SUNDAY RESPITE-I Can Begin Again-Larnelle Harris

I'll be gone a few days. See you on the 3rd.

WHY KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

If you just HAD to be hit by a bullet, which of the above would you rather be hit with, the big fellow on the right or the smaller guy on the left?

I know, I know. Most of would rather not be hit by either one. But if you had to choose, which one would you choose?

The bullet on the left is the smallest, and as you move to the right the bullets are larger.

Turns out that, starting with the second bullet from the left and moving to the right, three of those rounds are used for hunting: the 30-30; the 308 and the 30-06. The former is a sort of "entry level" big game bullet, the 30-06 is a really sophisticated big game round.

The bullet on the far left is used in the infamous AK47.

One of the arguments made about the simi-automatic imitation AK47 used in some mass shooter events is that nobody needs an assault rifle.

As far as it goes, that is true. It just doesn't go very far. Some people WANT one (for non-nefarious purposes), and that should be enough.

In the military version of the AK47 the bullet used is designed to both spin and sort-of wabble as it flies toward its target. It really slices the target up as it enters. That is what would happen on the battlefield.

It does not travel as fast or as far as the other three, but it is very effective when it hits its target. If the target is living, it is probably going to die or be badly maimed.

The ammunition for the military version of the AK47 is not readily available to the general public. There are about a dozen complicated forms to fill out to buy a limited quantity, IF one is allowed to buy them at all.

The ammunition for the civilian version of this rifle is designed to spin (as are almost all rounds of ammunition - it's called "rifling"), but it does not wabble. It is more easily purchased.

The civilian version of the AK-47 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The M&P 15 is similar, though it fires a much smaller bullet — .223 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .30-inch rounds used by the AK-47.

Why would anyone own a so-called "assault rifle" and why should they be allowed to do so?

The answer lies in the fundamental concept of liberty and its usurpation by the federal government.

If the government had its way, we would all be driving a Prius (or some other "green" car). Why should any of us be allowed to drive a Lincoln Town Car or an SUV, gas guzzling, heavy "killer" cars?

Being run into by a Lincoln Town Car or an SUV would be much more devastating than being hit by a Prius, no? Therefore, a Lincoln Town Car or SUV is much more dangerous than a Prius.

(BTW: States license drivers, not the federal government and driving is a privilege, not a right.)

The answer to the question of why anyone should be allowed to drive a Lincoln Town Car is simple: because they want to.

That's liberty.

Why would one own a water heater that is not government certified at a certain efficiency level? Because they want to.

That's liberty.

Why would one own an assault style weapon? Because they want to.

That's liberty.

Millions of simi-automatic fire arms are owned by the general public (not all of them imitation AK47s). Only a minute number of them are ever used for illegal purposes.

Some of those owners are collectors; some of them just love to target shoot with them as a sport. They have an innate right to own those guns and the Constitution recognizes the right to "keep and bear" arms.

And if they are called to be in a militia in a time of weapons shortage (not an unlikely event, given the draconian cut-backs to the military budget proposed) or for any other reason, they will have a weapon to use. (Just trying to help our liberal friends understand the real meaning of the Second Amendment.)

Everyone deplores the mass shootings that have occurred over the years in our country. But the problem is not the guns.

In every instance it can be shown that the person wielding the fire arm was mentally ill, emotionally unstable and/or suffered severe social aberrations.

It follows, then, that what we need to do is to recognize the symptoms of these disorders, identify those who exhibit them and to prevent them from possessing lethal weapons as much as possible.

The Second Amendment does not need to be altered, and the government does not need to step on anybody's rights (which they LOVE to do).

The people have a right to "keep and bear arms," and the federal government has no business involving itself in the issue.

EMPTY THEATERS

In case you missed the irony, this from the people who showed us HOW to glorify gun violence.

Every actor and actress in this video is shown in the movie in which he/she appeared that featured and/or glorified gun violence.

If they are sincere, and I have no reason to believe that they are, let them to a man/woman refuse to have any part in a movie that features gun violence of any kind.

No more James Bond, "license to kill," no more Terminator, no more Rambo, no more "ah'll be bach," no more Bonnie and Clyde, Boyz N the Hood,  Godfather (I, II, III IV,  V...XX), no more Gunfight at the OK Coral, no more Gone with the Wind.

No more movie theater patrons.

There is nobody that I care any less about than movie actors and actresses. There is nobody who has any less right to lecture me than this group of magna-hypocrites.

Let them take a stand for what they pretend to believe.

Go ahead...I'll wait.

While we're waiting, check THIS out.

HERE IT COMES!

ObamaCare is on its way!

Oh, thrill! Oh, excitement!

We can all hardly wait.

The second phase begins in 2013 and it includes some long awaited condiments that we all have wanted, probably since the opening days of the Republic.

By now you know that tanning booths are already paying a penalty (tax) just for existing. It’s a 10% “sales tax” on indoor tanning sessions. It started in 2010.

Pharmaceutical companies that make or import brand-name drugs are already paying fees; they totaled $2.5 billion in 2011, their first year.

Well, that’s just the beginning.

Starting January 1, 2013, individuals making more than $200,000 per year will face an additional 3.8% tax on investment income. They will also face a .9% increase on Medicare taxes. It’s their “fair share.” A couple making more than $250,000 will face the same tax. This is not related to the proposal to increase taxes on the "rich" with regard to the fiscal cliff.

Drug companies insurers and medical device manufacturers will have to pay new fees and taxes. The companies that make pacemakers, artificial hips and coronary stents will be taxed 2.3% as an excise tax on their sales.

In 2014, employers with more than 50 employees, a very large segment of the small business community, must pay their employees health insurance premiums will face a penalty of $2,000 per employee, with the first 30 workers not counting toward the total.

The entire health insurance industry faces an annual fee that begins at $8 billion beginning in 2014.

The coups de grace is on people who don’t’ get health insurance. In 2014 their penalty will begin. By 2016, they will pay an average penalty of around $1,200 annually.

Roughly 20 million people will eventually receive a tax credit to help them pay for insurance premiums.

That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it?

Take from them and then give them a tax credit.

That means that in order for the federal government to benefit at its desired level, the original tax has to be higher to compensate for the credit.

It is obviously going to give Americans great joy to pay these additional taxes and fees.

The ones who we can expect to be the happiest are the leftist/liberal/progressives who will just be ecstatic to send more of their hard-earned money to the government.

I am SO happy for them!

THEY DIDN'T HAVE A GUN

BEIJING (AP) — A man angered by a court ruling in the murder of his daughter rammed a car loaded with a gas tank and firecrackers into a group of middle schoolers, injuring 13 in the country's latest attack on students.

