Common sense gun laws

You want some common sense gun laws? OK, here are my ideas for some common sense gun laws:

• Each business and/or legal entity (to include private citizens) are free to declare their "property" to be a "gun free zone" but doing so makes that "group" fully responsible for the protection of all persons on those premises to include being legally and financially libel for failure to protect.
• Any area marked as a "gun free zone" must indicate at least 60 days prior to the "gun free zone" restriction taking affect, the date that the gun free designation will take affect, in a manner consistent with how the "gun free zone" designation will be communicated.
• If an area is marked as a "gun free zone", that designation applies to all persons on the premises, to include the property owners.
• If an area is not clearly and obviously marked as a "gun free zone", it is not.
• No agent of the government is exempt from honoring any properly posted "gun free zone" designation unless they are in the act of responding to an immediate emergency. No exceptions.
• Any government agent or representative found to have violated a designated "gun free zone" will not be shielded from criminal and/or civil penalties.
• Any crime committed within a "gun free zone" that involves a gun will result in a "times 2" multiplier on any incarceration time. This additional time may not be served 'concurrently" with any other time, nor may it be reduced for any reason. It is to be assessed after all other judication has been completed.

• Any gun laws enacted in any state must be applied to all within the state, no exceptions. If no resident is allowed an AR-15 or extended magazines, that would also include the state government and the state guard. This also includes politicians and their security. If the law is worded in such a way as to enact a stepped level of increasing restrictions, the most restrictive level applies to the government (i.e. you can only have a 10 round magazine for target shooting and only a 5 round magazine for hunting - government employees can only have 5 round magazines).

• Any gun laws enacted by the federal government must be applied to all federal workers as well, with no exceptions (on par with the state law above). This includes the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc. The only exception to these "continental" restrictions is the Armed Forces of the United States, when they are operating outside of the United States and its territories. 

• Any government agency granting a waiver to any person, organization, or group for any existing gun law, invalidates that law for any/all persons affected/covered by that law.

• Mandatory minimums for violation of an existing gun law regardless of the persons "station" or position.

• Any existing CCW holder at the time that a more restrictive gun law is enacted, is exempt from that law.

• Any existing CCW holder can not have their CCW renewal denied for any reason except the following: deceased, committed to a mental institution (until such time as they are released), incarcerated for a crime (until such time as they are released), or they choose to voluntarily give up their CCW (they are permitted to change their mind and have it reinstated),
• If the CCW has "expired", the holder of the expired CCW is given an open ended period under which to renew. Renewal is for the purposes of having an "up to date" photo and any other relevant personal information and as such, the renewal fee must be reasonable and minimal. The "penalty" for an expired CCW is a fine of 2X the renewal fee.

• Any current or former active duty personal (that has not been dishonorably discharged) is permitted to apply for and be granted a CCW for nominal registration fees.

• Any government agent that wishes to (or is required to - due to the position) carry concealed must first obtain a CCW. The process followed must be "on par" with the process followed by citizens of that jurisdiction.

• Any valid CCW is valid in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all US territories.

• As it is a "health and safety" issue, firearms sound suppressors will no longer be governed by the BATF and will be legal to be made available where ever firearms are available.
• Whatever local / Federal laws govern the acquisition of a firearm will govern the acquisition of a suppressor.
• A crime committed with a suppressor will carry a "times 2" multiplier on any incarceration time. This additional time may not be served 'concurrently" with any other time, nor may it be reduced for any reason. It is to be assessed after all other judication has been completed.

• The 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act artificial limitation on the civilian market availability of automatic weapons (only those registered on or before the law was signed) is rescinded.

I am sure that I could come up with more but I think these are a good first start. Lets enact these and THEN we can have further discussions on "common sense" gun laws. M'kay?

Philosophy 101, question #1

If you consider this image "provocative":



but not this one:



Why?

Subjective reality

So, let me see if I have this straight...

- Obama is more than willing to believe that a man is really a woman if that man says so

but

- Obama is not willing to believe that a man is a Muslim terrorist when he says that is what he is and has committed acts of terrorism?

A bright spot in the Orlando tragedy

Chick Fil A has made national news for it’s owners’ stance on gay marriage. Anytime they do something even remotely non-PC, their supposed slip up goes viral. Hash tags pop up all over the place.

So why is that what they have done in the wake of the Orlando nightclub shooting hasn’t received a single mention on the mainstream new outlets?

It’s probably because people like New York City Mayor, Bill DeBlasio might have to eat crow instead of chicken. DeBlasio has said that Chick Fil A spreads a message of hate.

Not so yesterday. In a shocking move, the Orlando location at University and Rouse Road fired up its grills on Sunday. The chain is notorious for not being open, ever, on the first day of the week. Employees cooked up hundreds of their famous chicken sandwiches. They brewed dozens of gallons of sweet tea.

Then, instead of making a single dime, they crated the product of their labor to the One Blood donation center. The food and drinks were handed out, free of charge, to all the people who had lined up to donate blood.

So far, the only mentions of the incident have been from individuals on Facebook. They have posted photos thanking the restaurant for their thoughtfulness and generosity.

So, [the oh so hated by the progressives] Chick Fil A does a simple, kind, generous thing because it was the right thing to do. I am sure that the owners and workers did not do this because they expected to be recognized and showered with accolades. Chick Fil A is NOT that kind of business or place. BUT it would have been nice if just one or two of the news organizations that have been crawling all over this story for the last three days had noticed and had taken a few moments out of their extensive theorizing and repeating of the same tid-bits of actual information to give credit where credit was due. Nah, that would not do as the meme has to march on regardless of the facts.

Clinton and Laureate Education

By now everyone is aware of Donald Trump and his legal issues with "Trump University" but have you heard of Laureate Education? Likely not.

Laureate is a for-profit online college that received an unusually large amount of money from the U.S. State Department. This happened while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and after her husband Bill was named "honorary chancellor," a position that paid him $16.5 million over five years. His role included giving speeches around the world and lending his name to attract prospective students.

During the time, when Bill was acting as honorary chancellor, the U.S. State Department, under Secretary Clinton, gave Laureate Education a whopping $55 million in grants.

Like Trump University, Laureate Education has also been sued for fraud. Its Walden University Online subsidiary allegedly "worked like a scam designed to bilk students of tens of thousands of dollars for degrees," according to liberal professor Jonathan Turley, who recently documented the organization's ties to the Clintons.

So apparently much of the media is doing the usual and trying to ignore any Clinton "scandal" news.

Orlando club terrorist attack

By now, you have likely heard about the terrorist attach in the night club in Orlando. Early information indicates that the terrorist that committed this ugly act (at least 50 people killed and many more injured) is a practitioner of the religion that shall not be named. That he targeted this club due to the clientele that frequent it. Apparently it is a LBGT club.

We have been warned that this "senseless act" should in NO way cause anyone to link this individual to the other practitioners of the "shall NOT be named" religion.

The President, the MSM, all the standard talking heads have been jumping all over themselves to implored us to "not read into" this single, stand-alone, isolated, brutal, senseless act of violence and terror, committed by one lone individual. That this is [yet another] isolated incident of violence that is completely unconnected to anything larger than this one individual. (ed: Despite the now known fact that his father [also a practitioner] is recently on the record supporting the Taliban. Nor the fact that just a couple of months ago an Imam was in the area preaching that to kill gays was an act of compassion.)

Can anyone say [with a straight face] that if this individual was [for example] a practicing fundamentalist Christian or had membership in [I don't know] a conservative group like the Tea Party, that this one, lone individual would not be held up as the standard bearer of all folks that belong to that religion or group? That this religion or group wouldn't in fact be vilified and condemned as a promoter of this hate and violence? But yet another horrific act of terror is committed by a practitioner of "the religion of peace" and we are yet again assured by the Government, CAIR, and all of the usual talking heads that this was but an isolated incident and please, PLEASE do not generalize to the wider group to which he was a member.

