This is a good one - heh
One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber goes to open his shop the next morning there is a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay hisbill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The cop is happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a 'thankyou' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service thisweek.' The professor is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there is a 'thankyou' card and a dozen different books, such as 'How to Improve Your Business' and 'Becoming More Successful.'
Then, a Congressman comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies, 'I cannot accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The Congressman is very happy and leaves the shop.
The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut. And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the members of our Congress.--
Vote carefully this year
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Energy Bill HR 6 - Consumers Hit Hard
I believe immigration and energy are the two biggest points of discussion in our society today. Both involve national security and both impact our daily lives to such an extent that they both can and will change the way we live our lives.
Feds Eye Household Energy Use
From Wisc. Energy Cooperative
(High lighting is The Slickster's)
Last year brought a sea change in federal energy legislation. In every congressional session since the 1990s, big energy bills focused on how utilities are structured and regulated. These were invariably pared back and usually abandoned, thanks to concerns about taking utility restructuring nationwide.
But last December, Congress passed and President Bush signed a very different energy bill. Known in legislative shorthand as H.R. 6, this new energy law is not about how utilities are structured but about telling them and their consumers how they’re going to obtain energy and how much they’re going to use.
It goes straight into the daily routine of every energy consumer in this country, as spelled out in a January headline from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: “Energy law will alter American households.”
How that will happen was the discussion topic last month for a panel of energy professionals as Wisconsin electric co-op directors and management gathered in Madison for an annual conference.
The First Step
Scott Neitzel, a vice president at Madison Gas and Electric Company (MGE) and former member of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, agreed that H.R. 6 represents “a sea change” but added that it’s only the beginning. “This energy bill is kind of really the primary of energy legislation, maybe the ‘Iowa Caucuses’ of energy legislation and I think after the elections this year we are really going to see, probably early next year a kind of Super Tuesday on energy legislation and probably a year or two after that, a big general election on energy,” Neitzel told the audience of about 150 co-op leaders.
Even so, as a first step H.R. 6 is a pretty big one. Neitzel continued, “If you look through this legislation, I don’t think there’s an appliance used in your house that the federal Department of Energy doesn’t have to set a standard for or do a study on. In reading through the legislation last night I think the only appliance I didn’t see that’s going to have a new efficiency rating is maybe an electric toothbrush, but I might have missed that one.”
Kenric Scheevel, government affairs specialist with Dairyland Power Cooperative, took note of “efficiency standards raised on everything from light bulbs to dishwashers to refrigerators. Essentially anything that uses energy in your home is going to be affected by that.”Scheevel added, “A little-known provision you may not be aware of, is an efficiency standard by which the incandescent light bulb will become obsolete in the next five to 10 years. Those of you that are putting in the compact fluorescents, it’s inevitable. The traditional bulbs won’t be for sale after a while.”
With H.R. 6, Scheevel sees energy policy “moving away from production of energy and toward conservation of energy…I think this energy bill is the first step in the next sea change in terms of energy production, energy conservation, the types of energy production that are going to be prominent in the next 50 years.”
Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group and a former state Senate staffer instrumental in passing Wisconsin’s 2005 renewable energy law, said climate change issues are driving H.R. 6 priorities. He saw lessons in 1990s utility deregulation.
“There were two states that were racing toward deregulation a decade ago: California and Wisconsin,” Stuart said. “Wisconsin happened to slow down and step to the edge and look down and say, ‘Wait a minute, maybe we don’t want to do that,’ whereas several other states did do it, and I think as consumers we really need to think hard about some of the provisions that are coming.”
His organization represents Wisconsin’s largest electricity users—manufacturers and paper and related industries. They’re seeing annual increases of about 7 percent on energy costs and Stuart expects that to continue.
Climate legislation is inevitable and will be “very expensive,” he predicts, adding, “I want to preface everything else by saying as consumers, we’re going to get hit hard no matter what happens.”
Tradeoffs Everywhere
When you finish with your energy-efficient electric toothbrush and head off to start the workday, you’ll encounter more of H.R. 6. It calls for a 40-percent increase in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards—to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Some say that’s bad for the auto industry but others will like it a lot.
“For those of you who like soy diesel and ethanol,” Scheevel says, “this is tremendous legislation because it raises the usage standard from nine billion gallons to 36 billion gallons, meaning we’re going to have to go beyond corn to meet the biofuels mandates.”
Score that as a spur to development of new alternative fuels and a revenue stream for agriculture. For the average motorist, Stuart says the results are uncertain.
“On one hand you have CAFE standards that should increase the gas mileage for your car and you supposedly use less gasoline,” Stuart says. “On the other hand you have more biofuels which don’t give as great gas mileage, so I’d like to see a study of how these things offset each other.”
Again, a tradeoff with every provision.
On efficiency standards, Stuart sees new expense “that hits almost everything in your home.” But he sees opportunity nearby.“I think some of the green building standards could be an area where we save a lot of money over the long term,” he says. “If we reinvest in some of the building stock, retrofit our factories with energy efficiency projects, that could save this country a lot of money long-term.”Those are tradeoffs many will no doubt be willing to weigh and accommodate in what they view as the most advantageous manner. Other tradeoffs will be more complicated because they involve one of today’s most controversial issues: siting and construction of electric infrastructure.
No Free Lunch
Conspicuously absent from H.R. 6 is a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandating a set percentage of electricity from renewable sources by a specified date. That looks like a prime target for new federal legislation. And in any event some states—including Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa—already have their own RPS.
Wisconsin has a quota of 10 percent renewably sourced electricity by the end of 2015. Governor Doyle has called for 25 percent by 2025 and his Task Force on Global Warming is believed likely to propose a number in between by this spring.
Our panelists agreed on the large implications.“If we’re going to have either a state or federal RPS increase we have to tell people what that means in terms of building transmission, because the renewables aren’t next door to the load,” Neitzel explained.
Both Neitzel’s MGE and Dairyland Power Co-op have popular wind-energy programs, but because the wind resource is less reliable in Wisconsin, much of the power is imported.
“The wind is better in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming—great wind resources in some respects the same places the coal is,” Neitzel says. “We move coal by train right now but you can’t move wind by train so you’re going to have to move it by wire.”
Scheevel sees rural co-op country as home to most renewable generation but not to the greatest energy demand.
“Just the Buffalo Ridge region in Minnesota [where Dairyland obtains much of its wind power] has roughly 25,000 megawatts of projects proposed,” Scheevel said. “We all know there’s not that much transmission available, so one of the big fights coming up is going to be who has to build it and who is going to pay for it,” meaning which utilities will incur the costs and pass them on to their customers.
Reeling off a list of infrastructure projects now in the pipeline, growing regulatory compliance costs, the presumed need to build approximately 33 times more wind capacity than our existing 50 megawatts, and the new transmission lines to deliver it, Stuart estimates Wisconsin energy consumers will see $15 billion in new expenses over the coming decade.
“The numbers,” Stuart says, “are eye-popping.”—Dave Hoopman
The impact will be greatest for those of us living in the so called middle class - we will be spending more and more to heat and cool our homes, drive our cars or fly on airplanes. But also let's not forget that energy legislation impacts our food supply as well by driving up the cost of gains that are being forced into ethanol production.
Corn alone has risen over three dollars a bushel. As this article will show, producers are looking to other sources now as the government demand will mandate higher production - what will this mean for food prices? they will go up and up.
Third world countries will be in crisis as their population begins to starve because they can't afford to buy gain to make floor. I have shown this in a past post about our neighbor Mexico. The immigrtion connection.
I know this is from the energy producers point of view, but let's read this with an open mind - if they are forced to produce more energy with less infrastructure and more regulation, we, the consumers ,will pay the freight.
Stay warm and Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Feds Eye Household Energy Use
From Wisc. Energy Cooperative
(High lighting is The Slickster's)
Last year brought a sea change in federal energy legislation. In every congressional session since the 1990s, big energy bills focused on how utilities are structured and regulated. These were invariably pared back and usually abandoned, thanks to concerns about taking utility restructuring nationwide.
