There was an error in this gadget

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Have Question about Ron Paul's Forign Policy?

Let's face it.  The number one hurdle that Ron Paul faces in this presidential race is his foreign policy.  No other candidate has come under more attack regarding their foreign policy then Ron Paul.  This may be in part because every other candidate except Ron Paul basically has the same foreign policy.  To control...I mean to protect Israel and to nuke...ummmm I mean to put sanctions on Iran and to make sure that they never ever  get a weapon of mass destruction, like all the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had....remember????  Oh wait...they didn't have any.  

I have heard many talk show host including Rush Limbaugh praise Ron Paul's financial views but abhor his foreign policy. 

With that being said some grassroots supporters put together the following video.  I encourage anyone that has questions about Ron Paul's foreign policy to take the time to watch it.

- Michael

Saturday, December 17, 2011

The Limbaugh Take on National Review's Newt Editorial

I'm posting a partial transcript from the Rush Limbaugh radio program on December 15th where he gives his opinion about a National Review editorial attacking Newt Gingrich that was posted December 14th. - Reggie

Rush Limbaugh on the radio
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, and I'm glad I got e-mails on this.  I was not gonna discuss this, other than the brief mention I gave it, but I've had a lot of e-mails in the subscriber account, the website subscriber, Rush 24/7 account wanting to know what I think of National Review's editorial late yesterday afternoon, National Review Online and the magazine.  It's William F. Buckley Jr.'s magazine.  And I mentioned this the other day, I'm sort of imprisoned here and limited by what I can discuss because I, of course, make everything bigger than it is when it's just standing alone.  And not to put down National Review or anything of the sort but this audience is far bigger than their blog subscriber base. So if I talk about it, it's gonna just take it to more people and I decide whether I want that to happen or not.

So I wasn't going to really talk about it because I'm not convinced that it has that much impact. National Review used to be indisputably the voice of conservatism. There was no question. Now, it's not so much that as it is the voice of Republicanism, which could also be said to be the inside-the-Beltway or the Washington/New York conservatism. They've got great people there, there's some nice people, but it's changed a bit from what it was. They had an editorial yesterday, unsigned, which meant that it was written by a number of editors that didn't endorse anybody but just excoriated Newt Gingrich. It wasn't the long knives that came out, the bayonets came out. It was scorched earth. It was crash and burn.

The implication in the editorial was they were for Romney, but the only other candidates they actually disparaged were Ron Paul and Rick Perry. They held out hope for Bachmann and Santorum, but the point of the editorial was to tell anybody and everybody who read it to forget Newt. So people are wondering, "What do you think of this?" Romney was the National Review endorsement pick in December 2007 for the 2008 race. And of course that was the campaign that McCain eventually won. I think what's happening here, it's not just National Review. There are a lot of so-called conservative media publications inside the Beltway and in New York. There are other elected Republicans, some of them who work very closely with Newt, who have just fired both barrels, and it's starting to take a toll.

Newt's numbers have peaked. Newt is starting to fall away, in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's not that he's just leveled off; he's starting to fall away now. George Will has called Newt a Marxist. Others have piled on pretty heavily, some pretty rough stuff, and Newt's opened the door to it. I mean Newt going after Romney as a guy who destroys companies and jobs. Bain Capital I think was involved in the mergers of 150 or so different companies and corporations, and only two of them went out of business. So Romney's Bain Capital does not destroy jobs, did not destroy jobs or eliminate companies. Anyway, Newt launches that. Romney, in his own self, has come out for global warming, it's man-made. In 2002 he said he's not a partisan Republican, that he's a moderate.

Read the full transcript here and the editorial Limbaugh talked about is - National Review: Winnowing the Field

Today another writer at National Review has written a column disagreeing with the editorial from Thursday. Andrew McCarthy: Gingrich’s Virtues

Finally, from the same magazine in 2006. National Review: Run, Newt, Run! Gingrich 2008? What has happened to make National Review hate Newt Gingrich in 2011?

A Shameful End to the Year

Jim DeMint
by Senator Jim DeMint

The hard choice Democrats have given Republicans has paid off for the big-spenders again.

Refusing to work together to cut spending, Democrats demanded that Republicans compromise with them to increase spending, or shut down the government.

As a result, Congress rammed through a 1,000-page, trillion-dollar omnibus spending bill that lumped 9 different appropriations bills in a single package at the very last minute rather than debating, amending, and voting on these bills in a transparent manner.

Spend more and pass this bill, the Democrats said, or force the government to close its doors. They said the same thing this past summer when President Obama insisted on a $2 trillion increase to the debt ceiling and during the budget fight in the spring.

Sadly, it's a tactic that keeps working. Witness the final votes members of Congress took this year.

Republicans have pledged to cut spending and quit passing legislation no one had read, but that’s exactly what members of Congress did before leaving for their Christmas vacations. The 2012 omnibus increased spending by more than $18 billion over 2011 levels. Once that bill is signed into law by the President, the total tab for all twelve 2012 appropriations bills will be more than $1.8 trillion, a nearly $21 billion increase over 2011 spending.