How many more lessons must we suffer through? Another 50 people have paid for this willful ignorance with their lives. How many more innocent lives must be lost in this country and around the world before the Government and the media start to speak the truth? That this "religion of peace" is anything but.

Update 2016/06/13: As expected, all of the usual suspects are calling for more "sensible gun laws". This despite the fact that not one of the existing gun laws or any of the proposed new "sensible" gun laws would have prevented this individual from getting his hands on guns. He worked for a security company for goodness sake! He had already been "interviewed" and "looked at" by the FBI and they found nothing actionable. Ignoring the elephant in the room, our betters instead lecture us on how we need to be "civil" and how we need to give up more of our liberties in order to "prevent" the next tragedy, all the while not addressing the root cause of this tragedy. Sorry but blaming guns for this is like blaming the car for a drunk driving accident.

Katie Couric, traitor to her profession

Updated 2016/06/09 - see bottom of post...

"Katie Couric, traitor to her profession" as a post title might seem a little harsh. You could be right. Her profession is "journalism" and in that regard she is generally on par with the rest of her associates. Like most journalists today, she views her job and mission to "tell a narrative" or to "tell a story". The predecessors of the modern journalist (reporters) generally saw their job and mission to "report the facts". There was bias but good reporters both did their best to not let their bias show and also tried to disclose any conflicts of interest that may have existed.

Those days are no more.

These days you have the likes of George Stephanopoulos appearing on various news programs, presented as an objective reporter of politics.

You have Katie Couric producing anti-2nd amendment propaganda and presenting it as "investigative journalism".

Her latest efforts place her firmly in the "60 Minutes", "Michel Moore", and "Dan Rather" school of journalism in that she will apparently do anything, up to falsely editing her video (i.e. make stuff up) to show us all her "truth". A truth that is [apparently] too important to be held back by mere facts. Does "fake but accurate" ring any bells? A far more coherent dissection of her latest efforts can be reviewed here. Please do.

As others have pointed out, now that she has been caught "red handed" having deceptively edited an interview "for dramatic effect" with the inadvertent side-affect of making those she was interviewing look like idiots (funny how it always seems to cut that way, the interviewer never comes out on the short end with these "mishaps"), she has issues the standard liberal non-apology with no actual effort or intent to correct her errors with the result that her errors will stand and her apology will be quickly forgotten.

I wonder if the folks from Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) can sue for misrepresentation and/or slander? Discovery would be delicious!

Update 2016/06/09: Appears that this is not the only or the first questionable incident in Couric's film endeavors. Apparently she has had these types of "editing mishaps" in other projects of her's.

The Pajama Boy White House in a Pajama Boy World

The Pajama Boy in Chief surrounded by his Pajama Boy minions...

What exactly has birthed the Pajama Boy aristocracy — our overclass of pretentious, inexperienced, and smug 30-something masters of the universe?

Who hires and promotes Pajama Boys? Why, of course, Barack Obama, the Pajama Boy in Chief.

For the Pajama Boys, rhetoric is everything, reality nothing. Fooling the lower middle classes is the stuff of sarcastic comedy...

Read the whole thing, it is worth it...

Hyperloop, hyper hype...

The current news is all abuzz about the [limited] demonstration of the new hyperloop project. On paper this sounds pretty interesting and as it is being done by (mostly?) private companies with their private money, more power to them.

I am sad to say that I don't think it will ever be deployed commercially. My reasons for my pessimism are:

• NIMBY - This technology is basically a rail system, updated. It takes land to lay out the tube that this runs in. Think laying down a new freeway stretch. I see endless battles for easements and right of ways. Others will fight the addition of this "eye sore" that will spoil the value of their McManions and "blight" the area.

• Environmentalists - I see endless court battles with the greenies over things like the habitat of the orange eyed, three toed, purple tree frog. Greenies do what greenies do. They oppose anything technology unless it is the "right" technology even if their "right" tech does more harm than good, cause it "feels good" to be on the side of Gaia!

• Regulations - What started out as a "great idea" will get crushed under an endless stream of safety tests and local, state, and federal regulations involving everything from what plastic is used to support the seat frame to what is used to insulate the "pods" from temperature/noise.

• Unions - Union contracts and union work rules will add additional large sums to the project costs. Combined with the NIMBY and environmental court costs, will dramatically increase the costs per foot of the project.

• Occupancy - In order to make a "transportation" company successful you need to 1) get people from point a to point b, 2) more conveniently than if they were to drive themselves, and 3) cheap enough to make the "hassle" of not driving themselves worth it. That means that this "Hyperloop" must move enough people from where ever they are to where ever they want to go quickly enough and cheaply enough to out weigh the value of driving themselves from point a to point b. Any two of these are easy but all three is difficult to do for enough people to allow the business to make money. Think Amtrak.

Add all of these up and I just don't see "Hyperloop" making it. For that matter, I don't see any new, disruptive mass transportation system making it either unless it removes the requirement of a long distance physical infrastructure to enable it (i.e. train tracks or tubes).

Think I am making too much out of the impediments? When was the last time a large international airport was constructed? All of my above reasons for the failure of "Hyperloop" are the cause of the failure of all other "really large" projects. Even when you have the power of the Government behind you these big projects take a long time. Look at how long any large government projects take (i.e. Chicago's Big Dig, etc.) with their corresponding cost over-runs.

It is for reasons like those listed above that we "can't have nice things".

More of the tolerant left [we keep hearing about], this time going after a Trump supporter

Here is some raw footage of a Trump supporter trying to get to a Trump rally.

This is the left's idea of a peaceful protest against those that have differing opinion. This is how they allow democracy to play out in society. This is what we can expect more and more of as they are rewarded for this type of behavior by not being punished for it. Notice how the police do not help the man until after he makes it all the way through the crowd. After having been pushed, hit, tripped, etc. Instead of pushing back the crowd and helping him, they make him climb over a hedge.

More of the tolerant left we keep hearing so much about.

Do they ever show any of this on the nightly news? I am not a "Trump" man but these sorts of actions could turn me into one...

UPDATE: More can be read/seen here.

ObamaCare update, more stuff you likely haven't heard

Did you know that in January of this year (2016) that Congress sent a bill to the President to end ObamaCare? The President vetoed it, of course BUT did you hear it even happened? Was it reported on the nightly news? Was it reported in the papers? Did any of the morning talk shows discuss it?

Read a recap of the "entire story" here.

This is just another example of people only being aware of what the media decides you should know about as well as how it should be framed when they do decide to tell you about it.

Remember, there was NO such thing as a "white Hispanic" until the Trayvon Martin incident in Florida. The term never existed. Early news reports (trying to be first with a scoop) mistakenly indicated that Zimmerman was white due [mostly] to his last name. Once it became known that he was in fact Hispanic, instead of correcting the record they switched to "white Hispanic". This was to both negate the need for them to release a retraction/correction as well as to protect their "narrative" of "another innocent African-American youth getting gunned down by a white man".

Same here with ObamaCare. It is a disaster. Co-ops are going broke left and right. Premiums are on the rise and the insurance companies are asking for double-digit increases. Program approval ratings have never been good and are not increasing but it is the "signature" legislation of the Obama administration and the [at the time] Democrat Congress. It MUST succeed at any cost and bad news can not be permitted. This includes Congress submitting bills to end the program as well as the President vetoing those bills. The media must maintain the illusion that Republicans have not even tried to keep their promise to end ObamaCare. This is in part to maintain the illusion that all is well and that support for it is growing but also to maintain the illusion that it is too late to do anything about it and no one is even trying, The opposition has given up and accepted this monstrosity. It also helps to depress Republican turn out as some will think why bother if they are just as bad and don't even try anymore to keep their promises. Well they did try. It failed but they did try. Remember that and remember where you didn't hear about it as it should have been big news and it was. It was just the wrong kind of news.