But last December, Congress passed and President Bush signed a very different energy bill. Known in legislative shorthand as H.R. 6, this new energy law is not about how utilities are structured but about telling them and their consumers how they’re going to obtain energy and how much they’re going to use.
It goes straight into the daily routine of every energy consumer in this country, as spelled out in a January headline from the Pittsburgh Tribune Review: “Energy law will alter American households.”
How that will happen was the discussion topic last month for a panel of energy professionals as Wisconsin electric co-op directors and management gathered in Madison for an annual conference.
The First Step
Scott Neitzel, a vice president at Madison Gas and Electric Company (MGE) and former member of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, agreed that H.R. 6 represents “a sea change” but added that it’s only the beginning. “This energy bill is kind of really the primary of energy legislation, maybe the ‘Iowa Caucuses’ of energy legislation and I think after the elections this year we are really going to see, probably early next year a kind of Super Tuesday on energy legislation and probably a year or two after that, a big general election on energy,” Neitzel told the audience of about 150 co-op leaders.
Even so, as a first step H.R. 6 is a pretty big one. Neitzel continued, “If you look through this legislation, I don’t think there’s an appliance used in your house that the federal Department of Energy doesn’t have to set a standard for or do a study on. In reading through the legislation last night I think the only appliance I didn’t see that’s going to have a new efficiency rating is maybe an electric toothbrush, but I might have missed that one.”
Kenric Scheevel, government affairs specialist with Dairyland Power Cooperative, took note of “efficiency standards raised on everything from light bulbs to dishwashers to refrigerators. Essentially anything that uses energy in your home is going to be affected by that.”Scheevel added, “A little-known provision you may not be aware of, is an efficiency standard by which the incandescent light bulb will become obsolete in the next five to 10 years. Those of you that are putting in the compact fluorescents, it’s inevitable. The traditional bulbs won’t be for sale after a while.”
With H.R. 6, Scheevel sees energy policy “moving away from production of energy and toward conservation of energy…I think this energy bill is the first step in the next sea change in terms of energy production, energy conservation, the types of energy production that are going to be prominent in the next 50 years.”
Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group and a former state Senate staffer instrumental in passing Wisconsin’s 2005 renewable energy law, said climate change issues are driving H.R. 6 priorities. He saw lessons in 1990s utility deregulation.
“There were two states that were racing toward deregulation a decade ago: California and Wisconsin,” Stuart said. “Wisconsin happened to slow down and step to the edge and look down and say, ‘Wait a minute, maybe we don’t want to do that,’ whereas several other states did do it, and I think as consumers we really need to think hard about some of the provisions that are coming.”
His organization represents Wisconsin’s largest electricity users—manufacturers and paper and related industries. They’re seeing annual increases of about 7 percent on energy costs and Stuart expects that to continue.
Climate legislation is inevitable and will be “very expensive,” he predicts, adding, “I want to preface everything else by saying as consumers, we’re going to get hit hard no matter what happens.”
Tradeoffs Everywhere
When you finish with your energy-efficient electric toothbrush and head off to start the workday, you’ll encounter more of H.R. 6. It calls for a 40-percent increase in corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards—to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Some say that’s bad for the auto industry but others will like it a lot.
“For those of you who like soy diesel and ethanol,” Scheevel says, “this is tremendous legislation because it raises the usage standard from nine billion gallons to 36 billion gallons, meaning we’re going to have to go beyond corn to meet the biofuels mandates.”
Score that as a spur to development of new alternative fuels and a revenue stream for agriculture. For the average motorist, Stuart says the results are uncertain.
“On one hand you have CAFE standards that should increase the gas mileage for your car and you supposedly use less gasoline,” Stuart says. “On the other hand you have more biofuels which don’t give as great gas mileage, so I’d like to see a study of how these things offset each other.”
Again, a tradeoff with every provision.
On efficiency standards, Stuart sees new expense “that hits almost everything in your home.” But he sees opportunity nearby.“I think some of the green building standards could be an area where we save a lot of money over the long term,” he says. “If we reinvest in some of the building stock, retrofit our factories with energy efficiency projects, that could save this country a lot of money long-term.”Those are tradeoffs many will no doubt be willing to weigh and accommodate in what they view as the most advantageous manner. Other tradeoffs will be more complicated because they involve one of today’s most controversial issues: siting and construction of electric infrastructure.
No Free Lunch
Conspicuously absent from H.R. 6 is a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandating a set percentage of electricity from renewable sources by a specified date. That looks like a prime target for new federal legislation. And in any event some states—including Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa—already have their own RPS.
Wisconsin has a quota of 10 percent renewably sourced electricity by the end of 2015. Governor Doyle has called for 25 percent by 2025 and his Task Force on Global Warming is believed likely to propose a number in between by this spring.
Our panelists agreed on the large implications.“If we’re going to have either a state or federal RPS increase we have to tell people what that means in terms of building transmission, because the renewables aren’t next door to the load,” Neitzel explained.
Both Neitzel’s MGE and Dairyland Power Co-op have popular wind-energy programs, but because the wind resource is less reliable in Wisconsin, much of the power is imported.
“The wind is better in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming—great wind resources in some respects the same places the coal is,” Neitzel says. “We move coal by train right now but you can’t move wind by train so you’re going to have to move it by wire.”
Scheevel sees rural co-op country as home to most renewable generation but not to the greatest energy demand.
“Just the Buffalo Ridge region in Minnesota [where Dairyland obtains much of its wind power] has roughly 25,000 megawatts of projects proposed,” Scheevel said. “We all know there’s not that much transmission available, so one of the big fights coming up is going to be who has to build it and who is going to pay for it,” meaning which utilities will incur the costs and pass them on to their customers.
Reeling off a list of infrastructure projects now in the pipeline, growing regulatory compliance costs, the presumed need to build approximately 33 times more wind capacity than our existing 50 megawatts, and the new transmission lines to deliver it, Stuart estimates Wisconsin energy consumers will see $15 billion in new expenses over the coming decade.
“The numbers,” Stuart says, “are eye-popping.”—Dave Hoopman
Friday, March 07, 2008
Clever Politicians and Union Bosses Eguals Job Losses
So many people today find security in the familiar and the repetitive. To ask them to change what they do and think to improve their lives is out of the question. Nothing is more fearful than change. To change jobs for better pay or better work hours that entails schooling or travel is mostly unacceptable. 'I like my job - I feel secure in what I do - I can't do anything else'. Unions love this mentality - it's the driving force behind higher wages for less work and lower productivity.
Thomas Sowell paints a picture here of industry in it's final throws of existence - unions and politicians rely on these people because they are so easily lead.
Barack Obama's entire political campaign is based on " hope and change", nothing more - no substance of any kind. Why would anyone listen?
Wisconsin is a good example - unions and liberal Democrats are bleeding this state dry with crushing taxation and regulation. Industry is moving out or not coming here at all. Wisconsin has been a steady decline for new industry.
What next? I have no clue - Hope for the best and keep the faith, the battle is joined.
*Rescuing the Rust Belt?*
Policies that promise a free lunch leave you hungry in the long run.
By Thomas Sowell
It is fascinating to watch politicians say how they are going to rescue the “rust belt” regions where jobs are disappearing and companies are either shutting down or moving elsewhere.The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is being blamed for the jobs going elsewhere.
Barack Obama blames the Clinton administration for NAFTA, and that includes Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama says that he is for free trade, provided it is “fair trade.” That is election-year rhetoric at its cleverest.
Since “fair” is one of those words that can mean virtually anything to anybody, what this amounts to is that politicians can pile on whatever restrictions they want, in the name of fairness, and still claim to be for “free trade.” Clever. We will all have to pay a cost for political restrictions and political cleverness, since there is no free lunch. In fact, free lunches are a big part of the reason for once-prosperous regions declining into rust belts.
When the American automobile industry was the world’s leader in its field, many people seemed to think that labor unions could transfer a bigger chunk of that prosperity to its members without causing economic repercussions. Toyota, Honda, and others who took away more and more of the Big Three automakers’ market share — leading to huge job losses in Detroit — proved once again the old trite saying that there is no free lunch.
Like the United Automobile Workers union in its heyday, unions in the steel industry and other industries piled on costs, not only in wage rates having little relationship to supply and demand, but in all sorts of red-tape work rules that added costs.