It’s become a cynical yearly tradition in Washington to delay the big-spending votes until just before Christmas. After all, it’s how Democrats in the Senate passed ObamaCare. Members of Congress are now hurrying home after the vote without much talk, but it should not be forgotten. It represents a shameful end to a year that began with many bold assurances.

After the 2010 midterm elections, Republican promised to cut $100 billion from the federal budget. House Republicans did pass several appropriations bills to cut spending, but they ultimately died in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The cuts never came. In fact, spending went up! Under no circumstance can a spending increase above last year’s levels be considered a cut. That promise to cut spending has been broken.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Ron Paul on Israel - The Truth

Ron Paul is a very outspoken person when it comes to his views.  You can find videos all over You tube from years and years ago and Paul holds the same views now as he has held for years.  Ron Paul has been accused of many things including being a racist and anti-Israel.  The fact is there is zero evidence for this.

Here is a short video that touches on some of the already debunked concerns with Ron Paul's past views.  The main focus though is Ron Paul's views on Israel.

Take a look,


Great Britain, the Green Movement, and the End of the World

YouTube description: This week on Uncommon Knowledge columnist James Delingpole discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, the European Union, the Green movement, and socialized medicine.

Fox News Iowa GOP Debate, Sioux City

This is the final Iowa debate before the real voting begins. This event took place on December 15th.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Ouch! - 'You're Clearly Working for the Re-Election of Barack Obama'

Iowa radio host, Simon Conway, slaps Chris Matthews.

Rush Limbaugh 'On the Record'

from December 14th

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

Today is the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights and we are all guilty until proven innocent now. Unfortunately, we will not be allowed to prove our innocence as we are held indefinitely without trial. Political prisoners will become the norm with this unconstitutional law. 

Every Congressman and Senator that voted for this law is a traitor to our Bill of Rights and the fact that it has been approved during the anniversary is a blatant act of arrogance and disregard for the Supreme Law of the land.

Whatever happened to America? Where did she go? Who are these evil people that are in elected office destroying our nation and usurping our God given rights?  - Reggie

Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.

The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".

Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.

"We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat."

Read the full article

Courting Conservatives

from December 14th

Pretending That Ron Paul Doesn't Matter Won't Make Him Go Away

I have read many articles lately that blast Ron Paul.  More times then not the authors of those article are either lying, exaggerating or just misinformed.  The media continually tells us that Ron Paul is anti Israel and is a 9/11 truther that blames the people of the United States for 9/11.  This only scratches the surface of all of the exaggerated accusation and/or lies that are told about him.

I am sorry but Ron Paul is right on almost every political point including foreign policy.  Rush a few days ago called his financial proposals good but his foreign policy wacky.  He went on and on about how wacky it is but never said why it was wacky.  There are forces in our country that do not want Rep. Paul to become president because he is the only one that will bring us back to a constitutional government with no apologies.   

- Michael

In a mostly brave, mostly sensible editorial posted Wednesday evening at National Review Online, the editors of the conservative movement's flagship magazine took an emphatic stand against the rise of Newt Gingrich, listing his specific character flaws, laying out how he has demonstrated them recently, and explicitly urging GOP primary voters to back a different candidate. Who? The editorial argues that Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum are all worth another look, meanwhile making brief cases against the remaining Republican candidates.

Rick Perry "has seemed curiously and persistently unable to bring gravity to the national stage," the editors argue, while Michelle Bachmann has demonstrated poor judgment with some of her rhetoric. And the brief against Congressman Ron Paul? Here's the whole argument: "Representative Paul's recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence."

It nearly made me spit out my drink.

The implication is that Rep. Paul is a 9/11 truther -- you'd think, reading that one sentence, that Paul stated or implied the U.S. government either orchestrated or had foreknowledge of the attacks. In fact, Rep. Paul responded to the September 11 attacks by voting to authorize an actual war against its perpetrators; and as anyone who is even passingly familiar with his worldview knows, his controversial opinion is that Islamist terrorists attack the United States partly because they are furious about the quasi-imperial role America plays in their countries. The blow-back theory is itself controversial, but it is obviously different from 9/11 Trutherism.  Read More>>

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Currently on Drudge

The Mr. IOWA link points here:


Denver QB, Tim Tebow
Please, let me explain the reason I keep posting Tim Tebow articles. First, I love football. Second, Tim Tebow has become the talk of the nation. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and others talk about Tebow almost daily and legitimate news reporters (not just sports reporters) are writing about him. When was the last time you recall a straight news organization focused on a football player? I can't remember any unless a player was arrested or accused of a crime. Actually, the title of this editorial is from an article in the American Spectator I have linked to, below.

Let me tell you what I see. There was a time in this country when a man of God, a clean cut young man, a virgin in his 20s was the norm and in that day, Tim Tebow would have been one of many. Our culture has eroded to such a degree that the godly, squeaky clean, virgin is mocked, ridiculed, insulted and hated instead of admired, respected, revered and imitated.

What kind of people have we become? A friend and I have talked, for years, about how the fall of the church and the fall of the nation have traveled on a parallel course. As the church's light has dimmed the evil in our nation has grown to encompass the land.