You are more likely to be raped in college than in prison, says government...

White House states that 8.5 percent of female inmates and 3.7 percent of male inmates experience sexual assault while in prison.

The White House also states that women have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped in college (rape culture and all).

This would mean that men are twice as likely and women nearly three times as likely to be raped on a college campus as they are in prison.

Based on this information:

a) Why would any parent send their children to college? Would this not be considered child abuse in any rational society?

b) Why are colleges still permitted to NOT involve police in every single allegation of rape? If this many rapes are taking place on our colleges, this is a massive crisis that should be addressed NOW by police.

The reality is no one actually believes these college rape stats. Everyone knows they are extremely overblown but they make it sound like there is a problem all the while the folks involved do their nod/nod/wink/wink while they profess what a "crisis" this is. Hire more administrators, setup more kangaroo courts, step on more individual rights, and hold more "education" events. All the while spending less time, money, and energy actually educating students in topics and subjects that they will need after they get out of school.

Voter fraud example #21

our journalists caught election officials at various poll sites who were more than willing to bend the rules to help our journalists potentially commit voter fraud.

Sharon Sweeting-Lindsey, a poll worker, advises a Project Veritas journalist on how she can get away with committing voter fraud by voting Democratic in Brooklyn by means of using a false address

At another polling location, a journalist from Yonkers asks to vote in Brooklyn. By law, she is not allowed to vote in Brooklyn, but the election worker lets her anyway, despite the journalist reaffirming that she lives in Yonkers.

“Our video exposes how corrupt and chaotic the New York Board of Elections has become. The system is broken, corrupt, and needs to be fixed immediately. If we can bring a fake van of voters into numerous polling sites, what’s going to stop a corrupt campaign from doing the same thing, says Project Veritas President James O’Keefe. 

Well, you know the old saying "the vote counting an't done until the Democrats won".

The country is SO screwed...

If this is the new "standard" college student, this country is SO screwed. Expatriation looks better and better every day...

More info at the link.

Why the news sucks, example #59683

This is yet another example of why the MSM just plain sucks and fails daily to do their jobs. This example is from the Washington Examiner. It is titled 'RNC mocks Clinton's 1-of-6 wins, 'embarrassing performance' with the first paragraph of:

Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus mocked Hillary Clinton's "embarrassing performance" in primaries and caucuses this week, chortling at her poor one-of-six wins.

What counts as "mocking" in this day and age? This does:

"Hillary Clinton's repeated stumbles at this stage of the race are another reminder of her deeply flawed candidacy. Winning only one out of six primaries and caucuses this week is an embarrassing performance for the Democrat front-runner," he said in a statement Sunday.

So, if you are a Republican, pointing out what every other Sanders support is pointing out is considered "mocking". What? Is Clinton such a delicate flower that she can not stand to hear the truth? Pointing out a fact also now counts as "chortling"! Oh the humanities! He [apparently] failed to show enough deference to Her Highness, the Lady Clinton! Off with his head!

As is typical for a news story these days, a liberal, leftist, Democrat has had a poor showing so the media must drag a Republican into the story to draw attention away from the Democrat.

What is really embarrassing and mock worthy is the sorry, pitiful state of journalism these days.

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

Mechanical computers

This [compiled] set of videos explains how mechanical computers work. These videos are fantastic! They were produced in 1953 to explain the workings of mechanical computers used in fire control computers (aiming the guns) on ships. The concepts are universal and the detailed explanations on how the different gear configurations operate is top-notch!

Enjoy!

For want of a princess...

There is an article in the New York Post titled: Toddlers and tiaras: The feminist upshot of playing princess. It is a lighter but interesting read as it discusses the issue of little girls playing princess. The author has also written a book that I have not read, on the same or a related topic.

The gist of her piece is that little girls should be free to play princess if they wish. That playing princess is actually a form of girl power and empowering. On that score I think she is correct and really, who cares what "rolls" kids play as long as they are not playing Charles Manson?

Good for her that she supports her daughter's princess-play. Where [I feel] she starts to go off the rails is when she describes the forces that oppose "princess-play". The nefarious, dark force allied against her daughter is:

• Society:
• society demeans everything that girls like
• our society automatically dismisses anything feminine as weak or second best
• society tells them it’s silly, that “girly” girls aren’t sensible girls, that femininity and power are polar opposites
• I am incensed by the notion that the male way automatically equals the right way

Where are all of these ideas coming from? I know she is blaming "society" but that is too easy an answer and [let us be honest] a cop-out. Who really is behind this? Who really denigrates and demeans princess play and supports these other ideas? Well, let us pick apart "society" and see...

We have fathers. What father does not view their daughter as a "little princess"? What father does not want their daughter to play princess and dress in those cute little outfits? None that I know of. What father demeans their daughter as weak and not sensible if she acts "girlie"? I really doubt that fathers are the source of this anti-princess play movement or these other anti-girl sentiments. Let us be honest while we are discussing fathers. There are other "males" that are not fathers and as is typical for most men, if you have no dog in the fight, you rarely care about the fight. So I also doubt non-father (i.e. single) men are the vast majority of the anti-princess-play / anti-girlie movement.

Grandparents? Grandparents that get to spoil their grand-daughters don't strike me as the source of princess play angst. In fact grandmothers are likely a prime source of princess-wear acquisition for little girls that have any volume of princess apparel. Grandparents are a primary source of girl spoiling, not girl denigrating.

Siblings? Well brothers will pick on sisters for any number of reasons and some may indeed include picking on sisters for dressing up and acting like princesses BUT I just can't see brothers as the movers and shakers in the "anti-princess play" crowd. Sisters on the other hand, should be allies in this "battle" to protect princess play.

What do we have left? Umm. Let me think... Why women (to include mothers)! To be specific, feminists are against princess play. They see it as weak, stereo-typical "girlie play" that should be crushed. They are also the same crowd that pushed "we can do anything a man can do", "women need men like fish need bicycle", and other "don't be a girlie girl" things like being against dolls and kitchen play sets, and easy bake ovens, and other "girlie" things. In fact the author herself is somewhat the form of her own destructer:

"I’ve treaded carefully; always avoided the pink aisle and never actively pushed any kind of princess play"

So if we drill down far enough, it is women that are at war with other women about princess play and other "girlie" things, whether or not it is a healthy outlet or a soul robbing, patriarchal chain with which to shackle a little girls dreams and aspirations.

Who spends money? Women. To whom is advertising directed? Predominantly women (cause they spend most of the money that gets spent). Who is this "society" that denegrates princess-play? Women.

Please stop blaming "society" for this. Instead ladies, gaze into that magic mirror and see your true foe.

P.S.

At one point, the author also includes a quote from Madeleine Albright, “Women’s empowerment is not merely a goal, but a cornerstone of democratic growth. Women raise issues that others overlook, devote energy to projects that others ignore, and reach out to constituencies that others neglect.”

Again, who are these undefined "others" of which she speaks? In this context, she must mean men. If women raise issues that others overlook, how many different "others" are there to choose from? If we remove all women from society, who is left? Why men of course. What "issues", "projects", and "constituencies" women address that men don't is left to the imagination. Do women bring a distinct and unique perspective to issues? Most definitely BUT I would not say women raise issues that would not otherwise be raised. Women have voices. Women have votes. Women have money and means. Women are involved in all aspects of society. There are multitudes of social services and agencies setup for supporting women and their needs. Where are this vast unexplored areas of women-dom? The only way that quote makes logical sense is as a quote designed to pander to women. Not to express a real issue. This is a female politician speaking to women, using verbiage designed to appeal to women without actually stating anything. The sad thing is that this meaningless quote stuck with the author enough for her to include it in this piece that relies on the same logical fallacy to make its point. Ladies, unlike many of your "sisters" I KNOW you can do better. Oh, and if you want to put on the princess dress and tiara, I say go for it.

