Thursday, June 7, 2012


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Barack Obama lately has been accusing presumptive rival Mitt Romney of not waging his campaign in the nice (but losing) manner of John McCain in 2008. But a more marked difference can be seen in Obama himself, whose style and record bear no resemblance to his glory days of four years ago.
Recently, the president purportedly has been reassuring Democratic donors that his signature achievement, Obamacare, could be readjusted in the second term -- something Republicans have promised to do for the last three years. What an evolution: We have gone from being told we would love Obamacare, to granting exemptions to favored companies from it, to private assurances to modify it after re-election -- all before it was even fully enacted.
Obama's calls for a new civility four years ago are apparently inoperative. The vow to "punish our enemies" and the intimidation of Romney campaign donors are a long way from the soaring speech at Berlin's Victory Column and "Yes, we can." Obama once called for a focus on issues rather than personal invective. But now we mysteriously hear again of Romney's dog, his great-great-grandfather's wives, and a roughhousing incident some 50 years ago in prep school.
The "hope and change" slogan for a new unity gave way to a new "us versus them" divide. "Us" now means all sorts of targeted appeals to identity groups like African-Americans for Obama, Latinos for Obama, gays for Obamas, greens for Obama, or students for Obama. "Them," in contrast, means almost everyone else who cannot claim hyphenation or be counted on as a single-cause constituency. In 2008, the Obama strategy was supposedly to unite disparate groups with a common vision; in 2012, it is to rally special interests through common enemies.
Remember the Obama who promised an end to the revolving door of lobbyists and special-interest money? Then came the likes of Peter Orszag, who went from overseeing the Obama budget to being a Citigroup grandee, and financial pirate Jon Corzine, who cannot account for more than $1.5 billion of investors' money but can bundle cash for Obama's re-election. If you told fervent supporters in 2008 that by early 2012 Obama would set a record for the most meet-and-greet fundraisers in presidential history, they would have thought it blasphemy.
Obama is said to go over every name on his Predator drone targeted-assassination list -- a kill tally that is now seven times larger in less than four years than what George W. Bush piled up in eight. Guantanamo is just as open now as it was in 2008. If Obama supporter and former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was once accusing President Bush of being "torturer in chief," he is now an Obama insider arguing that bombing Libya is not really war and that taking out an American citizen and terrorist suspect in Yemen is perfectly legal. Previously bad renditions, preventative detentions and military tribunals are now all good.
Some disgruntled conservatives jumped ship in 2008 for the supposedly tightfisted Obama when he called for halving the deficit in four years and derided George Bush as "unpatriotic" for adding $4 trillion to the national debt. Yet Obama already has exceeded all the Bush borrowing in less than four years.
What accounts for the radical change in mood from four years ago?
The blue-state model of large government, increased entitlements and high taxes may be good rhetoric, but it is unsound reality. Redistribution does not serve static, aging populations in a competitive global world -- as we are seeing from California to southern Europe. "Hope and change" was a slogan in 2008; it has since been supplanted by the reality of 40 straight months of 8-percent-plus unemployment and record deficits -- despite $5 billion in borrowed priming, near-zero interest rates, and vast increases in entitlement spending.
Obama's bragging of drilling more oil despite, rather than because of, his efforts is supposed to be a clever appeal to both greens and business. Private equity firms are good for campaign donations but bad when a Republican rival runs them. "Romney would do worse," rather than "I did well," is the implicit Obama campaign theme of 2012.
To be re-elected, a now-polarizing Obama believes that he must stoke the fears of some of us rather than appeal to all of our hopes by defending a successful record, while smearing with the old politics rather than inspiring with the new. That cynical calculation and constant hedging and flip-flopping may be normal for politicians, but eventually it proves disastrous for the ones who posed as messianic prophets.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


June 7, 2012

Slipping Off the Radar Screen
A Message from Brigitte Gabriel, President, ACT! for America
Dear Free Zone Media,

I am writing to extend you a personal invitation to join us at the fourth annual ACT! for America National Conference and Legislative Briefing in Washington DC June 27
th through the 29th.

There is still time to register AND reserve your hotel room at a deeply discounted rate, by clicking on the image to the left. Our work has never been more important and your voice and presence never more essential.

This is a political campaign season, but the issue of national security and radical Islam is largely getting left out of the debate and slipping off the radar screen. We can’t allow this to happen!

If concern for national security and the safety of America and its citizens from the threat of radical Islam is not stressed during the campaigns, it will not be a priority after the election.

