by Rory Cooper,
April 20, 2012
In 1971, America was introduced to President Richard Nixon’s “Enemies List.” The President had instructed staff to keep a list of political opponents, and as then-White House Counsel John Dean described it, they would “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” On the list were notable figures such as Paul Newman (actor), Charles Dyson (businessman), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), NPR newsman Daniel Schorr, Morton Halperin, a foreign policy expert and father to political journalist Mark Halperin, and others. This secret list was the subject of justifiable scorn in the midst of the Watergate scandal.
In 2012, President Obama’s campaign has managed to make Nixon’s list look quaint, legitimate and even routine. This week, on the president’s ominous “Truth Team“ campaign website, his staff listed the names of eight of his likely opponent’s donors. They were listed in this way:
“A closer look at…donors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans…”
After each name, the campaign lists deeds that they find objectionable or “less-than-reputable” that mostly boil down to business transactions that included alleged outsourcing or layoffs and involvement in the oil energy industry.
For example: “They also control the … investment firm which bragged about buying automotive accessories manufacturing company in Kansas in 1997 and moving production to Mexico. In 2002, the … group’s Mexico operation decided to outsource to China because China was ‘offering incentives and making it easy to open operations there.’”
Each name was then tweeted out by the @TruthTeam2012 twitter handle with similar charges.
This follows a multi-year effort by the ongoing Obama campaign to vilify specific donors to competing philosophical causes and demands that organizations release lawfully protected donor lists or donors reveal lawfully private and personal financial information. In each of these instances, President Obama has relied on a vast grassroots network to coerce, bully, boycott and vilify individuals lawfully [....]
IRS, Labor Department Audit Businessman on
by Rob Bluey,
July 21, 2012
Frank VanderSloot grew up a poor kid in rural Idaho. His father made $300 a month. His clothes came from the Salvation Army. Yet through determination and hard work — and with the help of America’s free-enterprise system — today he’s the successful CEO of a global supplier of wellness products. VanderSloot’s rags-to-riches story is not unlike other American tales of individuals who have benefited from the free market. In VanderSloot’s case, however, that success came with a price — but only when he decided a write a check to a super PAC that supports Mitt Romney.
On April 20, President Obama’s campaign named VanderSloot to the first presidential “enemies list” since the Nixon era. Eight private citizens were singled out for their donations to Romney. They committed no crimes, sought no attention, and yet they became the subject of Obama’s scorn. VanderSloot is now facing persecution from the federal government. Kimberly Strassel reveals in The Wall Street Journal that two federal agencies — the Internal Revenue Service and Labor Department — both launched investigations of VanderSloot after his name appeared on Obama’s enemies list.
In a letter dated June 21, he was informed that his tax records had been “selected for examination” by the Internal Revenue Service. The audit also encompasses Mr. VanderSloot’s wife, and not one, but two years of past filings (2008 and 2009).
Mr. VanderSloot, who is 63 and has been working since his teens, says neither he nor his accountants recall his being subject to a federal tax audit before. He was once required to send documents on a line item inquiry into his charitable donations, which resulted in no changes to his taxes. But nothing more—that is until now, shortly after he wrote a big check to a Romney-supporting Super PAC.
Two weeks after receiving the IRS letter, Mr. VanderSloot received another—this one from the Department of Labor. He was informed it would be doing an audit of workers he employs on his Idaho-based cattle ranch under the federal visa program for temporary agriculture workers.
The H-2A program allows tens of thousands of temporary workers in the U.S.; Mr. VanderSloot employs precisely three. All are from Mexico and have worked on the VanderSloot ranch—which employs about 20 people—for five years. Two are brothers. Mr. VanderSloot has never been audited for this, though two years ago his workers’ ranch homes were inspected. (The ranch was fined $8,400, mainly for too many “flies” and for “grease build-up” on the stove. God forbid a cattle ranch home has flies.)
Strassel acknowledges the investigations could [....]