The light of God that shines from Tim Tebow is pushing against the darkness and the evil can not stand the light hence, the outrageous attacks aimed at the one shining that light.

As I write this, I am watching the replay of the Chicago/Denver game from three days ago. Yes, it was another unbelievable comeback victory of the Denver Broncos in the last two minutes of the game that led to an overtime victory for Denver. Only God knows if the Broncos will continue to win or if Tim Tebow will be another quarterback that is in the news for a season and then fades away. However, I do believe God will show Tebow favor wherever he goes and whatever he does because Tim Tebow gives honor and glory to God, his Creator.

I seem to remember there were men in the 1700s that gave glory and honor to their Creator and because of that he showed them favor against a tyrannical king. God's great favor helped them birth a nation like no other with an emphasis on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

When a nation gives glory and honor to God there is no limit to the blessings they will receive and the world will see their light shine. When that nation rejects God, the depth of the darkness and deception is so oppressive that when the light of God is shone through one person, the nation takes notice because they are no longer living in the light and it startles them. 

America, as a nation, we used to live in the light of God. After years of rejecting God, we have become comfortable in the darkness and one young man is letting God use him to show us, once again, that we need God's light and favor in our land.



Perry has been horrible in most of the debates and yet this ad uses appearances from the debates to tout his message. Who would have thought that would happen? - Reggie

New Rick Perry ad

See Anything Strange about this Picture?

Thank you, Fox News! Even they know that Romney is Obama lite! - Reggie

The mistake was from Megyn Kelly's show, America Live. Watch...

Ron Paul: Foreign Policy & Israel

This is a great interview that answers some of the questions people may have
about Ron Paul.

- Michael

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Obamacare: Leviathan Rising

Obamacare has handed the Supreme Court a golden opportunity.

Did our Founding Fathers create an all-powerful federal government that can wield unlimited authority over its citizens? Can it bludgeon the 50 sovereign state governments into submission on fiscal and other matters? Specifically, can Uncle Sam regulate not just our everyday activities, but our everyday inactivity as well? Moreover, can it set in motion fiscal forces that, over time, will effectively subjugate the states to the federal Leviathan? What, if any, limit is there with respect to federal authority over individuals and the states?

Only rarely does the Supreme Court accept a case that could define the constitutional limits of the federal government. Its decision to hear the many constitutional challenges to Obamacare is one such occasion. The Obama administration’s signature achievement promises to be the central domestic issue in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections — and the very nature of the issues raised in this suit all but guarantees that the political debate over Obamacare’s future will favor conservatives.

Why? Americans instinctively tilt to the ideological right on the most basic questions concerning the size and scope of government, and concerning the government’s inability to deliver, with efficiency, high-quality services. This means conservatives control the high ground in our public-policy debates. Show me a legislative battle that boils down to a choice between a larger government that offers us more services but takes more of our money in taxes and a smaller one with fewer services and lower taxes, and I’ll show you a conservative victory for limited government. Show me a debate that requires citizens to choose between the wisdom of government bureaucrats and that of small-business owners, and I’ll show you a decisive vote for the common sense of the private sector. Ask us to evaluate the relative efficiency of federal, state, and local governments, and you’ll find a clear bias in favor of the government closest to the people. Force us to choose between personal responsibility and dependence on government, and the result will dismay our liberal friends. You get the point.

But when the debate moves down to the ground level, liberals often prevail. It is easier, after all, to argue for an increase in the budget for one isolated child-nutrition program than to defend an across-the-board increase to fund the myriad other programs that constitute our trillion-dollar welfare state.

This tug of war was painfully evident in the titanic struggle over Obamacare. Liberal Democrats and their allies knew that if they could succeed in limiting the scope of the debate to health-care issues — who will be covered, how generous their subsidies will be, and what services those subsidies will buy for them — they would prevail. The natural instinct of Obamacare’s conservative opponents, in contrast, was to elevate and broaden the debate, to raise foundational concerns that transcend health care and go to the very nature of the role and purpose of our government: Obamacare’s erosion of individual freedom, the tax and regulatory burdens it would place on businesses and individuals, its effect on jobs, its suffocating effect on the fiscal integrity and overall autonomy of the states, and even its impact on government’s role in making decisions about the beginning and end of life.

Conservatives ultimately prevailed on just about all of these arguments, it seems, but lost the final roll-call votes. Proponents of the most breathtaking expansion of government power in many decades were downright inarticulate in responding to the most frequently repeated question concerning the individual mandate: If it is constitutional for the federal government to regulate inactivity — or, as one federal court of appeals put it, to require “Americans to purchase an expensive product from a private insurance company from birth to death,” or else incur a fine — is there any sphere of our individual freedom that the federal government cannot control?

It is worth recalling the memorable way Judge Roger Vinson, the Florida district-court judge who struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional, expressed this conundrum: “It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”

Read the rest of the column

Cheney on Obama's Drone Gift to Iran

Mitt Romney: "My Views are Progressive"

In 2002, during his campaign for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney plainly admitted to being a Progressive. I have been saying this for weeks and now the truth has been found coming from the man himself. Reject this man because he is Obama lite! He would just slow down our destruction but he would not change the road Obama has put us on. - Reggie

Monday, December 12, 2011

Jon Huntsman - Newt Gingrich Debate

The Jon Huntsman - Newt Gingrich Debate took place today and the reports I've seen highly recommend watching the debate. You can read Hot Air's analysis here.