Our elected officials in Washington need to hear that the American people want them to stand and protect this country now more than ever!!!

We must remind them that while we have killed most of the Al-Qaida leadership, we are still fighting the ideology of radical Islam from which violence, intolerance, and hatred towards America is being spewed. For instance, we have arrested over 75 homegrown terrorists in just the last three years.

Unfortunately, political correctness, beginning at the top in the Obama administration, is increasingly paralyzing our first responders, our counterterrorism agencies, the FBI, and even the Defense Department. The result of this political correctness is a whitewashing of what is behind Islamic terrorism—the doctrine of jihad.
If we want our elected officials in Washington to do the right thing and focus on protecting America from the threat of radical Islam, then we need to put it back on their radar!

If we do not speak out, many in Washington will assume the American people just aren’t concerned about the subject of national security.

Therefore, the time to speak out for national security is now! I have no doubt that ACT! for America was created for such a time as this. I have no doubt that together we can take a stand that will make a difference for years to come.

I so look forward to seeing you in Washington DC this month, and thanking you in person for standing with me in defense of our security, our liberty and our values.

Come join us—to make your voice heard, to be informed and inspired, to share the camaraderie, and to celebrate with other ACT! for America chapter leaders, members and donors, everything we have accomplished since our founding in 2007.

Always devoted,



Posted By Woody Pendleton



by barenakedislam

Judge Rejects 'National Security' Defense in Muslim's Bias Suit
Muslim employee forbidden to go to floors of the hotel occupied by Israeli delegation

CAIR(WASHINGTON, D.C., 6/7/12) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today welcomed a federal judge's ruling that rejects a claim by a Washington, D.C., hotel that it had the right to discriminate against a Muslim employee because of a "national security exemption."

United States District Judge & Judenrat Barbara J. Rothstein ruled yesterday that "the national security exemption does not immunize Defendant from liability as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim."

"There are Israelis there, and they don't want no face-to-face with Muslims," one supervisor reportedly told a Muslim hotel worker whose job involves going to all the hotel's floors. One hotel employee said he was mocked by other workers who called him a terrorist after the incident.

"I work for [the hotel] 12, 14 hours a day, and they profile me like I'm a criminal, like I'm going to harm them," he said. "I'm like, 'If I'm going to harm them, why would you keep me in your hotel even one day?'" (Yes, why, indeed?)

In addition to Muslim hotel workers being banned from specific floors, 12 workers were told not to come in for work after a routine US State Department background check found "irregularities" in the workers' records.

Judge Rothstein's ruling came in response to a motion filed by the Mandarin Oriental Hotel with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia claiming CAIR's lawsuit on behalf of the Muslim employee should be rejected by the court because the hotel "was following a mandate from the federal government regarding a matter of national security."

Mohamed Arafi is suing his employer for barring him from servicing an Israeli delegation staying at a D.C. hotel

The hotel's motion blamed its discriminatory actions on security requirements allegedly imposed by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security Service (DSS).

"We welcome Judge Rothstein's ruling and are pleased that this case can now move forward to examine the employee's allegations of retaliation for complaining about the treatment he was subjected to because of his faith and ethnicity," said CAIR National Legal Counsel Nadhira Al-Khalili.

Al-Khalili said CAIR's suit states that in December 2010, the employee, an American Muslim citizen of Moroccan heritage, was forbidden to go to the 8th or 9th floors of the hotel because an Israeli delegation was staying there.

According to the suit, when the Muslim employee asked why he was barred from those floors, he was told by a supervisor, "You know how the Israelis are with Arabs and Muslims." As quoted in CAIR's lawsuit, another hotel supervisor allegedly stated that "the Israeli delegation does not want to be served by Defendant's Muslim employees and that Defendant accommodates this preference because it does not want to lose the Israeli delegation as clients."

The suit also alleges that hotel supervisors believed the Muslim employee "would particularly pose a problem for the Israeli delegation, because if they encountered him, members of the delegation would easily be able to see his name -- Mohamed -- written on his employee nametag."

After the Muslim worker's colleagues learned of the restrictions the hotel had placed on his duties, several of them ridiculed him as a potential terrorist, "poking him in the stomach to feign checking his body for explosives."

CAIR's suit also alleges that the hotel retaliated against the employee for complaining about the discriminatory treatment.