State and local governments in what later became the rust belt also thought that they too could treat the industries under their jurisdiction as prey rather than assets, and siphon off more of the wealth created by those industries into state and local treasuries with ever higher taxes — again, without considering repercussions.
In the short run, you can get away with all sorts of things. But, in the long run, the chickens come home to roost. The rust belt is where those rising costs have come home to roost. While American automakers are laying off workers by the thousands, Japanese auto makers like Toyota and Honda are hiring thousands of American workers. But they are not hiring them in the rust belt. They are avoiding the rust belt, just as domestic businesses are avoiding the high costs that have been piled on over the years by both unions and governments in rust belt regions.
In short, the rust belts have been killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is a viable political strategy, so long as the goose doesn’t die before the next election and politicians can avoid leaving their fingerprints on the weapon. But the people who lose their jobs, and who live in communities that decline, need to look beyond the political rhetoric to the grim reality that there is no free lunch.
Many workers in the new plants being built by Toyota and others apparently already understand that. They have repeatedly voted against being represented by labor unions. They want to keep their jobs. Where does NAFTA come into the picture?International trade is just one of the many ways in which the competition of lower-cost producers can cause higher-cost producers to lose customers and jobs.
Technological improvements or better management practices by domestic competitors can have the same result. Jobs are always disappearing. The big question is why they are not being replaced by new jobs. Rust belt policies that drove out old jobs also keep out new jobs.
NAFTA makes it easier for politicians to blame the problem on foreigners. In fact, foreigners make ideal scapegoats for politicians. After all, people in Japan or India can’t vote in American elections.Americans who can vote would do well to start spending more time thinking about economic realities, instead of being swept away by political rhetoric.
Thomas Sowell paints a picture here of industry in it's final throws of existence - unions and politicians rely on these people because they are so easily lead.
Barack Obama's entire political campaign is based on " hope and change", nothing more - no substance of any kind. Why would anyone listen?
Wisconsin is a good example - unions and liberal Democrats are bleeding this state dry with crushing taxation and regulation. Industry is moving out or not coming here at all. Wisconsin has been a steady decline for new industry.
What next? I have no clue - Hope for the best and keep the faith, the battle is joined.
*Rescuing the Rust Belt?*
Policies that promise a free lunch leave you hungry in the long run.
By Thomas Sowell
It is fascinating to watch politicians say how they are going to rescue the “rust belt” regions where jobs are disappearing and companies are either shutting down or moving elsewhere.The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is being blamed for the jobs going elsewhere.
Barack Obama blames the Clinton administration for NAFTA, and that includes Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama says that he is for free trade, provided it is “fair trade.” That is election-year rhetoric at its cleverest.
Since “fair” is one of those words that can mean virtually anything to anybody, what this amounts to is that politicians can pile on whatever restrictions they want, in the name of fairness, and still claim to be for “free trade.” Clever. We will all have to pay a cost for political restrictions and political cleverness, since there is no free lunch. In fact, free lunches are a big part of the reason for once-prosperous regions declining into rust belts.
When the American automobile industry was the world’s leader in its field, many people seemed to think that labor unions could transfer a bigger chunk of that prosperity to its members without causing economic repercussions. Toyota, Honda, and others who took away more and more of the Big Three automakers’ market share — leading to huge job losses in Detroit — proved once again the old trite saying that there is no free lunch.
Like the United Automobile Workers union in its heyday, unions in the steel industry and other industries piled on costs, not only in wage rates having little relationship to supply and demand, but in all sorts of red-tape work rules that added costs.
State and local governments in what later became the rust belt also thought that they too could treat the industries under their jurisdiction as prey rather than assets, and siphon off more of the wealth created by those industries into state and local treasuries with ever higher taxes — again, without considering repercussions.
In the short run, you can get away with all sorts of things. But, in the long run, the chickens come home to roost. The rust belt is where those rising costs have come home to roost. While American automakers are laying off workers by the thousands, Japanese auto makers like Toyota and Honda are hiring thousands of American workers. But they are not hiring them in the rust belt. They are avoiding the rust belt, just as domestic businesses are avoiding the high costs that have been piled on over the years by both unions and governments in rust belt regions.
In short, the rust belts have been killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is a viable political strategy, so long as the goose doesn’t die before the next election and politicians can avoid leaving their fingerprints on the weapon. But the people who lose their jobs, and who live in communities that decline, need to look beyond the political rhetoric to the grim reality that there is no free lunch.
Many workers in the new plants being built by Toyota and others apparently already understand that. They have repeatedly voted against being represented by labor unions. They want to keep their jobs. Where does NAFTA come into the picture?International trade is just one of the many ways in which the competition of lower-cost producers can cause higher-cost producers to lose customers and jobs.
Technological improvements or better management practices by domestic competitors can have the same result. Jobs are always disappearing. The big question is why they are not being replaced by new jobs. Rust belt policies that drove out old jobs also keep out new jobs.
NAFTA makes it easier for politicians to blame the problem on foreigners. In fact, foreigners make ideal scapegoats for politicians. After all, people in Japan or India can’t vote in American elections.Americans who can vote would do well to start spending more time thinking about economic realities, instead of being swept away by political rhetoric.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Barack Obama : America is a Gulag
With every speech Obama gives he reviles himself further as the true keeper of the socialist/communist mantel -
Is that harsh? Not at all - the use of misinformation, deliberate dishonesty and outright lies to divide a population is a basic tool of the liberal socialist left - history is riff with examples and how they all came to a cataclysmic end.
Never doubt the meaning of Obama's words for they tell us who he is and what he has in store for this country - the crowds may faint and cry over his speeches but in the end, it will be the faithful that will suffer along with the rest of us.
Remember, stay awake and listen closely for your future depends on you.
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Obama: Arab-American Families Being Rounded Up?
*By* *Lance Fairchok*
<http://www.americanthinker.com/lance_fairchok/>March 04, 2008
"If there is an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, it threatens my civil liberties. It is that fundamental belief, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, it is that fundamental belief that makes this country work." - Senator Barack Obama
In a televised twelve-second campaign spot aired in Texas, Senator Obama gives a stirring speech to a standing ovation. It is the predictable litany of American faults he will miraculously correct: literacy, expensive prescription drugs and insufficient civil liberties. However, he seems particularly concerned for Arab-Americans. "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, it threatens my civil liberties."
This was an astonishing statement, an infuriating statement and a statement that speaks volumes to Obama's ideology. Arab-American families being rounded up would not only threaten all our civil liberties, it would raise such a universal outcry, it could not long endure. Even the suggestion it could occur is a profound insult to our nation and our citizenry. It is an image of the gulag, the death camp, the dictatorship, and so inappropriate in any discussion about America, it is beneath our contempt.
Perhaps the Senator is carried away by his remarkable political ascendancy and so emboldened by the lack of critical comment in the press, he believes he can say anything. Perhaps he believes he has so mesmerized us with his oratory that we will not catch the inference of his words. Perhaps he really believes that we are that kind of country, that our people do not cherish civil liberty sufficiently to defend it for all citizens.
This despicable image of innocent families imprisoned and the ethnic cleansing it suggests is a theme the radical left nurtures. It is by design intended to portray an unjust and intolerant people, it was no error, no misstatement. It elicits moral outrage with false assumptions, endlessly repeating those assumptions until believed. It is behind the exaggeration of everything the U.S. does in the war on terror or against Islamic extremism. It is behind the hysteria over the Patriot Act.
As divorced from truth as it is, it is found everywhere in the propaganda of the left, from the Bush-Hitler signs, to the fabrications of American military wrongdoing in the press, to the invented Islamophobia in our populace. It is the motivation behind Michael Moore, Code Pink, MoveOn.Org and George Soros. It is unfortunately the message the media aids and abets.
This moral contrariness gives us American "progressives" embracing dictators and terrorists such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Iran's Ahmedinejhad and Syria's Bashar al Assad. It finds equivalence between defending America and Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorism. It believes malevolent evil can actually be stopped with dialogue and compromise. It gravitates to a miserable "better red than dead" nihilism that allows no pride or faith in America. It excuses our enemies and indicts everything American.
