Lake Elmo Mayor Caught Stealing Campaign Literature

Again, more theft of campaign materials. And again I say this should be a felony to really prevent this stuff. In this story it is the mayor of Lake Elmo taking the materials from a door left by a council member. He was caught red-handed by the council member.

On Oct. 12, city councilwoman Anne Smith said she saw Johnston taking one of her campaign cards out of a door of a townhome. She said he put it into a container in his motor scooter.

Johnston said he was putting his own campaign literature in the door, noticed Smith's card and removed it to take it home and read it.

When confronted by Smith in the driveway, Johnston returned the card to the door.

Sure, take it home to read it. We believe you.

The real down side of this is that Lake Elmo is not going to charge him. If I were the council member I would press all the charges I could...regardless of party or whose side he is on.

A letter from a law firm advised Lake Elmo why the case should not be charged.

The letter from Kelley & Lemmons P.A. said success in a trial would be unlikely because Johnston has no criminal record, showed no sign of taking anything other than the single card and returned the card quickly to the door.

It questioned whether the "benefit to justice" outweighed the cost of bringing the matter to trial.

Smith said Wednesday, Oct. 31, that she plans to take the matter to the state Office of Administrative Hearings, which handles disputes about fair campaign practices.

I hope he get penalized in the most severe manner allowable.

Obama Still Collecting Illegal Contributions

It has been pointed a number of times recently that Obama's campaign has been taking illegal contributions. There is no grey area. All foreign contributions are illegal.

In spite of it being pointed out (and the mainstream media saying nothing, by the way) there have been no corrections to the problem.

Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.
...
The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

One $15 donation was made at BarackObama.com using a confirmed Pakistani IP address. In other words, as far as the campaign website was concerned, the donation was openly identified electronically as coming from Pakistan.

Before people get their panties in a bunch these tests have also been done on Romney's site...and that campaign is interested in following the law above the drive to collect money to try to win. The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after a flurry of media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts. In other words there is a respect for the law on one side and not on the other side.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

What is interesting about the email solicitations is that they have been reported to request an amount that keeps the donor $5 below the aggregate amount that would require demographic collection, proof of identity and mandatory reporting of all of that.

Circumstantial, sure, but enough individual car on a track make a train. Enough circumstantial evidence in a row is intent.

Obama's campaign seems to know they are collecting illegal contributions and attemptin to not just keep the funds but leverage them for more illegal contributions.

Death Threat Makers Still Active On Twitter

I guess making death threats against Romney is not a violation of Twitter TOS and Rules as those who have done so have not had their account closed yet.

It has been a few weeks since the 2nd Presidential Debate during which several death threats were made against Romney.

More than a dozen Twitter accounts that were used as a medium to publically threaten Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s life after the second presidential debate remain active, nearly two weeks later. This news comes after the Secret Service told this publication that it was “aware” of these very threats on Romney’s life.

“I'm gonna murder Romney right now,” Twitter user @WestonSebree tweeted October 17. But while the user appears to have deleted that particular threat, he remains very active on Twitter.

Likewise, also on October 17, soon after the second presidential debate ended, Twitter user @Jasmineuribe proclaimed, “At this point in time I am completely prepared to MURDER ROMNEY MYSELF!” She continues to remain active on Twitter.

Those are clearly threats that fit under the words of Twitter's Rules, "Violence and Threats: You may not publish or post direct, specific threats of violence against others."

According to Twitter's Terms of Service the accounts should not be active.

We may suspend or terminate your accounts or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any reason, including, but not limited to, if we reasonably believe: (i) you have violated these Terms or the Twitter Rules, (ii) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us; or (iii) our provision of the Services to you is no longer commercially viable.

Other violators:

And @GoToSLEEP_Hoe tweeted, “Somebody should assassinate Romney...” That user, too, remains very active.

The list goes on—and on. (Such as, users: @LoudJet_Life, @alyy_joee, @iBeBlowinUrMind, @AllHaleDeja_, @4shogbmg, @DamnGurlYuNasty, @LosHomocidio, @m_So_Sinqleee, @ItsCeddyB, @_KingKiera, @emma_rizzuto, @_OVO_Libra. Check Twitchy here, for the original report on threats to Romney’s life after the debate.)

The threats were made.
The accounts are still active.
Conclusion: Threats against Romney are acceptable.


**** UPDATE ****
As of 2pm Central time, 10/29/12 all of the above mentioned accounts are active with posts within the previous hour.

Pioneer Press Editorial Destroys Voter ID Opponents

All of the arguments against Voter ID are answered quite soundly in this St Paul Pioneer Press editorial.

From the Constitutional Question:

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, writing about Indiana's voter ID law, said it was "amply justified by the valid interests in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.'" Stevens was a liberal justice writing on behalf of the Supreme Court, which found in favor of the law by a 6-3 margin. Stevens went on to say that "We cannot conclude that the statue imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters."

Addressing the fabricated cost expectation:

The other objections to the amendment are less central. Opponents say it will be expensive. To which the supporters note that the opponents are always eager to spend unless and until it comes time to tighten up the voting process. Not to mention that if the state is so backward that it cannot efficiently administer something as ordinary and universal as Photo ID verification, it's high time it upped its game.

The pure instinctual reason to support Voter ID:

Polls suggest that Minnesota's Voter ID amendment will pass, perhaps easily. If so, it is because on the surface it just seems to make so much sense. Virtually any activity of any consequence in this society requires a photo ID. Nobody accuses other institutions of suppression or worse when they require photo ID during the regular course of their activities.

Now opponents claim that there is no problem and there is not even th potential for a problem. Pioneer Press hits that one out of the park, too.

Remember, in Minnesota anybody can simply show up at the polls and vote, whether they have previously registered or not. They "register" on the spot with as little documentation as an old ID and an invoice with an address on it. In 2008, roughly 500,000 people (!) showed up and voted after registering on the spot. That number of same-day registrants represents nearly 20 percent of the votes cast. No one knows how many of these votes may have been ineligible. A recent video from the state of Virginia records the son of a politician explaining how to cast votes by using fake documents such as water bills. And what makes matters worse is that once a vote is cast it is counted, and cannot be un-counted, even if the voter is later found to have been ineligible.

