Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Cartoon Extra Jan 5

New Sheriff in Washington ? I would vote for this Guy.





Dear Friend:

Today I announce my candidacy for the United States House of Representatives in Arizona's new 4th Congressional District.

As a first responder, I'm trained to run toward dangers that others run away from.  Right now, the biggest threats facing our country are from Washington. We have record debt and deficit spending, the biggest intergenerational theft in the history of the world.  We have a system that punishes job creators and leaves many millions unemployed.  We have an unsecured border that allows the drug cartels to operate freely in our country, and results in 400,000 illegal crossings into our state every year.

How have our leaders responded to these threats?  This Congress approved the largest debt ceiling increase in American history.  The administration transferred 2,000 high powered weapons to the most dangerous criminals in North America, punishing whistleblowers and rewarding those responsible for "Fast and Furious." Then they sued Arizona for doing the job they won't do. While Americans watch their savings disappear, we have credible allegations of insider trading by members of Congress.

It's time for a new Sheriff in Washington.  The American people are sounding a giant 911 call on Washington.  And I'm responding.

Are you with me?


Sheriff Paul Babeu

Lawmakers dispute Obama ballot eligibility

CERTIFIGATE

Lawmakers dispute Obama ballot eligibility

'This isn't partisan. This is a constitutional issue, pure and simple'


New Hampshire state capitol buildingNew Hampshire state capitol building
By Michael Carl
Several New Hampshire legislators declared at a press conference today that President Barack Obama is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States and that New Hampshire voters were defrauded by Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
 
Coos, District 1, state Rep. Larry Rappaport told the crowd he has filed a petition asking New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney to investigate whether the Ballot Law Commission acted illegally by allowing Obama’s name on the New Hampshire ballot.
Rappaport said New Hampshire voters need a real and legitimate choice.
“We’re not in a position to rule on the petition, but we feel there needs to be an investigation. Consequently, we have asked the secretary of state, who referred us to the ballot law commission,” Rappaport said.
“The Ballot Law Commission held a hearing on November 18, and it refused to hear our request,” he continued. “We asked for a rehearing; it was denied. We asked for an override by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and it refused to hear our case. We went to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that’s where it stands now.”
As WND reported, a federal judge has ruled that President Obama must be “constitutionally eligible.”
“For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office,” the report states.
Coos District 1 state Rep. Larry Rappaport
The legislator’s petition was denied by the Ballot Law Commission because the commission said it didn’t have the authority to rule on the issue, noting that it can only ensure the accuracy of the petitions and whether the document is accompanied by the filing fee.
Rappaport said the attorney general has standing to make a decision on Obama’s eligibility because ballot issues are state concerns. State Reps. Lucien Vita and Laurie Pettingill are part of the delegation pushing the review. They, too, agreed that ballot access is a state issue.
Belknap District 4 state Rep. Harry Accornero disputes the commission’s decision because he says it has made rulings on similar issues in the past.
“The Ballot Law Committee says it doesn’t have jurisdiction over this issue, but it does. It disqualified two other candidates for office because those candidates weren’t ‘natural born citizens,’” he said.
Accornero was referring to the 2007 case of Sal Mohamed and the 2011 case of Abdul Hassan, who were denied ballot access by the commission after it ruled that the two men were not “natural born citizens.”
Mohamed filed to run for president in 2007 and was denied New Hampshire ballot access that same year.
Hassan is a New York attorney, who, as a naturalized American citizen, attempted to gain ballot access in New Hampshire to run for president.
“So if it can make that ruling on those two men, it could have done the same for Obama,” Accornero noted.
He said the issue would be moot if the Democratic Party had properly examined Obama’s history.
“This whole thing never would have come up if the Democrats had vetted Obama properly,” he said, adding, “The spin on this is that this is a birther issue. The Democrats want to direct attention away from the issue to partisanship. This isn’t partisan. This is a constitutional issue, pure and simple.”
James Page, a member of the crowd, supports the petition. He said he was at the conference today to find out why the Ballot Law Commission evaded its responsibility.
“I want to find out why they said they didn’t have jurisdiction when in fact they did,” Page said. “They lied to the people saying they didn’t have the authority to do that. It’s a mess, and I want to know why these people refuse, and keep refusing to hear this case.”
He continued, “The point is that it doesn’t matter where he was born. The issue is that he’s not a ‘natural born citizen’ by the findings of the Supreme Court.”
The Supreme Court ruled in Minor v. Happersett that a person is a natural born citizen when he or she is born to two parents who are both U.S. citizens.
There has been no word on when a decision will be made on the petition.