It is the impenitent legacy of the Carter and Clinton administrations. It is illogical and irrational and a road to failure and catastrophe."I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, it is that fundamental belief that makes this country work." Yet, he also says that our country does not work, that we need change. Even as he wraps this contradiction in biblical allusion and positive words like "Hope" and "Change We Can Believe In" his underlying belief system surfaces in clues overlooked by his handlers.
The bleak fantasy of Arab-American families interned for being Arabs and, of course, for being Muslim is very plausible to the radicals that help write his speeches. Senator Obama holds a wretched America in his heart, a country he has no pride in nor wishes to preserve. If his vision starts from failure, where will it end? There is no truth in his words, just as there is no substance. One may speak well, but still speak lies. An Obama presidency would be a disaster.
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil. - Cicero
Is that harsh? Not at all - the use of misinformation, deliberate dishonesty and outright lies to divide a population is a basic tool of the liberal socialist left - history is riff with examples and how they all came to a cataclysmic end.
Never doubt the meaning of Obama's words for they tell us who he is and what he has in store for this country - the crowds may faint and cry over his speeches but in the end, it will be the faithful that will suffer along with the rest of us.
Remember, stay awake and listen closely for your future depends on you.
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Obama: Arab-American Families Being Rounded Up?
*By* *Lance Fairchok*
<http://www.americanthinker.com/lance_fairchok/>March 04, 2008
"If there is an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, it threatens my civil liberties. It is that fundamental belief, I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, it is that fundamental belief that makes this country work." - Senator Barack Obama
In a televised twelve-second campaign spot aired in Texas, Senator Obama gives a stirring speech to a standing ovation. It is the predictable litany of American faults he will miraculously correct: literacy, expensive prescription drugs and insufficient civil liberties. However, he seems particularly concerned for Arab-Americans. "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney, it threatens my civil liberties."
This was an astonishing statement, an infuriating statement and a statement that speaks volumes to Obama's ideology. Arab-American families being rounded up would not only threaten all our civil liberties, it would raise such a universal outcry, it could not long endure. Even the suggestion it could occur is a profound insult to our nation and our citizenry. It is an image of the gulag, the death camp, the dictatorship, and so inappropriate in any discussion about America, it is beneath our contempt.
Perhaps the Senator is carried away by his remarkable political ascendancy and so emboldened by the lack of critical comment in the press, he believes he can say anything. Perhaps he believes he has so mesmerized us with his oratory that we will not catch the inference of his words. Perhaps he really believes that we are that kind of country, that our people do not cherish civil liberty sufficiently to defend it for all citizens.
This despicable image of innocent families imprisoned and the ethnic cleansing it suggests is a theme the radical left nurtures. It is by design intended to portray an unjust and intolerant people, it was no error, no misstatement. It elicits moral outrage with false assumptions, endlessly repeating those assumptions until believed. It is behind the exaggeration of everything the U.S. does in the war on terror or against Islamic extremism. It is behind the hysteria over the Patriot Act.
As divorced from truth as it is, it is found everywhere in the propaganda of the left, from the Bush-Hitler signs, to the fabrications of American military wrongdoing in the press, to the invented Islamophobia in our populace. It is the motivation behind Michael Moore, Code Pink, MoveOn.Org and George Soros. It is unfortunately the message the media aids and abets.
This moral contrariness gives us American "progressives" embracing dictators and terrorists such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Iran's Ahmedinejhad and Syria's Bashar al Assad. It finds equivalence between defending America and Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorism. It believes malevolent evil can actually be stopped with dialogue and compromise. It gravitates to a miserable "better red than dead" nihilism that allows no pride or faith in America. It excuses our enemies and indicts everything American.
It is the impenitent legacy of the Carter and Clinton administrations. It is illogical and irrational and a road to failure and catastrophe."I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper, it is that fundamental belief that makes this country work." Yet, he also says that our country does not work, that we need change. Even as he wraps this contradiction in biblical allusion and positive words like "Hope" and "Change We Can Believe In" his underlying belief system surfaces in clues overlooked by his handlers.
The bleak fantasy of Arab-American families interned for being Arabs and, of course, for being Muslim is very plausible to the radicals that help write his speeches. Senator Obama holds a wretched America in his heart, a country he has no pride in nor wishes to preserve. If his vision starts from failure, where will it end? There is no truth in his words, just as there is no substance. One may speak well, but still speak lies. An Obama presidency would be a disaster.
The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil. - Cicero
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Wind-Fall Profits Tax is a Disaster for US Markets : HR 5251
The following letter is from a citizen protesting the non-sense of this stupid legislation. When you read this and the "Media Claims and Facts" developed by Exxon/Mobil, think about how bill HR 5251 going through congress now will change your life and the lives of all your future off-spring. What percentage of your income are you will to pay for energy? How important is energy in your life?
This is no joke - it's text book socialism in it's purest form. The liberals want to take from the productive and give to the unproductive. This will kill instinctive country wide as other individuals and corporations will know they are next so why even try to get ahead.
What will this mean for new and existing jobs? You figure it out - da
Read between the lines people and Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
H.R. 5251, " The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008" is a wretchedly bad bill! I am really tired of paying extra taxes on some politicians' whim. These proposed taxes are not deductible on my Federal/State Income Taxes, and also reduce my discretionary income.
Penalizing companies that effectively manage their business and pay even more taxes because of their effective management practices is foolish in the extreme when the US needs energy so badly. Even worse, this legislation is an outright attack on the retirement income of many millions of hard working citizens.
For instance, 41% of the stock of Exxon/Mobil is owned by retirement funds for teachers, firefighters, police and other large organizations. 30+ % of Exxon/Mobile stock is owned by mutual funds, representing the retirement savings of many thrifty individuals, and much of the rest is held by individual investors who own stocks outside of a mutual fund. Why take money away from those who save and invest for their retirement?
Why take money from citizens retirement savings, and give it to the most profligate group of big spenders in the USA, The US Congress! Please kill this wretched bill!
*Wind-fall profits tax on oil **
The following facts and figures have been developed by Exxon/Mobil.**2-29-08 *
In the past several months, a number of media commentators and political leaders have been accusing the oil and gas industry of profiting from "special" tax subsidies and incentives, and asserting that the industry is somehow paying less than its 'fair share' of taxes. Few things could be further from the truth.
As you discuss with your family and friends proposals in the Congress to increase the industry's tax burden even further, you may want to be armed with some "fast facts" that take on some of these false claims. In response to the points below that were circulated recently by some Members of Congress, we are providing more complete information that rebuts some of the erroneous claims surrounding the industry's taxes and explains the short-sighted, harmful impacts of increasing industry's taxes at this time.
*Claim 1:* "This week, the House will vote to reinvest taxpayer subsidies to oil companies earning record profits into clean renewable energy—creating jobs and making America less dependent on foreign oil."
*The Facts:* These so-called "subsidies" are tax provisions applicable to *all US manufacturers and producers*. Specifically, the 2004 "American Jobs Creation Act" was enacted to lower the marginal tax rates for U.S. manufacturers and producers, in order to strengthen the American economy and preserve jobs here in the United States. Yet somehow they are described as "subsidies" only for oil companies -- not for other "manufacturers," ranging from farmers, ranchers, and coal and mineral producers, to coffee grinders, movie studios and video game producers.
The pending House energy tax bill would repeal the 2004 legislation in full for only 5 oil and natural gas companies, singling them out for "punishment" and ignoring the fact that on the "record" profits they have made, they have also paid record taxes. In a study published recently in _Tax Notes_, the three highest effective tax rates for 2004-2006 of some 80 companies surveyed were ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. These tax rates were some 13 percentage points above the 30% effective tax rate average for all 80 companies.
*Claim 2:* "The bill comes shortly after the big five oil companies reported their latest record profits in 2007 and as oil prices hit record highs. This morning, oil prices are near $100 a barrel. Several weeks ago, Exxon Mobil reported earning $40.6 billion in 2007 - the largest corporate profit in American history - equal to $132 for every U.S. resident."
