage people to do more research. Let them decide if what is being taught
is true or false.
I’d now like to
share with you how I respond to questions about our supposed evolutionary
ancestor, Lucy. We’ll cover this information in three articles. Reconstructions
and pictures of Lucy, always depict her as an upright-walking, apelike ancestor
— a clear “missing link” between man and ape…. More....
~~~~~~
"[I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place
unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted. ... If a
republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must
be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make
and administer the laws." --Noah Webster, History of the United
States
No comments:
Post a Comment