The man ran down 23 students at Fengning No. 1 Middle School in northern China's Hebei province on Monday, the official Xinhua News Agency said Tuesday, citing local police.

Xinhua said the man, identified as 48-year-old Yin Tiejun, later lit a bottle of diesel in an attempt to set his car on fire.

Police put out the fire and found the gas tank and firecrackers in the trunk of the car, but Xinhua said Yin told police in an interrogation later that the materials were not meant for an attack.

Yin has been detained on charges of endangering public safety, Xinhua said.

Xinhua described Yin as having been upset for years that a court did not sentence to death all four assailants involved in the murder of his daughter three years ago. The report did not give further details of the murder but said the children hurt in Monday's car crash were not tied to the case.

Xinhua said the man did not act under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Students were hospitalized with injuries that included skull fractures and crushed feet, Xinhua said.

The local Fengning county government confirmed the incident in a written statement and said Yin was driving a Geely sedan.

Citing eyewitnesses, the Beijing-based state-run Jinghua Times said the accident occurred when students were leaving school for noon break and that the car accelerated and knocked down students, many of whom were on bikes.

On Dec. 14, a Chinese man took a kitchen knife and went on a stabbing spree that left 23 students wounded in an elementary school in Henan province.

China has seen more than a half-dozen school attacks in less than three years...China largely prohibits private ownership of guns.

There was more to these stories, but the point, of course, is that cars don't kill people, people kill people. Nobody has suggested banning cars because they are used to cause mass mayhem.

Likewise, knives don't kill people. People kill people. Nobody has suggested banning knives because they are used to cause mass mayhem.

My son collects knives, daggers and swords, all of which could be used to cause bodily harm. Someone could even steal one or more and go on a stabbing spree.

Carrying the logic one step further, guns don't kill people. People kill people. Yet there has been quite a clamour to ban guns.

Wouldn't it be better to repeal the laws and ordinances that reinforce the political correctness that prohibits us from recognizing that someone needs to be taken off the streets because he(she) is unstable? Wouldn't it be better to profile people who are likely to snap and get them help before they cause mayhem?

That would help prevent mass mayhem of many kinds, rather than focusing on guns alone.

The latest example, of course, is four volunteer firefighters responding to a pre-dawn house fire who were shot Monday morning, two fatally, leading to a shootout in suburban Rochester, N.Y. with the alleged gunman.

The gunman was known to have had mental issues and was unstable, but nothing was done about it.

How long are we going to let this stuff go on until we take the really appropriate steps to stop it? How long before we take these mentally disturbed people out of the general population?

ADDENDUM: I am not the first to advocate armed officers in schools. The darling of the left did it.

The Chistmas Story-Michael W. Smith

What Child is This-Andrea Bocelli (With Mary J. Blige)

Carol of the Bells from the University of Mobile’s Christmas Spectacular.

SUNDAY RESPITE-O Come All Ye Faithful-Celtic Woman

THE RIGHT TO CARRY AND MASS SHOOTINGS

Warning! Warning! Long post! Only those who can read at above a 5th grade level should attempt to read this post.

There are 49 states that have “Right to Carry” laws on the books. Seven of those states are disputing the current laws, seeking to either have them overturned or to have them amended.

There are differing types of “Right to Carry” laws. They are: Shall-issue; May-issue; Unrestricted and No-issue.

An "Unrestricted" jurisdiction is one in which no permit is required to carry a concealed handgun.

A "Shall-Issue" jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits, and there is no requirement of the applicant to demonstrate "good cause".

A "May-Issue" jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

A "No-Issue" jurisdiction is one that - with very limited exceptions - does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun in public.

Shall-issue states are: Alabama (in practice); Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; Colorado (in practice); Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana (Outside of city limits is unrestricted); Nebraska; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Mexico (although a ban is practiced); North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Virginia; Washington; West Virginia and Wisconsin.

May-issue states are: Alabama (disputed); California; Connecticut (in practice and disputed); Delaware (in practice and disputed); Hawaii (in practice but “No Carry” is in practice); Maryland (with a ban in practice and disputed); Massachusetts; New Jersey (a ban is in practice); New York (disputed); Rhode Island (local permits only and disputed). All military installations have May-issue policies.

Unrestricted states are: Alaska (Shall-issue is in practice); Arizona; Wyoming allows only residents to carry a concealed weapon.

Concealed weapons are not permitted in: Washington D.C. or Illinois (although some counties are in practice).

It is worth noting that the two states with a ban on concealed weapons have very high crime rates across the board, with Washington D.C. having the highest in the nation per capita.

You can view a Guide to Mass Shootings at Mother Jones' website (hardly a conservative site).

Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii.


For the record, mass shootings (4 or more people injured or killed) have occurred in:

1982  - Miami, Florida (11 injured or killed);
1984  - San Ysidro, California (41 injured or killed);
1984 – Dallas, Texas (7 killed);
1986 - Edmond, Oklahoma (21 injured or killed)
1987 - Palm Bay, Florida (5 killed);
1988 - Sunnyvale, California (11 injured or killed)
1989 - Louisville, Kentucky (21 killed);
1989 - Stockton, California (35 injured or killed);
1990 - Jacksonville, Florida (14 injured or killed)
1991 - Iowa City, Iowa (7 injured or killed)
1991 - Kelleen Texas (44 injured or killed)
1991 - Royal Oak, Michigan (10 injured or killed)
1992 - Watkins Glen, New York (5 injured or killed)
1992 – Olivehurst, California (14 injured or killed)
1993 - San Francisco, California (15 injured or killed)
1993 - Fayetteville, North Carolina (12 injured or killed)
1993 - Garden City, New York (25 injured or killed)
1993 – Aurora, Colorado (6 injured or killed)
1994 - Fairchild Air Force Base, WA (28 injured or killed)
1995 - Corpus Christi, Texas ( 6 injured or killed)
1996 - Ft. Lauderdale, FLorida (5 injured or killed);
1997 - Aiken, South Carolina (7 injured or killed)
1997 – Orange, California (1997 – 7 injured or killed)
1998 -  Newington, Connecticut (6 injured or killed)
1998 -  Jonesboro, Arkansas (15 injured or killed)
1998 - Springfield Oregon (29 injured or killed)
1999 – Littleton, Colorado (39 injured or killed)
1999 - Atlanta, Georgia (22 injured or killed)
1999 - Ft. Worth, Texas (15 injured or killed)
1999 – Honolulu, Hawaii (7 injured or killed)
1999 - Tampa, Florida (8 injured or killed)
2000 – Wakefield, Massachusetts (7 injured or killed)
2001 - Melrose Park, Illinois (9 injured or killed)
2003 - Meridian, Mississippi (15 injured or killed)
2004 - Columbus, Ohio (12 injured or killed)
2005 – Brookfield, Wisconsin (11 injured or killed)
2005 - Red Lake, Minnesota (15 injured or killed)
2006 - Goleta, California (8 injured or killed)
2006 - Capitol Hill, Washington (9 injured or killed)
2006 - Lancaster County Pennsylvania (11 injured or killed)
2007 - Salt Lake City, Utah (10 injured or killed)
2007 - Blacksburg, Virginia (56 injured or killed)
2007 - Crandon, Wisconsin (7 injured or killed)
2007 - Omaha, Nebraska (13 injured or killed)
2008 - Kirkwood, Missouri (8 injured or killed)
2008 - DeKalb, Illinois (27 injured or killed)
2008 - Henderson, Kentucky (7 injured or killed)
2009 - Carthage, North Carolina (11 injured or killed)
2009 - Binghamton, New York (18 injured or killed)
2009 - Ft. Hood, Texas (43 injured or killed)
2009 - Parkland, Washington (5 injured or killed)
2010 - Manchester, Connecticut (11 injured or killed)
2011 - Tuscon, Arizona (19 injured or killed)
2011 - Carson City Nevada (12 injured or killed)
2011 - Seal Beach, California (9 injured or killed)
2012 - Atlanta, Georgia (5 injured or killed)
2012 - Oakland, California (10 injured or killed)
2012 - Seattle, Washington (7 injured or killed)
2012 - Aurora, Colorado (12 injured, 59 killed)
2012 - Oak Creek Wisconsin (10 injured or killed)
2012 - Minneapolis, Minnesota (8 injured or killed)
2012 - Newtown, Connecticut (28 injured or killed)