*The Facts:* ExxonMobil also incurred, in 2007, income taxes of $32.4 billion (including ExxonMobil's share of equity company income taxes), also a record, which resulted in a 44% effective income tax rate. And all taxes incurred by ExxonMobil in 2007, including income, sales-based, and other taxes, were a staggering record of $106 billion -- equal to roughly $340 for every U.S. resident!*
Claim 3:* "High energy prices continue to squeeze American families. Since President Bush took office, gas prices are up 109%, and home heating prices are up 222%. Over the same time period, oil company profits are up 313%."*
The Facts:* But from just 2002 to 2005, oil company current income taxes were up over 460%! And looking at ExxonMobil specifically, from 2002 to 2007, profits increased by 254%, while income taxes increased by 360%.
*Claim 4:* "It is a waste of taxpayer dollars for oil companies to receive subsidies while making record profits."
*The Facts:* Oil companies are simply being taxed in the same way as all other US manufacturers and producers, and are paying record taxes on their earnings. Increasing tax rates further just on a handful of US companies is not "taking subsidies" away, but rather is simply *imposing a windfall profits tax on a few companies*, which will only serve to further increase our dependence on foreign energy sources, not reduce it.
*Claim 5:* "Congress... [is] working to lower energy costs, improve national security by making us more energy independent, end taxpayer-financed subsidies to big oil companies earning record profits, and combat global warming."
*The Facts:* Increasing taxes on US producers will do nothing to lower energy costs; if anything it will increase them. The Congressional Research Service, Congress' own research arm, has stated these proposals will reduce investments in domestic oil and gas, and will consequently increase imports. That would not make us more "energy independent."
*Claim 6:* "Renewable energy jobs and investment depend on a sign from Washington that there will be support for the industry to grow."
*The Facts:* Just three years ago, when it enacted the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Washington sent a sign that it wanted to promote employment in the US oil and gas industry, and all other US manufacturing and production sectors --not by picking "winners and losers," but by treating all equally. Repealing this provision for just one segment of US manufacturers and producers -- the oil and natural gas industry -- so soon after it was put in place, can hardly be a good sign of Washington's long term commitment to anything it "says" it seeks to promote.
What investors need is a stable tax environment that they can count on. In addition, recent federal energy legislation has already imposed massive market mandates -- and provided other subsidies -- for renewable energy sources. The best "signs" for capital investment in a free market should, in fact, come from the market, not Washington.
*Claim 7:* "Next week, the U.S. State Department co-hosts [a renewable energy conference] in Washington, with government ministers from 125 nations, billed as the largest renewable energy conference in history. The President goes into the conference opposing the House’s renewable energy legislation because he wants to protect oil company profits."
*The Facts:* The President does not necessarily oppose renewable energy legislation, and last year enacted into law a dramatic increase in a federal mandate for renewable fuels -- reaching 36 billion gallons by 2022. However, he has opposed increasing taxes on companies already paying record taxes, thereby discouraging domestic oil and gas investment and reducing the competitiveness of US based companies competing for energy resources in global markets.
This is no joke - it's text book socialism in it's purest form. The liberals want to take from the productive and give to the unproductive. This will kill instinctive country wide as other individuals and corporations will know they are next so why even try to get ahead.
What will this mean for new and existing jobs? You figure it out - da
Read between the lines people and Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
H.R. 5251, " The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008" is a wretchedly bad bill! I am really tired of paying extra taxes on some politicians' whim. These proposed taxes are not deductible on my Federal/State Income Taxes, and also reduce my discretionary income.
Penalizing companies that effectively manage their business and pay even more taxes because of their effective management practices is foolish in the extreme when the US needs energy so badly. Even worse, this legislation is an outright attack on the retirement income of many millions of hard working citizens.
For instance, 41% of the stock of Exxon/Mobil is owned by retirement funds for teachers, firefighters, police and other large organizations. 30+ % of Exxon/Mobile stock is owned by mutual funds, representing the retirement savings of many thrifty individuals, and much of the rest is held by individual investors who own stocks outside of a mutual fund. Why take money away from those who save and invest for their retirement?
Why take money from citizens retirement savings, and give it to the most profligate group of big spenders in the USA, The US Congress! Please kill this wretched bill!
*Wind-fall profits tax on oil **
The following facts and figures have been developed by Exxon/Mobil.**2-29-08 *
In the past several months, a number of media commentators and political leaders have been accusing the oil and gas industry of profiting from "special" tax subsidies and incentives, and asserting that the industry is somehow paying less than its 'fair share' of taxes. Few things could be further from the truth.
As you discuss with your family and friends proposals in the Congress to increase the industry's tax burden even further, you may want to be armed with some "fast facts" that take on some of these false claims. In response to the points below that were circulated recently by some Members of Congress, we are providing more complete information that rebuts some of the erroneous claims surrounding the industry's taxes and explains the short-sighted, harmful impacts of increasing industry's taxes at this time.
*Claim 1:* "This week, the House will vote to reinvest taxpayer subsidies to oil companies earning record profits into clean renewable energy—creating jobs and making America less dependent on foreign oil."
*The Facts:* These so-called "subsidies" are tax provisions applicable to *all US manufacturers and producers*. Specifically, the 2004 "American Jobs Creation Act" was enacted to lower the marginal tax rates for U.S. manufacturers and producers, in order to strengthen the American economy and preserve jobs here in the United States. Yet somehow they are described as "subsidies" only for oil companies -- not for other "manufacturers," ranging from farmers, ranchers, and coal and mineral producers, to coffee grinders, movie studios and video game producers.
The pending House energy tax bill would repeal the 2004 legislation in full for only 5 oil and natural gas companies, singling them out for "punishment" and ignoring the fact that on the "record" profits they have made, they have also paid record taxes. In a study published recently in _Tax Notes_, the three highest effective tax rates for 2004-2006 of some 80 companies surveyed were ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. These tax rates were some 13 percentage points above the 30% effective tax rate average for all 80 companies.
*Claim 2:* "The bill comes shortly after the big five oil companies reported their latest record profits in 2007 and as oil prices hit record highs. This morning, oil prices are near $100 a barrel. Several weeks ago, Exxon Mobil reported earning $40.6 billion in 2007 - the largest corporate profit in American history - equal to $132 for every U.S. resident."
*The Facts:* ExxonMobil also incurred, in 2007, income taxes of $32.4 billion (including ExxonMobil's share of equity company income taxes), also a record, which resulted in a 44% effective income tax rate. And all taxes incurred by ExxonMobil in 2007, including income, sales-based, and other taxes, were a staggering record of $106 billion -- equal to roughly $340 for every U.S. resident!*
Claim 3:* "High energy prices continue to squeeze American families. Since President Bush took office, gas prices are up 109%, and home heating prices are up 222%. Over the same time period, oil company profits are up 313%."*
The Facts:* But from just 2002 to 2005, oil company current income taxes were up over 460%! And looking at ExxonMobil specifically, from 2002 to 2007, profits increased by 254%, while income taxes increased by 360%.
*Claim 4:* "It is a waste of taxpayer dollars for oil companies to receive subsidies while making record profits."
*The Facts:* Oil companies are simply being taxed in the same way as all other US manufacturers and producers, and are paying record taxes on their earnings. Increasing tax rates further just on a handful of US companies is not "taking subsidies" away, but rather is simply *imposing a windfall profits tax on a few companies*, which will only serve to further increase our dependence on foreign energy sources, not reduce it.
*Claim 5:* "Congress... [is] working to lower energy costs, improve national security by making us more energy independent, end taxpayer-financed subsidies to big oil companies earning record profits, and combat global warming."
*The Facts:* Increasing taxes on US producers will do nothing to lower energy costs; if anything it will increase them. The Congressional Research Service, Congress' own research arm, has stated these proposals will reduce investments in domestic oil and gas, and will consequently increase imports. That would not make us more "energy independent."
*Claim 6:* "Renewable energy jobs and investment depend on a sign from Washington that there will be support for the industry to grow."
*The Facts:* Just three years ago, when it enacted the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Washington sent a sign that it wanted to promote employment in the US oil and gas industry, and all other US manufacturing and production sectors --not by picking "winners and losers," but by treating all equally. Repealing this provision for just one segment of US manufacturers and producers -- the oil and natural gas industry -- so soon after it was put in place, can hardly be a good sign of Washington's long term commitment to anything it "says" it seeks to promote.