Trump is NOT the problem...

Let me get this out of the way; I am not a huge Trump fan. He is not my first choice. He is not my second or even third choice. He might be a slightly better choice than your average Democratic politician. That said...

Trump is NOT the problem. He is just the most recent symptom of what ails the GOP. The Tea Party was the largest prior symptom and instead of addressing that group's very legitimate concerns about what had happened to the GOP and what its' "management" was doing, the GOP decided to double-down and do all that they could to marginalize and vilify that group and its concerns and goals.

The response to that willful disregard to legitimate concerns is what has enabled Trump to be. To further demonstrate how out of touch and how counter to the principles of the GOP the current members are, we have this latest of dust-ups.

Sanders supporters crashed a Trump event and cause such a ruckus that Trump decides to cancel. This is lauded by the left and right as a good thing. That a bunch of thugs stomp over someone's first amendment rights, stifle his right to speak, prevent the peaceable assembly of his supporters and cause his legal event to be cancelled. That this is labeled a "good thing" by both the left and the right AND Trump is further blamed for it a) is an appalling shame, b) runs counter to conservative principles, and c) shows how unfit ANY of the remaining GOP candidates are to lead the party.

I fully expect this sort of childish behavior from Democrats. They have time and again shown that they support free speech only when it is their speech. Anyone that has an alternate view can go pound sand. Their support for constitutional rights is tissue paper thin. I did NOT expect this sort of behavior from the right. WE all should stand up for ANYONE's right to say what they wish, whether you approve of what they are saying or NOT. Non negotiable! You either support the people's rights as granted by our creator or you don't. The GOP candidates SHOULD have rallied behind Trump and stood shoulder to shoulder with him in support if his and everyone's right to be heard.

The crybullies can not and should not ever win! The only acceptable answer to ideas or speech you do not support is more speech. Not shouting down and shutting up your opponents.

I am extremely disappointed in all of the GOP and especially the candidates for not standing up for what are supposed to be their core principles.

The blackest material in the world just got even more black

Back in 2014, a team of British researchers made headlines for producing the blackest material known to science. Called Vantablack, the material was so black, it absorbed all but 0.035 percent of visible light, which means to our eyes, it was borderline invisible. Now the blackest material ever made is even more black, with the inventors announcing that no spectrometer in the world is powerful enough to measure how much light it absorbs.

Obama's last SOTU

So, to summarize the most recent SOTU by President Obama all of the "pressing" problems of this country boil down to curing cancer. Everything else is secondary. Everyone is better off today than they were when he took office some 7 years ago. There is no [stoked by him and his administration] racial issues (to speak of), there is no [created by his idiotic policies] significant unemployment issues, no crime, budget deficits, health care, or security issues. The single most important issue left to tackle is curing cancer. This is so critical that he is throwing the full weight of the government at solving this problem [on par with putting a man on the moon - so he says] and he is so committed to getting this done that he has drafted the singular best mind within his administration to lead this heroic and herculean effort, Joe Biden. Yep. Slow Joe (the groper) Biden is in charge of the most important mission of this [and any] decade.

Wow, just wow.

As I am sure you have read from others, going to the moon was a engineering issue that was helped by money. We knew what to do and basically how to do it. We just needed enough money to get it done. Not to in any way belittle the effort as it was a fantastic effort for which a number of individuals paid for with their lives. Incredible things were done, discovered, created, and invented BUT the science behind it all was pretty well understood, We needed to learn how to implement the science. Not "discover" the science.

That is not this. That is not anywhere close to curing cancer. To start with there is no one cancer. There is no one cause for cancer and there is no one way that cancers happen. There are multiple gene mutations involved in each different type of cancer and we are still in the early stages of figuring out all of the genes with mutations that are involved.

Additionally, this is not like that because though "many of us" wanted to go to the moon, it was not [at its core] a business proposition but a national pride and discovery issue. No businesses were lining up to throw buckets of money at getting to the moon (then). Lots of good tech resulted from this drive to get there and many could and would argue (myself included) that all in all it was worth it and "a very good thing" but at that time it was not something that private businesses were clamoring to do. Cancer research and searching for a cure (and/or effective treatments) is something that many businesses and research units (higher Ed, etc.) are already currently and actively engaged in. In fact these groups are making discoveries every day. They are also producing treatments and new drugs and gene therapies now as well. There is a huge monetary incentive for private enterprises to get into this field and produce solutions AND make profits. There is no actual reason for government to start taking over this area and (let us be honest) meddle in it to a greater degree than it already does through the various medical and drug agencies that already oversee much of what takes place within this field.

That is unless the real reason for this "big push" into an area that is already full of big pushes (more of that great "lead from behind" leadership style that we have become accustomed to from President Three-putt) is not to focus attention and action on an important area of medical research but instead to a) focus attention away from all of the scandals and failures of this administration and b) to keep Joe in the news in a positive way such that he can be "pushed" into stepping into the presidential race if Hillary is forced to drop out.

Even most Democrats (excluding the truly insane ones) will admit that Hillary is a soiled brand. Too many of her recent failures won't go away and whenever she [and her MSM water carries] go to the standard Democrat play-book ("war on women" anyone) Trump points out how awful her and her husband have been to women throughout their careers, sucking all of the wind out of those sails. The only thing that scares the Democrats more than a Hillary win is a Sanders win. Most of the "main stream" Democrats (I know, I know) are scared out of their knickers by a possible Sanders win. Even they point and whisper "that one is REALLY crazy". So, if and when Hillary implodes, old Slow (grabby) Joe will be wheeled out to save the day. The funny thing is, compared to the two currently in the race, Joe actually looks sane BUT that is because the administration [and their friends in the MSM] have done a reasonable job of keeping all of the crazy out of the papers. Maybe they are hoping that if they pull this switch-a-ro late enough in the process, the Republicans will be caught off guard and unable to move quick enough to inform the public of the real Joe Biden. The touchy-feely, foot-in-mouth, ignorant of just too many things, says too many just-plain-dumb things Joe Biden.

We shall see.

P.S. Don't you just love how whenever anything (even those things we can see from miles away) goes wrong with an Obama policy, it is our fault? We just didn't understand. If he does not get his way it is not because his policies and ideas are idiotic, it is that we are too stupid to understand and if he were just a better communicator, we would "get it" and let him have his way. Between that and all those bad things that just keep happening to him, it is a wonder he has bothered to put up with us for so long. Also, for a person with a law degree and who taught courses in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, he does not seem to know very much about how the constitution works or what the President can and can not do based on the constitution.

P.P.S. Don't you think she (Hillary) looks tired?

The real story of the housing / economic crisis

Watch this video. It is an older video but it is still relevent as it explains how we had the largest economic crisis in the nation's history since the great depression and who was really behind it. You have NOT seen this explained this clearly on TV. At times, some of the truth slips out but no one in the MSM will put the full picture together for you as the real blame falls on all of the "wrong" people. The media loves to blame this crisis on wall street, on the republicans, on evil capitalists, in fact on everyone but those that actually made this happen. This is a fantastic video.

When female privilege backfires by Karen Straughan

Hillary's private email server and the FBI

Despite Hillary's statements to the contrary, some people continue to believe that she did in fact have classified emails on her private email server. For some reason, some people refuse to "let it go" and continue to claim Hillary had [despite her statements to the contrary] classified information on this unsecured email server that was under her control. This group of "right wing conspiracy nuts" includes some interesting people, like the FBI:

"They are now at over 1,200 classified emails. And, that's just for the ones we know about from the State Department. That does not include the ones that the FBI is, in fact, recovering from her hard drives."