The lawsuit seeks cultural competency training for hotel employees, back pay for the Muslim worker, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and an order requiring the hotel to adopt a non-discrimination and retaliation policy and to establish an effective mechanism for receiving and responding to complaints of discrimination and retaliation.

You can read the entire lawsuit here.

CAIR offers a booklet, called "An Employer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices," to help employers gain a better understanding of Islam and Muslims in the workplace.



Posted By Woody Pendleton


Alabama Bans U.N. Agenda 21 Sovereignty Surrender

Property Rights: Few have heard of Agenda 21, the U.N. plan for sustainable development that tosses property rights aside. But Alabama has, and it recently secured a victory as important as that over union power in Wisconsin.
After Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's stunning triumph over the excesses and abuses of public-sector unions, the London Telegraph's James Delingpole, an indefatigable opponent of global warming fraud, opined in a piece titled, "How Wisconsin And Alabama Helped Save The World," that we should take note of "an equally important but perhaps less well-publicized victory won in the Alabama House and Senate over the U.N.'s malign and insidious Agenda 21."
Agenda 21 is one of those compacts, like Law of the Sea, Kyoto and New START, that are supported by an apologetic administration with a fondness for the redistribution of American power and wealth on a local and global scale.
It fits in perfectly with President Obama's pledge to "fundamentally transform" America, its institutions and its heritage of capitalist freedom.
Agenda 21 has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate, but it may not have to be if in a second Obama term the Environmental Protection Agency pursues it by stealth, as it has other environmental agendas that make war on the free enterprise system and rights we hold dear.
One of those is property rights. "Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market," Agenda 21 says.
"Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes."
Not liking the sound of that, Alabama recently passed Senate Bill 477 unanimously in both of its houses. The legislation bars the taking of private property in Alabama without due process and says that "Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in or traceable to Agenda 21."
Agenda 21 is intended to foster what environmentalists call "sustainable development" in the belief that man since the Industrial Revolution has been a plague on the planet, plundering its resources while destroying nature and putting the world at risk of disastrous climate change, poverty and disease.
At the end of March, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson jetted off to Paris' ministerial meeting of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, as the press release put it, "to discuss the agency's international efforts on urban sustainability."
Excuse us, but "urban sustainability" at the behest of global organizations is not what the EPA was created to do.
Jackson will represent the U.S. at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held June 20-22 in Rio de Janeiro.
"Specifically, in a transition to a green economy, public policies will need to be used strategically to reorient consumption, investments and other economic activities," a U.N. document describing the conference explains.
The EPA's war on coal, its regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant and its regulatory abuses including the use of drones to spy on American farmers are key parts of this international agenda that Jackson says "is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world. ... It means working together to strengthen the effectiveness of environmental governance."
We don't need "environmental governance," just a governance of, by and for the people of the United States.
Nor do we need to "reorient" our consumption and economic activities.
Alabama has just told the U.N. and the EPA what they need to be told — don't tread on us.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Subject: Governor Nikki Haley Joins Sarah Palin in Recommending Allen West for Vice President

By Gary P Jackson
Sarah Palin has repeatedly mentioned Allen West as her top choice for Vice President. [no matter who the eventual nominee is] Now South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is joining her with that recommendation.
From The Hill:
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, a top surrogate for GOP front-runner Mitt Romney, suggested Wednesday night that controversial Tea Party freshman Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) could be a “good” choice as the party’s vice presidential nominee.
You’ve got great ones. You have heard Gov. Palin talk about West, and he’s good,” Haley told Fox News. “Of course, Marco Rubio is great, and Chris Christie. We know he can be the fighter, and I think there are so many really great ones out there. I think Romney is going to have a hard time picking.
Palin told Fox on Tuesday night that she hoped Romney “goes rogue” and picks someone like West for the nomination.
Top of my list is Allen West,” Palin said. “I love that he has that military experience, he is a public servant willing to serve for the right reasons. When I talk about going rogue, what I want is to encourage the GOP nominee to not think that they have to go with somebody necessarily safe.
West, a conservative firebrand, has won over Tea Party supporters with his frank and unfiltered criticism of not just President Obama, but the Republican congressional leadership. But he’s also raised eyebrows with some comments, like when he suggested that President Obama “get the hell out of the United States of America” or called Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) a “plantation overseer.
Allen West would be an excellent VP choice. He has consistently been the overwhelming choice of Conservatives since speculation about 2012 began. He’s a take charge, no nonsense guy. He says what he means and means what he says. He has a solid grasp of the Constitution, and understands that Liberty and Freedom are essential.
I don’t see Mitt Romney picking West though. That’s too far out of the box for him. I suspect we’ll see someone more conventional, and unexciting. A “safe” candidate. If he does, that will be a real shame.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Top Customer: Under Obama, Fed’s Holdings of U.S. Debt Have Jumped 452%

Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and President Barack Obama (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia)
( -  Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the Federal Reserve’s holdings of U.S. government debt have quintupled, according to the Fed’s official monthly balance sheet.
On Jan. 28, 2009, a week after Obama’s nomination, the Fed owned $302 billion in U.S. Treasury securities. On April 25, 2012, the latest date reported, the Fed owned five and a half time that much in U.S. Treasury securities--$1.668 trillion.
That is an increase from January 2009 of $1.366 trillion—or 452 percent.
Under Obama, the Federal Reserve has become the single largest owner of U.S. government debt. When Obama entered office, entities in the People’s Republic of China were the largest holders, followed by entities in Japan. At the end of January 2009, China owned $739.6 billion in U.S. government debt and Japan owned $634.8 billion.
By the end of March 2012, China’s holdings of U.S. debt had grown to $1.1699 trillion and Japan’s holdings had grown to $1.083 trillion.
Together, the Federal Reserve, China and Japan had increased their holdings of U.S. debt by $2.2445 trillion since Obama took office.
The total U.S. government debt grew from $10.6179 trillion to $15.6233 between Jan. 28, 2009 and April 25, 2012. Leaving out the intragovernmental debt—which the federal government owes itself—the publicly owned part of the U.S. government debt has climbed from $6.2955 trillion to $10.8607 trillion, an increase of $4.5652 trillion.
The $2.2445 trillion of that new publicly owned U.S. government debt that was purchased by the Fed, China and Japan equals 49 percent of all the new debt the U.S. government has sold to the public since Obama took office


Posted By Woody Pendleton


President Barack Obama's re-election turns on his ability to convince voters that 1) Obama inherited a "Great Recession," 2) every "independent" economist supported the "stimulus," 3) "bipartisan" economists agree that Obama's stimulus worked, and 4) as actor Morgan Freeman puts it, racist Republicans say, "Screw the country ... we're going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here" -- nothing to do with deeply held policy differences.
That's a lot of merchandise to push.
1) Take this "Great Recession" business.
Remember the "misery index"? The term, popularized by former President Jimmy Carter, used to mean inflation plus unemployment. Unfortunately for John Kerry, by the time he ran for president in 2004, the misery index stood at 7.4 midway into the election year, the same as when George W. Bush won the presidency in 2000. What to do? Change the definition. Kerry invented a new misery index, one that included only high-rising costs like college tuition, health care and gas prices.
Similarly, "bad economic times" used to mean, above all, high unemployment. Within a year of Obama's presidency, unemployment climbed to 10.2 percent. Within three years of Reagan's presidency, unemployment reached 10.8 percent. Under Obama, inflation has been -- at least so far -- rather modest. Early in Reagan's presidency, inflation reached 13.5 percent. Rather than describe this era as the "Great-Recession-turned-around-by-Reagan's-pro-growth-policies," many pundits and scribes dismiss this period of extraordinary growth as the "me decade" or the "decade of greed."
2) "There is no disagreement," said then-President-elect Barack Obama, "that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start the economy."
What?! More than 200 economists, including several Nobel laureates, signed on to a full-page ad placed in major newspapers by the libertarian Cato Institute. Eventually, over 130 more economists became signatories to the ad.
It read: "With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true. Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.
"More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan's 'lost decade' in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.
"To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."
These 350 or so notable economists notwithstanding, Obama later doubled down: "This is what independent economists have said -- not politicians, not just people in my administration. Independent experts who do this for a living have said this jobs bill will have a significant effect for our economy and for middle-class families all across America. And what these independent experts have also said is that if we don't act, the opposite will be true. There will be fewer jobs; there will be weaker growth."
3) Obama surrogate Steve Rattner recently said that Obama's stimulus worked -- as confirmed by "bipartisan" economists. As proof, Rattner offered the findings of "bipartisan economists Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder," who "agree that ... we would have had unemployment substantially higher than what we've had over the last two years."
Blinder, a Democrat, served as a member of the Clinton administration and later advised presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry. As for Zandi, he did serve as a presidential campaign advisor to John McCain. Like Blinder, Zandi is a self-described Democrat.
Zandi likes "maverick" McCain, a Republican who voted against the first George W. Bush tax cuts using the same left-wing argument about the cuts benefiting the rich. Zandi's man, summoning his inner Dennis Kucinich, once said, "I cannot support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."
As to the alleged unanimous expert opinion on the effectiveness of Obama's stimulus, Stanford economist John Taylor debated this on NPR with Zandi. Taylor's analysis, shared by many other economists: "I just don't think there's any evidence. When you look at the numbers, when you see what happened, when people reacted to the stimulus, it did very little good."
4) Democrats never tire of trotting out Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said his "single most important political goal" was to make Obama "a one-term president." Horrors! Why, doesn't this just make McConnell the very personification of sinister! Republican opposition for the sole purpose of bringing down Obama, the first black president, yada, blah, etc.
Apparently, it is outside the brain capacity of people like Morgan Freeman to understand something: One way to defeat bad, leftist Democrats' policies is to defeat bad, leftist Democrats, who seek to implement those bad, leftist policies. It's not complicated.
Nothing personal.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler   
Thursday, 07 June 2012