It is interesting how many of these mass shootings took place in California, Florida and Wisconsin. One was in Massachusetts, in 2000.

At Mother Jones, there is a rundown of the psychological character of each shooter. Most were mentally, emotionally or socially unstable and had serious, recognizable issues from childhood.

Many (about 1/3) of the shooters did not own the guns they used. They were stolen, "borrowed" or otherwise obtained.

About 2/3 of the shooters owned their weapons.

OK, what do we conclude from all of this?

First, there is little correlation between gun laws and illegal gun use in mass shootings.

California, which is a "May-issue" state and where it is tough to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, had a lot of shootings. So did Florida, a "Shall-issue" state where it is pretty easy to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Secondly, in every case where the shooter was killed [by either a regular citizen or a police officer (police officers are almost always citizens, too)], was physically stopped or killed himself, there were no more killings.

Thirdly, the shooters were almost all in a state of real or imagined chaos, mental distress, emotionally stressed or certifiably insane. Most had had a history of exposure to long-time bullying or beatings. A few were diabolical to the core and were enamored with the idea of killing, by way of violent video games, etc.

Back in my school years, some teachers would punish the whole class when one or two acted up. That was patently unfair, as the good guys had to pay a penalty they did not deserve. The teachers expressed the hope that the good guys would exercise influence over the bad guys so they would not act up any more. It never worked.

Considering the 62 or so mass shootings since 1982 and the very small percentage of the population they represent, it is just as unfair to punish law abiding citizens by taking away their right to bear arms. And it won't work.

You don't solve crimes committed by a few by placing sanctions on the many. You identify and stop or punish the few.

It is time to educate our society to the behaviors that indicate a person might break, to make it socially acceptable to "tattle" on those who are at risk of committing evil acts, to release the restrictions on teachers, principals and other in authority to deal with anti-social behavior and to hold responsible parents and relatives who refuse to admit their child has a problem.

It is already illegal to kill without cause. It is also illegal to shoot at people indiscriminately or otherwise, except in self defense.

We don't need more laws, and we don't need to take guns of any kind away from law abiding citizens, we need to deal with the ones who aren't law abiding before they commit their dastardly deeds.

Surely we are advanced enough as a society to do that. Right?

GIVE OR TAKE?

Please only read this post if the world is still here. If the world has come to an end, please do not read this post.

In recent posts I have advocated having at least one person in every school armed with a gun and trained to use the weapon in the right way in the right circumstance.

My comments have met with ridicule, disdain, fear and sarcasm.

When you read a news report about mass killings, did it ever occur to you that there may have been instances in the past where mass killings were attempted and thwarted by someone who was armed that were not reported in the MainStream media?

Why didn't they report these instances on the front page instead of burying them on page 4 or not reporting them at all?

Could it be that successful defense against mass killings is not news? Perhaps there were not enough people killed to warrant mention, particularly not on the front page or as a lead story on the evening news.

When the killer is successful, it makes the front page and, as in the case of the Newtown massacre, stays there until the public's nerves are raw.

The resulting clamor for "more gun control" is deafening.

It turns out that most mass killings have occurred in "gun-free" zones, such as public schools, theaters and malls. Even in "concealed-carry" states where these atrocities have occurred they have taken place in "gun-free" zones within the "concealed-carry" state.

It also turns out that the perpetrators of these deeds were not law abiding citizens, meaning that more laws wouldn't have deterred them one iota.

Neither would banning so-called assault weapons or the ammunition they use.

Mentally deranged shooters might be unstable, but they are not stupid. They know how to get weapons when they want them.

Although they have gone largely de-emphasized, there are multiple examples of people who have intended to shoot great numbers of others who have been stopped by someone who was armed and well trained.

Not counting the shooter, here are some examples of how it has played out:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. 

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (police arrive too late. Six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (Police too late to help. 32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (Police arrive too late.12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (Police too late to help. Five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (Police too late to help. Five killed, including four little girls).   (Source)  

If you live in a "concealed carry" state, you are less likely to be shot by a crazed gunman in a mall, theater, school or other public place, unless you are in a "gun-free" zone.  

To which conclusion does that lead you? Do you conclude that the government should take guns away from citizens or that government should control guns more fervently?  Or do you conclude that an armed and trained citizenry makes for a safer America? 

Your answer is a strong indicator of your ability to think logically about this emotionally highly charged issue.

IT HAS BEEN TRIED---AND FAILED

WHO SHOULD HAVE THE GUNS?

Newtown is still in the news and on the minds of many, maybe most people.

As we knew would happen, the shooter, Adam Lanza, has been described as a loner, withdrawn, socially clumsy, and (according to at least one report) had a form of autism. 

One of the reasons so many people were shot and/or killed is that nobody had any "resources" to use against the kid.

I think it is time to have hall monitors in schools who are more than amateur psychologists to coddle the kids and look important. Many of them are "armed" with MACE.