Wait, what? But Hillary and the MSM have told us repeatedly that there is NO STORY THERE. This just can't be true!

"I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable," DiGenova said.

I wonder who the DNC will get to fill in for Hillary?

Ted Cruz ad...

This is a pretty nice ad that speaks to the heart of who does and does not care about illegal immigration. It highlights why "some people" chose to not get it.

Oberlin College choir brilliantly responds to the Christina Sommers controversy

This brilliant response to Christian Sommers by the Oberlin College choir is a "must see". It is a true shame that it has come to things like this actually having to be done to push back against the march of the "special snowflakes" that take up space at [so called] institutions of higher education.

If there were any REAL feminists left...

If there were any REAL feminists left they would be fighting THIS instead of fighting things like the [false] collage rape culture, the mythical wage gap, the [collapsed] patriarchy, and other miscellaneous "special snowflake", macro-aggression grievance industry causes du jour.

Sure fighting Islamic sex slavery does not have the "zing" of a good "slut walk" but highlighting it and working to eradicate it would affect the lives of countless women and teenage girls that are being forced into sex slavery today.

Some of the "interesting" items in this fatwa (#64, dated 1/29/2015) on the subject includes such notable items as:

• One of on the graces which Allah has bestowed upon the State of Caliphate is the conquest of large surface areas of the country and one of the inevitable consequences of the jihad of establishment is that women and children of infidels will become captives of Muslims. Consequently, it is necessary to clarity some rules pertaining to captured prisoners to avoid any violations in dealing with them

• bans on a father and son having sex with the same female slave; and the owner of a mother and daughter having sex with both. Joint owners of a female captive are similarly enjoined from intercourse because she is viewed as "part of a joint ownership."

• The owner of two sisters is not allowed to have intercourse with both of them rather he may only have intercourse with just one. the other sister is to be had by him if he were to relinquish ownership of the first sister by selling her, giving her away or releasing her.

• If a father had intercourse with his female captive then give her away or sold her to his son, he is not longer permitted to have intercourse with her.

That is nice, they do have some rules. Oh well, never mind, you have another slut walk to plan...

Grooming the next generation of terrorists...

The next time one of your pro-Palestine friends defends the Palestinians as an oppressed peoples that just wants their own place, show them this:



This is one of about 4000 toys that were seized from a shipment to the Palestinian authority. These toys were to be given to children.

Each toy has its face hidden by a keffiyah, with one arm raised and clutching a tiny toy rock. They hold banners in Palestinian colors proclaiming “Jerusalem is ours” and “Jerusalem we are coming.”

These rock throwing campaigns have already claimed lives and toys like this show the lengths the Palestine authority will go to indoctrinate, involve, and incite children to take part. It makes good propaganda when Israelis are forced to fight back against children which the Palestinians use for human shields and as solders in their war against Israel.



 

Follow the link. It also shows how the children are incited to do knife attacks upon Israelis.

Now this is how you "jump the shark"!

In response to the San Bernardino shooting / terrorist event, Geraldo Rivera (yes, that Geraldo Rivera) tweeted:

The key now is for us to be as outraged by San Bernadino massacre as we would be if Muslim extremists were doing the killing. This is terror

— Geraldo Rivera (@GeraldoRivera) December 2, 2015

Wow, just wow...

A muslim terrorist and a progressive walk into a bar...

...is not a good way to start a joke, for numinous reasons but to hear progressives talk about muslim terrorists you would think it must be. This facebook post does a good job at highlighting the issue:

It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic terrorist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the terrorists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.

It's like a bad Monty Python sketch:

"We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it."

"No you didn't."

"Wait, what? Yes we did..."

"No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons."

"WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers."

"No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so."

"Huh!? Who are you to tell us we're not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being."

"Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that's why you did this. We're sorry."

"What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians - disenfranchisement doesn't even enter into it!"

"Listen, it's our fault. We don't blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out."

"Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we're not going to let you take it away from us."

"No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame."

"OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?"

That post is mocking but it is also not very far from the truth of the thing. Muslims HAVE stated that they have, are, and will continue to do terrorism against any and all and by their very actions, they prove it on an ongoing basis but progressives here in America and Europe continue to blindly say "No, that incident over there does not mean anything. It is isolated." When it next happens it is "Nope, not a trend. Isolated." and again "Workplace violence. Not an indication of larger issues." and yet again "Small isolated group, Not part of anything that we should take notice of!"

Let ONE Christian group (and a demonstrable out-liner group at that) shout at gay men and suddenly that one incident is PROOF POSITIVE that all Christians are racists and homophobes.

Conservatives point out the fact that nearly ALL terrorist acts perpetrated over the last couple of decades have been perpetrated by one specific, identifiable group of individuals that all share a very limited set of common traits and Conservatives are the problem FOR NOTICING what everyone else is too afraid to say. Sorry but the truth is, if you are an 18 to 35 year old male that practices Islam, you are much more likely to be involved in terrorism than the general population. Much more likely than your average Christian male. Astronomically more likely than your average Amish male. This is statistics. It is not racist to notice this but it is delusional to willfully ignore it, and it is the height of insanity to demand that the rest of us subscribe to your delusion.

Just this week there was a very large set of attacks in Paris by Muslim terrorists. The current U.S. President wants to invite thousands of Syrians into America. Really? Don't worry we are told. They will be vetted we are told. Are you kidding me?  This very same government that let 4 Americans die at one of our embassies and blamed it on a video. This very same government that ran an illegal arms program called "Fast and Furious" and tried to cover it up. This very same government that spent BILLIONS of dollars on a web site with a shopping cart for insurance and could NOT get it to work nor keep the information secure. This very same government that found ZERO malice or lawlessness in an IRS that demonstrably targeted conservative groups. This very same government that dumped toxic waste into a river and tried to cover it up. This very same government is competent enough to screen 10 thousand or more Syrian refugees to guarantee that not a single one of them is a terrorist. Really? REALLY?

Label me unconvinced and that is no joke.

First Lady speaks in Qatar and complains about America

"If we want to get Women into our classrooms."

Uh, last I checked, not only is it required that boys and GIRLS go to school but women out number men in Collage / Higher ED.

She is discussing the U.S. "history" of voting, education, and job opportunities for women while the area of the world she is speaking from still stones women for the crime of BEING raped, doesn't let most of them drive, won't let most of them out of the house without a male escort, and insists that many of them cover themselves from head to toe. She is talking about the U.S. past while ignoring the ME present-day.

Could she be any more trite? Any more shallow?

Women are still undergoing genital mutilation while she speaks about her past "hard life" of being told to "talk softly". Oh the HUMANITY! Well, at least she is finally "publicly" proud of her country (at least that is what she said some 7 years ago). It is SO oppressive being the First Lady....

Hillary, No one is against equal pay for equal work.

Especially not Republicans and as others have already pointed out numinous times (not that it stops Hillary! from making the claim nor many in the media from giving her a pass) equal pay is ALREADY the law.

Actually, that is not quite correct. There are some that are against equal pay for equal work. Here is a partial list:

• President Barack Obama (D)
• Then Senator Barack Obama (D)
• Then Senator, Mrs. Clinton (D)
• Senator Bernie Sanders (D)
• Senator Mark Udall (D)
• Senator Mary Landrieu (D)
• Senator Mark Begich (D)
• Senator Mark Warner (D)
• Senator Gary Peters (D)
• Sen. Kay Hagan (D., N.C.)
• Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D., N.H.)
• Sen. Mary Pryor (D., Ark.)
• Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.)