Without an ID there is no way to verify even the most elementary things such as citizenship. Post-election, more than 6,000 of the addresses given by these same-day-registrant voters came back as undeliverable in a routine postal check. Even if the legwork was done to determine which if any of those votes were ineligible, the votes themselves could not be un-counted. (Emphasis added)

6,000 of the 500,000 same day registrants had undeliverable addresses. That is 12%. That is nearly 3,000% of Al Franken's margin of victory that year.

The editorial addresses something I believe should be ditched altogether, the asinine allowance of vouching for someone's identity.

But the system is even more porous than that. The vouching process allows people to show up at the polls without a shred of evidence that they are eligible to vote, and cast a ballot on the say-so of someone who "vouches" that they are indeed eligible to vote. And the person who vouches is permitted to vouch for up to 15 people, all of whom have no documents that would qualify them to vote. We don't know a lot about the vouching process because records on vouched votes are scarce, seldom reported, and what records do exist are destroyed after 18 months. As with ineligible votes cast through the same-day registration process, ineligible vouched votes once cast cannot be un-counted.

Remember also that while voter fraud alone would be cause to vote for Voter ID the real target in protecting the integrity of the election process is intelligible votes being stopped, not just fraudulent activity.

Opponents of the amendment base their arguments on voter fraud -- or, more precisely, the lack thereof. But there's a lot of misdirection in that argument. Proponents are interested in protecting against ineligible votes in general, not just the presumably smaller subset of fraudulent votes. Fraud is very difficult to prove, and in a system as loose as Minnesota's would likely be a small fraction of the total number of ineligible votes. Even so, there have been 200 convictions of voter fraud since 2008 -- primarily felons who weren't eligible to vote -- and the total number of ineligible votes is arguably significantly higher. The focus by opponents on voter fraud is a means of avoiding the larger issue.

It is fair to say that the electoral process in Minnesota is much looser than opponents of this measure are willing to admit. And if we accept the claim that despite the points outlined above there really is not a problem, the counter argument would be that it's for sure a problem waiting to happen.

Three are commercials on the air now that have grandma pleading on about how she has lived in her home for nearly a century and somehow cannot get out to get and ID which means she will not be able to vote when she gets out to go to the polls. My first thought is that if it is a priority enough (as it should) to get out of the house than so too should it be a priority to get an ID. You need ID to get your meds or cash a check or make a cash-back deposit.

The other thing that the commercial has the old lady say is the oft heard and absolutely disingenuous plea to "send it back" to "get it right". This implies something that we all know is not true, that there is a version of this concept that they would support. I think it is safe to say that almost 100% of the people who utter that would never support any version of identification verification for voting. I have found this when I ask those opponents "what needs to be fixed to make it supportable?" The answer is a shrug, an I don't know and an insistence that it is not their job. In other words they cannot even conceive any way they could support the idea. Bottom line there is I do not believe anyone who uses the tactic of "send it back and tell them to fix it" is being honest. They are trying to appear reasonable in their opposition and lying while doing so. The honest response would be to say "requiring ID to vote is never right, I oppose it in all iterations." Dishonest in the attempt to persuade deceive. Grandma in the commercial included.

I know, that is not allowed to be said about the dear old and frail looking lady who is has so much difficulty getting around that her cane is even sharing the shot with her. But the deception attempt has to be called out. Fortunately I believe that none of my readers are dumb enough to fall for that gambit.

It may be worth remembering, in the fog of the debate, that generally speaking those who oppose the amendment would still oppose it even if it cost the state nothing and exempted absentee ballots. The arguments brought to bear by the opponents are simply tools -- incidentals -- used to defeat an amendment that they fundamentally oppose in all its forms. Plain and simple, they are against using Photo ID in the election process. Opponents are not saying that they are for it as implemented by some other state, just not as it has been drawn up in this particular amendment. They are against the very concept, regardless of the particulars.

Absentee ballots? That whole process is, to coin an expression from a close friend, ridiculous like clown shoes. It is a luxury, to be honest, but one worth fixing and making better. Notice with that broken process we have not scrapped it because it is so far from perfect? Now examine what opponents say about Voter ID in relation to absentee ballots.

Another issue raised is the handling of absentee ballots and the lack of clear provisions for how Photo IDs work in that circumstance, to which the supporters respond that the amendment allows for "substantially equivalent" verification standards. To the objection that this sort of thing shouldn't be handled as a constitutional amendment, the supporters point out that the state constitution has plenty to say about the voting process. To the objection that passage of the amendment will lead to a great deal of litigation, supporters answer that there will be plenty of litigation regardless, and that it's a bit ironic coming from opponents who regularly pursue their agendas through the courts. Opponents say that whatever else may be true, Photo ID will not fix all the problems, to which supporters argue that in a process as important as the vote we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

To me the slam dunk is with regards to suppression of voters.

Opponents fear that higher standards will suppress their vote. While this concern is understandable, they offer no evidence that this indeed has happened in states that implemented Voter ID. If there were evidence that Photo ID suppressed the vote in other states that practice it, you can be certain that this would be Exhibit A in the case made against it. Opponents talk of hundreds of thousands of eligible voters who might potentially be denied the franchise, but they have brought no evidence that such measures have indeed repressed the vote in other states.

Truer words in politics are difficult to come by and bear repeating. "If there were evidence that Photo ID suppressed the vote in other states that practice it, you can be certain that this would be Exhibit A in the case made against it. "

This is a very easy issue. Minnesota's voting process over emphasizes the priority of voter turnout numbers at the overwhelming sacrifice of a system that can be deemed as integrable. In fact, it seems to be that the drive for high voter turnout numbers is a higher priority than safe and protected elections based on the processes that exist. Voter ID easily maintains the obviously top priority on the voter turnout statistic while actually improving the integrity of the ballot box to its current second world state of existence.