I hope to find the time to watch this sometime this week. - Reggie

Arizona’s Immigration Law Gets to the Supremes

In a decision that should cheer those who believe in the rule of law and want to see our federal immigration laws enforced (despite all of the efforts of the Obama Administration to prevent that from happening), the Supreme Court today accepted Arizona’s petition for certiorari in the lawsuit filed against the state’s immigration law by the Justice Department. That means that the Supreme Court will make the final decision on whether Arizona’s law (SB 1070) is constitutional.

SB 1070, which has served as a model for other states such as Alabama and South Carolina, has a number of provisions that attempt to help the federal government enforce immigration requirements. The most controversial, at least from the standpoint of the Obama Administration, is a provision that requires police officers to check on the immigration status of individuals they have arrested or detained for some other violation, if the officers have a reasonable suspicion the individuals are in the country illegally. Race and ethnicity cannot be a consideration in that determination.

In a badly reasoned decision, a federal judge in Arizona issued an injunction against that requirement. The judge essentially ignored a provision of federal law that specifically requires the federal government to respond to all inquiries from federal, state, or local officials about the immigration status of any individual and the fact that Congress funds a “Law Enforcement Support Center” administered by the Department of Homeland Security to provide alien status determinations to state and local law enforcement officials 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is even another provision in federal law that encourages states “to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.”

New Ron Paul Ad: Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

Newt Gingrich Wants the Constitution to Die

This guy is scary!

- Michael

Newt Gingrich wants the Constitution to die. This is not hyperbole and I’m not kidding.
In 1995, Gingrich wrote the foreword to the book Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave by authors Alvin and Heidi Toffler. Gingrich “urged all Americans to read” this book. See for yourself on the back cover:

Read More>>

Ron Paul is striking chords with Iowa GOP voters

 I hope everyone takes a second look at Ron Paul!

- Michael

Iowa Republican voters are taking Ron Paul very seriously.
So seriously, in fact, that few would be surprised if he finished a strong second - or even won - the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.
The 76-year-old Texas congressman's potential is evident in recent statewide polls that show him in or near second place, trailing former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich and in a virtual tie with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Paul's strength is also apparent anecdotally - he draws big, diverse crowds, like one recently in this small northeastern Iowa town.
People in the audience at the community library last week shoehorned themselves into the meeting room, listening intently to the libertarian Republican presidential candidate, as have people in meeting halls and college auditoriums all over the state.
They were sympathetic to his no-frills message of dramatically smaller government and a scaled-back foreign policy - a message he's long preached, but one that now has wide mainstream appeal. And they appreciate how he's engaging Gingrich, accusing the front-runner of "serial hypocrisy."
Paul draws no big cheers; his audiences are serious and polite. They applauded in Waverly when he told them that the U.S. government can't possibly continue spending at its current pace because the world economy is on the brink of chaos.

Sarah Palin Pitching New Reality Show

This is very disappointing because I was hoping Palin would re-enter the political arena and run for office in the near future. However, it has become increasingly clear that she no longer has the desire for a life in politics. Of course, it is her life, her family and her decision and I wish her the best. - Reggie

Sarah Palin Pitching New Reality Show About Husband Todd's Snowmobile Adventures (Exclusive)

But TLC, A&E have passed on an "Alaska" sequel.

Sarah Palin announced in October that she would not run for president, leaving her free to focus on her media career. But the GOP kingmaker and Fox News contributor is having some trouble selling a follow up to the Mark Burnett-produced Sarah Palin's Alaska, her TLC show that bowed in November 2010 to a record-breaking 5 million viewers.

The Hollywood Reporter has learned that Palin and Burnett are pitching another reality series, this one more focused on Palin’s husband Todd and his career as a championship snowmobile racer. But for now, TLC owner Discovery Communications has passed, say sources. And A&E Networks, which entered into a bidding war with Discovery for Sarah Palin's Alaska, also is not interested.

Allen West Talks about 'Authorization for Use of Military Force' Bill

I think we are on a slippery slope to tyranny and we are traveling at light speed. - Reggie

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Tim Tebow: God's Quarterback

Tim Tebow on sidelines
He has led the Denver Broncos to one improbable victory after another—defying his critics and revealing the deep-seated anxieties in American society about the intertwining of religion and sports.

On a brisk Thursday evening in mid-November, I sat high in the stands at a Denver Broncos home game, covering the ears of my 4-year-old son as the fans around us launched f-bombs at Tim Tebow, the Broncos' struggling second-year quarterback. Mr. Tebow was ineffective and off-target for most of the game, and one of his more voluble and obnoxious critics was standing right in front of us.

But the heckler's friend wasn't joining in. "Just wait until the end of the fourth quarter," he said. "That's Tebow time."