Imaging how MACE could have been used to help protect those teachers and students.

Having imagined it, now explain it to me.

Personally, I think every school should have at least one person licensed and trained to carry a gun (Keyword: "trained").

Gun control advocates are fond of saying things like, “Let the police (or the National Guard, or the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines) handle the taking down of the bad guy.

The police were called immediately to that Newtown, Connecticut elementary school. How much did it
help prevent the deaths of 20 children?

Don’t you care that more could have been saved if the perp had died sooner?

According to news reports it took almost 20 minutes for the police to get there. Yet it was reported by the communications officer that they rushed to the scene with every resource they had, along with the resources of other agencies.

But it was too late. The damage had been done.

Another report said it was not until the shooter heard the sirens that he turned the gun on himself and died.

How many kids were shot before help arrived?

It was impressive to see all the police cars, the S.W.A.T. team and the helicopter in the air.

All of those resources did not save one single kid or teacher.

“Well, if he just hadn’t had access to guns, this would never have happened!”

What is WRONG with you?

Do you think someone bent on a killing rampage isn’t going to be able to get hold of a gun or guns?

“Well, we ought to at least get assault weapons off the streets!”

Are you NUTS?

Those weapons were a a .223 caliber Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle, a modified civilian version of the military's M-16 similar to the AR-15 (but it was NOT an AR-15) and two handguns -- a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm.

None of those is an assault weapon. What good would banning assault weapons have done?

The Bushmaster AR-15 LOOKS like some assault weapons, but it functions very differently. It is NOT an assault weapon.

The MainStream media, Congress, the Senate, and liberal commentators and commenters are determined to override the Second Amendment and take citizens' guns from them. "If there had just been tougher gun laws this might not have happened."

You want to play the “if” game?

What if someone in that school had been trained and armed? What if that person heard what was going on and shot the perp?

Would that perp have killed anyone else after he died? Had you noticed? Once he died, he didn’t shoot anybody else.

Dead people don’t shoot people.

“Well, guns don’t always hit their intended target. If the perp had been shot at the bullet might have ricocheted and hurt somebody.”

ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

ARE     YOU     KIDDING     ME???

So one more person gets injured or maybe even killed.

What is better, 3 or 4 dead kids or 20?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

OK…OK. I agree that mentally ill people, social deviants, and people with anger management problems should not have access to dangerous weapons, including knives, box cutters, baseball bats and, yes, even guns. The should be a law. (Oh, wait! There IS a law. In fact there are MANY relevant laws).

How would that have helped?

This guy was about to do something ILLEGAL!! Do you think that because possessing a gun is made ILLEGAL a person who is going to commit an ILLEGAL ACT is going to obey the law making guns ILLEGAL???

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

The only alternative is to collect all guns from all citizens (and illegal aliens) and only allow the police,
military and Congress to carry weapons.

You can call the police against a gang banger, but who do you call against the police?

Our government needs to be afraid of its citizens. Our “rulers” should think carefully about what they try to take from us.

The sentence structure of the Second Amendment DEMANDS that its subject and predicate be “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

One of my liberal commenters has made it clear that he thinks diagramming a sentence is a total bore and a waste of time.

WRONG!!!

Diagramming a sentence show which parts of that sentence are relevant to its point. Here's how the sentence should be diagrammed:

In the diagram, the top section, separated out, is a subordinate clause. It is subordinate to the main thought of the sentence, which is diagrammed in the lower section.

People who learned to properly diagram a sentence, learned how to properly read and interpret a sentence.

Those who did not learn how to diagram a sentence are likely to ascribe to the sentence meanings that it does not intend.

If the Second Amendment had been properly exercised, there might well be 20 dead kids who were still alive.

To answer the question asked in the title of this post, PEOPLE should have the guns. Stable, reasonable, trained people.

RECEIVED IN EMAIL - I AGREE WITH THE WRITER COMPLETELY

“We had the greatest generation,” Simpson said. “I think this is the greediest generation.”

Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming calls senior citizens the Greediest Generation as he compared "Social Security " to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.

Here's a response in a letter from PATTY MYERS* in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!

"Hey Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!!!

1. As a career politician, you have been on the public dole (tit) for FIFTY YEARS.

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 years old. I am now 63).

[Note from Joe: I've been paying them for 53 years. I am now 70]

3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in an interest bearing account for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of zero losers in return for votes, thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

4. Recently, just like Lucy & Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away
from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your "shill commission" are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN.

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from Day One, and now "you morons" propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because "you idiots" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you "incompetents" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off YOUR debt.

To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling you incompetent. Well, have a few questions for YOU:

1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

It is you and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow nutcase thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers.

And for what? Votes and your job and retirement security at our expense, you lunk-headed, leech.

That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your pathetic, political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements". WHAT AN INSULT!!!!

*No one can verify the actual author of this Email. That does not negate the frustration and anger that she/he and I feel about the issues in the Email.

REASONS TO BE A DEMOCRAT

I have made a decision to change my Party affiliation to Democrat. I have done so because of the pressures placed on me by certain liberal thinkers.

My reasons for changing are listed below.

1.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because I can now marry whatever I want, another male, a tree or another animal.

2.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because oil companies make way too much profit. They make as much as 4% profit on every gallon of gasoline they produce. I also love the fact that the federal government can tax those same gallons of gas at a rate of 15%, and that's not considered too much.

3.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because I have come to understand that the federal government is much more fiscally responsible than I am, and will do a better job of spending money without waste than I can

4.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because I believe in freedom of speech as long as nobody is offended by it, especially those who agree with me philosophically. If I offend someone who is philosophically opposed to me, that's OK. As a Democrat I have special dispensation to offend Christians, but not members of other religions or non-religions, such as Islam, Epicureanism, atheism and so forth.

5.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because I have come to understand that the Second Amendment used the word "citizens" in a military sense. I realize that I am too irresponsible to own a gun and only the police and the federal government should own them. They have done such a wonderful job of preventing mass murders, regular murders, thefts and other mayhem, that I now feel safe in malls, schools and military bases.

6.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because of their commitment to "green" energy eons before it is fiscally or technologically viable. These are the same people who struggle with predicting the weather next week, but who know what will happen to the ice caps if we don't change our ways.

7.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because they understand that even though the DNA of a fetus is different from that of the mother-to-be-or-not-to-be carrying it is still a "part of her body with which she can do whatever she wishes.

8.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because they understand that "illegal" is an erroneous way to describe those who enter this country illegally and that those who do should be afforded free health care, education, Social Security benefits...the latter by reducing the amount received by those who paid into the system and redistributing it to the "illegals".