Personal note: This topic was the cause for an ending of a friendship. There was a husband of a former friend who portrayed himself as the only all-knowing demi-god authority on all things voter related in Minnesota. He reminded me for some reason of the bug-thing monster voiced by Steve Buscemi in "Monster, Inc.". He, and only he, was the authority on voter issues. All others were obligated to worship his superiority and acquiesce their insignificant and incorrect views to his or bear the unending wrath of hatred and profanity and insults.

I say former friend because the wife admitted her husband was well beyond being out of line in discussions but then dutifully retracted her apology saying it is her husband so he must be right. She said she needed space until the election was over and I decided that kind of disrespect will not magically disappear the day after the election...and it is unhealthy to keep it in my life. She had done the same thing to me about global warming as her husband does to people on voter issues. Some people just need to be let go from our lives and they be them.

But I digress.

Aside from him being the biggest ass I have ever dealt with (which is saying something considering I have had to deal with the idiots from the Westboro Baptist Church) he was also one of the most arrogant piles of flesh I have ever witnessed. I wish I could hear his apoplectic vitriolic reaction to the Pioneer Press editorial before casting him to the heap of irrelevance in the past.

Political Opposition Arrested And Tortured

In the Russia that Obama during the 3rd debate implied was not dangerous and from where Obama got one of his foreign leader endorsements members of the political opposition are being arrested and tortured.

Russian police detained several opposition leaders, including Alexei Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov, during a protest held in Moscow Saturday against the latest wave of arrests of political activists.

Police claimed the detained activists violated public order after about 200 people gathered around the headquarters of the Federal Security Service (FSB) with signs protesting political repression against the opposition, including allegations of torture by one activist.

The violation occurs when more than one person protests without permission from authorities. Now at this point I should say that civil disobedience requires arrest and if that is what these rallies were then they should be arrested. I would love to know how many times they requested permission and were denied as well as the reasoning for the denials. That would be relevant.

But what makes this story worthy of calling Russia dangerous is the torture of political opposition prisoners.

The picketing was called following the arrest and charging of activist Leonid Razvozzhayev, who had told rights campaigners last Tuesday that masked men kidnapped him the week before from Kiev, where he was applying for refugee status.

He said he was later smuggled into Russia and held in a cellar, where the men terrorised and threatened him for several days until he agreed to cooperate, after which he was handed over to Russian investigators to pen a confession.

But look at this. Arrest after arrest after arrest...

Anti-corruption campaigner Navalny, Left Front movement leader Udaltsov, and fellow opposition leader Ilya Yashin tweeted from the police station, where they were taken together with several other protesters.

...for responding to a documentary that claimed they wanted to overthrow Putin (which, being rid of Putin might not be bad and the way he has rigged things now an overthrow may be the only way to get him out of office--but that is all Russia's house to fix on their own).

Razvozzhayev, along with Udaltsov and Udaltsov's assistant Konstantin Lebedev have been charged with plotting mass riots after a smear documentary aired on a pro-Kremlin television channel claimed the trio wanted to overthrow Putin.

And it seems these 3 are not the only opposition members arrested.

Russia has over the past few months targeted many protest activists in various probes, with 13 people behind bars and awaiting trial on charges of alleged disorder at a massive rally on May 6, one day before Vladimir Putin was inaugurated for his third Kremlin term.

Glad to know that Russia is a freedom loving nation and not a danger...one that we can trust to finally hold up their end of nuclear treaties (in spite of decades of contrary behavior). Though, I would hate to see how bad it would have to get for our leader to classify them as a danger.

Political Vandalism

I make no bones about my views on political vandalism. I think it is engaged in by cowards and the penalties should be a felony. I would have no problem if it was classified as acts of terror. From stealing lawn signs to outright vandalism it all is designed to intimidate the subject into silence for the simple reason of having an opposing political viewpoint.

Let's start in the state full of faux tolerance, California. By faux tolerance I am talking about preaching tolerance while practicing intolerance. What happens in Alta Loma in the San Bernadino County when you live at a house that shows support for Romney? You get the name Obama keyed into your car and your seats slashed.

Someone keyed the word “Obama” into two cars and slashed seats in another outside a residence that had Mitt Romney campaign signs.

[Ken Slown] estimates the damage to both of his vehicles at about $3,400.

In addition to both cars being keyed, his wife’s vehicle had her seats slashed, as well. Said Slown, “They pretty much cut the backs of all of the seats.”

A neighbor, who also has a Romney/Ryan sign in their front yard, were also hit. “Obama” keyed in the hood and on the black gate of an SUV.

The vandalism-terrorism is not limited to just residences. A church marquee was vandalized in Indiana. For this one you have to give credit for creativity. They rearranged the letters on the marquee.

One side of the sign read “Christ voted Democrat” and the other read “Romney hates women”.

In the end it is still vandalism and theft (the cretins stole the remaining letters).

I love what Luke Jackson, the pastor of the church, said.

"One community member in particular had said, 'I don't believe a church should be promoting anything like that in a political way,' and I agreed 100 percent," he said.

Which is why I believe this church should lose its tax exempt status.

Bishop David Ricken, the leader of the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, noted in a recent letter to parishioners that voting for candidates who support what he calls “intrinsically evil” positions, such as abortion and gay marriage, could “put your own soul in jeopardy.”

Ricken’s letter, dated Oct. 24, notes that the church has a responsibility to “speak out regarding moral issues, especially on those issues that impact the ‘common good.’” It goes on to note principles to keep in mind in the voting booth on Nov. 6, including abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and gay marriage.

“A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program that contradicts fundamental contents of faith and morals,” Ricken said in the letter. “Some candidates and one party have even chosen some of these as their party’s or their personal political platform. To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy. (Emphasis added)”

But I digress. Back to political vandalism.

Elsewhere in the state of Wisconsin more tolerance. In an effort to do physical damage for the simple offense of having a different political belief some thugs poured nails in the parking lot of a political rally. Keeping it classy.

The Racine Tea Party's "Rally for Jobs" kicked off at 2:30 p.m. Saturday inside the old Sam's Club at 6200 Regency West Drive. Before the event could get under way, though, organizers say a truck affixed with "Obama" stickers drove through the parking lot and dumped quantities of nails.

It seems that the vandalism is decidedly heavy against one side of the political spectrum...and this matches my anecdotal experience in my years both living in Hennepin County and at the University of Minnesota.