And so it was. In the waning moments against the New York Jets, Mr. Tebow manufactured a 95-yard game-winning drive, punctuated by his own 20-yard touchdown dash. He brought the Broncos back from imminent defeat, just as he had done in previous weeks against the Miami Dolphins, Oakland Raiders and Kansas City Chiefs.

And when the shouting was over, Mr. Tebow did what he always does—he pointed skyward and took a knee in prayer. In postgame interviews, the young quarterback often starts by saying, "First, I'd like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and ends with "God bless." He stresses that football is just a game and that God doesn't care who wins or loses.

This combination of candid piety and improbable success on the field has made Mr. Tebow the most-discussed phenomenon of the National Football League season. Most expert analysts still consider him poor material for a pro quarterback. An inexperienced passer with awkward throwing mechanics and the build of a fullback, he likes to run over defensive players, which is a no-no in the NFL, whose starting quarterbacks are expensive and hard to come by.

But onward he and the Broncos have marched, winning six of their last seven games and now tied for the lead in their division as they face the Chicago Bears this Sunday. Mr. Tebow continues to defy his critics—and to embody the anxieties over religion that are dividing today's sports world and embroiling players and fans alike.

Sports culture is among the most fervently religious sectors of American life. If you turn on ESPN's "SportsCenter" almost any night, you will see baseball players who point to heaven after a clutch hit and basketball players like the Orlando Magic's Dwight Howard, who once intimated that a playoff series victory against the Boston Celtics was proof of God's presence with his team.

These claims by athletes—"God helped me do that" or "I thank God that I was able to do that"—are so commonplace that they usually draw little notice. Most sports fans seem to think that such religious talk doesn't really affect how the games are played or credit it with a powerful placebo effect. So what if Adrian Gonzalez of the Boston Red Sox has a Bible verse inscribed on his bat? Fine—whatever helps him to hit the long ball.

But Mr. Tebow has never been content to leave his evangelical faith on the field. Well before he became the starting quarterback for Denver, he was a lightning rod in America's intermittent culture war of believers vs. secularists.

Read the full article at The Wall Street Journal.

UPDATE by Reggie: Earlier today Tim Tebow led his team against Chicago to another overtime victory. Denver is 7-1 with Tebow as their starter and they are now the number one team in their division. The NFL Network will re-air today's game on Wednesday night at 8pm ET.

Tim Tebow rejoices!

'Throw Them All Out'

Heritage Foundation description: Peter Schweizer delves into the full story of the inside game in Washington and shows how the permanent political class enriches itself at the expense of the rest of us. Insider trading is illegal on Wall Street, yet it is routine among members of Congress. Normal individuals cannot get in on IPOs at the asking price, but politicians do so routinely. By funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to supporters, even more campaign donations are ensured. An entire class of investors now makes all of its profits based on influence and access in Washington. Having researched mountains of financial records, Schweizer tracks complicated deals and stock trades back to the timing of briefings, votes on bills, and every other point of leverage for politicians in Washington. His conclusion: the permanent political class must go. 

Peter Schweizer is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2008-9 he served as a consultant to the White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting, and he is a former consultant to NBC News. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, Foreign Affairs, and elsewhere. His books include The Bushes, Reagan's War, and Do as I Say, Not as I Do.

Police employ Predator drone spy planes on home front

The United States of America is quickly becoming a full fledged Police State! - Reggie

Unmanned aircraft from an Air Force base in North Dakota help local police with surveillance, raising questions that trouble privacy advocates.

Reporting from Washington — Armed with a search warrant, Nelson County Sheriff Kelly Janke went looking for six missing cows on the Brossart family farm in the early evening of June 23. Three men brandishing rifles chased him off, he said.

Janke knew the gunmen could be anywhere on the 3,000-acre spread in eastern North Dakota. Fearful of an armed standoff, he called in reinforcements from the state Highway Patrol, a regional SWAT team, a bomb squad, ambulances and deputy sheriffs from three other counties.

He also called in a Predator B drone.

As the unmanned aircraft circled 2 miles overhead the next morning, sophisticated sensors under the nose helped pinpoint the three suspects and showed they were unarmed. Police rushed in and made the first known arrests of U.S. citizens with help from a Predator, the spy drone that has helped revolutionize modern warfare.

But that was just the start. Local police say they have used two unarmed Predators based at Grand Forks Air Force Base to fly at least two dozen surveillance flights since June. The FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration have used Predators for other domestic investigations, officials said.

"We don't use [drones] on every call out," said Bill Macki, head of the police SWAT team in Grand Forks. "If we have something in town like an apartment complex, we don't call them."

The drones belong to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which operates eight Predators on the country's northern and southwestern borders to search for illegal immigrants and smugglers. The previously unreported use of its drones to assist local, state and federal law enforcement has occurred without any public acknowledgment or debate.

Congress first authorized Customs and Border Protection to buy unarmed Predators in 2005. Officials in charge of the fleet cite broad authority to work with police from budget requests to Congress that cite "interior law enforcement support" as part of their mission.