Profile of the American Worker: A Work in Progress
Changing demographics, services economy highlight our labor force
by Marc Bastow,
July 26, 2012
The funny thing about numbers: Sometimes they show you exactly what you can see with your own eyes. A look at figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the American work force is made of vast and diverse peoples — just like America itself. Of course, while it’s difficult to paint a perfectly representative picture with stats, you still can get a pretty good idea of what you’re looking at.
Here are three charts breaking down the American work force by gender, race/ethnicity and occupation:
[Includes a lott'a charts and graphs][....]
SAF delighted with Judge’s ruling in Maryland case
by Second Amendment Foundation,
July 25, 2012
BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted that the judge in a Maryland case that challenges the constitutionality of that state’s handgun permitting scheme is ready to lift a stay on his original order for the state to process carry permits without a citizen having to provide a “good and substantial reason.’
U.S District Judge Benson Everett Legg will lift the stay on his original order in two weeks because, in his opinion, the stay “is not warranted.”
“There is no good reason for the state to continue violating the constitutional rights of its citizens just to maintain this burdensome and arbitrary system,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As Judge Legg originally observed, the Second Amendment’s protections extend beyond the home.”
While it is possible that the state may file a motion with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to impose a stay of Judge Legg’s order, the trial court precedent is an important one. It established that the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not stop at the door of one’s home.
“No citizen should be required to give a good and substantial’ reason in order to exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right,” Gottlieb observed. “In his order today, Judge Legg noted that the state has pointed to little in the way of truly irreparable injury that is likely to result should their request for a stay be denied’.”
The judge also noted [....]
What Taxmageddon Really Means for Families
by Romina Boccia,
July 19, 2012
Taxmageddon is approaching closer by the day. Much of the focus has been on the impact Taxmageddon will have on the economy. But just how will this massive tax hike impact America’s most fundamental unit of society? Families will see their taxes go up by more than $4,100—just in 2013—because of Taxmageddon. How will families pay for this huge tax hike, on top of all the other taxes they already pay, and still make ends meet?
The chart below illustrates the size of Taxmageddon’s burden on families in comparison to what families spend on some of life’s basic necessities. This tax hike is nearly as big as a family’s annual grocery bill, the amount families pay to maintain a car, or the amount families spend on utilities each year. What will families have to cut [....]
Unscripted Moments Damage Obama’s Carefully Built Image
by Matthew Continetti,
July 27, 2012
One cannot help noticing the struggle between Barack Obama’s natural instincts and the serene and benevolent persona he projects to the world. Beneath the visage of a cosmetically populist, post-racial, post-partisan reformer who wants to “perfect” America and to have “millionaires and billionaires” “pay their fair share” is just another condescending, self-important, sarcastic, academic liberal Democrat, who believes in false consciousness and in scholastic theories that success in life can be attributed to birth or luck or community but not to individual effort and grit. Obama may be talented at self-fashioning, but he cannot maintain his public face constantly. The mask sometimes slips.
The real Obama emerges. He lets loose in the self-consciously ironic and pretentiously omniscient argot of the American ruling class, lecturing audiences in what he, Elizabeth Warren, and the segment producers at MSNBC treat as the new catechism. The reaction to these gaffes is always the same. His remarks spark justified criticism. There is a frenetic effort to paper over his comments and restore the impression that he is just another dad who wants to take [....]
Elizabeth Warren criticized by liberal supporter for almost all-white campaign HQ photo
by William A. Jacobson,
July 26, 2012
Obama came under criticism and mockery from the left and right when a photo of his Chicago campaign operation staff had barely a non-white face among them. All the talk about diversity was not practiced at his HQ. Elizabeth Warren has a similar problem, and has come under criticism from a liberal supporter when she posted a photo on her Facebook page of her campaign volunteers and interns during [the comments are as telling as the article] [....]
Cherokees launch website targeting Elizabeth Warren over Native American heritage claims
by Robert Rizzuto,
May 30, 2012
The latest wave in the ocean of controversy over Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren's heritage claims involves a group of Cherokees who have launched a website and Facebook group calling the Harvard Law School professor's claims of Native American lineage "harmful and offensive." For several weeks, Warren, who is fighting for the Democratic nod to take on U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., in November, has faced questions about whether she is actually Cherokee as she claimed she learned through family lore and whether she used her heritage to boost herself as an affirmative action hire. Although Warren has repeatedly [....]