What investors need is a stable tax environment that they can count on. In addition, recent federal energy legislation has already imposed massive market mandates -- and provided other subsidies -- for renewable energy sources. The best "signs" for capital investment in a free market should, in fact, come from the market, not Washington.
*Claim 7:* "Next week, the U.S. State Department co-hosts [a renewable energy conference] in Washington, with government ministers from 125 nations, billed as the largest renewable energy conference in history. The President goes into the conference opposing the House’s renewable energy legislation because he wants to protect oil company profits."
*The Facts:* The President does not necessarily oppose renewable energy legislation, and last year enacted into law a dramatic increase in a federal mandate for renewable fuels -- reaching 36 billion gallons by 2022. However, he has opposed increasing taxes on companies already paying record taxes, thereby discouraging domestic oil and gas investment and reducing the competitiveness of US based companies competing for energy resources in global markets.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Liberal Politicians Live in Darkness
As the saying goes, "Know the truth and the truth will set you free". And as we all know from early on, fear lurks in the shadows but joy and happiness comes in the light -
Here's another, "Many children are afraid of the dark, whereas many adults are afraid of the light" - We all know people that refuse to open their eyes to reality as it will not work for their life in the darkness of ignorance. And that leads to, " When ignorance is bless, tis folly to be wise".
Psalm 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path"
Here's another, "Many children are afraid of the dark, whereas many adults are afraid of the light" - We all know people that refuse to open their eyes to reality as it will not work for their life in the darkness of ignorance. And that leads to, " When ignorance is bless, tis folly to be wise".
Psalm 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path"
Conservatives Defined
I completely concur with this author as to what I stand for and whole heartily believe to be the very foundation of America. It is what our founding fathers moved here from England and all most every other nation on earth for and millions that have died to preserve since.
The liberal agenda is just the opposite - they want to destroy the foundations of individual freedom and Democracy, establish a government that is in total control of all aspects of our lives and set themselves up as leaders that will bleed the very life out of America to sustain their individual power.
Make no mistake - this is what they want. Just listen to Obama or Hillary in their speeches and then you decide what is real and what is fantasy. Do they really mean what they say or are they just more say what you think you what to hear - i.e. Bill Clinton in 1992 - remember, "time for a change".
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
The Misnomer of Conservatism
February 23, 2008* **By* *Bruce Walker* http://www.americanthinker.com/bruce_walker/
As we "conservatives" thrash about trying to find who is a real conservative, we should also seek to find what we mean by conservative.
Conservatism, supposedly, is like a stool with three legs: Fiscal, Social, and National Security. Those three concerns are what identify those of us on the "Right." Yet those of us who call ourselves conservatives see the silliness of that definition. If there were no national security threat, would those "National Security" conservatives cease to be conservative? No, of course not. If the national debt and entitlements were not obscenely vast, would those "Fiscal" conservatives cease to be conservative? Again, no. If/ Roe v. Wade/ were overruled and Americans began returning to churches and synagogues, would "Social" conservatives whither away? The very question seems absurd.
Why, then, do we have so many problems identifying what conservatism is in American politics? There is an easy, though not simple, answer to that question: What we have come to call "conservative" or the Right is a group of principles whose definitional names have been invented by those who hate those principles. Who gave us the terms "Left" and "Right"? The atheistic, murderous French Revolutionaries, who were themselves on the Left Bank of the Seine, and whose implacable enemies were on the Right Bank of the Seine. These monsters, overshadowed by the evils of other Leftists later, were quite prepared, by their own admission, to kill one quarter of the population of France - many millions of people - to achieve their revolutionary aims.
Who invented the terms "liberal," "conservative," "progressive," "reactionary," "revolutionary," "radical," and "moderate" in the sense that we use those terms today? Karl Marx and those who largely accepted the Marxian view of things created this lexicon of political shades. Marx, who influenced Lenin, Mussolini and Mao, has been allowed from the grave to give us those words that we use to describe our politics today.
Orwell presciently told us that language is the key to politics. He also warned us that the intention of those who seek power was to drain meaning from words so that we could not cogently grasp the enemy or his weapons. So we conservatives call ourselves "conservative" without any real notion of what that is supposed to mean. We consider ourselves on the Right in some notional ideological spectrum, without really knowing what this spectrum is supposed to represent.
Consider the silliness of words like "conservative" and "liberal," if we actually give those words their commonsense meaning. Which American would most conservatives view as one of their own? Thomas Jefferson would be high on the list. He supported states' rights; he dreaded an imperial judiciary; we believed that the government which governed least was the best government; he believed strongly in the American Dream (he is recognized as the father of American Exceptionalism); he also deeply revered Western Civilization and its contributors.
Thomas Jefferson would be considered an arch-conservative on most issues today.But what was Jefferson, if we use the ordinary meaning of the words we have been given to describe politics? He was a liberal, because he believed in freedom (the ordinary meaning of the word relates to Latin /libera/. He was a conservative, because he sought to conserve those traditional rights which Americans had possessed as subjects of the Crown under English Common Law. He was a radical, who wrote the transformative Declaration of Independence and who made the radical gamble on America implicit in the Louisiana Purchase. He was a reactionary, because he sought to "turn back the clock," when the British tried to redefine the status of colonials by depriving them of rights which Englishmen had under Common Law. He was a revolutionary, because he reached the conclusion that only a revolutionary war could do justice to the American cause. He was a moderate, because he sought a tranquil, limited, apolitical government.
What Jefferson "was" ideologically was defined by the particular events happening at the time and upon the context in which those events happened. Yet Jefferson was not inconsistent in his political views: he was very consistent. He did not change, but rather the meaningless terms to define his actions and words had to change to meet the consistency of Jefferson. It is not unimportant that Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers never used terms like "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive." And, despite the fact that his Presidency came after the French Revolution, Jefferson never used the term "Left" or "Right." Jefferson, one of the most brilliant and learned political thinkers in history, never used the silly language that we do today to describe political thought.
Did that mean that Jefferson did not write about politics and government? Quite the contrary: He wrote extensively, brilliantly, lucidly, and deeply. What he wrote about was not ideology, but rather specific principles that he believed were essential for good government. Jefferson believed in very limited government. He believed in strong individual rights. He believed in strong states and weak federal government. He believed that America was unique and vital to the world. If someone wanted to use a name to describe what Jefferson believed, that was his right, but Jefferson defined himself, who he was.
What is true of Jefferson is also true of other Americans who have been plopped by our enemies as being on the "Far Right." Barry Goldwater, for example, strongly believed in equal protection for blacks before the law. He supported personally the NAACP in Arizona. He was utterly free from bigotry himself. Goldwater also supported environmentalism when it was not popular, but he did that with the recognition that nature is not God and that conservation should be measured and reasonable. His policies in those areas did not fit into what someone on the "Right" was supposed to believe, but, like Jefferson, Goldwater was quite content to define himself.
What those of us who believe in the importance of liberty in human affairs, the vital goodness of America, the necessity of personal honesty in any healthy society, and the necessity of a Blessed Creator to any noble concept of life need, is to define ourselves and also to define our enemies. We who have been called "conservative" (because we somehow have not accepted the Marxian idea of progress) are ultimately just people who believe in truth. Many "conservatives" came to conservatism (whatever that is) because the Left is so permeated with lies and self-delusion (Exhibit A: Global Warming.)
How do we define our enemies? Some of us might like to call them "socialists," but that is using a vacuous Marxist term to describe a very real attitude. They do not really believe in anything, except power. Why is Hillary running for president? She wants power -- it is her turn. Why did Democrats lust to regain Congress in 2006? Power is the answer (have they even tried to /do/ anything but harass President Bush?)
When the craving for power transcends every other human longing, then the importance of truth and honor shrinks to nothing. The bondage of lies is just as great as any other bondage. Our enemies seek to manacle us and allow, without always knowing it, themselves to be manacled as well. So we could call them power addicts, but perhaps the purest term to describe them is as bondsmen in the party of pathological lies.