In an interview, Michael C. Kostelnik, a retired Air Force general who heads the office that supervises the drones, said Predators are flown "in many areas around the country, not only for federal operators, but also for state and local law enforcement and emergency responders in times of crisis."

But former Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), who sat on the House homeland security intelligence subcommittee at the time and served as its chairwoman from 2007 until early this year, said no one ever discussed using Predators to help local police serve warrants or do other basic work.

Using Predators for routine law enforcement without public debate or clear legal authority is a mistake, Harman said.

"There is no question that this could become something that people will regret," said Harman, who resigned from the House in February and now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a Washington think tank.

In 2008 and 2010, Harman helped beat back efforts by Homeland Security officials to use imagery from military satellites to help domestic terrorism investigations. Congress blocked the proposal on grounds it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars the military from taking a police role on U.S. soil.

Proponents say the high-resolution cameras, heat sensors and sophisticated radar on the border protection drones can help track criminal activity in the United States, just as the CIA uses Predators and other drones to spy on militants in Pakistan, nuclear sites in Iran and other targets around the globe.

For decades, U.S. courts have allowed law enforcement to conduct aerial surveillance without a warrant. They have ruled that what a person does in the open, even behind a backyard fence, can be seen from a passing airplane and is not protected by privacy laws.

Advocates say Predators are simply more effective than other planes. Flying out of earshot and out of sight, a Predator B can watch a target for 20 hours nonstop, far longer than any police helicopter or manned aircraft.

"I am for the use of drones," said Howard Safir, former head of operations for the U.S. Marshals Service and former New York City police commissioner. He said drones could help police in manhunts, hostage situations and other difficult cases.

But privacy advocates say drones help police snoop on citizens in ways that push current law to the breaking point.

"Any time you have a tool like that in the hands of law enforcement that makes it easier to do surveillance, they will do more of it," said Ryan Calo, director for privacy and robotics at the Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society.

Read the rest of the article

Why is the Left Wing Media Writing Puff Pieces on Fox Anchors?

This is very curious. In the past few days The New York Times and Politico have written puff pieces on two of the top anchors of the Fox News Channel. It is this sort of thing that makes me wonder what these leftists have up their sleeves. I just do not trust them. - Reggie

Baier grew up in Atlanta and was the sports editor of his high school paper. | John Shinkle/POLITICO

Megyn Kelly, the anchor of “America Live” on Fox News, prepares for a broadcast.

ABC/Yahoo Republican Debate

Complete video of GOP debate via bluesc11

from December 10, 2011

SNL Skewers Al Sharpton and His MSNBC Show

Saturday Night Live mocked Al Sharpton and his “Politics Nation” MSNBC show, with cast member Keenan Thompson channeling several of Sharpton’s more outrageous moments and his verbose — and not altogether accurate — speaking style.

Read the rest of the post on The Blaze.

Repairing Washington’s Broken Budget Process

A Comprehensive Approach to Strengthen Spending Controls, Enhance Accountability, and Increase Transparency in the Federal Budget Process

Legislative text proposed by Rep. Diane Black of Tennessee

Read the rest of the 10 point plan and watch the videos here.

Independent Study: ObamaCare Health Insurance Exchanges Get a Grade of ‘F’

The independent Mercatus Center at George Mason University has given a grade of “F” to the ObamaCare Health Insurance Exchanges regulation. The center studies the anticipated results and economic effects of proposed regulations. In other words, their researchers evaluate whether regulations are likely to accomplish what their supporters say they will.

The Mercatus center delivered its “Regulatory Report Card” on the Health Insurance Exchanges, the set of rules that states will use to set up online health insurance marketplaces. These virtual marketplaces will allow individuals and small employers to compare available private health insurance options on the basis of price, quality, and other factors. The Exchanges, which are scheduled to be in effect by January 1, 2014, are, next to the individual mandate upon which ObamaCare is based, crucial to the law’s ability to achieve its stated goal of expanding access to health insurance to the currently uninsured. Ultimately, they will be used to distribute $460 billion in federal health subsidies, through the year 2019.

The Health Insurance Exchanges regulation received only 42% of potential points (25 out of 60) on the Mercatus “Report Card.” The score of 25 points is the second lowest score the Mercatus Center has issued for 2011 regulations. The Exchanges were measured according to 12 criteria covering three broad categories: Openness, Analysis and Use. For each criterion, the researchers assign a score ranging from 0 to 5, with “5″ being the highest score on any given criterion. Some of the highlights are below:

In the Openness category, ObamaCare’s Exchanges received the lowest score of “2″ on the ease with which someone could find the regulation online. Verifiability of the assumptions used in the regulation’s analysis and the data used to support it were both given scores of “3,” with comments that the regulation relies heavily upon analyses performed by agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The regulation received a score of “4″ on its ability to be understood by an informed layperson. Interestingly, the researchers comment that the Health Insurance Exchanges regulation is “light reading” for someone who is “informed,” but due, in part, to the fact that there is little detail provided. However, as we have come to discover in ObamaCare, the devil is, indeed, in the details.

When Did the EPA Jump the Shark?

A cautionary tale about bureaucracy and mission creep.

