News Round Up 1/20/2011

Article: Santorum may have won Iowa; Romney calls results ‘a virtual tie’

I'll bet the establishment intentionally rigged it that way to blunt any momentum that Santorum would have gleaned from a victory that was announced in a timely fashion.

---

Article: Helix Nebula Gleams Like a Golden Eye in New Photo

---

Article: Letting White Voters Choose the Nominee

The order primaries are held in has been set for quite some time now... I seriously doubt that the racial make up of the constituencies is what decided it. But nice attempt at race baiting anyways! Personally I think the order ought to be changed each go-round. I'm tired of carefully seeking out a candidate only to have them removed from the running before I have a say in who should get the nod, let's face it political campaigns are a game of momentum and usually by the time the ability to vote comes around to me it's just a proforma vote.

---

Article: 3 Numbers That Will Determine the Next President

"President Obama and his Democratic backers insist he's the one to bring fairness back to an economy..." Fairness? Who ever said life was fair? If you think life is fair, or even that it ever could be fair then you are a deluded child. Every kid learns from mommy and daddy that life isn't fair so you need to just get used to it. You can't legislate fairness, because "fair" is very much like "perfect"... unattainable! Some liberals might reply, "Tell that to people who pay 25% tax rate while people that are 1000 times richer than them pay a 15% tax rate." Well, that lower tax rate serves a large number of purposes. The two main ones being 1. It spurs investment into companies that provide employment... employment for those who don't qualify for that rate and who otherwise would have no income. -AND- 2. It provides an incentive for people who don't receive it, to want to receive it and to do what is necessary to arrive at that place where they can receive it. Success is hard work and if there's no incentive to succeed people will simply languish in mediocrity forever.

---

Article: U.S. and Iran on Collision Course

Where's all the Paulbots and Obamaniacs to tell us that if we just talk nicely to Iran, they'll stop wanting to nuke us and our allies out of existence... That it has nothing to do with the fact that they are fanatical elevener-shia who believe in Armageddon and that they can hasten the coming of the Mahdi by starting Armageddon.

---

Article: Romney nosediving in South Carolina as Gingrich surges

Wait. I though Mitt was the inevitable winner...

---

Article: The real reason no one impersonates dead voters: high risk, little benefit

Let's assume for a moment the premise that there is virtually no voter fraud... (not that I do, but let's do so for the purpose of a mental exercise). It is conceivable that there *could be* voter fraud. This conceivability of an offense is enough in many cases to enact laws that liberals support. Let's take gun control laws for example. To be more specific, let's take the "cool down" period that many anti-gun people advocate. The sole reason for this law to exist is based on the premise that a gun buyer may be purchasing a weapon to use in a crime of passion. If you look at the entirety of gun purchasers, what percentage of them might fit that description? The percentiles are certainly absolutely, infinitesimally small and yet this is a gun control law that many liberals favor and is in fact espoused very heavily by the Brady gang (it's one factor from their grading system for state's gun control laws). So certainly the conceivability that an offense could occur is a good enough premise upon which to base a law for liberals. That leads one to question why they are against its employment in the case of voter fraud prevention laws. Since there are, as we speak a number of Democrat politicians freshly convicted of voter fraud in New York state, I can only assume that they are concerned about closing this "gun show loophole" in their ability to steal elections.

---

Article: Army reports suicides down, but violent crimes up

You'll notice how they intentionally fail to mention how these numbers compare to the population at large! They do this to reinforce the liberal caricature that they are perpetuating against our veterans. Just FYI and since they fail to mention it... Criminality rates among active duty service members and veterans is LOWER than the population at large. Suicide rates are also lower. Stop slandering our heroes!

---

Article: Pentagon report: Sexual assault in the military up dramatically

Here is yet another article employing the same underhanded tactic where the statistics are not compared to the population at large. If you read the article you'll see: "Mr. Panetta emphasized that 'we assume this is a very underreported crime'". Why would we "assume" that? Further what is the point of this unending bombardment of the character of our troops? Last year according to this article, there were 3,191 "reports" of sexual assault (a very broad category). Not convictions mind you, just accusations. There are 1,466,545 Active duty personnel and 1,458,500 reserve personnel yielding a total of 2,925,045. So that means there are 109 reports (not convictions) per 100,000. Per the government crime statistics the nationwide average per 100,000 for convictions of "forcible rape" (the most serious of sexual assault offenses) in 2009 (the latest available statistics) stand at 158. The rate of this happening is therefore LOWER in the military than in the population at large. I wonder how the number of rapes in the military compares to the rate per 100,000 at Occupy encampments. Stop the assault on the honor of our heroes!