Children Should Be Protected From All Things Political

I don't care who it is or for what cause or what party. I find the use of children in protests and political activity to be immoral and repugnant. A recent political ad is just...well, you decide if children should be singing the following lyrics.

Imagine an America
Where strip mines are fun and free
Where gays can be fixed
And sick people just die
And oil fills the sea

We don’t have to pay for freeways!
Our schools are good enough
Give us endless wars
On foreign shores
And lots of Chinese stuff

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you

We haven’t killed all the polar bears
But it’s not for lack of trying
Big Bird is sacked
The Earth is cracked
And the atmosphere is frying

Congress went home early
They did their best we know
You can’t cut spending
With elections pending
Unless it’s welfare dough

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you

Find a park that is still open
And take a breath of poison air
They foreclosed your place
To build a weapon in space
But you can write off your au pair

It’s a little awkward to tell you
But you left us holding the bag
When we look around
The place is all dumbed down
And the long term’s kind of a drag

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And yeah, we’re blaming you

You did your best
You failed the test

Mom and Dad
We’re blaming you!

Disgusting. Indoctrinating. Sickening.

And further proof that for some demented people winning is an ends that trumps all things, including principles or human decency.

Will They Still Want The Electoral College Scrapped

They wants the Electoral College done away with. My hunch was it was pure politics, a gambit to ferment discontent and fan the belief of disillusionment while misleading people to believe they were disenfranchised by the genius of the Electoral College. I did not believe their words to be sincere.

Polls and probabilities are showing a growing possibility of Romney winning the popular vote while Obama wins the election. That would give us a great chance to see if those people were hacks putting their party above any principles or if they actually believe what they said.

One fine example is Secretary Clinton and President Obama. Let us remember her position after the 2000 election.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Shortly after the 2000 election, as a newly-minted Senator-elect, Clinton called for direct elections of the president. She argued the country has changed since the Electoral College was put in place.

“We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,” Clinton said at a news conference.

“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

And another example of a prominent politician who said the Electoral College needed to be done away was President Obama.

Obama said he supported eliminating the Electoral College as a Senate candidate during a WTTW television debate against Republican Alan Keyes in 2004.

When asked, “Yes or no, eliminate the Electoral College?” Obama responded, “Yes … I think, at this point, this is breaking down.”

Oh, don't worry. I won't be surprised to get some Righties pissing vinegar about the Electoral College. Here are some on the record for maintaining it.

Vice President Biden and Senator Orin Hatch vote against the idea the last time it reached the Senate floor in 1979. There is also Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell.

The Senate minority leader told the Associated Press two days after the 2000 election that presidential candidates would avoid small states if the Electoral College was eliminated.

“If we did away with the Electoral College, an awful lot of states would never get a visit from a presidential candidate,” McConnell said.

In 2011, McConnell blasted a national popular vote movement that would circumvent a constitutional amendment. He claimed it would lead to an extreme number of recounts.

“The proponents of this absurd and dangerous concept are trying to get this done while nobody notices, just sort of sneak this through,” and “we need to kill it in the cradle before it grows up.”

I agree with him.

There's more.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) — The chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee shares the same opinion as McConnell about smaller states losing power without the system.

"Washington (state) would be hurt dramatically,” Murray told a Vancouver, Wash., high school on Nov. 20, 2000.

"Presidential candidates wouldn't come here."

Notice the mixed company in opposition of the change?

Let me give the names of a few others wanting to do away with the Electoral College. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who is now Obama’s Secretary of Transportation, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y). Notice the homogeneity in party on this side? One of them had the most ridiculous concept for a justification. Durbin actually posited that people who vote for the loser in a state are disenfranchised.

"Our current system disenfranchises millions of voters who happen to vote for the losing presidential candidate in their state," Durbin said. “The electoral college is an 18th century invention that never should have survived to the 21st century.

Someone who votes and whose vote is tallied cannot by definition be disenfranchised. This is a buzzword to make people believe the speaker's position is a moral imperative and in that vein is a very specious and despicable method of communication.

I saved this one for last mostly because he both changed his story and did it while erroneously leading people to believe that not being visited by the candidates constitutes disenfranchisement.

Former Vice President Al Gore — After the 2000 election, Gore continued to support the current system. But Gore reversed course during this year’s Democratic National Convention, criticizing the process that ignores voters outside of swing states and cost him the election.

“I’ve seen how these states are written off and ignored, and people are effectively disenfranchised in the presidential race. And I really do now think it is time to change that,” Gore said on Current TV.

Sorry, that is nowhere close to disenfranchisement and it only perpetuates a broken victim mentality.

From the World English Dictionary:

1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship

It is like they do not know what it means...or are counting on the public to be too stupid to know what it means.

Anyway, we might get to see a lot of people suddenly rationalizing a 180 in their "beliefs" and principles. Should be fun to watch.

In TSA You Can Trust

Maybe you can trust TSA but I hear too many stories like this one. That and growing up in Europe in the 80's when terrorism was always a real threat has made it so that my bags never leave my sight not even for the agents of TSA.

Terri Ivester says, “The TSA agent holds my backpack up, and um, says there’s a water bottle in this backpack, I’m going to have to take that.”

That’s when Ivester says the agent left the area with her bag.

Sorry, I would never have left my bag unattended with such unsavory folks like a TSA agent.

So what happened to the poor person who trusted the government agent?

She realized she was missing four pieces including a single strand of pearls and a double strand bracelet totaling $3,700.

Scared yet? It goes on.

The Transportation Security Administration recently revealed that 382 of its agents have been fired for theft in the past ten years. According to Nacara, six TSA agents have been fired from Logan out of the thousands hired. He says Logan’s high-tech security camera system closely monitors checkpoints and is often used to resolve cases of theft.

Don't trust TSA...ever.

How Ignorance Spreads

This is how ignorance spreads.  First one person makes a ridiculously exaggerated statement.

But you can't erase what you've already done, they've voted to extend tax cuts for the very wealthy, giving a $500 trillion dollar tax-cut to 120,000 families.