Court in Georgia to rule on the Obama Birth Certificate.

WND EXCLUSIVE

Court: Obama must be ‘constitutionally’ eligible

Judge denies president's motion to dismiss challenge to 2012 candidacy


For the first time in dozens of court cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president, a judge has ruled that Obama must, in order to be a candidate on the Georgia ballot for president in 2012, meet the constitutional demands for candidates for the office.
A hearing has been scheduled later this month for evidence on the issue that has plagued Obama and his presidency since long before he took office. At issue is the constitutional requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.” Some allege he was not born in the U.S. as he has claimed and, therefore, is not eligible.
Others, including top constitutional expert Herb Titus, contend that the term “natural-born citizen,” which is not defined in the Constitution, would have been understood when the document was written to mean the offspring of two U.S. citizens. That argument is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision
Under that standard, Obama could not qualify, because his father, as identified on the “Certificate of Live Birth” image released by the White House, was a foreign national who came from Kenya to study in the U.S. and never was a citizen.
The ruling came today from Judge Michael W. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings.
In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.
While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”
The decision from Malihi came as a result of a series of complaints that were consolidated by the court. They were brought against Obama’s inclusion on the 2012 election primary ballot by David Farrar, Leah Lax, Cody Judy, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by attorney Orly Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield.

Barack Obama
The judge’s decision was to refuse to dismiss the complaints, an action that had been sought by Obama. He also granted a motion to sever the cases, and he scheduled a hearing at 9 a.m. on Jan. 26 for the complaint brought by Weldon. Following immediately will be hearings for the cases brought by Swensson and Powell, and the issue raised by Farrar, Lax, Judy, Malaren and Roth will be third.
Malihi’s ruling said: “The court finds that defendant is a candidate for federal office who has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party, and therefore must, under Code Section 21-2-5, meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”
There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona and New Hampshire as well.
Taitz told WND she will present the decision to a court in Hawaii, where she is arguing to have access to Obama’s original birth documentation as it exists in the state, which for many years allowed relatives of babies to simply make a statement and register a birth, even though the child may not have been born in Hawaii.
Irion had argued in his opposition to Obama’s demand to dismiss the concerns that, “The only fact relevant to this case is the fact that the defendant’s father was not a U.S. citizen. This fact has been repeatedly documented and stated by the party opponent, defendant Obama. This fact is also evidenced by plaintiff’s exhibit 6, previously submitted with plaintiff’s pre-trial order, and apparently authenticated by defendant’s citation to this exhibit in defendant’s ‘Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute,’ number 7.
“The lengths to which the defendant goes in order to avoid the one relevant fact is telling. The defendant asks this court to interpret Georgia election code in a way that leaves the code in conflict with itself, goes against the plain language of the law, leaves the law without meaning, and conflicts with common sense. He then cites freedom-to-associate precedent to support an assertion that has never been supported by such precedent, and which would nullify election codes in several states. All of these arguments are futile attempts to distract from the undeniable conclusion: Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president of the United States,” Irion wrote.
He continued, “It is true that some states lack election codes authorizing any state officials to screen candidate selections from political parties. In these states political parties have essentially unfettered authority to determine which candidates appear on ballots. However, these instances represent decisions of the states to not screen candidates. It is the states’ right to decide how to administer its elections. The fact that some states have decided to not protect their citizens from unqualified candidates does not mean that other states don’t have the right to screen candidates. It simply means that some states have left the screening to the political parties.
“Georgia has determined that it is in the best interest of its citizens to screen candidates prior to placement on the ballot.
“Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, the defendant can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, the defendant cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.5 Georgia election code requires such a candidate to be stricken from any Georgia ballot.”
The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.
That case states:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Irion said the goal would be an injunction that would deprive Obama of Democratic Party certification.
“Without such certification from the party, Obama will not appear on any ballot in the 2012 general election,” his organization said in an announcement when the cases were launched.
Liberty Legal said it is not addressing Obama’s place of birth or his birth certificate.
“These issues are completely irrelevant to the argument. LLF’s lawsuit simply points out that the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born citizen’ as a person born to two parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen. Therefore, Obama can never be a natural-born citizen. His place of birth is irrelevant,” the group said.
WND has reported that Maricopa, Ariz., County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has launched a formal law enforcement investigation into whether Obama may submit fraudulent documentation to be put on the state’s election ballot in 2012. A full report is expected within weeks.
The White House in April released an image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii in support of Obama’s claim that he was born in the state. The White House has not addressed the questions raised by Obama’s father’s nationality. In addition, many computer, imaging, document and technology experts have stated the document image appears to be a forgery.
The image that the new lawsuits contend is irrelevant:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.
“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”
If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.
“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.