---

Article: World not quite as hot in 2011; ranks 11th warmest

So wait... "Not quite as hot"... That means it's cooler then right? Look, this global warming scam is not science. If our greenhouse gas contributions contributed to atmospheric warming it would have to exhibit a never ending trend of increases in temperature. That is because our output of those gases has not decreased, nor has the atmospheric concentrations of those gases. You see a key factor in determining whether a theory is scientifically valid is that a hypothesis must be "predictive". (for those who don't know what I'm talking about, look up "the scientific method".) That means if you can make a prediction based upon the premise of your hypothesis that is then found to be true based upon the objective measurement of the results of experimentation, then your hypothesis can be assumed to be scientifically valid. The global warming hypothesis however offers no such predictive quality and therefore, despite being quite a popular hypothesis (because we all know science is based on popularity contests right?), must be found to be flawed. Once you can show me an undeniable predictive quality to your hypotheses, then I'll join the band wagon, but not before.

This article then goes on to attempt to blame the unforeseen decline in temperature on the La Niña/El Niño cycle... If greenhouse gas concentrations were truly the cause it should be a simple matter of certain concentrations equating to a certain number of degrees increase averaged across the globe. The La Niña/El Niño cycle has nothing to do with it since the sun presumably delivers a fixed amount of energy to be trapped by those gasses.

What Now?

237 years ago, Bostonians boarded three ships in Boston harbor and tossed 342 chests of tea into water. They didn't do so because of any animus for tea. In fact, they like most British subjects enjoyed their tea. They did it as a demonstration of righteous indignation over taxation without representation. It was one of the first acts that led invariably through a chain of fateful events. That chain stretched through years of war and deprivation that eventually saw triumph and the creation of a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Some time ago I made a post about a quote of mine that is posted in the right margin of my blog:

"While it is true that a government rules only by the consent of the governed. Too many of us have not considered that silence might easily be construed to be consent."

My words in that post have been heeded. We have made our voices heard. We jammed the phone lines in the capital. We've firmly spoken our minds at town-hall meetings. We marched on Washington. We sent letters and e-mails to our congressmen. We have done everything to make our lack of consent abundantly clear. We know they've heard us.

I heard one senator explain that "sometimes you have to vote your conscience" (as if any of them could even conceive of such a thing).

Excuse me, but that is not your job. We don't pay you to have your own thoughts. We pay you to voice OUR thoughts you deluded egomaniac! Your conceited voice is absolutely irrelevant. Your voice reflects just one opinion among the hundreds of thousands that you were hired to represent. Who the hell do you think you are?

There is no more consent. There is just taxation WITHOUT representation... and this time they aren't taxing a damned beverage. This time it is your very life and limb! You, congress, have crossed a crucial line. Do not be surprised by our vivid, righteous anger!

There are efforts to sue based on the unconstitutionality of the law. I'm afraid that won't go too far. There are states passing Constitutional amendments or laws exempting their citizens from the compelled compliance. I'm afraid that too will be fraught with failure. If federal law countermands a state's constitution their only recourse is secession and we've played that gem of a game before. We all know the end of that story.

No one, me included wants to replay the bloody events surrounding the birth of this nation, but it is high time for the citizens to take our nation back from the hands of the greedy professional politicos. They insist that their power is greater than ours. It is not. They have ignored us, let's ensure they pay the price. We still hold the power of our vote. Let's exercise it before that too is taken and we are left with no other options. Mark my words, a comprehensive immigration reform bill, featuring an amnesty for all illegal aliens (i.e ringer voters) will be the next thing forced through the congress.

It is time now for a Constitutional amendment limiting the terms that ALL politicians may serve. There are two Constitutional routes to amend the Constitution. The first is the only one that has thus far been used. That is for a bill to pass both houses of congress with a two-thirds majority. Clearly that certainly will NEVER happen as these power grubbing bastards will NEVER loose the reins of power.