Then the hundred people are going to go home and repeat it as fact. And maybe 1% of the new second hand audience will catch the quote as being wrong. Maybe 4% will catch the quote as being ridiculous. But of the remaining 95% of the new second hand audience maybe as many as 45% will just dismiss it as coming from a partisan who is repeating partisan stuff and dismiss it.

But the remaining 50% will be blindly following enough to repeat the broken figure to people. And so on and so on.

Remember, kids, the national debt is a staggering $16 trillion and if there had been a proposal to cut taxes by more than 50 times the national debt the MSM would have been all over it. You would have heard about it without trying. That person would have been skewered by hacks like Whoopi Goldberg, Cooper Anderson and Steven Colbert. But that person would have my vote!

Not only does ignorance spread from ridiculous misinformation like this, but had this been a Republican that made such an obvious misquote (and with Biden misquotes come often) there would be a national story calling into question the speaker's intelligence as well. Enter the nightly talk show surrogates like Letterman who would reinforce that perception. And then that audience tells someone and ignorance again spreads.

Lest Anyone Forget We Are At War Still

It seems in talking with people that many have forgotten we are in a war still. There is still an enemy that wants us dead. So when this story hit the wire I decided to share it lest anyone forget we are at war and those thugs are still fighting.

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday. In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

First, the partisan hacks that opposed the President of the United States from 2001- 2009 failed to respect that he was our country's leader. They would jump on board any foreigner's criticism back then. That, in my view is abandoning your nation, not loving your nation and I have less respect for those idiots. So, you Lefties that continually tried to undermine our nation that way get no place at the foreign policy table.

Next is to Zawahiri. You don't get to call our leader a liar and still hold any respect or credibility. I can sit here and go "liar liar" but I would need evidence. And then it becomes an internal thing, like a family, where we keep a united front outside the house but deal with the issues inside. I know there are people out there who put their wing above the country (like the aforementioned Leftists) but we stayed united despite those folks. And we will stay United now.

"The battle isn't over, but it has started," Zawahiri said, urging "every sincere person in Egypt" to "wage a popular campaign to incite and preach in order to complete the revolution, which was aborted. "The revolution in Egypt must continue and the Muslim Ummah must offer sacrifices until it achieves what it wants and until it snatches from the corrupt forces ... the dignity and honor of Egypt."

That means Western friendly from Egypt is under attack.

Zawahiri said liberating Omar Abdul Rahman, an Egyptian cleric jailed in the United States for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, and inmates at the US prison at Guantanamo Bay was an "obligatory duty for every Muslim." "I call upon Muslims to capture citizens of the countries that wage wars against Muslims," he said.

And there is the call to kidnap Westerners. Cowardly tactic, but we already knew that about these scumbags.

And for the daft folks who think these people can be reasoned with remember two things. First, these people want Shariah law. Don't know what that is then go look it up. The short version is to think of the Old Testament with the most sexist and racist twists. Second, look at the following quote:

"Our captives or Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahamn will not be liberated except through force, for it is the only language that they understand."

Now for our break for some comic relief.

"Obama must admit he and his allies are standing in the defeated line, and that Osama bin Laden, may Allah have mercy on him, and the rest of the Mujahideen and the Muslim Ummah are standing in the victorious line, whether anyone likes it or not."

Lol. Bin Laden died in battle. His enemies outlasted him, bested him, killed him. He is the loser. Game Over.

Political Terrorism From Vandalism Strikes Again

And again, more political terrorism and it seems to be a recurring pattern that it is against right-wing people.

William Overbay said someone ignited the flags and signs, which supported Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, that he had lined along his yard. The vandals also painted a sign on his driveway reading "Obama for life," at his DuPont Circle home, Overbay said.
...
Howey-in-the-Hills police say no one left any clues behind to identify themselves. Overbay said as a Vietnam-era veteran, the hard feelings caused by the vandalism run deep.

"To give that many years for my country and to see it desecrated in such a despicable way angers me," Overbay said. "We have freedom of speech and to desecrate any kind of signs is absolutely despicable and a violation of the constitution of the United States."

I agree that it is despicable. It is an attempt at intimidation which is why I believe it is political terrorism.

Safety Standards Cause Unsafe Cars

Ah, the Nanny State. The problem with the Nanny State and all of those who push the expansion of it is that people fail to understand unintended consequences. While solving one problem you create others. They also don't care about freedom at all. They feel it is better that government runs your life and makes all of your decisions because that takes out risk and disparity. Eventually we would look like the humans in Wall-E and never be capable of doing anything on our own. Thanks but no thanks.

Today's version of the Nanny State screwing up our lives come in the name of car safety. You see, in the quest of making the dangerous act of driving risk free and freedom free the Nanny State lovers actually have caused our "safe" cars to become less safe.

The government enacts laws – or issues regulatory fatwas – requiring that new cars comply with various “safety” standards. Ironically, the result of these standards – in terms of vehicle design and otherwise – may just be cars that are less safe to actually drive.

For example, you may have noticed that the beltline (door height) of the typical new car is higher up than was typical in the past. This makes it feel as though you’re sitting lower in the car, as you’re surrounded by a bathtub of steel. (No more resting your arm on the top of the door as you drive with the window rolled down.) Beltlines are higher to meet increasingly stringent side impact standards. But for every action, there is a reaction.

...

You can’t see as much – and what you do see isn’t seen as clearly.

Ugh. Better side impact air bags because you will need them more since you can't see out your windows as a result. Stupid Nanny State people. Give me the choice of better air bags or visibility when I buy my car.

Another factor impinging negatively on visibility is the growing thickness of the car’s A, B and C pillars (roof crush standards – as well as making room for side-impact air bags) in addition to taller/thicker seat headrests (whiplash). In several new (2013) cars I’ve driven recently, it is very hard to see cross traffic coming at you from either side - making it much more dangerous to enter a busy intersection. Blind spots are larger, too – requiring more situational awareness of drivers – who are not infrequently more aware of their sail fawns than what’s going on around them as they drive.

The number of times I lose pedestrians or bicyclists in the blind spots from the posts is unbelievable. Is that not enough? How about this one.