Repeatedly, TTPers at the Seascape Rendezvous last weekend raved about how ravishing the setting was, on a flower-filled bluff overlooking the Pacific with gentle waves rolling onto a beach that went on for miles.

It was captivating, as was the sunny, blue-sky weather.  After the Rendezvous, Rebel and I drove down the California coast through the Big Sur - one of the world's most breathtaking coastlines - past towns and farms, cities and countryside on the way to see her folks in San Diego. 

The beauty and bounty of California was simply overwhelming.  It's called the Golden State for good reason. Not just for the 1849 Gold Rush, but for how the sunlight magically transforms the landscape into a Renaissance painting of ethereal light.  

Its 158,000 square miles has everything in spectacular abundance - snow-capped mountains, forests, deserts, lakes, rivers, an ocean coast of 840 miles with huge natural harbors, endless farmland bursting with fecundity, vast natural resources like oil, one of the world's great systems of higher education, millions of productive citizens in cities teeming with energy, plus of course, Disneyland, Malibu, Beverly Hills, and the movie star glamour of Hollywood.

Reflecting on all this as we drove through it, Rebel and I kept asking ourselves in wonderment, "How is it possible for Californians to screw their paradise of a state up so badly?"  

And so quickly.  This was the state that Ronald Reagan was Governor of for eight years (1967-1974), and he carried in 1980 (53%) and 1984 (58%).  Bush the Elder won it in 1988, but lost it to Clinton in 1992 due to Ross Perot's taking over 20% of the vote away from him.  It's gone Dem ever since.

Yesterday (6/06), flying back to the East Coast, I was transfixed looking out the window at America The Beautiful as it passed in boundless variety beneath me.  And again, it hit me.  No place on earth has been more blessed by Providence, in both natural resources and in the moral values and political principles that make freedom and prosperity possible.  

How could it be that so many Americans would choose to trash both their freedom and their prosperity?

The easy answer is the Moochers.  The Free Riders, the Gimmie-Gimmies, the Something-For Nothing Parasites. Food Stamp Nation.

TTPer Brian Kelly has this great quote he appends to his posts on the Forum:
"The food stamp program, part of the Dept of Agri, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amt of food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the Park Service, also part of the Dept of Agri, asks us to ‘please do not feed the animals' because the animals may grow dependent & not learn to take care of themselves!"
This brings an interesting question:  Whose fault is it then, for animals being dependent and no longer able to fend for themselves:  the animals who accept the dependence or the people who provide it?  The Park Service blames the latter, the destructive do-gooders, the misguided responsible for moocher animals.  

Of course, people are not animals (other than biologically, but in a moral sense).  Yet Brian is right, making people dependent on freebies like food stamps disenables them from being self-reliant and responsible for their well-being - and his irony is spot-on, as we have a government encouraging such dependency, for a dependent animal voter is one who votes for that government.

The goal of that government - composed primarily of Dems but with a lot of RINO Pubs following along - is a voting majority of moochers who will perpetuate their parasitism indefinitely.    Once again, whose fault is this?  The Dems and their dependents - or their providers?

The answer is what Ayn Rand calls "The Sanction of the Victim."  In her ethics of rational self-interest, the immoral is parasitical upon the moral.  As a parasite cannot survive on its own, requiring a host, so the immoral actions of people require moral people willing to be hosts; they require their victims' sanction.