9.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because of their unique understanding that businesses should not make profits for themselves, but need to break even, giving the rest to the government for redistribution.

10.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because they have studiously determined that the Constitution is a flawed document that needs to be rewritten by judges and/or executive orders. They also have concluded that the voters are too dumb to know what laws are needed and who to send to Congress to write those laws.

11.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because they are willing to pay billions of dollars for oil to people who hate us. They comprehend that to drill for our own oil would upset the established ecological order.

12.  I have changed my Party affiliation to Democrat because they realize that using our own nation's natural resources would provide way too many jobs and would reduce citizens' dependency on the federal government for their existence.

Having now had the time to review the reasons listed above, and having decided to apply rational thought to my decision, I have decided to recind my decision and instead have decided to remain a staunch conservative, even in the face of ridicule and aspersions.

Besides, even as I wrote the reasons I felt the mental illness of liberalism coming on. I struggle enough with things not be add mental illness to the things I have to deal with.

So, here I am, like it or not, still a right-wing, thoughtful, intelligent, rational conservative, wondering how I could ever have been tempted to fall for the irrational thought sequences postulated above.

The preceding is an adaptation of an article by James W. Anderson.

Note: My original post contained the phrase: "...I have decided to resend my decision ..." which contained a misspelling. Out of fear of retribution by certain liberal spell-checkers, and with thanks to Glenn E. Chatfield, I have corrected the misspelling. I hope I have it write, know.

SUNDAY RESPITE-Give This Christmas Away-Matthew West and Amy Grant

PREVENTABLE, BUT NOT THE WAY YOU MAY THINK

My heart goes out to those parents who lost their children in that unimaginable massacre in a Connecticut elementary school.

A demented person, for yet unknown reasons, went into the school with pistols in his hands and a "Bushmaster" style rifle in his truck, shot the principal of the school and executed at least 20 children.

It has also become known that he killed at least one other person in the house where he apparently lived, possibly his mother.

No one knows his politics, his background or very much about him at this writing, but this much is clear: there was no acceptable reason for such as this to happen.

There will never come a time when we will understand why a person chooses to take out whatever is wrong in his/her life on innocent children and adults.

CBS, after making the point on many occasions during their reporting that now is not the time to discuss the political implications of this horrid act or to address the issue of gun control, went on to discuss the political implications of this horrid act and addressed the issue of gun control.

Bob Shaffer, more than once, asked the question, "How far are we willing to let this go?" He made it abundantly clear that he was espousing some form of gun control.
President Obama issued a statement in which he said, "It is time to take meaningful action, regardless of the politics."

There are those who are of the mind set that if we just banned enough guns these events would cease to take place.

That is not true.

If we outlawed ALL guns, these events would still take place.

What I am afraid of is that people will conclude that the collection of ALL guns will come to be required by the federal government. That would be a direct infringement of Second Amendment rights.

"But it is for the good of the people," will come the response from many.

No, it would not be.

And it would make little or no difference in whether or not the type of event that occurred in Connecticut would take place again.

People whose psyche bring them to this point will find a way to accomplish what they intend by any means possible, whether legal or not.

Why do we think people who would commit an act of horror such as this, which is illegal, would follow legal boundaries in planning and implementing the event?

We are reaping the results of the Godless direction this country has taken. Some have taken it with pride and regularly spout their venom of Godlessness, as though it makes no difference.

Well, it DOES make a difference.

It makes a difference because the arrogance, hatred and intolerance of those who espouse the Godless philosophies are the very personification of the attitude that the perpetrators of these awful events hold.

Until we reach the hearts of men and women in America with the source and essence of loving their neighbors, these events will continue and there is nothing anyone can do or say that will eliminate them.

May those Godless people re-examine their attitude toward the God loving members of this society and allow us to freely reach out to enough people to change their hearts and thus help remove their bent to these unthinkable acts.

THE REAL HEART OF UNIONS vs THE HEART OF RIGHT TO WORKERS

The following story by Bill Weckesser illustrates the differences between Union Thugs and Right to Work advocates:


The rest of the story on Lansing union thugs
Bill Weckesser

You've probably seen the video of the union thugs knocking down the tent in front of Michigan's capital the other day. You know about the folks trapped inside.Now, to quote Paul Harvey, here's "the rest of the story."

Across the street from the tent was Clint Tarver, known to everyone in our area as "The Hot Dog Guy." He sells from a street cart. He crossed the street to help those in need...then found that the union thugs had destroyed his hot dog cart because the tent was sponsored by a Right to Work group. Thanks now goes to Lorilea Susanne who put together a web page to raise money for a new hot dog cart for Mr. Lee. The original goal was $2,000....got it. New goal $5,000. Got it...still going. Here's a link to the site.

There's a lot to be said for free association and individual initiative. And, perhaps, the true spirit of Christmas.

The video can be seen HERE.

Now everybody can see how wonderfully civilized and compassionate union members are.

Oh, wait! This story shows just the opposite!

Who knew?

(Hint: I did)

THE UNION STATES OF AMERICA

Unions in the United States of America have long been thugs.

I had a friend who went to her job in spite of a strike by the union.

 As she entered the gate of her place of employment, she was met with cursing, name calling, threats and beating on her car. When she got off work, she discovered that sugar had been poured in her gas tank and her car would not run.

That wasn't enough.

When she got home, her house had been egged and a message painted on her garage door, stating what deviant sexual events she would have happen to her.

This happened in Florida, which is a right-to-work state.

In the video above, the guy on the left (the one in the "dignified" looking suit, is a union spokesperson and therefore a thug.

His comments make it clear that he earnestly believes in thuggery. Although he SAYS he deplores violence, he simultaneously excuses the beating inflicted on Steven Crowder.

All the while, he tried to ignore that the union members had torn down a tent in which there were women and children, causing injury to the occupants.

And these people wonder why they are failing to attract new member in numbers sufficient to sustain them for the future.

These are the same people who support President BO (the amateur president) and his ever increasing government spending, fake medical plan and ever increasing taxation of the American people, not to mention his insistence on controlling everything they do.

These people tend to support women's "right" to do what they want with their own bodies (never mind that the developing fetus is not a part of her body), support the "right" to use vile. vulgar language whenever they want wherever they want, and all sorts of so-called social "rights," while seeking to deny a person's right to work without joining the union.

Their argument that non-union workers "enjoy the benefits of the unions' work," is as spurious as the day is long.

Those imagined benefits are far, far outweighed by the methodology used to "win" them.

Unions have used force, inflicted injury, interrupted companies' rights to function and grossly affected companies' ability to earn a profit.