Cartoons Extra for Jan 4

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Getting Married or need Advise... Here it is ?


    1.   HOW  DO YOU DECIDE WHOM TO    MARRY?    (written by kids)
     

You   got to find somebody who likes the same stuff. Like, if  you  like sports, she should like it that you like  sports, and she  should keep the chips and dip coming.    --   Alan, age 10

-No   person really decides before they grow up who they're  going to  marry. God decides it all way before, and you  get to find out  later who you're stuck with.  
--   Kristen, age  10
    

2.   WHAT IS  THE RIGHT AGE TO GET    MARRIED?  
Twenty-three is the best age because you know  the person  FOREVER by then. 
--    Camille, age 10
    

3.
   HOW CAN A  STRANGER TELL IF TWO PEOPLE ARE    MARRIED?    You   might have to guess, based on whether they seem to be  yelling  at the same kids.
--   Derrick, age  8
    

4.   WHAT DO  YOU THINK YOUR MOM AND DAD HAVE IN   COMMON?   Both   don't want any more kids.   
--   Lori,  age 8
    

5.   WHAT DO  MOST PEOPLE DO ON A   DATE?  
-Dates are  for having fun, and people  should use  them to get to know each other. Even boys  have something to  say if you listen long enough.  
--   Lynnette, age  8     (isn't   she a treasure)

-On   the first date, they just tell each other lies and that   usually gets them interested enough to go for a second   date. 
--   Martin, age  10
    (Mmmmm??)

6.   WHEN IS  IT OKAY TO KISS    SOMEONE?     -When   they're rich.  
--   Pam, age  7  

-The   law says you have to be eighteen, so I wouldn't want to  mess  with that.  -   - Curt, age   7
-The   rule goes like this: If you kiss someone, then you  should  marry them and have kids with them. It's the  right thing to  do.   
-   - Howard,  age 8
    

7.
     IS IT BETTER TO BE SINGLE OR    MARRIED?  
It's better for girls to be single but not for  boys. Boys  need someone to clean up after them. 
--   Anita, age 9    (bless you child )
    

8.
   HOW  WOULD THE WORLD BE DIFFERENT IF PEOPLE   DIDN'T  GET  MARRIED?     There   sure would be a lot of kids to explain, wouldn't there? 
--   Kelvin, age 8    

And    the #1 Favorite is
.......    

9.
   HOW  WOULD YOU MAKE A MARRIAGE    WORK?     Tell   your wife that she looks pretty, even if she looks like a dump  truck.
--   Ricky, age  10
 

Monday, January 2, 2012

All Time Low Approval of Congress - 5 %




Rasmussen Reports: 5% Think Congress Doing a Good Job: New Low

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just five percent (5%) of Likely Voters rate the job Congress is doing as good or excellent.  Sixty-eight percent (68%) view Congress’ job performance as poor.
More people believe that Elvis is still alive. Or as Mike Huckabee says, that places Congress' approval “just barely above a pedophile.”