Iron Eyes Cody cried at the sight of polluted waters and skies in a famous public service announcement, first aired in 1971. Old Iron Eyes may have been a faux-Indian, but his message resonated with people. The Crying Indian PSA was one of the most successful ever.

It resonated because it was true. In the early ’70s, the environment was a mess. Urban skies were noticeably tinged in sepia/grey. Rivers and streams were often clogged with discarded debris and fouled with chemical sludge.

April 1970 saw the first Earth Day. In December of the same year, the Environmental Protection Agency was born.

The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, with the Clean Water Act to follow in 1972. 1973 brought the Endangered Species Act. [Note: see comments. The Fish & Wildlife Service & NOAA are the lead ESA agencies, with EPA in a support role. I stand corrected. Ed.]
Gradually, the environment improved. The bald eagle and the American alligator came back from the brink of extinction. Air quality improved, there was less litter, and the phosphate foam disappeared from streams.

And, rightly or wrongly, EPA got the credit. As the hippies of my generation greyed, they remembered their Earth Day Groove-In fondly.

Fast forward to 2011: the EPA has become a stifling, job-killing bureaucracy. What happened? When did the EPA jump the shark?

Romney's Desperate Hours

New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher

Mitt Romney has thought himself so close, for so long, to finally grabbing a presidential nomination that he is now desperate as his “front-runner” status slips away. Desperate men do desperate things.

Enter John Sununu, former White House chief of staff to George H.W. Bush. As revealed last week, Sununu has been nursing a 20-year-old grudge against Newt Gingrich.

Why? Gingrich refused to go along with Sununu and others who engineered Bush's infamous breaking of his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. Breaking that pledge caused Bush to lose the White House to Bill Clinton.

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Look Familiar?

Proposed South Korean Towers Resemble Exploding World Trade Center

Weekly GOP Address

The Speaker of the House doesn't usually give the GOP weekly address but because of the President's push for the payroll tax cut extension (the only way Social Security is funded) and his decision to virtually kill the Keystone pipeline (thousands of jobs thrown away), Boehner must have concluded the highest elected Republican should answer the highest elected Democrat this week. - Reggie

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)

Glenn Beck on Freedom Watch

Beck is definitely not a fan of Newt Gingrich but I really think he does the Tea Party a disservice calling them racist if they vote for Gingrich. Newt Gingrich is not my ideal candidate but if he is the nominee, I will vote for him in order to get Obama out of the White House. I'm not a racist but neither am I a Marxist. I know Obama is a Marxist and I also know that Glenn gets a little hyperbolic now and again.

The Right Scoop has said he will "discontinue watching Beck in any format, forever." That's what I call drawing a line in the sand! As for me, I will continue to watch and listen to Glenn Beck but I will also continue to discern what he says and keep the good as I discard the bad. - Reggie

And there is this...


New Rick Perry ad.

Inequality in Perspective

Liberal thinking is all we need to know about life's fundamental unfairness.

Mother Jones contributor Kevin Drum says that "The heart and soul of liberalism is economic egalitarianism." From what I've observed Drum has it right. Merriam Webster's defines egalitarianism as "a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people." The Occupy Wall Street's 99 percent mantra is fundamentally about economic inequality. On the class warfare battlefield, the classes are defined according to wealth and income. Inequality was the underlying theme of President Obama's much-discussed Osawatomie speech.

What is it about equality that makes it the foremost policy objective of liberals? Why do they apparently have the belief that equality is synonymous with justice and fairness?

There are a number of problems with making equality a policy objective. Foremost perhaps is it's a whole lot more complicated than its proponents might believe. Liberals seem never to take the effort to analyze or diagnose the sources of what they see as problems. Their concern rarely penetrates the surface. Those who are the most upset about inequality never seem to reflect on why there is economic inequality in the first place or what other societal goals we would have to sacrifice in order to achieve it.

The kind of equality liberals focus on is economic equality. Why do they fixate on that one dimension? There are, of course, several explanations. Liberals see income leveling as a cash cow. The government needs money, wealthy people have money, ergo, go get 'em!

Other reasons include the fact that liberals believe that money can buy happiness. It also demonstrates how much they are ruled by envy.

Liberals believe that wealth causes poverty. Whether or not they realize it, they are Marxists. Marxism is an ideology based on the belief that owners unfairly expropriate wealth that should be going to labor. Marx would be proud of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. Marx's "labor theory of value" is not so much a theory as a lame attempt to sell the exploitation myth.

A well-known quote from The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels is "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle." That is a gross distortion of history, but it is a perfect synopsis of the bedrock philosophy of liberalism. The left perceives the world as a battle between the oppressed and the oppressors.

The equality crusaders rely on what could be called a "quantity theory of good and evil." The enemy has been quantitatively defined, rather than the usual qualitative approach. It consists of ranking the population from top to bottom as measured by income or wealth. The degree of evil corresponds to the percentiles. Those in the hundredth percentile, the so-called "one percent," are especially evil. The quantitative method excuses them from actually having to think about the flesh and blood individuals in the one percent. It provides an easy way for simple-minded people to know who to hate.