The liberal agenda is just the opposite - they want to destroy the foundations of individual freedom and Democracy, establish a government that is in total control of all aspects of our lives and set themselves up as leaders that will bleed the very life out of America to sustain their individual power.
Make no mistake - this is what they want. Just listen to Obama or Hillary in their speeches and then you decide what is real and what is fantasy. Do they really mean what they say or are they just more say what you think you what to hear - i.e. Bill Clinton in 1992 - remember, "time for a change".
Keep the faith, the battle is joined!
The Misnomer of Conservatism
February 23, 2008* **By* *Bruce Walker* http://www.americanthinker.com/bruce_walker/
As we "conservatives" thrash about trying to find who is a real conservative, we should also seek to find what we mean by conservative.
Conservatism, supposedly, is like a stool with three legs: Fiscal, Social, and National Security. Those three concerns are what identify those of us on the "Right." Yet those of us who call ourselves conservatives see the silliness of that definition. If there were no national security threat, would those "National Security" conservatives cease to be conservative? No, of course not. If the national debt and entitlements were not obscenely vast, would those "Fiscal" conservatives cease to be conservative? Again, no. If/ Roe v. Wade/ were overruled and Americans began returning to churches and synagogues, would "Social" conservatives whither away? The very question seems absurd.
Why, then, do we have so many problems identifying what conservatism is in American politics? There is an easy, though not simple, answer to that question: What we have come to call "conservative" or the Right is a group of principles whose definitional names have been invented by those who hate those principles. Who gave us the terms "Left" and "Right"? The atheistic, murderous French Revolutionaries, who were themselves on the Left Bank of the Seine, and whose implacable enemies were on the Right Bank of the Seine. These monsters, overshadowed by the evils of other Leftists later, were quite prepared, by their own admission, to kill one quarter of the population of France - many millions of people - to achieve their revolutionary aims.
Who invented the terms "liberal," "conservative," "progressive," "reactionary," "revolutionary," "radical," and "moderate" in the sense that we use those terms today? Karl Marx and those who largely accepted the Marxian view of things created this lexicon of political shades. Marx, who influenced Lenin, Mussolini and Mao, has been allowed from the grave to give us those words that we use to describe our politics today.
Orwell presciently told us that language is the key to politics. He also warned us that the intention of those who seek power was to drain meaning from words so that we could not cogently grasp the enemy or his weapons. So we conservatives call ourselves "conservative" without any real notion of what that is supposed to mean. We consider ourselves on the Right in some notional ideological spectrum, without really knowing what this spectrum is supposed to represent.
Consider the silliness of words like "conservative" and "liberal," if we actually give those words their commonsense meaning. Which American would most conservatives view as one of their own? Thomas Jefferson would be high on the list. He supported states' rights; he dreaded an imperial judiciary; we believed that the government which governed least was the best government; he believed strongly in the American Dream (he is recognized as the father of American Exceptionalism); he also deeply revered Western Civilization and its contributors.
Thomas Jefferson would be considered an arch-conservative on most issues today.But what was Jefferson, if we use the ordinary meaning of the words we have been given to describe politics? He was a liberal, because he believed in freedom (the ordinary meaning of the word relates to Latin /libera/. He was a conservative, because he sought to conserve those traditional rights which Americans had possessed as subjects of the Crown under English Common Law. He was a radical, who wrote the transformative Declaration of Independence and who made the radical gamble on America implicit in the Louisiana Purchase. He was a reactionary, because he sought to "turn back the clock," when the British tried to redefine the status of colonials by depriving them of rights which Englishmen had under Common Law. He was a revolutionary, because he reached the conclusion that only a revolutionary war could do justice to the American cause. He was a moderate, because he sought a tranquil, limited, apolitical government.
What Jefferson "was" ideologically was defined by the particular events happening at the time and upon the context in which those events happened. Yet Jefferson was not inconsistent in his political views: he was very consistent. He did not change, but rather the meaningless terms to define his actions and words had to change to meet the consistency of Jefferson. It is not unimportant that Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers never used terms like "liberal" or "conservative" or "progressive." And, despite the fact that his Presidency came after the French Revolution, Jefferson never used the term "Left" or "Right." Jefferson, one of the most brilliant and learned political thinkers in history, never used the silly language that we do today to describe political thought.
Did that mean that Jefferson did not write about politics and government? Quite the contrary: He wrote extensively, brilliantly, lucidly, and deeply. What he wrote about was not ideology, but rather specific principles that he believed were essential for good government. Jefferson believed in very limited government. He believed in strong individual rights. He believed in strong states and weak federal government. He believed that America was unique and vital to the world. If someone wanted to use a name to describe what Jefferson believed, that was his right, but Jefferson defined himself, who he was.
What is true of Jefferson is also true of other Americans who have been plopped by our enemies as being on the "Far Right." Barry Goldwater, for example, strongly believed in equal protection for blacks before the law. He supported personally the NAACP in Arizona. He was utterly free from bigotry himself. Goldwater also supported environmentalism when it was not popular, but he did that with the recognition that nature is not God and that conservation should be measured and reasonable. His policies in those areas did not fit into what someone on the "Right" was supposed to believe, but, like Jefferson, Goldwater was quite content to define himself.
What those of us who believe in the importance of liberty in human affairs, the vital goodness of America, the necessity of personal honesty in any healthy society, and the necessity of a Blessed Creator to any noble concept of life need, is to define ourselves and also to define our enemies. We who have been called "conservative" (because we somehow have not accepted the Marxian idea of progress) are ultimately just people who believe in truth. Many "conservatives" came to conservatism (whatever that is) because the Left is so permeated with lies and self-delusion (Exhibit A: Global Warming.)
How do we define our enemies? Some of us might like to call them "socialists," but that is using a vacuous Marxist term to describe a very real attitude. They do not really believe in anything, except power. Why is Hillary running for president? She wants power -- it is her turn. Why did Democrats lust to regain Congress in 2006? Power is the answer (have they even tried to /do/ anything but harass President Bush?)
When the craving for power transcends every other human longing, then the importance of truth and honor shrinks to nothing. The bondage of lies is just as great as any other bondage. Our enemies seek to manacle us and allow, without always knowing it, themselves to be manacled as well. So we could call them power addicts, but perhaps the purest term to describe them is as bondsmen in the party of pathological lies.
Monday, March 03, 2008
National Intelligence Report False : Nuclear Iran
As usual, congress and the media pick and chose what they want to print to support their agenda - an agenda of surrendering American independence and sovereignty to world socialist tyrants. But then socialists make up a large percentage of our congress.
What's worse is we know this but keep electing them and reelecting them. The question remains, what will we do this November? Throw the bums out and demand competence from our legislatures or bury our heads in the sand and just hope for the best. Watching the participants at the church of Obama is not encouraging. Watching the hoards with their eyes glazed over and spittle running down their chins as they calmer to get close to the new messiah scares the hell out of me.
For National reasons, it is imperative that conservatives control one branch of the government - the best case scenario is both, of course, but that may be to much to hope for. Maybe in this instance Obama is right, we need hope to stop our own destruction at the hands of the liberals.
One doesn't have to use too much imagination to see a bomb coming across the boarder in the mad dash by the Mexican population fleeing violence and starvation. But I'm sure Obama's force of personality would be enough to stop the worst from happening.
Stay focused and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Mahmoud Swing
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008
4:20 PM PT
*Weapons Of Mass Destruction:* Computer simulations by the European Union indicate that Tehran could have enough uranium for a bomb by year's end. Meanwhile, Iran tests a missile that could reach the U.S.
Becoming a genuine nuclear power is a three-step process. You must be able to generate enough fissile material for a bomb. You need a delivery system — i.e. a ballistic missile. And you need to "weaponize" the material, build the bomb and mate it to your missile.
It was the third part that last year's National Intelligence Estimate had said Iran had suspended. But as Uzi Rubin, an engineer and missile expert who served with Israel's Defense Ministry, notes, producing enough weapons-grade fissile material is the hard part; assembling the warhead is easy.