Athletes Yes, Business Owners No
by Austin Hill,
July 29, 2012
Why is it okay to be a successful athlete, but not a successful business owner?
It’s been nearly two weeks since President Obama delivered his now famous “Roanoke rant,” wherein he noted to entrepreneurs that, among other things, “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” Apparently the president’s spiteand vitriol for business owners isn’t playing so well with voters. By the middle of last week, the Obama campaign was doing damage control with a new video advertisement explaining that the President had just been “taken out of context,” and he actually loves business owners. But watch the “full context” of the Roanoke speech, and it becomes even clearer that the President was once again speaking the language of collectivist economics. While assuming the absolute worst about the motives of business owners, President Obama was again suggesting that wealth creation and material success are neither to be attributed to, nor enjoyed by individuals – only the collective masses can take credit for such successes, and we should all collectively share in the blessings of one-another’s wealth.
Call it socialism, call it Marxism, call it what you like. The president has made it clear throughout his professional life that he loathes the economic success of individual companies and business owners (unless, of course, such business owners are donating to his campaign), and regards their financial achievements as ill-gotten gain. But would you ever expect the President of the United States – even President Barack Obama – to apply this kind of thinking to athletes? And after the U.S. Olympic Athletes return home from London, will the President invite them to the White House and lecture them on how “somebody else made it happen?” It’s unlikely that President Obama would treat the Olympic competitors with the disdain that he shows to business owners. And if his recent treatment of a certain women’s college basketball team is any indication, then the U.S. Olympic athletes may be in for a real treat.
Two days after his “you didn’t do that” speech about business owners, the Baylor University women’s basketball team [....]
Legistorm Database Update
The congressional trips in our database were funded by private organizations. By searching our data you can learn details of each trip taken by a member of Congress or their staff, and who paid for the travel. Read more about Congressional Travel.
Congressional Trip Statistics by Year
2008 Presidential Candidates
Trip Cost Over Time [....]
by Marita Noon,
July 29, 2012
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day” is an adage we’ve all heard dozens of times. Today, it applies to the EPA as even it gets things right now and then. The EPA is well known for its attacks on virtually every kind of industry that might result in economic development—hitting the energy sector particularly hard. Despite the agency's best efforts, it has not been able to match up the science with its desired claims of water contamination from natural gas extraction using hydraulic fracturing—which has been in use in America for more than 60 years.
In early December 2011, the New York Times ran a story declaring: “Chemicals used to hydraulically fracture rocks in drilling for natural gas in a remote valley in central Wyoming are the likely cause of contaminated local water supplies.” Environmental groups jumped all over the announcement. Amy Mall, a fracking opponent with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the report “underscores the urgent need to get federal rules and safeguards on the books to help protect all Americans from the dangers of fracking.” An NPR story on the EPA’s draft study released on December 8, 2011, stated: “The gas industry and other experts have long contended that fracking doesn't contaminate drinking water. The EPA's findings provide the first official confirmation to the contrary.”
However, just three months later, on March 8, it was announced that the EPA had to backtrack as frequent attacks forced the agency to acknowledge that it had rushed to judgment. The chemicals supposedly found in the drinking water of Pavilion, Wyoming, were chemicals that could have come from a variety of sources—including the plastic piping. The EPA released the data and findings outside of the purview of two “working groups” made up of state and EPA officials, which had been examining the Pavillion pollution for the better part of a year. Following accusations that the EPA rushed the release of the report without peer review, the EPA backed down and agreed to retest. Now, the EPA and Wyoming, as well as U.S. Geological Survey and two American Indian tribes, are working together on further study of the Pavillion groundwater.
On April 1, a lawsuit the EPA had filed earlier this year against a Texas energy company, Range Resources, accusing it of contaminating water through hydraulic [....]