The government has tacitly admitted there’s a problem – caused by itself – by demanding that all new cars be equipped with closed-circuit TV systems (back-up cameras) for the simple reason that it’s increasingly difficult to see what’s behind you when you’re backing up a new (government-approved) “safety” vehicle. But that Band-Aid causes its own slew of problems, including limited peripheral view and a distorted view relative to what a functioning human eye connected to an operating human brain would otherwise perceive. It is much harder (if not impossible) to see a kid on a bike coming down the sidewalk into the path of the backing-up car – because the camera has a limited field of vision. It can’t “see” the kid until the kid is within its narrow field of vision. By which time, it is already too late. Drivers who rely on the camera rather than their own two eyes may end up having a very tragic morning some day.

I admit those cameras are awesome...except for the lack of peripheral vision which now requires you to keep spinning your head forwards to the camera and backwards and sideways to see what the camera is missing. Too many changing points of focus to be efficient or safe. Doesn't matter to the Nanny State people. The Nanny State people want all of these standards and are too obtuse to look at the impacts. What is worse is that at least these are trading safety for safety (which, again, should be the choice of the consumer and not idiots who tell beaureaucrats what standards they want as consumers).

It is even worse when safety is being traded-off for fuel efficiency. There is not any rational justification for that.

Most new cars no longer carry a full-size spare tire. Not as a result of “safety” mandates – but because of pressure to comply with fuel efficiency mandates. A full-size spare is pretty heavy. A mini-spare is half or less the weight. So, what’s the problem? Driving around on three normal-sized tires and one skinny minny often results in a very evil-handling (and braking) car. Most new cars come with pretty aggressive wheel/tire packages. Seventeen and eighteen inches being pretty much the norm – along with at least 60-something series tires. You hit a roofing nail and one goes down. You put on the mini – which might be literally half or less the width of the normal tire and with a completely different (temporary use only – it says so right there on the sidewall) tread pattern/design. You have to be extra careful – and hope it’s not necessary to brake suddenly or swerve. Because if you do, the car will probably react weirdly. If you’re not ready for it, you might end up in the ditch.

But, your car got one-tenth of an MPG better gas mileage.

Pressure from member of the Church of Global Warming have caused a safety issue. I would rather have the choice of an unsafe car (for me) or a safer car (for me). Instead we are getting limited choices, less safe cars in exchange of solving the mythological Global Warming threat and less safe cars for outside the car in exchange for safety features that will be used more because of less safe cars.

Confused? Me too. Suffice it to say that the Nanny State people are making things worse the more they talk.

Why I Always Opt Out From TSA's Super Scanners

This is an old story but it is the reason that I always opt out of the TSA super scanners. Always.

The bottom line is that TSA has insisted that their machines cannot store images.

As reported by Declan McCullagh of CNET at the time, "The U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had surreptitiously saved tens of thousands of images recorded with a millimeter wave system at the security checkpoint of a single Florida courthouse."

The images EPIC obtained were accompanied by a letter (PDF), in which William Bordley, an associate general counsel with the Marshals Service, admits that "approximately 35,314 images" have been stored on the Brijot Gen2 machine" used in the Orlando, Fla. federal courthouse.

Brijot, the manufacturer of the body scanning equipment in question, also admits that its machine can store up to 40,000 images and records.

Whoops. Last November I had a TSA agent insist that the images are not stored by TSA...so they are still maintaining this lie.

In fact, it is mandatory to save the images.

EPIC, has filed two further lawsuits against the Department of Homeland Security over the scanners, claiming that the DHS has refused to release at least 2,000 images it has stored from scanners currently in use in U.S. airports. It is believed that these images are the more detailed "naked" ones that are causing so much furor.

The group points to a further document (PDF) it has obtained from DHS showing that the machines used by the department's TSA are not only able to record and store naked body images, but that they are mandated to do so.

The TSA has admitted that this is the case, but claims that it is for training and testing purposes only, maintaining that the body scanners used at airports cannot "store, print or transmit images".

How comfortable are you going through those now?

TSA maintains that even though there is the capability (and the policy) to save the images (and not the cartoon-like images you see after you go through the machine but the detailed ones seen in the back room) there is not the ability to transmit them. But then how is it that the images are able to be distributed in the first place?

How detailed are the images? Well, I am not putting them up on the blog for one. But see if this describes it well enough.

Journalists who researched trials of the technology reported that the images made genitals "eerily visible".

German Security advisor Hans-Detlef Dau, a representative for a company that sells the scanners, admits that the machines, "show intimate piercings, catheters and the form of breasts and penises".

Images on the TSA's own website produced by backscatter devices also show that genitals are visible.

And a little more about how fuzzy or not fuzzy private areas are.

Multiple incidents over the past months have proven that the TSA and other airport security authorities worldwide have been engaging in a monumental public relations cover-up by suggesting the machine do not show crisp images of naked bodies.

In May it was reported that a TSA worker in Miami attacked a colleague who had made fun of his small penis after he passed through a scanner device. A similar controversy unfolded in March when an airport worker at Heathrow was caught ogling a a female colleague's breasts after she passed through one of the devices, commenting, "I love those gigantic tits".

That is just dealing with their story on the naked scanning capabilities of the machines. When it comes to safety their story is uniformly that the machines are safe. Given the track record through its entire history I find it highly difficult to suddenly trust that they are truthful on this one matter, the matter of safety.

If their demonstrated track record of honesty is an indication then these machines are likely to be pretty dangerous as well.

So, remember that when you are travelling you are NOT obligated to go through the scanners. You just have to tell them "Opt-out". You do NOT have to answer any question regarding your choice to opt-out. My advice, especially to women, is to have a public pat down.

To What Not Dangerous Russia Was Obama Referring

When Obama mocked Romney in the 3rd debate about considering Russia a threat I began to wonder which Russia Obama was talking about. Was it this one with the leader who endorsed Obama?

That brings us to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who has eliminated most elections in his country, monopolized all major media and destroyed the political party system. ... In a letter to a major newspaper, the president of a group dedicated to expanding freedom around the world points out that under Putin there has been an “across-the-board crackdown on civil society.” The piece goes on to ask: “Will Obama stand up against Putin’s abuses?” Unlikely, now that the Russian dictator has extended his endorsement.