Rand's magnum opus Atlas Shrugged is a thought-experiment on what would happen if this sanction were revoked.  In "Galt's Speech," the book's main hero describes what makes it possible for moochers to despoil paradise:
"Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality-and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent-that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real-and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it.

Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan-so throughout the world and throughout men's history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values-the impotence of death.

I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No'."

The plot device for sanction revocation is a small band of the most productive individuals dropping out of society, decamping to a hidden valley in Colorado ("Galt's Gulch") while the rest of America collapses in chaos without them.  Today, in response to the predations of Zero, an increasing number of producers have chosen this option - e.g., retiring early (as have many physicians), leaving California/New York/Illinois, or even leaving the US altogether.  

So many, in fact, that "Going Galt" has almost a half-million entries in Google.

This week, however, an alternative scenario came into clearer focus.  It's a far more hopeful alternative to a few isolated individuals giving up on America.  It's regular, ordinary Americans refusing to sanction their being victims, and in numbers large enough to win elections.

The headline event of this phenomenon is the historic victory of Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin on Tuesday (6/05).  He won going away (53% to 46%), becoming the first governor in US history to win a recall election. More germane to our alternative scenario, though, is that Walker won by gaining the votes of 38% of those in union households.

Workers who belong to private company unions are getting just as sick and tired of government worker moocherism as the rest of us.

Yet even more consequential than Wisconsin is what happened in California on Election Tuesday.  In two of the state's largest cities, San Diego and San Jose, voters overwhelmingly chose to cut pension benefits to city workers.  And they did it for real, not just voting to cut just the benefits of future hires, but also those of current city workers.  

San Diego did so with two-thirds of the vote, San Jose with 70%.  That's what you call a harbinger.  More than an omen, it's a foreshadow of what's coming down the road.  When the sanction of the victim starts getting rejected in California, the halcyon days enjoyed by moochers in paradise is coming to an end.

More and more now, the November election is promising to be transformational.  The last great transformation of American politics and society was FDR's New Deal ushering in the era of government dependence and expansion of unconstitutional power.  That era has run its course.  

Zero will be lucky to carry ten states.  California will still be one of them, but Wisconsin will not.  America is on the verge of transforming itself into a culture of adulthood, of sober acceptance of reality and responsibility.  It's coming just in the nick of time, and it won't be brought about by Ayn Rand superheroes, but by plain, normal Americans choosing to live up to being American again.

America will no longer be a playground for moochers to frolic for free in.  We get to reclaim our American Paradise.

GBTV What's happening in Wisconsin (DID HAPPEN)

Posted by BH

GBTV What's happening in Wisconsin  - IT DID HAPPEN


GBTV Regulating us into oblivion

Posted by BH

GBTV -  Regulating us into oblivion

GBTV Righteous lessons

Posted by BH

GBTV -  Righteous lessons

GBTV THE OVAL - Booker T. Washington

Posted by BH

THE OVAL - Booker T. Washington



Posted By Woody Pendleton


I never knew one word in the English language that can be a noun, verb, adj, adv, prep.
(The English language has more exceptions than rules...right, well nearly!)
Read until the end ... you'll laugh.

This two-letter word in English has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that word is
UP. It is listed in the dictionary as an [adv], [prep], [adj], [n] or [v].

It's easy to understand
UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP?

At a meeting, why does a topic come
UP? Why do we speak UP, and why are the officers UP for election (if there is a tie, it is a toss UP) and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report? We call UP our friends, brighten UP a room, polishUP the silver, warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen. We lock UP the house and fix UP the old car.

At other times, this little word has real special meaning. People stir UP trouble, line UP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.

To be dressed is one thing but to be dressed
UP is special.

And this
UP is confusing: A drain must be opened UP because it is blocked UP.

We open
UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night. We seem to be pretty mixed UP about UP!

To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look UP the word UP in the dictionary. In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4 of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions.

If you are
UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used. It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP, you may wind UP with (UP to) a hundred or more.

When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding
UP. When the sun comes out, we say it is clearing UP. When it rains, it soaks UP the earth. When it does not rain for awhile, things dry UP. One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it UP, for now . . . my time is UP!

Oh . . . one more thing: What is the first thing you do in the morning and the last thing you do at night?



Did that one crack you

Don't screw
UP.. Send this on to everyone you look UP in your address book . . . or not . . . it's UP to you.   I MAY JUST THROW   UP.

Now I'll shut
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...