This way of defining villainy makes it a renewable resource for class warriors. If the current population of the top one percent got fed up and moved to Australia, there would be a brand new top one percent to demonize.

If equality is a prerequisite for happiness, we will never be happy. Even if it were possible to achieve economic equality, numerous other kinds of inequality would still exist -- beauty, IQ, athletic ability, health (physical and mental), creativity, and talent, to name just a few.

Obviously, equality is unattainable. Making it a precondition for happiness is an extremely bad idea. It makes as much sense as saying you can't be happy unless the planet stops rotating -- "I simply must have daylight 24 hours a day!" Liberals would have a much higher likelihood of being happy if they accepted inequality as a fact of life rather than something to be battled against. If we can't have fairness and justice without equality, then we will never have fairness and justice. As is the case with the rest of liberalism, equality is a utopian fantasy.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that less inequality would be a good thing. As is true of all objectives, more equality can only be achieved at a cost in terms of other objectives. If we insist on cutting the economic pie into equally sized pieces, we will end up with a smaller pie since it would eliminate any economic incentive to produce.

Most people who earn high incomes have made significant sacrifices to do so. They typically have stayed in school longer than most people, studied harder, worked longer hours, and taken more risks. Do we not feel they ought to be rewarded for these sacrifices? Isn't being rewarded for such behaviors itself an important aspect of fairness? There is simply no way to distribute income that is "fair" in every way.

The left's obsession with equality is the primary reason they despise the market. A market economy generates unequal wealth and incomes. That bothers them so much they are willing to forego all the advantages of a market economy.

In regard to many of life's most important dimensions we are, in fact, equal. Most important is the fact that "death is the great equalizer." Sooner or later we all die. No one, no matter how wealthy, lives forever. Rich or poor, if you eat too much you're probably going to gain weight. If you act like a jerk you will have no real friends. In many ways, life treats us all the same. The same basic rules apply to us all.

Statist Delusions

Mark Steyn
The bill for cradle-to-grave welfare has come due.

The president of the United States came to Osawatomie, Kan., last week to deliver a speech of such fascinating awfulness archeologists of the future sifting through the rubble of our civilization will surely doubt whether it could really have been delivered by the chief executive of the global superpower in the year 2011.

“This isn’t about class warfare,” declared President Obama. Really? As his fellow Democrat Dale Bumpers testified at the Clinton impeachment trial, “When you hear somebody say, ‘This is not about sex,’ it’s about sex.” The president understands that “Wall Street,” “banks,” “fat cats,” etc. remain the most inviting target and he figures that he can ride the twin steeds of Resentment and Envy to reelection and four more years of even bigger Big Government. His opponents, he told us, “want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess . . . . And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules . . . . It doesn’t work. It has never worked.” He blamed our present fix on “this brand of ‘you’re on your own’ economics.”

This is a deliciously perverse analysis of the situation confronting America and a fin de civilisation West. In what area of life are Americans now “on their own”? By 2008, Fannie and Freddie had a piece of over half the mortgages in this country; the “subprime” mortgage was an invention of government. America’s collective trillion dollars of college debt has been ramped up by government distortion of the student-loan market. Likewise, health care, where Americans labor under the misapprehension that they have a “private” system rather than one whose inflationary pressures and byzantine bureaucracy are both driven largely by remorseless incremental government annexation. Americans are ever less “on their own” in housing, education, health, and most other areas of life — and the present moribund slough is the direct consequence.

It would be truer to say that the present situation reflects the total failure of “you’re not on your own” economics — the delusion of statists that government can insulate millions of people from the vicissitudes of life. Europeans have assured their citizens of cradle-to-grave welfare since the end of the Second World War. This may or may not be an admirable notion, but, both economically and demographically, the bill has come due. Greece is being bailed out by Germany in order to save the eurozone but to do so requires the help of the IMF, which is principally funded by the United States. The entire Western world resembles the English parlor game “Pass the Parcel,” in which a gift wrapped in multiple layers of gaudy paper is passed around until the music stops and a lucky child removes the final wrapping from the shrunken gift to discover his small gift. Except that, in this case, underneath all the bulky layers, there is no there there: Broke nations are being bailed out by a broke transnational organization bankrolled by a broke superpower in order to save a broke currency. Good luck with that.

The political class looted the future to bribe the present, confident that tomorrow could be endlessly postponed. Hey, why not? “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day,” says Macbeth. “To borrow, and to borrow, and to borrow,” said the political class, like Macbeth with a heavy cold (to reprise a rare joke from Mrs. Thatcher). And they failed to anticipate that the petty pace would accelerate and overwhelm them. On Thursday, Jon Corzine, former United States senator, former governor of New Jersey, former Goldman Sachs golden boy, and the man who embodies the malign nexus between Big Government and a financial-services sector tap-dancing on derivatives of derivatives, came to Congress to try to explain how the now-bankrupt entity he ran, MF Global, had managed to misplace $1.2 billion. The man once tipped to be Obama’s Treasury secretary and whom Vice President Biden described as the fellow who’s always “the smartest guy in the room” explained his affairs thus: “I simply do not know where the money is.” Does that apply only to his private business or to his years in the Senate, too?