They have also caused prices on all union made goods to increase. The public sector unions have hindered the services these sectors have supposed to provide.

The guy on the left, the suit, condones all of this with his "argument" in favor of what the thugs did to Steven Crowder.

Well, maybe he was being too invasive as a reporter.

O, yeah?

Which of you has never seen how overbearing the MainStream Media is whenever they want a story? They are pigs, sticking their microphones in the teeth of those they are trying to interview.

Crowder was doing far from that.

Add to that the fact that the so-called Push Down by Crowder was false, but insisted on by the suit, and you have the essence of lying and ignoring what really happened.

The union thugs destroyed property, inflicted injury and interrupted the free access to information by the press.

If you are a union member because you "believe" in what unions do, you are a thug. You are as close to a Middle Eastern barbarian as it comes.

Your feeble arguments in favor of what unions have supposedly accomplished is as phony as a three dollar bill.

What you should be is totally ashamed of what you have done. You should apologize to the company you work for and the freedom you thwart in the United States of America.

But you won't.

You don't have the character to do so.

TRANSPARENCY REDEFINED

True to his level of character, President BO (the amateur president) is thinking about having a private inauguration ceremony behind closed doors, with not even the press corps present.

The inauguration date falls on a Sunday.

Inaugural committee officials privately indicated to reporters that the January 20 event could be closed to reporters and cameras, with an official photograph supplied to press by White House photographer Pete Souza.

Traditionally, when the inauguration date falls on a Sunday, the ceremony takes place twice, once on Sunday, with the press corps present as witnesses, and then again on Monday for the benefit of the public.

This is what happened at Ronald Reagan's second inauguration.

Now PBO (tap) wants to magnify his transparency by going private with the event.

(One might be tempted to conclude that he doesn't really want transparency, but golly-gee, that would contradict what he ran on for his first term, and we all know he never contradicts himself.)

So, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that when conducted in secret, with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding (who, himself is not unreproachable), the public, whom he is supposed to serve, will not know what actually takes place.

He might not say the required words. He might change them to suit his fancy. He might omit the word "faithfully," or leave out the part about preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.

If this event is behind closed doors, those present might say he did it right, but how would we ever know?

In a sense it may not be all that important, since President BO (the amateur president) does not particularly put much stock in pledges.

The oath is: "I (insert name here) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Obama has failed to faithfully executed the Office of President of the United States by resorting to Executive Orders, and by publicly stating that he is more than willing to bypass Congress to get his will done.

He has repeatedly stated that he believes the Constitution of the United States to be a flawed document that tells government what it can't do, but fail to tell it what it can do.

Here are his own words in a 2001 interview on Chicago’s public radio station WBEZ FM and here they are with my emphasis:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote.
"I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK.

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

("It)Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."

That is not the definition of preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution.

Say what you will, these are not the words of a person ready to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. They are the words of a man who would like to CHANGE the Constitution to something he finds more palatable.

The citizens of the United States of America, and the White House Correspondents Association, have a right to witness the man they elected to the highest office in the land swear to defend the Constitution.

Let's hope and pray that he does so publicly.

That really would be more transparent, don't you think?

LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO PRESIDENT FOR LIFE

Three new taxes related to the Affordable Health Care Act go up on January 1.

Taxes will be implemented on medical devices, such as wheel chairs, oxygen supplies, diabetic supplies, pacemakers, latex gloves, etc.

That tax is on gross sales, and thus will actually be much higher.

Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., correctly said in a statement. “The tax on medical devices harms America’s ability to conduct the necessary research and development to maintain our global competitiveness, resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and fewer groundbreaking innovations in this field. With millions of Americans unemployed, this simply makes no sense.”

Individuals’ investment income will be taxed on people who earn over $200,000 and households earning more that $250,000 will enjoy the same. Who knew that investment income had anything to do with health care?

But that’s not enough for President BO (the amateur president).

In 2014, an ObamaCare tax will be levied on health insurers, which will result in another $2,000.00 in premium costs.

I hate to say “I told you so,” but I told you so. And PBO (tap) is laughing all the way to his third term.

Yeah, I know. According to the Constitution a president can only serve two terms, but when has Constitutional principle ever stopped President BO (the amateur president)?

SUNDAY RESPITE-Angels We Have Heard on High-Belmont University Choir

ARE BLACKS REALLY KILLED AT A HIGHER RATE BY OTHER BLACKS THAN ANY OTHER ETHNIC GROUP IN AMERICA?

Was the KKK really made up of more Democrats than Republicans?

Do abortion clinics really kill more black fetuses than white fetuses?

Was Margaret Sanger really a Democrat?

Was she really associated with the KKK?

Did Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger really think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of blacks born in America through abortion?

Did she really write in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2): "The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds,"

And did she really write concerning blacks, immigrants and indigents that they were: "...'human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."?
Are guns really manufactured to target blacks?

Is there really some mechanism in guns that makes them more prone to kill when pointed at a black person?

Is really it true that the only way a gun can murder someone else is when the shooter aims it at the other person and pulls the trigger?

Is it also really true that harsh gun control advocate, Senator Donne Trotter, was arrested in Chicago for having a gun in his carry on luggage?

And is it really true that he claimed he forgot the gun in his luggage and that it is from his "job" as a security guard. Is it true that he has no such job?

Is it really true that shootings are up 49% in the "gun free" area of Chicago?

Did we really amend the Constitution to make certain people had the right to own guns with the words: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."?

TWO ATTACKS, TWO VERY DIFFERENT RESPONSES

WHICH RESPONSE DO YOU THINK WAS CORRECT?

IT'S EASY - OR IT SHOULD BE

Given that the federal income tax is what we have to work with (as far as individual citizens is concerned), the only way we can raise federal revenues is to increase the tax base. That means put more people to work by making it EASY for employers to hire employees.

Key ideas: increase the tax base; make it EASY to employ people.

I have hired people back when it WAS easier to hire than it is today. It was not easy then. It is even harder now.

If you have never been an employer, you have no idea what hoops have to be jumped through for the privilege of hiring someone, for the paperwork involved (regulated by federal guidelines), for the regulations you have to adhere to (regulated by federal guidelines) and for the benefits packages you have to assemble (regulated by federal guidelines).

There is also scheduling of work hours (that have to abide by federal guidelines), provision for employee illness (also regulated by federal guidelines), the payment of payroll taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes and soon AHA taxes and/or penalties (regulated by federal guidelines).

If that weren't enough, there are OSHA regulations, EOE regulations, EPA regulations, DHS regulations, ethnic hiring regulations, immigration regulations, AWD regulations, and a myriad of other federal guidelines and regulations that employers must abide by to hire workers.