Jokes aside the implications are enormous. In 2000, Republicans controlled the White House, the House and the Senate. Within eight years they lost them all. Why? Unpopular war? Economy? Sure, these played a role, but these cyclical items have come and gone throughout American history without overturning the power structure.


Where did Republicans go wrong?


I submit that Republicans in Congress planted the seeds of their own demise when they went along with President Bush's big-government spending (primarily because Bush had an 'R' behind his name). No Bureaucrat Left Behind. Prescription drug entitlement (the largest expansion of Medicare in the programs history). Bush spent twice as much as his predecessor and Republicans signed the checks.


Republicans may win the White House and the House and the Senate in 2012. We may have a President Romney or a President Gingrich and their histories show a willingness to embrace big-government ideas. Rank-and-file Republicans will be pressured into supporting their programs out of a sense of loyalty.


The Congressional Republicans better start bracing themselves now. In reality, if they support an expansion of government under a President Romney or a President Gingrich or anyone else, it will be a collective act of political suicide. Despite what Washington says, it will be an act of betrayal against the GOP because it will ultimately lead to another Democratic takeover.


And, most importantly, it will be an act of betrayal against the American people and our Constitution.

KNOCK ! KNOCK !


One sunny day in January, 2013, an old man approached the
White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue where
he'd been sitting on a park bench.

He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would
like to go in and meet with President Obama."
The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer President
and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.The following day the same man approached the White House
 
and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer

resides here."

The man thanked him and again just walked away.The third day the same man approached the White House
 
and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, "I would like to go in and meet with President Obama
."The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked
at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama.
I've told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the President and no longer
resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said,
"Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said,
"See you tomorrow, Sir.
Don't forget to vote!

Sunday, January 1, 2012

The Gutting of America's Industrial Might.