LegiStorm users can now download lists of congressional staff contact information
by LegiStorm Staff,
July 25, 2012
LegiStorm is proud to introduce a powerful new tool for people to be able to communicate with Congress. With the launch of our new congressional contact list building and download capability, subscribers and non-subscribers alike have the power to find the people in Congress they need based on any number of useful criteria. Powered by LegiStorm's congressional staff database with industry-leading accuracy and timeliness, the list-building capability brings users an affordable new solution for finding just the right decision makers to reach out to in Congress.
Newcomers to the site without a LegiStorm Pro subscription can build and download simple lists based on staffing within an office or a state delegation or those who cover a specific role or legislative issue within an office. Users are charged per downloaded contact. Annual subscribers to LegiStorm Pro are treated to a whole new level of list-building capability, as well as 2000 free download credits. Subscribers can build lists based on multiple criteria, including more advanced options such as where the person went to college. The lists are highly configurable, with users being able to add or subtract anyone from the list as needed. All Pro subscribers can build and browse as many lists as they want for free - only downloading the contact information requires an extra fee, and then at a low rate.
Downloads are in highly portable .csv format, with each record containing a staffer's name, title, office, key role served, legislative issues covered and all the contact information including email, phone, fax and office address. The uses for such new functionality are many. Some examples: [....]
Obama Didn’t Do That Alone…
July 25, 2012
Somewhere along the way,a teacher helped.
Yes,with a contract guaranteeing her a job for life,short of actually killing a student.
I believe every day they taught my NYC Public School classes,all my teachers were paid through the taxes collected from my parents and others. Just as my Catholic School teachers were paid by my parents when I transferred. Except the Public School teachers were paid to fulfill a contract to which my parents were never a negotiating party. They certainly never received the kickbacks the Democrats received for rubber stamping those contracts,contracts paid not with their money but with tax dollars forcibly extorted by a never thankful,corrupt government.
A road was built in front of my business?
Yes,and I’ll give 10 to one odds in any big city it was the result of a corrupt union deal that overcharged the taxpayers and lined the pockets of the union thugs and the Democrat Party. I owe the road worker and builders a great big attaboy for doing their jobs,paid for with taxpayer monies,that they were overpaid to do. Not a damn thing more from a successful business I may have run. I owe my teachers a great big attaboy for going into teaching. Not a damn thing more from a successful business I may have run.
Where were all those helpers while my attempts to start a business failed? Why aren’t they responsible for the bankruptcies throughout the economy,because if they had been doing their jobs,wouldn’t we all be successful? Or,better yet,Comrade Obama,if the secrets of success lie not inside the personal enthusiasm of ownership and rugged individualism that makes an American risk all,but outside in the streets and government buildings put there out of the pure compassion for us by you and your ilk,I ask you a question:Why don’t all businesses succeed?
You denigrate those [....]
Obama's Little Red Phrase
by John Ransom,
Steve of CA wrote: Personally I do not own a gun and would not feel safer if I had one, but I do not have a problem with law abiding people buying guns. That being the case, I have to ask of Mr. Ransom and others here, what controls, if any, do you favor over the purchase and use of weapons, including semi-automatic weapons such as the one used by the killer in Aurora? Or do you think we have too much gun control with the laws we have now? - The American Solution: Reach for the Guns
The 2nd Amendment allows no restrictions on a citizen’s right to arm themselves, although various Supreme Court decisions- which I disagree with- have allowed the government to restrict the right to bear arms through permitting and sale restrictions. Proponents of gun-control argue that the phrase “well regulated militia” means that the founders only intended that the right to bear arms would apply to a militia. But the history of the term and the history of the right to bear arms would argue against that conclusion. Instead, it is clear that a plain reading of the 2nd Amendment considers a well regulated militia as an outgrowth of the individual’s right to arm themselves:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In other words, in order to have a well regulated militia, sufficient to ensure the security of a free state, you must first allow no infringement on the right of people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is not the right to a militia, nor the right a free state; it is instead a blanket denial of the government’s ability to infringe on the right of the individual to arm themselves to protect their freedoms.