Add to that the government regulations that brought on this recession, and it is a nightmare to try to start a business that requires hiring employees.

Yet the only way to bring down the unemployment numbers is to have more people working. That will increase the tax base (that is: the number of people paying taxes) and will increase federal income tax revenues without putting an additional burden on those already paying taxes.

We DO need to close loopholes that are really loopholes, too. Nobody and no corporation earning more than $20,000.00 should be exempt from federal income taxes and there should be no loopholes to allow them to.

(See previous posts for more discussion of the exemption issue).

Politicians, however, love loopholes because they give them leverage to get votes from business owners and corporate leaders.

Now, they are trying to redefine what a loophoop is. Now they're trying to tell us that ALL deductions are loopholes. That's what liberals do...they just re-define terms.

Nobody should have to pay a greater portion of their earnings than anyone else. That would not be fair.

The best way to accomplish that is a flat tax, as discussed in previous posts.

In the meantime, the federal government MUST make it easier for businesses to hire people or unemployment will remain high and the recession will stay with us.

There is no down side to making it easier to hire people (thus increasing employment). There is only an upside.

That being the case, what could possibly be the motivation for refusing to make hiring employees as easy as possible?

CLIMATEOBAMA-Or How the U.S. Is Doing Under Obama's Razor-Sharp Leadership Lately

Here are a few recent incidents, new laws/rules and consequences that personify the tone and condition of the country under President BO (the amateur president)'s second term.

     McKeesport Tubular Operations spokeswoman,, Courtney Boone had this to say: "As a result of business conditions, including the negative effect of the high level of tubular imports (many of which we believe to be unfairly traded), we are adjusting production at our McKeesport Tubular Operations. This adjustment in production will impact approximately 142 hourly employees."

     The Internal Revenue Service has released new rules for investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends earned by high-income individuals that passed Congress as part of the 2010 health care reform law.
The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for health care, goes into effect in 2013. It is the first surtax to be applied to capital gains and dividend income.

The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI

     U.S. solar companies, First Solar Inc (FSLR.O) and SunPower Corp (SPWR.O), both of which received Obama stimulous money, unveiled plans to expand...in China.

     Timothy Geithner shows of his fuzzy math skills on entitlement ‘spending cuts.’ He said: “We've laid out a very comprehensive detailed framework of how we do it and in what stages with $600 billion of spending cuts spread over 10 years in entitlement programs.”

President Obama’s opening bid in the battle of wills with Republicans is essentially his fiscal year 2013 budget, so it’s fairly easy to get the details by looking at Table S-9 of the White House budget. Every policy change is detailed there across 20 pages of numbers, though a few items have already been enacted.

The shorthand used on the Sunday television shows was that Obama has proposed a $1.6 trillion tax increase (technically, $1.561 trillion.)

But that’s a net number, because Obama has also proposed $359 billion in tax cuts. The gross tax increase in the budget actually is more than $1.9 trillion.

Geithner’s “$600 billion” is a gross number — before additional spending, such as improving roads and bridges. Still, the administration position is that it is seeking a total of $1.6 trillion in tax increases and $600 billion in total “mandatory” cuts, even after offsets.

     The US taxcode may get 159 pages longer thanks to new rules issued by the IRS on investment income to be taxed as a result of the passage of Obamacare (The Affordable Healthcare Act).

     Not only that, the Internal Revenue Service has released new rules for investment income taxes on capital gains and dividends earned by high-income individuals that passed Congress as part of the 2010 healthcare reform law.

The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income, meant to help pay for healthcare, goes into effect in 2013. It is the first surtax to be applied to capital gains and dividend income.

The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.

     Wall Street becomes volitile and is presently dipping as Fiscal Cliff approaches.

     The FBI has the e-mails of nearly all US citizens, including congressional members, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. Speaking to RT he warned that the government can use information against anyone it wants.

     On the international front, the ARAB SPRING, so highly touted by President BO (the amateur president), seems to have turned into the ARAB WINTER.

In Egypt, citizens have been given just two weeks to consider the merits of a draft national constitution that will affect their lives for the foreseeable future, Egyptians were taking to the streets in large numbers on Tuesday to protest the latest development in their country’s chaotic political transition.

     All of this and Susan Rice continues to defend the misleading talking points she used in TV interviews about the jihadist
     Let's not forget Obamaphones, free gas, free cars, free healthcare and all the other free stuff his supporters have to look forward to.

These are all good things, right?

President BO (the amateur president) is to be commended for his astute leadership as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States and for his willingness to work with Congress to avoid the "fiscal cliff."

What a guy!

POISED FOR POWER

The My Way or the Highway President

You people have elected a dangerous fool as president.

If this man is your idea of the head of the Executive Branch of our government, there is something seriously wrong with your thought processes.

Congress put forth two proposals to prevent us going "over the fiscal cliff." But they were rejected by President BO (the amateur president).

He wants compromise. We know he does. He said so, and we know he always tells the truth.

But his idea of compromise is: "Do it my way or it will not be done!"

Even though he has said he is willing to hear ideas, willing to work with Republicans, willing to avoid the "fiscal cliff," he has done nothing to slow the steady march toward it.

He refuses to accept any idea that does not include increasing taxes on the "rich." His benchmark used to be one percenters. Now it has gone up to the top two percent!

So what have we done? Have we redefined "compromise," and "work with" to mean "do it my way or take the highway and buzz off"?

List the things he has specifically indicated a willingness to "compromise" on.

Your list will be short...very short. In fact, it will be non-existent.

President BO (the amateur president) really believes that he is more than the head of the Executive Branch. He believes that he is the supreme arbiter of all things governmental.

He lives by executive order, breathes totalitarianism, lectures incessantly on things about which he knows nothing and makes all of the same arguments that every dictator that has ever made when taking over a country. He shows all the signs of one determined to become "President for Life."

That the majority of people in this country can't see that is indicative that they have never understood what America is about, have no idea what the "American Dream" is and are willing to forgo as many liberties as needed to just let the government take care of running their lives.

My prediction: President BO (the amateur president) will happily allow the U.S. to go over the "fiscal cliff" in order to blame Republicans and set the nation up for his "benevolent" dictatorship.

Congressional Republicans need to send a comprehensive fiscal bill to the Senate, which they will not pass and the President will not sign so that when the "blame" card is played (and it WILL be played), it will be Republicans who hold the trump card.

The man you have elected is poised to take you over, and you are poised to let him.

FISCAL INSANITY

I think your family should, after considering whatever debt you now have, add about $49,568.00 to it, don’t you?

No?

Why not?