35 Facts About The Gutting Of America’s Industrial Might That Should Make You Very Angry

Did you know that an average of 23 manufacturing facilities were shut down every single day in the United States last year?  As World War II ended, the United States emerged as the greatest industrial power that the world has ever seen.  But now America's industrial might is being gutted like a fish and both political parties seem totally unconcerned.  Yes, we will always need trading relationships that are fair and balanced with other countries that have economic systems that are similar to our own.  However, the truth is that most of our trading relationships are neither "fair" nor balanced.  For example, China manipulates currency rates so that Chinese products are much cheaper than they should be, they brazenly steal our technology and we let them get away with it, they deeply subsidize their most important industries and they exploit their citizens by allowing them to be paid slave labor wages.  How in the world does that resemble the "free market" at work?  Predatory nations such as China do everything that they can to distort the free market.  So why in the world would any rational economist ever recommend that we should keep trading with other countries that are cheating us blind?  After you read the facts in this article about the gutting of America's industrial might, hopefully you will get very angry.  We need the American people to start getting very upset about these very important issues.
Both major political parties promised us that globalization would be wonderful for the U.S. economy.  Well, in the first decade of this century less net jobs were created than in any other decade since the Great Depression.
The "free trade" polices of the globalists have been an abysmal failure.  Tens of thousands of factories, millions of jobs, and hundreds of billions of dollars of our national wealth have gone to countries that engage in predatory trade practices and that exploit slave labor pools.
How in the world are American workers supposed to compete against workers that make less than a dollar an hour (with no benefits) on the other side of the globe?
If you support the version of "free trade" that most of our politicians are promoting, then you are supporting the one world economic system that the global elite are trying to establish.  In this one world economic system, American workers will increasingly be forced to compete for jobs with the cheapest labor on the planet.  This will continue to force the standard of living of American workers way, way down and it will continue to absolutely destroy the middle class.
The following are 35 facts about the gutting of America's industrial might that should make you very angry....
#1 According to U.S. Representative Betty Sutton, America has lost an average of 15 manufacturing facilities a day over the last 10 years.
#2 Sadly, it looks like this trend is picking up momentum.  During 2010, an average of 23 manufacturing facilities a day were shut down in the United States.
#3 Since 2001, the U.S. has lost a total of more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities.
#4 According to the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. economy loses approximately 9,000 jobs for every $1 billion of goods that are imported from overseas.
#5 The United States has had a negative trade balance every single year since 1976, and since that time the United States has run a total trade deficit of more than 7.5 trillion dollars with the rest of the world.
#6 Back in 1979, there were 19.5 million manufacturing jobs in the United States.  Today, there are 11.6 million.  That represents a decline of 40 percent during a time period when our overall population experienced tremendous growth.
#7 Between December 2000 and December 2010, 38 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42 percent of the manufacturing jobs in North Carolina were lost and 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost.
#8 Back in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs. Today, only 9 percent of all jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.
#9 The United States has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
#10 The Economic Policy Institute says that since 2001 America has lost approximately 2.8 million jobs due to our trade deficit with China alone.
#11 All over the United States, road and bridge projects are being outsourced to Chinese firms.  Just check out the following excerpt from a recent ABC News article....
In New York there is a $400 million renovation project on the Alexander Hamilton Bridge.
In California, there is a $7.2 billion project to rebuild the Bay Bridge connecting San Francisco and Oakland.
In Alaska, there is a proposal for a $190 million bridge project.
These projects sound like steps in the right direction, but much of the work is going to Chinese government-owned firms.
"When we subsidize jobs in China, we're not creating any wealth in the United States," said Scott Paul, executive director for the Alliance for American Manufacturing.
#12 If you can believe it, the United States spends about 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.
#13 The U.S. trade deficit with China rose to an all-time record of 273.1 billion dollars in 2010.  This is the largest trade deficit that one nation has had with another nation in the history of the world.
#14 The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2010 was 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.
#15 The new World Trade Center tower is going to be made with imported glass from China and imported steel from Germany.
#16 The new MLK memorial on the National Mall was made in China.
#17 Do you remember when the United States was the dominant manufacturer of automobiles and trucks on the globe?  Well, in 2010 the U.S. ran a trade deficit in automobiles, trucks and parts of $110 billion.
#18 In 2010, South Korea exported 12 times as many automobiles, trucks and parts to us as we exported to them.
#19 Even in high technology products we are being destroyed.  In 2002, the United States had a trade deficit in "advanced technology products" of $16 billion with the rest of the world.  In 2010, that number skyrocketed to $82 billion.
#20 China has now become the world's largest exporter of high technology products.
#21 Back in 1998, the United States had 25 percent of the world’s high-tech export market and China had just 10 percent. Ten years later, the United States had less than 15 percent and China's share had soared to 20 percent.
#22 Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry was actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.
#23 In 2008, 1.2 billion cellphones were sold worldwide.  So how many of them were manufactured inside the United States?  Zero.
#24 The United States now has 10 percent fewer "middle class jobs" than it did just ten years ago.
#25 Today, American workers are bringing home a much smaller share of economic pie.  Over the past decade, the ratio of wages to GDP has been declining very steadily.
#26 Now that millions of our jobs have been exported, there aren't nearly enough jobs left for all of us.  Right now, the average amount of time that a worker stays unemployed in the United States is approximately 39 weeks.
#27 There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States today than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.
#28 If you gathered together all of the workers that are "officially" unemployed in the United States today, they would constitute the 68th largest country in the world.
#29 According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 dropped by 27 percent after you account for inflation.
#30 As the number of good paying jobs declines, America's middle class is rapidly shrinking.  In 1970, 65 percent of all Americans lived in "middle class neighborhoods".  By 2007, only 44 percent of all Americans lived in "middle class neighborhoods".
#31 In the United States today, corporate profits are at a record high, and yet employment numbers have still not rebounded.  Obviously something is structurally wrong.
#32 The Obama administration says that there are certain things that "we don't want to make in America" anymore.  If you don't believe this, just check out what U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk recently told Tim Robertson of the Huffington Post about the Obama administration's attitude toward keeping manufacturing jobs in America....
Let's increase our competitiveness... the reality is about half of our imports, our trade deficit is because of how much oil [we import], so you take that out of the equation, you look at what percentage of it are things that frankly, we don't want to make in America, you know, cheaper products, low-skill jobs that frankly college kids that are graduating from, you know, UC Cal and Hastings [don't want], but what we do want is to capture those next generation jobs and build on our investments in our young people, our education infrastructure.
#33 Jeffrey Immelt, the head of Barack Obama's highly touted "Jobs Council", has shipped tens of thousands of good jobs out of the United States.
#34 According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades.
#35 One recent poll found that 41 percent of all Americans believe that "the American Dream has been lost".
Yes, it is fun to go out and fill up our shopping carts with "cheap products" from the other side of the world, but when we do that it destroys our jobs, our businesses and our communities.
Our addiction to cheap foreign products is incredibly self-destructive.  Essentially what we are doing is that we are ripping apart pieces of our own home and throwing them into the fire in an attempt to keep it going.  Eventually we will cannibalize our entire home.
And we never really think about what it is like for the slave laborers that make all these cheap products for us.  The following is from an article in the Telegraph about what conditions at one major Chinese manufacturing facility are like....
So far, at least 16 people have jumped from high buildings at the factory so far this year, with 12 deaths. A further 20 people were stopped by the company before they could attempt to kill themselves.
The hysteria at Longhua, where between 300,000 and 400,000 employees eat, work and sleep, has grown to such a pitch that workers have twisted Foxconn’s Chinese name so that it now sounds like: “Run to your Death”.
If we stay on this current path, even more of our formerly great manufacturing cities will turn into post-industrial hellholes.
Once upon a time, I also bought the "free trade" propaganda hook, line and sinker.  But then I opened up my mind and I learned the truth.
This nation is losing jobs, factories and wealth at a pace that is almost unbelievable.
Something desperately needs to be done.
Is there anyone out there that is willing to defend the emerging one world economic system that is stealing our jobs and killing the middle class?
If so, I challenge you to take your best shot.  Leave a comment below and explain to the rest of us why we are wrong.
We need to debate these issues because the myth of "free trade" is absolutely killing us.
Please wake up and get angry about these issues America.