Ericynot wrote: Here's an idea I recently learned. Keep your car keys near your bed and press the Panic Button if someone tries to break in. My old Chrsyler can make enough noise to wake the whole neighborhood. Any intruder not run off by that racket is so crazy you're probably not going to beat them with or without a gun. - The American Solution: Reach for the Guns
Dear Comrade Eric,
Yes, and maybe if you throw your keys at the intruder hard enough you will blind him accidentally. Then he can sue you under laws passed by permissive liberals and get a fat settlement that includes an RV and a boat. All he’ll need then is the Democrat nomination to Congress from, say, California, to be the perfect liberal success story. I take it then you will allow just anyone to go ahead and buy a car? Yet automobiles account for 3 times as many deaths every year as guns do?
Why in the world would yet let people have access to such a dangerous device as an automobile when they cause more deaths than guns do? And to think it takes less time to purchase a car than it does to buy a gun. Actually, you’ll probably want to initiate background checks on car buyers now.
Liberals always come up with [....]
Obscurity: No Crueler Punishment!
by Ann Coulter,
July 25, 2012
I feel awful about what happened in Colorado, but can we stop the hugging and the teddy bears? Just as society can become inured to violence, it can also become inured to sentiment. There is nothing so hackneyed in the world of photojournalism as pictures of the hugging and the shrines with candles and teddy bears after a tragedy, with a piano softly trilling in the background. This accomplishes nothing. If you want to do something, please write a check to a good charity, a family financially harmed by the shooting, or send flowers to a specific person. It is also not helpful to have politicians and television personalities pledging not to discuss the alleged shooter. Unlike most news, that information serves an actual purpose, such has helping us recognize warning signs in other potential mass murderers in the future.
Only people who are themselves obsessed with being famous could imagine that any kind of fame -- even infamy -- is some kind of a reward. Thus, President Barack Obama and MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, among others, have vowed to punish the suspect by not mentioning his name. If only we had thought of that with Adolf Hitler! Apparently, it wasn't Hitler's twisted Darwinian "master race" philosophy that led to the Holocaust. He just wanted to get his name in the paper. Say anything you want about how much I hate Jews -- just spell my name right!
This is the apotheosis of the "Jersey Shore" mentality.
Similarly, why is it assumed [....]
Public Pensions Fail Simple Math
by John Ransom,
July 26, 2012
There is a dirty secret about state entitlements that liberals don’t want you to know. The collection of a state pension increases the chances that a pensioner will live in poverty. That’s because money put aside for state-guaranteed benefits can not be safely invested at rates that provide for more than a modest retirement unless the state subsidizes retirement benefits through taxes or if retirement savings are invested in riskier, higher yielding investments. Since governments are loath to raise taxes to subsidize a riskless retirement, benefits are eventually reduced. It works that way in London and Moscow as well as Madison and Sacramento.
In Moscow, public pensions and social programs helped bankrupt the Soviet Union in the 1980s while “transfer to pension status greatly increase[d] the likelihood of poverty,” according to Mervyn Matthews’ Poverty in the Soviet Union (Cambridge Press, 1986). In London, the former Labour Minister John Hutton’s Independent Public Services Pension Commission has recommended changes that would calculate pension benefits on lifetime earnings rather than current salary, in line with recommendations for pension reform from the Office for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Trade unions in U.K. say that such changes will lead to “increased pensioner poverty.” In Madison, WI public retirement applications have risen 73 percent according to the Wall Street Journal as workers try to lock in higher retirement benefits that will likely shrink for those public employees retiring in the future.
Increasingly state governments in the US are facing budget shortfalls over entitlements paid to public servants and those on the public dole. And like the Social Security program, the shortfalls have been wholly predictable as government makes bigger and bigger promises to a select number of citizens who then take up a bigger share of the public pie. Behind the rhetoric and the rants [....]