Your president does. So does much of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It turns out that is exactly what the $5,696,206.400,691.90 added to the national debt during President BO (the amateur president)’s time in office does.

It also turns out that the amount added to the national debt since PBO (tap) took office is more than the total of all of the debt incurred by the U.S. since George Washington.

When George W. Bush took office, the debt was $5,693,220,327,798.14.

When GWB left office, after two terms, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08, an increase of $4,933,656,721,114.94.

At the close of business last Thursday, the debt was $16,323,083,449,604.98 according to the Treasury Department (and shouldn’t they know?).

That’s an increase of $5,696,206,400,691.90 under PBO (tap) after only ONE term!

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has proposed that Congress give President BO (the amateur president) unilateral authority to raise the debt ceiling. (For liberals educated in government schools, “unilateral” means all by himself, without consulting Congress or anybody else).

What a great idea!

Then we could all stand by and watch our children and grandchildren get saddled with even more than $49,568.00.

And we know ALL liberals think we should do that to our children. That’s because to them, it’s ALL about the children. (Really?)
For most of our country’s life, we have lived on some amount of debt, both as a nation and as individual citizens of the nation.

We have been given the impression that debt is natural, good and productive.

That, of course, is a lie.

Eventually, if not controlled, excessive debt will financially drown both individuals and the nation.

To some the answer to the national debt is to just raise taxes, specifically on rich people. That this approach would produce less than a 3% increase in funds available for the debt makes no difference to them. Do it any way.

To others, the answer lies in reducing spending to a reasonable level. In other words, live within your means.

Successful families do it. Why shouldn't the government?

Debt creates a sense of false security. It also lulls us into thinking it is a good way to get what we want sooner than we can afford to have it.

Families that do not learn to control their debt eventually go bankrupt.

So do nations.

SUNDAY RESPITE-Do You Hear What I Hear-Mannheim Steamroller

Do You Hear What I Hear? 

Said the night wind to the little lamb 

 Do you see what I see? 

 'Way up in the sky, little lamb 

 Do you see what I see? 

A star, a star Dancing in the night 

 With a tail as big as a kite With a tail as big as a kite 

 Said the little lamb to the shepherd boy 

 Do you hear what I hear? 

Ringing thru the sky, shepherd boy 

Do you hear what I hear? 

 A song, a song High above the tree 

With a voice as big as the sea With a voice as big as the sea 

 Said the shepherd boy to the mighty king 

Do you know what I know? 

In your palace warm, mighty king 

 Do you know what I know? 

A Child, a Child Shivers in the cold 

 Let us bring Him silver and gold Let us bring Him silver and gold 

 Said the king to the people ev'rywhere 

Listen to what I say! 

Pray for peace, people ev'rywhere 

 Listen to what I say! 

The Child, the Child Sleeping in the night 

 He will bring us goodness and light He will bring us goodness and light

PREVENTING THE LOOMING FALL

Press Secretary, Jay Carney, said, "So the President made clear that he is not wedded to every detail of his plan," said Carney. "The President has also made categorically and abundantly clear that he will not sign an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for top earners. It’s bad economic policy and we cannot afford it. He will not sign that."

President BO (the amateur president) keeps saying he is willing to work with "the other side" and is willing to negotiate with them on their ideas.

The only thing he won't negotiate is the very thing that is at the heart of the "fiscal cliff:" an increase on taxes for the "rich."

In other words, we can work on all of the irrelevant things, but when it comes to what he is really after, it's a no-go.

There is a remedy for the "fiscal cliff," if anybody really wanted to solve it. They won't, though, because solving the economic issues facing our country is not at all important to politicians...none of them.

The solution to the country's economic woes is as simple as it is complex.

If that seems contradictory, that's because the solution is mathematically easy, but politically difficult.

The reason it's politically difficult is that politicians really, really care about the country on an emotional level, but are much more concerned about their personal influence, power and getting re-elected...all of them.

The solution is a flat tax on every earned dollar, be it corporate, individual, interest or whatever, over the "poverty" level.

Do not confuse the flat tax with the so-called "fair tax," which is not fair at all, but is a glorified sales tax which would place a larger burden on poor people than it does on rich people wanting the same goods or services. It would also be as big an accounting nightmare as the present despicable system.

With a flat tax, everybody pays the same fair percentage of their earnings. There would be no more of this "they don't pay their fair share" idiocy.

For the sake of discussion (and keeping the math simple), let's say the poverty level is $20,000.00 per year.

Every earned dollar over that amount would be taxed at say 10% (an arbitrary figure for the sake of this discussion - see the above paragraph). Dollars earned would be the total of individual earnings, the profits made by a company or corporation, interest earned on savings and investments and the like.

There would be no deductions, no exclusions, no "loopholes" and no exceptions.

The filing of tax returns would be made on a simple 4" X 8" card with just a few lines:

FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN

1) What was your total individual income. Include personal income from wages, interest earned, tips and all other sources excluding direct gifts.  If this is a corporate return list the total income of the corporation. ___________

2) If this is a corporate return, list the gross profit of the corporation. ____________

3) Subtract $20,000.00 from your total individual earnings or the corporation's profit. -____________

4) Multiply the remainder by .10. ________________

5) The quotient of #4 is the federal income tax you owe. Make checks payable to the U.S. Treasury.

With a system this simple, fraud and cheating would be minimized, as employers would be required to report the gross income of employees and corporations would be required to provide proof of their corporate earnings.

The major reason something this simple is so difficult to grasp and implement is that politicians actually prefer fraud and corruption over honesty, integrity and character. They enjoy the game of trying to "put one over" on the other guy (or gal).

There are a couple of other things that would be needed to avoid "fiscal cliffs." One of those would be a "one bill, one subject" amendment to the Constitution, which would eliminate unrelated amendments to a bill that favor a particular political district.

The "fiscal cliff" would also be avoided by opening free and easy competition on the world market, coupled with a reasonable tax on goods produced overseas for import to this country.

Another would be an amendment that removes all regulations on individuals and corporations that do not directly involve preventing physical, emotional or fiscal harm to another person or a person's property.

Still another part of the remedy to the "fiscal cliff" is to get the federal government out of involvement with things that do not directly include uniting the country, establishing true justice, keeping domestic peace, providing a strong defense for the nation, promoting (not providing) the well being of the people, and ensuring that liberty is not violated.

The final death of the "fiscal cliff" would be to remove all duplicate federal laws and simply enforce the ones necessarily left in place after implementing the removal of regulations as mentioned above.

I wonder whether President BO would be willing to compromise his Socialistic and class warfare agenda in order to achieve the actual demise of the "fiscal cliff."

I doubt it.