I could go on but I think you are getting the point. Don't overlook the political party that all of these esteemed representatives of the people are affiliated with. Also noted in the various linked articles, the Republicans generally pay their female staffers AT LEAST as much as the male staffers if not more. The Republicans also have more women staff in more important roles within their organizations than the Democrats.

There does appear to be a "war on women" going on. It is just not by the suspects you are being told to look at...

Sitting US Senator would like men to "just shut the hell up" on some topics

So, at least one U.S. Senator thinks the 1st Amendment should not apply to men, conditionally, depending on what we wish to talk about. Surprise, surprise, the single biggest issue she would like all of us men to "shut the hell up about" is "women's health" which is [of course] liberal code for "abortion rights".

What she means is that women have the right to:

1. decide whether to have sex or not (which of course, men can too)
2. decide who to have sex with (which of course, men can too)
3. decide if they are going to use birth control or not (which men can too)
4. decide at any time during sex, to no longer want to have sex calling things to an immediate halt
5. decide after having sex that if there is any regret it really was not "voluntary" sex and as such, she was hence assaulted even if this epiphany comes days, weeks, months, or even years later
6. if the sex does result in a pregnancy, decide if she will keep the child, give the child up for adoption or that it is not at all a child but instead just a "clump of cells" and decide to have an abortion
7. she can decide whether or not to inform the father of the pregnancy and/or birth and/or abortion
8. regardless of any/all prior actions, she can inform the state of the father of the child (if she keeps it) and he can be held responsible for child support even if it is years after the birth of the child, to include back child support with options to have his wages garnished
1. this even applies if he is underage and/or was raped resulted in the pregnancy
2. this even applies if she "steals" his sperm out of the trash and uses it to become pregnant
3. this even applies if she and he have a contract for him to be a sperm donor with no rights to the child
4. this even applies if he is not the biological father of the child

None of this even begins to address the "child" which in this circumstance is only considered a child/baby if the mother chooses to view things that way, otherwise it is simply a "clump of cells" that can be disposed of any time the mother wishes (and according to Nancy Pelosi that includes until the "child" gets home).

According to McCaskill, men have no stake in this, no say, and no rights. Just Shut The Hell Up.

Just imagine the uproar and public crucifixion if a man of any note released a video telling women to just "shut the hell up" about curtain topics. Every nightly news program and every morning show would be part of the pile on. It would likely cost him his job and savage his reputation. He would be a public outcast. Think I am exaggerating? Remember what happened to that scientist that was involved in landing that probe on the comet? He was destroyed because of a shirt. A SHIRT.

But all of this is OK because "her body, her rules" and so all us men should just "shut the hell up". Again, this is not coming from just any old activist / feminist. This is coming from a sitting U.S. Senator.

IRS supports identity theft by illegals

This story was broke by a local news station. Local news doing the jobs that national news won't do...

Finally a case of voter fraud that Democrats might believe!

A non-citizen was arrested for illegally voting five different times over a span of 10 years in Texas.

But here is the "kicker" and why it might get some attention:

While she never voted in Tarrant County, she did vote in Dallas County a total of five times, voting the first time in the Republican Party primary in 2004 and lastly in the May 2014 Republican runoff.

Since it involves Republicans in some way, maybe Democrats will now take notice and admit that voter fraud happens.

I don't want Democrats to vote illegally. I don't want Republicans to vote illegally. I don't want ANYONE to vote illegally. Voting is a privilege and the integrity of the vote is of the utmost importance. Anyone that undermines the integrity of the process should be severely punished.

IRS and Lerner

In a letter to members of Congress, the Justice Department said that while investigators had found "mismanagement, poor judgment and institutional inertia," there was no evidence of a crime.

"We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution," the letter stated.

Apparently, in the Obama America, you have to attack [or imply an attack] against liberal groups or minority groups. Does anyone think for one second that if 99% of the groups singled out for extra scrutiny were liberal groups or were minority groups, heads would not roll?

The lawless left just keeps pushing that line. Keep showing America that law no longer matters. That right versus wrong no longer matters. That everything is gray, no more clear bright line you do not cross - as long as you get the ends you want. Well, the left better hope that those on the right don't learn this lesson the left is so intent on teaching. The left is far less prepared to operate in a lawless world than those on the right. The left likes to yell and scream about the police state, not realizing that is all that is keeping the wolves at bay. When the common citizen decides that civility is gone, that law is gone, that justice is gone, that is when the lights go out and there are many, many on the right that have been planning for just such a thing and as a result are far better prepared than the OWS generation and their water carriers on the left...

Hillary and Benghazi

So Hillary testified before the Benghazi committee yesterday and here is a "standard" MSM headline on the results:

"Republican lawmakers sharply questioned Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday..."
"... seeking to build a case that the former secretary of state had been derelict in her duty to secure the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi...."

Absent from any of the MSM coverage, which (surprise, surprise) nearly unanimously found that Hillary did a great job standing up to those "nasty, evil, Republicans" is any mention of the fact (and that is real fact, not liberal "feels like it should be true" fact) that Hillary sent emails to her daughter and Egypt (we actually have the emails - Hillary failed to get them wiped) stating that the Benghazi attack was committed by terrorists. She later told the American people that it was all because of a video, which she KNEW was a lie. she stood over those coffins and lied to the relatives of those murdered and she lied to America.

If Hillary had an "R" after her name, every single MSM organ would be screaming about this 24/7 up to election night. Instead, we get crickets...

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

Yet more "But there is no such thing as voter fraud!"

The North Carolina State Board of Elections has found thousands of instances of voter fraud in the state:

• 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.

• 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.

• 155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

So we have proof of rampant fraud with people voting in two states, in the same election. We have examples of dead people voting. This is but one state and an initial assessment, not a detailed investigation.

But don't you worry one little bit cause voter fraud is a myth!

An economic case against the Bermuda Triangle

Had the TV on the other night (just to have it on), tuned to one of those secondary cable channels. They were running those "Ancient Aliens" shows. One of the episodes had to do with the Dragon's Triangle (Devil's Sea) which is the Pacific Ocean's equivalent of our Bermuda Triangle. One of the "experts" the show referenced was the author of a book about both places and the show repeatedly talked about all of the unexplained ship and plane disappearances that have occurred in both of those areas. That hundreds of ships and planes have been lost under "unexplainable" circumstances. About how compasses go "crazy" in these areas, and how they are the locations of numerous unexplainable phenomenon.

The case against these two areas being anything other than standard, normal patches of ocean can be made with two simple words: insurance premiums.

If either of these areas really was a location where there was a statistically significant greater loss of ships (with cargo) and airplanes, the bean counters that work for the insurance companies that insure cargo ships and planes (and their cargo) against loss would surely be aware of it. If there was a statistically significant greater risk of a vessel or plane (with cargo and crew) that transverse these areas "disappearing", the insurance premiums for vessels that travel those areas would be significantly higher than for those that avoid these areas. Cargo ships are quite expensive, the cargo they carry can be worth millions and millions of dollars. The shipping companies value their ships, their crews, their cargo, their reputations, and their profits enough that they would surely avoid these areas in an effort to save all of these things that they value. Reacting to these adverse incentives, the number of vessels traveling through these areas would greatly diminish in a rather short amount of time, reducing the "reported" losses until those losses returned to a more normal level and traffic would likely not return to these areas until the costs of using those routes (to include insurance premiums) returned to a more normal level.

What about the military? The military values their equipment and personnel at least as much as commercial businesses do and their equipment can not only be more expensive than commercial vessels they also contain more of and more valuable (as in expensive to train and maintain) crew members. If the military were to suffer increased losses of equipment and personnel in these waters, you can rest assured that either a) they would issue warnings, restricting traffic and travel in these areas and/or b) undertake extensive investigations to determine the cause of these increases in losses. Neither of these two events have taken place. There are no restrictions in traffic through these areas and there are not "endless" stories in the paper about lost military vessels and crews that defy explanation. With the adversarial press we have in the US (as well as England), if there was malfeasance of this sort going on, we would hear about it.