So that means we must pursue the second Constitutional method of revising the Constitution... Two-thirds of the state legislatures must call for a Constitutional Convention to be convened. (that's 34 states BTW for those of us who know how many states there are). This convention would then need to propose amendments and those amendments would need to be adopted by the state legislatures of three-fourths of the states (38 states). If our national representatives will not hear the voices of their constituents, then how about our local ones... Let's rattle their doors off the hinges before it's too late! Let's hope that they still have an ear unhardened to their people's voice.

Oh and while we're at it... how about a Constitutional fix to the question of illegal aliens and anchor babies?

Just FYI

The calculated Misery Index for December 2009 was 12.92% The highest it's been since Jimmy Carter's failed presidency. I'm beginning to see the VERY distinct possibility of a repeat of the same kind of one and out presidency. Especially in view of last night's stunning upset and the administration's "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" response.

New 2009 Deficit Forecast

The OMB has released the newest projections for president Obama's deficit for this year. 1.84 trillion dollars ($1,840,000,000,000). According to the US Census Bureau the current population of the United States is 306,409,555. So a little math yields a figure of $6,005.03 for every man woman and child in the United States just to pay for Obama's deficit spending for this year so far (and we're not even half way through it yet). This level of deficit spending means that fifty cents out of every dollar the government is spending this year is borrowed. Here are a few things that could be bought for every man woman and child with that six grand...

How about 1,200 Subway sandwiches or 1,645 Big Macs?

Not into fast food... well then you could buy two top of the line Dell laptops for each and every person in the US and still have $600 to buy some software for them.

You could buy a brand spanking new, tricked out one of these for everyone and still have cash to buy gas for it for a year:
Not a biker, then how about we send everyone in the country on two 7 day Disney Western Caribbean cruises with a balcony stateroom?

It is time for Obama to stop blaming this all on George Bush. Obama sat with the majority party in the Senate that presided over the years prior to his election to president, so he is equally to blame for the state of the economy at the point that he took over the reins. Besides he's running a full four times higher than the highest annual deficit EVER in the entire history of the nation!

Bailout Blame

The dems like to play the blame game for the current financial woes... They say that "deregulation" is the cause and that the Republicans are the villains...

Really?

Have a look at the Community Reinvestment Act...

The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law that requires banks and savings and loan associations to offer credit throughout their entire market area. The act prohibits financial institutions from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services...

The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities, to under-served populations...

The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community...

In other words it requires banks to give mortgages to poor people. Poor people aren't famous for paying back loans. It wasn't the Republicans that did that! In fact it was Jimmy Misery-Index Carter.

As if that wasn't bad enough, old Bubba Clinton had his hands in it as well:

In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race...

Yeah... income group... Sound financial judgement there, requiring banks to make loans to poor people. Thanks Bubba! If only you had paid more attention to humping hideous hose beasts and left the economy alone.

Yeah but the Bush administration didn't do anything to avert this catastrophe right? they simply fiddled while the economy went to hell in a hand basket right?

Bzzzt! Wrong answer:

In 2003:

"The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago...

A new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac..."

That move was opposed by the democrats because it would limit those organizations' ability to make loans to low-income borrowers...

Again, because poor people are so famous for paying off loans...

In response Barney Frank said:

"The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

FYI, "Affordable housing" is a liberal code word, double speak for "sub-prime mortgages".

Finally in 2005 John McCain co-sponsored the Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act... Remember, Obama says McCain is a "De-regulator"... The dems say we Republicans are "De-regulators"... We are to blame. Seems to me that Nero was fiddling while Rome burned. They wanted NOTHING to interfere with their cash-cow. They blocked McCain's effort to enact regulatory oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...

Here's some educational viewing that the democrats tried to silence (god knows they hate the truth and free speech):



...and another gem:



Now we're left with the unsavory prospect of coughing up $700,000,000,000.00 to pay for another hair-brained leftist social experiment. The folks over at the Sniper blog have a must-read little post that puts that number in harsh perspective.