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY

Where does the Carbon Really come From ?

Where does the carbon really come from?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming" any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet hasCOOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.
But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!


Sorry Al, You Gotta Come up with Sum-in New, They Aint Buying It ?

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Is the fix in in Virginia ?

Virginia GOP Primary: Is the fix in? Did they really change the rules midstream?

Among the interesting facts we are learning from Virginia's primary ballot debacle are these: (1) Previous years' candidates have not faced the same scrutiny imposed this year on Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry, and (2) neither has Mitt Romney this year.


[Image via The Political Commentator]

Gateway Pundit asks: Is the Fix In? Virginia GOP Eliminates 4 of Top 6 Republican Candidates From Republican Primary
If the Republican Party wanted to rig the system for Mitt Romney then you might expect to see something like this pop up.

But the Republican Party elites would never do anything like that… Right?
I'll repeat what I said before: Be careful what you wish for, Mitt.

Black and Voter ID, DOJ claims blacks are incompetent (Again)

Monday, December 26, 2011


Department of Justice claims blacks are incompetent (again)

The (not so) soft bigotry of low expectations continues...

The DC: DOJ claims minorities cannot know candidates' party affiliation

At issue: The City of Kinston, NC voted to hold "non-partisan" elections by printing ballots that did not list the candidates' party affiliation. Personally, I'd prefer the party affiliation be included on the ballot. Heck, I'd like them to include the candidates's voting and arrest records too.

Anyway, the Department of Justice claims the party affiliation omission, hits minorities hardest, or something.
Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the Justice Department must approve changes to election law in regions with a history, however distant, of racial discrimination.

The Justice Department prevented the 2008 referendum change, arguing in part that “the elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice.”
First, Section 5 of the VRA is another piece of evidence that every piece of legislation should come with an expiration date.

I find it offensive that Barack Obama's Department of Justice, under the leadership of Eric Holder, has demonstrated such a dim view of black Americans. Sadly, it's not the first time.