We don't even need to get into commercial air traffic (i.e. passenger airplanes / jet planes). Delta, USAir, Spirit, Jet Blue, etc. don't avoid these areas and overfly them daily. If there were an increased possibility of plane and passenger loss with the accompanying replacement costs and lawsuits, these would most definitely be "no fly" zones.

Economics doesn't lie...

The speech I wish the next Republican President would give...

Good evening citizen of the United States. Let me first say thank you for allowing me into your homes tonight. I truly believe that what I am about to share with you will benefit all Americans and the country and will be an important step in getting our country back on the right coarse for all citizens of this great land.

As citizens of these United States, we all have suffered under the burden of a farce, a fallacy, a Ponzi scheme of enormous size that has negatively impacted our economy for generations. This crime that has been perpetuated against us is known as the Social Security System. I am here to tell you that this crime will end. You will no longer be forced to contribute to a bankrupt and corrupt system that promises too much and delivers too little. If today's social security system were run by private businesses, the executives of those companies would be in jail! Why should this be permitted to continue simply because it is done to you by your Government instead of by a private company?

Despite what you may have heard and will likely hear starting tomorrow, the Social Security fund is broken and broke! There is NO money in it. It is true that at least for today and the near future, contributions to the Social Security fund exceed the monies paid out to recipients but and this is a big but, there is no money in the fund because your Government has been spending it for years to fund other programs. As dollars go into the fund, the Government takes them out and puts in I.O.U.s instead. Now if you trust your Government to be there tomorrow [and the day after] those I.O.U.s are nearly as good a cash BUT it is not cash and it is money that the Government will have to pay back, not at our leisure but when the demand for payments exceeds the amount coming in. This will likely mean deep cuts to other programs and / or tax increases and / or means testing to those that are and will collect Social Security. Again, over promised and under delivered. In addition, with the Government controlling this program, we tell you how much you have to put in, how long you have to wait to start receiving payments, and how those funds are managed. You are not children, you are adults. This is your money and you should own and control it.

My plan for the shuttering of the Social Security System is as follows:

First off, if you work and contribute to Social Security, December 31st of this year will be the last day that any FICA taxes are removed from your paycheck. Come January 1st of next year, those payroll funds are yours to keep. Your employer will also no longer have to match your FICA taxes after December 31st as well.

There are basically 4 groups of people in regard to Social Security; these groups are a) those already receiving payments (or will receive payments by January 1st of next year), b) those that are fully vested in Social Security but do not yet receive payments, c) those that are not yet fully vested but have made contributions, and d) those that have made no contributions yet (and won't have by December 31st of this year).

Let me allay any fears group (a) might have, if you currently receive Social Security payments, those payments will continue! Your payments will NOT stop. We made a commitment to you and the Government will keep that commitment. For you, nothing will change. Your schedule of benefits and payments will continue uninterrupted.

For those in group (d), those that have never been assessed any FICA taxes, if you still have not made any FICA contributions as of December 31st, nothing will change. You will not ever be forced to pay anything into the Social Security System. You will never be forced to contribute money into an underfunded, under performing system. I strongly encourage you to open an IRA account, if you don't already have one and start contributing money to it today. We will be making adjustments to the IRA rules to make it easier to contribute and to allow you to contribute much more. More details on these enhanced IRA rules will be coming in the weeks ahead.

To those in group (c), those that have paid FICA taxes but are not yet vested. You will not ever receive any Social Security payments. You are not vested in the system and will not ever be. It is strongly recommended that you start an IRA account as soon as possible if you don't already have one and start contributing to that account. As I stated earlier the rules for IRA accounts will be expanded giving you more freedom and options. If you already have an IRA, you are already setup for what I am about to tell you. If you do not have one, it is strongly recommended that you open one before the end of this year. Shortly after the new year, the Government will credit your IRA account with the sum of all of your FICA tax payments as well as those made on your behalf by your employer(s). Next year all FICA tax payments made by you or for you will be yours, in your IRA to own and manage. The Government should never have been taxing your wages at the point of a gun and making poor investment choices with your money. I apologize.

To those in group (b), those that are fully vested but have not yet started receiving payments (come January 1st), you have a choice to make. You can elect to be treated as part of group (c) or group (a). You can elect to have all of your [up to December 31st] FICA taxes as well as those of your employer(s) deposited in an IRA account of your choosing or you can elect to receive Social Security payments based on your December 31st (of this year) payment schedule. We will honor either decision you make.

We understand that there are some individuals that do not fall into any of these groups, we will be making a phone number and web site link available for you and anyone else that has questions about these changes, where you can get more information. In addition we will be posting the text of this speech, the details of the plan, and any additional updates or releases to a web site where everyone can access this for your self.

As soon as I am finish [if not already] you will hear from people that will tell you this is a bad plan and a bad idea. That I am wrong about the system being insolvent and that shutting it down is too hard, too complicate, and there is not enough time to make this all happen by year end.

To them I say no. You are the one that is wrong. You are the one that is insisting that we continue with a program that was designed and implemented wrong from the very start and that this very program when managed by individuals and companies, those people are arrested and charged with crimes. It ends now. We will honor our commitments to those that are already in the system and we have a plan for the orderly shutting down of this system and we will do it.

Others will say that we can not afford to do this. That we can not afford to pay back all of the FICA taxes collected to all those currently involved in the system. That the system will collapse under the weight of no new funds coming in. To them I say, you are partially correct. That is exactly why the Social Security system is also called a Ponzi scheme and that it is illegal when not done by the Government. We are already carrying the liabilities for repayment. The fund is already full of I.O.U.s. We will just be more honest in how that liability is carried on the Government ledger.

A partial privatization (15% of contributions) was suggested by a prior administration. It was misconscrewed and lied about in the press and by ideologs. We are now that much farther down the road to a Social Security collapse. Continuing down that road will only lead to harsh, rushed changes. This solution ends the problem once and for all and puts control of retirement back where is belongs, with individuals and with families. You are adults and the Government is not and should not be acting as your parent forcing you into an immoral system. Again, this ends now.

Thank you and good night.

Simplified version of Hillary email apology

"Sorry you are too stupid to understand that what I did was not wrong."

This is basically what she said. She did not admit that what she did was wrong [and it was SO wrong], she apologized that it was so "confusing" for us mere rubes to understand.

She mishandled classified information. She mixed personal correspondence and government correspondence on an unsecure, privately controlled server. Someone within her circle removed classified designations from emails that were on her server. Someone within her circle moved emails from the Government's classified network to her server. She had correspondence between herself and the dignitaries of other governments which would generally make these exchanges classified.

Her excuses? Didn't know, didn't realize, didn't understand, couldn't work more than one device so this had to be done to help her do her job, etc. If she is this intimidated by common technology and this uninformed of basic security policies, what in the world makes anyone think she is competent to be president?

So the reality is, she hopes we are [or at least enough of us are] too stupid or to partisan to care that what she did was incredibly stupid, exposed the Government to enormous data risks, and violated her oath, the rules of her job, and the directives from her President.

And of course, the MSM has not bothered to push back on that non-apology but why should they? They are nothing more than Democrat operatives with bylines...

The incredible case of Bruce Jenner

The case of Bruce Jenner is indeed incredible and I believe deserves some discussion. Bruce has opined in public that though he was born a male, he "feels" that he is really a female trapped in a male body. To address this disconnect between his feelings and his reality, Bruce has decided that despite all appearances to the contrary and despite what genetics might say, Bruce "knows" he is female and from now on, will be female. To this end, Bruce will take on all physical trappings of being female (or at least his vision of what a true female is - because as we all have been repeatedly told [and for which there is much truth] there is no true female standard, that women come in all shapes, sizes, and behaviors and the one and only metric that you can (could have) use to categorize someone as male or female is genetics - until now that is).