The Ride Of A Lifetime
by Ben Crystal,
Personal Liberty Digest
July 26, 2012 Sally Ride died Monday.You’ll have to pardon my digression. Far more pressing concerns dominate our national consciousness, as well they should. Tragedy, war and economic chaos are indeed worthy of most of the coverage they receive in the headlines. And I will indubitably rejoin the parade of political punditry posthaste. Nonetheless, something grabbed my attention Tuesday morning; and while it might pale in apparent importance when compared the rest of the events of that and every other day recently, it meant something to me.
Sally Ride passed away Monday at the relatively young age of 61. Ride, who exemplified American exceptionalism as much as anyone ever did, was a rare breed even among her spectacularly intelligent peers in the world of astrophysicists. Yes, she was a rocket scientist; but she was hardly the lab coat-wearing, bespectacled wallflower of cliché. Ride wasn’t merely a rocket scientist; Ride was a rocket driver. In June of 1983, Ride boarded the Space Shuttle Challenger to become the first American woman in space. She wasn’t the first of her gender to visit the heavens; two Russian women had already made the trip. But she was the first woman to visit space about whom I knew more than her name. At the time of her mission, I was a 12-year-old kid who had abandoned the standard childhood dreams of action-adventure-style spacefaring in favor of more reasonable stuff — like playing center for the New York Rangers. Ride’s beyond-stratospheric jaunt reignited my imagination. I didn’t particularly care about her gender; I just happened to be teetering on the edge of adolescent apathy at the exact moment Americans rediscovered a fascination with space flight, and I went along for the ride.
Even a preteen lad who was starting to notice girls were far less awful than he had previously thought was swept up in space fever. “Star Wars” was finishing up the part of the trilogy that should have been made. “ET” had just phoned home. The Voyager probes had delivered images of Jupiter and Saturn that far surpassed anything we had imagined. And then, Ride and her four fellow astronauts on STS-7 reminded me that science was even cooler than science fiction. Six months after Ride’s ride, a serious miscalculation on my part regarding the speed at which a Flexible Flyer becomes unstable while attempting to negotiate a very large stand of pine trees put an end to any chance I would ever have to slip “the surly bonds of earth” or even enjoy the privilege of serving in the military. I should note that the accident didn’t really change my potential astronaut status. The people who make it aboard American spacecraft [....]
What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls
Most Investors Have Lost Money Over Past Year
Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 43%, Democrats 40%
30% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction
by Scott Rasmussen,
July 28, 2012
During this past week, Mitt Romney opened his biggest lead in over a month over President Obama. During the same week, consumer confidence fell to the lowest level of 2012. It’s no coincidence that they happened during the same week. Long-term optimism about the U.S. Economy Fell to a new low this month. Just 40% believe the economy will be stronger in FIVE years. That’s down from 46% a year ago, 50% two years ago and 58% three years ago. Most Americans (56%) believe the Housing market will take more than three years to fully recover.
As Scott Rasmussen noted in his weekly newspaper column, “Declining Views of the Economy Put Obama's Reelection at Risk.” He added that, for Obama to win, “he will need to improve his own job approval rating between now and Election Day. For that to happen, perceptions of the economy will have to reverse their current downward trend.” Voters don’t have a lot of confidence [....]
Where Were You in '62?
by Bill O'Reilly,
Jul 28, 2012
Fifty years ago, in the summer of 1962, America was a far different place from what it is today. President John Kennedy was presiding over Camelot, and despite fouling up the invasion of Cuba, his approval rating hovered at around 80 percent. Unemployment was 5.2 percent with the average family income at $6,000 a year. Most Americans did not have much money but made do. Millions bought Elvis Presley's record "Return to Sender" and went to see "Lawrence of Arabia" in movie theaters. At home, "Wagon Train" was the top TV show.
Years later, the film "American Graffiti" featured the ad campaign "Where were you in '62?" Well, I was on Long Island, hanging around. During the day, we swam at the Levittown pool and played stickball in the street, and in August, my father took us to a lake in Vermont. Also, we went to Jones Beach and baked in the sun without block while secondhand cigarette smoke engulfed us on the blanket.
My folks had little disposable income, certainly not enough for air conditioning or a color television set. But again, there was little whining in my working-class neighborhood. We had fun with what was available. Most everybody worked. Nobody was on welfare.