It could not be this Russia which is making any sharing of government information a crime of treason.

Russia's parliament has voted to widen the definition of high treason in a move critics say is a further attempt to stifle dissent in the country.

Under the proposed new law, high treason and espionage will include supporting "those seeking to damage Russia's security".

Those illegally obtaining secret state information could face an extended prison sentence.

Now I think is a good time to remind people that ANYTIME government gets in the business of controlling media it becomes dangerous. That is why things like the Fairness Doctrine were and will always be a danger to freedom.

This new bill in Russia has some scary implications.

The bill lists as high treason not only passing secret information to foreign governments, but also giving consultations or financial help, including to international organisations, in case the recipients engage in ''activities directed against the security of Russia''.

The bill also creates a new criminal charge, punishable by up to four years in prison, for people who receive state secrets through illegal means.

Rights activists and lawyers said the broader definitions laid out in the new amendments could criminalise sharing information with international organisations such as Amnesty International or even appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.

Picture this. Some illegal activity going on in a government agency and a moral person is going to blow the lid on it...or even just wants to get some amnesty in a different country away from the activity. By giving any information to a Russian reporter both the person AND the reporter would be held for treason. The reporter might not even know they are breaking the law.

The bill also changes the burden of proof from prosecutors having to show "hostile intent" to only needing to show a threat to state security.

Under the new legal definition going to the European Court of Human Rights about abuses in Russia could be prosecuted for revealing state secrets. Even the transmission of information on election fraud could be construed as state treason. Think about all of those stories in the United States about voter supression, intimidation, illegal activity, etc suddenly being illegal. Suddenly being illegal to even complain to anyone about it.

Go ahead, think of the implications beyond that. There are plenty. And with that kind of move away from a freedom-loving nation I think that makes them another step closer to the Big Bear they were in their days of the USSR. And that bear was dangerous to humanity in whole.

So which Russia was Obama thinking of when he said that Russia is not a danger?

Voter ID Opponents Do A Facepalm

I bet the folks against requirements to show ID to vote are doing a facepalm over this story. Remember, one of the main tenets of the anti-ID crowd is that there is no voter fraud. I have people tell me that in this state it is impossible. My take is that human nature being what it is and politics being as divided as it is that it is folly to ignore human nature. It is human nature to "stretch the truth" and play in the grey areas...to test the limits and stretch the boundaries.

So when the field director of Jim Moran (D-VA) gets busted on video advising someone how to fraudulently cast votes it makes me wonder how the anti-Safe Election crowd will respond. What is worse is that the field director was telling how to cast those votes...by forging utility bills. And they won't be able to dismiss it as one rogue person. The field director was advising that, if caught, the person could rely on Democrat lawyers to help.

The son of Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. – who serves as the field director for his father’s campaign – has been caught on video advising an undercover reporter how to fraudulently cast ballots in the name of registered voters by forging utility bills and relying on the assistance of Democrat lawyers.

But, you would say to me, this works on both sides. I'm sure it does. But I don't hear anywhere near as many stories about organized voter fraud on the Right as I do on the Left. In fact, I have never heard of an organized effort on the Right. I have been on mailing lists for organizations across the spectrum from Green Party to Constitution Party and I left some of them for using those mailing list to organize voter fraud. Specifically, that was the Green Party at the U of MN who was trying to organize busing people to Iowa to allow them to vote both in MN and in IA. They were also organizing groups to take advantage of same day registration and vote in multiple locations including at home and at school.

I guarantee if there were as many any stories about Right-leaning groups engaged in this crap then the Left would not be fighting so strongly against the ID Requirements to vote. Wait, I take that back. After the 2000 election the Left suddenly wanted to scrap the Electoral College. (Aside: I wonder if Romney should win the popular vote but lose the election will those people on the Left scream again as loudly about the Electoral College or will they be embracing that part of the Constitution?)

The guy that busted this field director has busted many people including the uber-socialist group, ACORN.

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, known for its hidden-camera probe of the controversial national community organizing group tied to Obama, ACORN, carried out the investigation and provided the video exclusively to WND.

The field director has immediately resigned. But I would like to see criminal charges brought against him.

Furthermore, Jim Moran is no angel either. I mean, when a Democrat gets punished by Nancy Pelosi you know he is out there.

Jim Moran, 67, a controversial figure in Congress, has been criticized for his collaboration with Islamic leaders with ties to terrorism. In 2003, Moran, then a regional whip in the House of Representatives, was punished by House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi after he suggested Jews were responsible for the push for war against Iraq.

Back to the voter fraud thing. Notice here that there is not just a plan but obviously a safety net in spite of the new Virginia laws. Human nature. If you make it to easy for everyone then it is too easy to act fraudulently. We go from the 'how to'...

Moran suggests creating fake utility bills to serve as voter ID. But he warns that there will be “a lot of voter protection” at the polling places to enforce the identification laws.

“So, if they just have the utility bill or bank statement – bank statement would obviously be tough … but faking a utility bill would be easy enough,” Moran says.

The reporter asks: “How would you do that?”

“I mean, I would just find, I don’t know,” Moran replies. “I guess. …”

“Microsoft Word and type it up,” offers the reporter.

...to the 'safety net'...

Moran emphasizes that the poll workers will be “trained up” on the new law to protect voters and “be cracking down.”

If there’s any trouble, he says, an Obama for America lawyer, or another Democrat lawyer, will be on hand to provide help, he said.

“You’ll have somebody in house, that if they feel that what you have is legitimate, they’ll argue for you,” Moran says.

But he warns the reporter that the utility bill has “got to look good.”

...to the advice on making the fraud safer...

Later, at the Arlington County Democratic Party office, Moran advises the reporter to contact the registered voters on the list to make sure they don’t plan to cast a ballot Nov. 6. He suggests obtaining the information by posing as a pollster.

Again, this is not an isolated incident. The reporter is working for Project Veritas and has had interesting results just this year alone.