Obamamobile: Dolts Defend the Volts

Tuesday, December 27, 2011


Obamamobile: Dolts defend the Volts


[Image via Invincible Armor]

Auto analyst James Hohman has made headlines exposing the wild governmental subsidies for the new Government Motors Obamamobile Chevy Volt. I posted on this recently: Obamanomics: Chevy Volt cost taxpayers up to $250,000 per car sold to rich people.

In short, some $3 billion of federal and state money has been made available to GM and its suppliers depending on what government-imposed milestones they reach. GM has sold about 6,000 units so far and therefore it's "a matter of simple math" to see that if the companies collect even half of what taxpayers are obligated to pay them, it amounts to about $250,000 per Obamamobile sold.

Critics are calling this "really, really bad math" because GM could sell more Volts which would lower the subsidies per unit. Really, you don't say? Let's file that under 'D' for duh. If GM sells 12,000 units, the subsidy becomes $125,000 per Obamamobile sold. If they sell 100 million units, it's down to $15 per Obamamobile sold.

So what. That misses the point entirely.

Why should taxpayers be subsidizing the Chevy Volt in the first place? If GM really can sell millions of units, then why should taxpayers be forced to cover their costs? And if GM can't sell more than a few thousand units, then why bother?

And since the average income of a Volt driver is $170,000, every dime of subsidization is nothing more than welfare for rich people to buy new toys.

Clerk Punches, Knocks Out Armed Robber.. Then Makes him Clean Up His Own Blood

Wednesday, December 28, 2011


Chuck Norris Alert: Clerk punches, knocks out armed robber ... then makes him clean up his own blood

Heart-warming, feel-good story of the Christmas season (via Paul Hsieh)...



Clerk Punches, Knocks Out Armed Robber
Clerk Then Makes Suspect Clean Up His Own Blood
A clerk at a business in Western North Carolina punched a would-be robber and knocked him out cold just minutes after the man barged in with a gun and demanded money.
Video at the link. And remember, every time Chuck Norris rings a bad guy's bell, an angel gets its wings.

These from Milton Wolf of Kansas City, Missouri

Thursday, December 29, 2011


My Washington Times Latest: In Obama he trusts

"Dear Lord...this guy has NAILED IT."


"Another grand slam homer by Mr. Wolf! (crowd cheers as Wolf touches third and heads for home plate after the three runners ahead of him)"


"You are so off base and out in right field, extreme right field and so far into Wonderland that I would call your entire piece pure delusion. ...Shame on you."

-- Readers' comments
---------------

If America is still the land of the free, can a president who doesn't trust you to be free succeed?


[Illustration by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times]

In Obama he trusts
Why our president fails
There’s something profoundly tragic about the failed presidency of Barack Obama. He was supposed to be a new kind of president, a man who embodied hope and would transcend petty politics and even race. Instead, we’re left with a downgraded America that is stagnating under the weight of its bloated government. As tragic as that alone is, even this is but a mere symptom of Mr. Obama’s larger fundamental failure: He simply does not trust the Americans who entrusted him with the presidency.

Most presidents, we believe, ascend to the Oval Office, but for the 44th president, the reverse seems true. Whatever majesty the White House can muster must rise to the grandiosity of Barack Obama. “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” said the man who writes autobiographies and later would claim to control the rise of the oceans.

As recently as this month, the food-stamp president of 13 million unemployed Americans declared himself the fourth-most-accomplished president in the history of the United States, eclipsing, in his own mind, President Reagan and even our nation’s father, George Washington. That in only three years. Barack the Magnificent won’t allow trivialities like $15 trillion debts or historic national credit downgrades dissuade him.

Mr. Obama may care deeply for America, but he believes in only one thing: Barack Obama. And you are not Barack Obama.
Here's the fourth best president in U.S. History in his own words:



Go to The Washington Times and read the whole thing. Leave a comment; let me know what you think. And, as always, thanks for sharing it on your blog, Facebook, Twitter and everywhere else the cool kids hang out.

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND MAY YOU BE BLESSED INTO HEAVEN WHEN HE CALLS.



Click on the link below. When it opens, if you drag your
mouse across the picture you may be surprised.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...