So what we really have here is a person that though they have male genes and plumbing, has decided to appear as female. If this was the extent of it, OK, fine. As an adult in America, you [at least as far as I am concerned and as far as I believe] should be free to do as you please as long as it does not infringe upon my rights to do the same. If you want to dress as a woman and act as a woman, have at it. Where this migrates from simple tolerance and possibly indulgence into infringement is when Bruce and many in society say that it is not enough that I accept that Bruce wants to be treated as a woman and that Bruce wants to appear as a woman. I must now accept a lie, i.e. that Bruce IS a woman. I must now incorporate this new truth into my being and treat this falseness as actual reality. If I chose instead of acceptance, to point out that a) Bruce was born a man, b) Bruce married a woman, c) Bruce procreated (the guy way), and d) Bruce has indicated (subject to change) that even though he is going to dress as women generally dresses and act as women generally acts, he will NOT exchange his natural, original male plumbing for a surgical construction of female plumbing. It is not as if Bruce lacks the resources to take this step of physical alteration, it is instead that he lacks the desire. That final point should be enough to lay waste to his claims.

To take this in another but related direction, let us say instead of Bruce announcing that he is now a woman, let us pose a hypothetical and Bruce announces that he has always been a Pitbull. Bruce FEELS that he has been a Pitbull for his entire life and will now live as a Pitbull. Bruce will stop wearing cloth and will be naked all the time. Bruce will get around on all fours. Bruce will eat and drink out of bowls on the floor. Bruce will relieve himself on the front lawn as a Pitbull does and will urinate on fire hydrants. Bruce will wear a collar, get walked, and demands to be issues a valid dog license from the city. As a dog, Bruce will mostly stop communicating in human speech and will mostly bark and growl. From now on Bruce will be known as Fido.

If this were to come to pass, would the media and society be lining up to celebrate the wonder that is Bruce [now Fido]? Or instead would there be a call for society to get this individual the help he is "owed"? Would we be admonished to play into his fantasy or to rally to his aid? Why is the response to this situation not appropriate to the reality that is Bruce?

Again, the issue is not that Bruce is now a transvestite. There are many, many people that like to dress and act as the opposite sex. As adults, they are free to indulge themselves in any way that they wish as long is it does not impact me and my rights. The issue here is that what we are being told to do is way beyond mere live and let live. This is into the realm of "all must accept my personal worldview as FACT and any dissension is heresy!" territory.

A somewhat similar case was in the news just this week. A boy that is now a high school senior has been dressing and acting as a girl for some time. The school (for the most part) has been accepting of this situation and the staff even arranged for this student to use their [faculty] unisex facilities in order to accommodate the student's situation. This year, this same student announced that this is no longer enough! This boy now demands that he be able to use the girl's locker room in order to get ready for and clean up after gym class. Everyone else be damned and any girls that find this situation concerning and objectionable are just bigots and should shut up and suck it up. The fact that many of these 16 and 17 year old girls are uncomfortable with a boy changing and showering in their locker room is of no consequence in this "brave new world". All must accept this boy's personal truth [that he is a she] as a natural fact and must act accordingly despite the penis between his legs.

Should this sort of situation simply be accepted as a new truth, a new fact or are we still grounded enough in actual reality to say no. No, your personal world view is NOT my fact. No, calling yourself a woman, or a dog, or a chair does not make it so. Not all reality is subjective and we will continue to indulge you but ONLY so far as indulging your whim doesn't impact my rights, my reality, and my safety.

Planned Parenthood, another video released - #waronwomen #waronbabies

The Center for Medical Progress released another Planned Parenthood video today. It once again features Holly O’Donnell, a former technician for StemExpress, one of the buyers of baby parts from Planned Parenthood. The video consists mostly of Miss O’Donnell describing an incident in which a baby’s heart was still beating, and she was instructed to cut through the baby’s face so that his brain–the baby was a boy–could be removed for sale. It is utterly appalling.

The Times tries to keep alive the fiction that there is some doubt about what the videos show. The videos do not “purport” to show PP officials negotiating prices for aborted babies’ body parts. They show PP officials negotiating prices for aborted babies’ body parts. They show a lot more than that, too.

Awful places to work...

I found this story via Instapundit and all I can say is it constantly astounds me how the NYT can stay in business if this is the quality of their "journalism".

I have since seen some "snippets" on the TV news as well. All of these stories seem to be going on and on about how AWFUL it is to work at Amazon.

What NONE of these stories seems to be discussing is that in America, you are actually free to leave a job if you don't like it. Yes! You can leave! Really! You are NOT physically chained to your desk! If the conditions at the place you currently work are so horrible and awful and degrading, you can actually quit!

The people that CHOOSE to work at Amazon do so for a combination of reasons, such as:

1. The pay may be REALLY, REALLY good compared to what they could get somewhere else.
2. The prestige associated with being able to say that yes, you work for Amazon.
3. The job may be closer to their home than other options.
4. The benefits may be better than what they could get elsewhere.
5. The experience they are gaining may be more valuable in the future and better for their career.
6. Lots more stuff that no one knows except for each individual person working there.

The point is, these people have CHOSEN to work there, They are not KEPT there. You know, free will and all that.

The other thing conspicuously missing from any of this coverage is (and let us say for arguments sake that they are "trapped" in these awful jobs) why? Why are they "stuck" there if it is so bad? Could it be that the economy [for the last 6 years] has been in the crapper? That more people have just dropped out of the work force due to an inability to locate a job than people have found jobs? That is the super big, super secret mystery! Why oh why are people taking jobs and keeping jobs they don't like? Maybe it could possibly be because the Obama economy has done just about anything and everything it can to crush job creation and drive up the cost of each job to the point that far fewer are being made available than could be?

Nah, that can't possibly be it cause if it was, the crack "journalists" in the MSM would be all over it just like they could not get enough of how awful the economy was, awful gas prices were, awful savings interest was, how stagnant wages were, when a Republican was in the White House (even when it wasn't so)...

City of Huntington Park, CA adds two illegal immigrants to its city commissions

Doing jobs that Americans won't do?

In addition to allowing illegal immigrants access to driver’s licenses and the state’s Obamacare exchange, now Huntington Park has given them an opportunity to actually govern legal American citizens.

These appointments, made by Councilman Jhonny Pineda, were achieved by getting around federal requirements for citizenship, as the young men are serving voluntarily and are not receiving any pay. However, not all Huntington Park residents are embracing the appointments.

Wow, just wow...

#blacklivessometimesmatter

Apparently the #blacklivesmatter folks are a bit selective, based on current evidence and not all black lives actually matter so much.

For example:

• Black lives matter when Bernie Sanders tries to talk.
• Black lives don't matter so much when Hillary talks.

• Black lives matter when black men (justified or not) are shot by the Police.
• Black lives don't matter so much when blacks are killed by other blacks (which happens significantly more often - a black man is much more likely to be killed by another black person than by anyone else, police included).

• Black lives matter when someone dares to point out that really "all lives matter".
• Black lives don't matter so much when black women abort their unborn babies (which happens at a disproportionate rate as compared to other ethnic groups).

Another interesting point is that the black lives matters group gets funding from that old, european white guy George Soros. So maybe some of the concern about which specific black lives matter depends on which ones George thinks matter?

Based on this maybe they should change their hashtag to #blacklivessometimesmatter

EPA accident causes more water pollution than fracking

1 million gallons of acidic wastewater spills, creating environmental and PR catastrophe

Carly Fiorina: As Commander in Chief

Nice speach. Worth a read...