In fact, just 6 percent of Americans received welfare payments in 1962. Now that number is 35 percent. More than 100 million of us are getting money from the government, and that does not count Social Security and Medicare, programs workers pay into. This is a profound change in the American tradition. Also, we now have close to nine million workers collecting federal disability checks. In 2001, that number was about five million. Here's my question: Is the workplace that much more hazardous than it was 11 years ago? Is our health that much worse?
The answer is no. What we are seeing is the rise of the Nanny State. Self-reliance and ambition made the United States the most powerful nation on Earth. But that ethic is now [....]
Why Are Obama, Democrats Economically Illiterate?
by Wayne Allyn Root,
Personal Liberty Digest
July 26, 2012
My commentary today is about the economic ignorance gap between conservatives, capitalists and the dunces on the left. Good old John Edwards was actually right about one thing. He said there were two Americas. Under Obama, the John Edwards fantasy has come true. The first America is represented by those who work in the government sector (who almost always support Obama and vote Democrat) and who think the private sector is doing just fine. The second America is represented by private-sector entrepreneurs, small-business owners and job creators (who almost always support conservative candidates and causes) who know the terrible truth: The economy is in horrible shape. The difference is due to economic ignorance. To save America, we must ignore those in the government sector and start listening to those in the private sector who are living at “ground zero.” They are the experts. They have “boots on the ground.” They understand firsthand what Obama’s policies have created: complete economic collapse.
The dirty secret rarely discussed or explained by the media is this gap between what Americans on the right think of the economy versus what those on the left think. See the polls. Democrats think the economy is in recovery with a bright future. Republicans think the economy is in horrible shape and worsening. How could two groups look at the same economy and see things so differently? Why don’t the media discuss this disparity? The simple truth is the media don’t like the answer. The truth is Democrats who so want to support their President are either delusional or, more likely, ignorant [....]
Yes, Guns Kill, But How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense?
by Larry Elder,
Jul 26, 2012
About the tragedy in Aurora, Colo., rapper/actor Ice-T made more sense -- and has a better understanding of the Second Amendment -- than gun-control proponents. Asked by a London news anchor about America's gun culture,
Ice-T said: "Well, I'd give up my gun when everybody does. Doesn't that make sense? ... If there were guns here, would you want to be the only person without one?"
Anchor Krishnan Guru-Murthy, Channel 4 News: "So do you carry guns routinely at home?"
Ice-T: "Yeah, it's legal in the United States. It's part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that's the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It's to protect yourself from the police."
Anchor: "And do you see any link between that and these sorts of (Aurora-type) incidents?"
Ice-T: "No. Nah. Not really. You know what I'm saying, if somebody wants to kill people, you know, they don't need a gun to do it."
Anchor: "It makes it easier, though, doesn't it?"
Ice-T: "Not really. You can strap explosives on your body. They do that all the time."
Anchor: "So when there's the inevitable backlash of the anti-gun lobby, as a result of this instance, as there always is--"
Ice-T: "Well, that's not going to change anything. ... The United States is based on guns."
Security experts say a determined killer, willing to give up his own life, cannot be stopped. The odds, however, can be shifted in favor of the victims and would-be victims. How?
In Pearl, Miss., a gunman who killed two students and wounded seven at a high school was stopped by an assistant principal, who rushed to his car and got his gun. The assistant principal, running back with his .45, spotted the rifle-carrying shooter in the parking lot. Ordering the teen to stop, the vice principal held his gun to the shooter's neck until police arrived.
In Salt Lake City, a man purchased a knife in a grocery store, walked outside and stabbed and critically injured two men. He was threatening others, when a store patron with a concealed weapons permit drew his gun, forced the attacker to the ground and held him until police arrived.
In Grundy, Va., a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension at Appalachian School of Law shot and killed the dean, a professor and a fellow student. Two students, both off-duty peace officers, ran to their cars, retrieved their guns and used them to halt the attack.
No one knows whether Aurora would have turned out differently had there been [....]