As WND reported, earlier this month O’Keefe’s team captured on video a regional director of the voter mobilization group launched by Barack Obama, Organizing for America, helping an undercover reporter vote for the president in two states.

And wait, there's more.

This year, Project Veritas says it has been conducting an ongoing series of investigations in more than a dozen states “demonstrating the ease with which election fraud can be committed and legitimate voters can be disenfranchised.”

The group’s previous effort in Texas, New Jersey, New York and Connecticut shows Obama campaign workers, including Organizing for America Regional Field Director Stephanie Caballero, helping people who declare they want to commit election fraud. The investigation was inspired by a column by WND columnist Chuck Norris.

Just when you thought it was safe to say that elections are safe...

In April, a Project Veritas investigator was offered the ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder at a polling place.

Think carefully as you look at Question 2 on your Minnesota ballot this year. Think carefully as you try to pull the lever against safer elections. Think carefully how comfortable you are with the system. If your opposing political party controlled the area you live in would you want the present system of not being required to do anything but sign your name on the list of registered voters? And then relying on a partisan Secretary of State office to validate everything?

If It Is True Then I Feel Better About My Vote.

If this is true then I feel better about casting a vote for one of the two major Presidential candidates for the first time in 8 years (as opposed to third party candidates),

A man claiming to be a close pal to President Obama during college made contact with Republican operatives recently, ready to go public with claims that Obama used and sold cocaine in college...

Most politicians would have held onto the story and then had some staffer "leak" the information which would be officially unauthorized but unofficially coordinated. A slime ball, spineless evil politician would have heard of this information and, regardless of if it were factual, she would run with the story as if it was absolutely certain and a Biblical mission to destroy the opponent.

Romney's campaign...what did they do?

Operatives close to the Romney campaign were contacted and rejected the information, the source told Radar.

“They didn’t want anything to do with it,” the source said. “They thought it was not anything they wanted to be associated with or anything their candidate would want to be associated with.”

In fact, the man’s charges about Obama never reached Mitt Romney. [Emphasis added]

I know. There are plenty of crazy people who make stuff up all of the time to smear their opponents. There are plenty of unscrupulous people who will knowingly disseminate damaging details even when they know the details are false or a distortion. Some will even intentionally fabricate details or edit context just to denigrate someone who does not goose-step their way. I know several people personally who do this.

So what vetting has been done with this guy? Not much, but it is interesting what the reporting article claims.

A proposal of the man’s story was created and viewed by Radar. The document claims that there are multiple sources who can back up allegations that Obama used and sold cocaine in college.

The alleged pal was willing to go on the record for the story and take a polygraph test, according to the source.

Again, the point of this post is to show the stark contrast from the norm that is Romney's campaign. And to admit that, if this is true, I am pleasantly surprised.

Someone not in the Romney campaign but working to help Romney knew what the value of this story would be (regardless of its truth).

“The operatives close to the Romney campaign believed the man’s story would be the ultimate October Surprise but they got nowhere. “People who would have taken the information to the highest levels of Romney’s campaign just wouldn’t touch it. “They don’t want their candidate smeared with this type of activity.”

And the staffers didn't bat an eyelash. This a big difference from, say for example, 6 years ago when Klobuchar's staffers illegally accessed their opponent's unreleased campaign ads. Color me pleasantly surprised and very satisfied with my vote this year.

Was There Any Doubt That He Knew

We knew it was just a matter of time before some evidence of come out. Every since the attacks on the Embassy in Benghazi and the nearly two weeks of denying the fact that it was a coordinated terrorist attack most of us the paid attention to this kind of thing knew that Obama new about the attacks at some point. Make that at some point very early on.

Eating some of that suspicion, and I admit that this is probably not as fair as it should be, is the fact that I do not trust Obama any further than I can throw him upwind. To be fair, there are not many politicians at the national level that I trust any further than I can throw up wind.

Now we have the inevitable leak of the emails that show Obama and the White House actually did know that it was a terrorist attack and that a group linked to al Qaeda was claiming responsibility.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

Okay, so the emails show that there was a coordinated attack, but they don't show that the White House knew or that they were even recipient on those emails. Ah, but wait. There's more.

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11. [Emphasis added]

I am not sure what I believe is the worst part of this. There is the fact that the President has been lying about what he knew and that's bad. There is the fact that there are the lemmings across the nation who will believe that the President is innocent in all of this. That is just scary. And I mean scary in the sense that people are so stupid to believe that there is nothing wrong with what is going on. There is the fact that we have a "leader" who doesn't respect the people on the ground enough to try to protect them, or who doesn't respect enough the military who would do the protecting enough to help with their lives being in danger. Instead he acts like it is just politics as usual.

That is just pathetic.

If Only He Had A Gun

I would love for the laws for political vandalism, including the theft of lawn signs, to be felonies. And I will have no remorse for someone who is engaged in theft of property (and trespassing) to be shot by a homeowner protecting his property.  It is a shame this guy was not packing heat.

Wait, I thought the Left was supposed to be full of peace-loving people.  Or is it the same Left from which I repeatedly received death threats for disagreeing with them?

Cut Government To Grow The Economy

It has been long known by many economists that the size of government is a drag on an economy.  It is being stated again.  This time with the clear message that cutting the size will have a major positive impact on the economy.

“Eventually, you have either huge changes occurring in a peaceful fashion through reforms, or, usually, through revolutions,” [Faber] said. The U.S. is getting closer to such a revolution, he said, as is Europe.
“My medicine for the U.S. is: Reduce government by minimum 50 percent,” he said. “The impact would be immediately an improvement in the economy.”

The stereotypical government worker shudders...they might have to actually become productive.

The Science Is Settled, Right?

On the one hand I find this this verdict ridiculous and dangerous.

On the other hand I am reminded of the arrogance and certainty that members of the Church of Global Warming hold when parroting their leader, Al Gore's, pap. Rising sea levels, rising temps, etc. If those people are so certain about the weather in 100 years (remember, there's no need for discussion) then perhaps they should be held accountable for deaths caused by failed predictions. Didn't advise correctly on the path of the tornado, manslaughter conviction for you.

Testing the waters

Looking for an outlet and testing various methods of post delivery.