You know what Barrack... If we have to pony up $700 BILLION to bail out your mess. I think you ought to pony up the $126,349.00 that you received in donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Oh and stop trying to stuff PORK into the bail-out bill for your party sponsored institutionalized liberal voter fraud machine ACORN!

Liberal Patriotism

So Joe Biden contends that a person's patriotism is measured by their desire to pay taxes... You know what Joe? Charlie Rangel wishes you'd shut your mouth. Obama on the other hand seems to like talking about how many homes McCain owns, but inquiring minds want to know how many homes Charlie owes taxes on... Considering the fact that Rangel chairs the committee that writes the tax law, how hollow is his "I didn't know I owed it" defense for his tax evasion?

Why is Congressional Approval so Low?

Pelosi and Reid rode into Washington on the back of a white horse named Accountability. Unfortunately, It turns out that horse wasn't a horse at all. It was an apparition, a ruse. Let's face it, politicians are professional liars. Their stock in trade is telling people what they want to hear just so they'll vote for them. Theoretically they are supposed to represent us... you and me. But their true business is representing and promoting themselves. Unfortunately Americans of all political stripes have grown far more savvy and skeptical. We've already seen this same opera for over 200 years, only the performers have changed. That is why the congress is more reviled than even the "evil W". So, sit back, reserve a little time, maybe grab a bucket of popcorn and witness if you will the ungainly gait of that horse I mentioned before.







Please note, I'm not attempting to portray that only democrats play lose with our tax money. Congressional Republicans are every bit as guilty of these foibles. These were just the first videos I've managed to find.

Look, it is time for politicians to get it through their thick skulls that they exist ONLY to serve us. I long for the old-fangled notion of a gentleman farmer that goes to Washington, serves his term and then returns to pursuits on his farm. There are many things that could be done to end these abuses of power. We could enact true campaign finance reform, term limits, lobbying reforms and earmark reforms... Well maybe we can't, because we'd need public servants who actually enact the laws we want them to enact and that hasn't happened in eons. We're stuck my friends. We've arrived at an impasse. Our political system is broken and the only way to fix it is to rely upon those shattered cogs who are the genesis of the problem. How did we get to this point and what do we can to get out of it?

We, the voters continue to allow ourselves to be distracted by the pretty (or hideous) baubles that they throw in our face. We say, "We want to be represented in congress". That of course makes them nervous so they throw out a bauble, like the war in Iraq or immigration reform for example. We of course draw up battle lines on either side of the issue. We become so polarized that those on the other side of the issue become our dire enemies and we lose sight of our original desire and our most pressing issue.

In truth a responsive legislative body could indeed easily act on all of these issues by enacting the will of the majority of the constituency... but why should they. That would deprive them of the chaff that they use to distract us from the inequity of their undeserved power.

A Tax Cut for the Rich?

I have grown weary of hearing the liberals whining about Bush's tax cuts being "a tax cut for the rich". It simply is not! Everytime you hear a liberal whining about it, they'll pull the number $200,000 out of their ass. Guess what liberals. There is no magic barrier or tax break that occurs at $200,000. For your edification and to supply the ammunition that us conservatives need to shoot these whining scum puppets down when they start this crap; I present to you the following:

Low Boundary	High Boundary	Lowest Tax Rate	Highest Tax Rate
$0	$14,600	10%	10%
$14,600	$59,400	10%	13.77%
$59,400	$119,950	13.77%	19.44%
$119,950	$182,800	19.44%	22.38%
$182,800	$326,450	22.38%	27.05%
$326,450	unlimited	27.05%	nearly 35%

All of this is based on the tax tables, which are available for everyone to read. First off as any numbskull can see the tax rates grow as a person's wealth grows. Meaning a rich person is paying a higher percentage of his income than is a poor person. Perhaps you liberals should have been in school under the "No child left behind" program and then your math skills would be good enough to figure this out as well! I'm tired of hearing this stupidity, so I figured I would take the time to write down the definitive proof so I can just point back at this and not have to rewrite it every time one of you bird-wits lets this standard Demo-Mantra crap roll out of your fetid little pie holes.

Oh, and btw, where in that entire table do you see the number $200,000 explicitly mentioned? Nowhere! The number, my neanderthal liberal readers is $182,800. The result however is still that a person earning $200,000 still pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes than you do, so quit your damned whining!