Under the Manhattan Project, once our plants had produced enough weapons-grade material, it took the bomb makers of Los Alamos just six months to detonate the first nuclear weapon at Alamogordo, N.M. Computer simulations of the centrifuges currently used by Iran at its Natanz facility were run recently by the European Commission Joint Research Center (JRC) in Ispra, Italy. The JRC modeled each of the centrifuges individually and then linked them together to form the type of "cascade" necessary to enrich uranium.
Using 18 cascades of 164 centrifuges each operating at 100% efficiency, the JRC determined Iran could have the 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary for a nuke by the end of this year — about the time we'll select a new president to deal with Iran.
At only 25% efficiency, it would take until 2010. What the JRC makes clear is that it's a matter of when, not if.
Another factor is the type of centrifuges used. The JRC simulations assumed the use of 2,952 P1 centrifuges. The "P" stands for Pakistan, as in the centrifuges sold to Iran by Abdul Qadir Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb. They are made out of aluminum. The JRC suspects Iran may be installing "IR2" centrifuges, made out of carbon fiber and 2.5 times as powerful.
Last month, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency, noted that Iran was "developing missiles at an accelerated pace" and was in fact the third most active country in the world, after Russia and China. Now there's a trifecta.Gen. Obering said this showed why U.S. plans to deploy missile interceptors and tracking radars in Poland are so important, despite Vladimir Putin's objections.
Of further concern is an Iranian missile test conducted earlier this month at the Iranian space center in the Semnan Desert southeast of Tehran. The test, witnessed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was of a modified three-stage Shahab-3B missile, which was described as a space launch vehicle. It's this missile Iran hopes will orbit a satellite as early as this summer.
Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, former chief of staff of Russia's Strategic Missile Force, said the Iranian launch showed Iran could produce liquid-fuel rocket engines that would give missiles a 2,500-mile range or more. With strap-on boosters, they could reach North America. As for last year's NIE report, which claimed Iran had halted its program in 2003, that conclusion now seems very wrong.
Britain's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency this week said that documents from multiple sources recently presented to the U.N. nuclear watchdog prove Iran continued its nuclear program after 2003.
So much for the NIE's politicized report.
Iran is frighteningly close to becoming the first Muslim country with a global nuclear reach. This is why the recent shootdown of a decaying spy satellite with a Navy missile looms so important. It is also why the experience and hard realism of a John McCain is infinitely preferable to the naive rhetoric of a Barack Obama.
What's worse is we know this but keep electing them and reelecting them. The question remains, what will we do this November? Throw the bums out and demand competence from our legislatures or bury our heads in the sand and just hope for the best. Watching the participants at the church of Obama is not encouraging. Watching the hoards with their eyes glazed over and spittle running down their chins as they calmer to get close to the new messiah scares the hell out of me.
For National reasons, it is imperative that conservatives control one branch of the government - the best case scenario is both, of course, but that may be to much to hope for. Maybe in this instance Obama is right, we need hope to stop our own destruction at the hands of the liberals.
One doesn't have to use too much imagination to see a bomb coming across the boarder in the mad dash by the Mexican population fleeing violence and starvation. But I'm sure Obama's force of personality would be enough to stop the worst from happening.
Stay focused and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Mahmoud Swing
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008
4:20 PM PT
*Weapons Of Mass Destruction:* Computer simulations by the European Union indicate that Tehran could have enough uranium for a bomb by year's end. Meanwhile, Iran tests a missile that could reach the U.S.
Becoming a genuine nuclear power is a three-step process. You must be able to generate enough fissile material for a bomb. You need a delivery system — i.e. a ballistic missile. And you need to "weaponize" the material, build the bomb and mate it to your missile.
It was the third part that last year's National Intelligence Estimate had said Iran had suspended. But as Uzi Rubin, an engineer and missile expert who served with Israel's Defense Ministry, notes, producing enough weapons-grade fissile material is the hard part; assembling the warhead is easy.
Under the Manhattan Project, once our plants had produced enough weapons-grade material, it took the bomb makers of Los Alamos just six months to detonate the first nuclear weapon at Alamogordo, N.M. Computer simulations of the centrifuges currently used by Iran at its Natanz facility were run recently by the European Commission Joint Research Center (JRC) in Ispra, Italy. The JRC modeled each of the centrifuges individually and then linked them together to form the type of "cascade" necessary to enrich uranium.
Using 18 cascades of 164 centrifuges each operating at 100% efficiency, the JRC determined Iran could have the 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary for a nuke by the end of this year — about the time we'll select a new president to deal with Iran.
At only 25% efficiency, it would take until 2010. What the JRC makes clear is that it's a matter of when, not if.
Another factor is the type of centrifuges used. The JRC simulations assumed the use of 2,952 P1 centrifuges. The "P" stands for Pakistan, as in the centrifuges sold to Iran by Abdul Qadir Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb. They are made out of aluminum. The JRC suspects Iran may be installing "IR2" centrifuges, made out of carbon fiber and 2.5 times as powerful.
Last month, Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, head of the Missile Defense Agency, noted that Iran was "developing missiles at an accelerated pace" and was in fact the third most active country in the world, after Russia and China. Now there's a trifecta.Gen. Obering said this showed why U.S. plans to deploy missile interceptors and tracking radars in Poland are so important, despite Vladimir Putin's objections.
Of further concern is an Iranian missile test conducted earlier this month at the Iranian space center in the Semnan Desert southeast of Tehran. The test, witnessed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was of a modified three-stage Shahab-3B missile, which was described as a space launch vehicle. It's this missile Iran hopes will orbit a satellite as early as this summer.
Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, former chief of staff of Russia's Strategic Missile Force, said the Iranian launch showed Iran could produce liquid-fuel rocket engines that would give missiles a 2,500-mile range or more. With strap-on boosters, they could reach North America. As for last year's NIE report, which claimed Iran had halted its program in 2003, that conclusion now seems very wrong.
Britain's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency this week said that documents from multiple sources recently presented to the U.N. nuclear watchdog prove Iran continued its nuclear program after 2003.
So much for the NIE's politicized report.
Iran is frighteningly close to becoming the first Muslim country with a global nuclear reach. This is why the recent shootdown of a decaying spy satellite with a Navy missile looms so important. It is also why the experience and hard realism of a John McCain is infinitely preferable to the naive rhetoric of a Barack Obama.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
More Violance in Mexico : Refuges Will Flee North
The problem in Mexico just seems to get worse by the day - we would never know this unless there are people keeping an eye on the problem to let others know what is actually happening south of the border. People that live in our southern states and care about this country, but certainly not those in Washington.
The people in the know, of course, are not those responsibility to do something about it - the congress and the president have chosen to turn a blind eye to what is becoming a national treat to the Sourthen border of the United States.
If we don't move to build the wall as fast as we can, a few cameras and the border patrol will not have a chance to stop tens of thousands of Mexicans from fleeing across the border to safety. They will over run our southern states and then flee further north as fast and far as they can.
How do you think our medical system will handle this? How many terrorists will come across at the same time? What about housing? Food - the real reason why they are here in the first place.
Who will we blame? We are always ready to point the finger at someone. Who dropped the ball? Who didn't care one spit to build the fence when we had the chance?
Read this and remember those in the seats of power that did nothing.
Stay alert and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
*Crisis in Mexico Is Headed North
*By Brig. Gen. Greg Zanetti <http://www.abqjournal.com/cgi-bin/email_reporter.pl>
New Mexico National Guard
The perfect storm for social upheaval is now brewing in Mexico— and in particular Mexico's northern states along the U.S. border.
The first storm front is to the east at a place called Cantarell. Long a blessing, Cantarell is Mexico's largest oil field— and largest source of government funds. Output from Cantarell is down more than 15 percent from last year and many believe the field is now in irreversible decline. Thus, government budgets are being strained.
The second front is to the north. As the U.S. economy has slowed so have remittances from the United States to Mexico. The housing crunch has disproportionately affected Mexican labor (both legal and > illegal). As U.S. construction, landscaping, remodeling, and other housing-related jobs have evaporated so has a vital source of income to Mexico.
The third storm front is food. America's well-intentioned but misguided emphasis on ethanol has caused food prices to rise beyond the poor's income. Corn prices have tripled and tortilla prices have soared. Food riots and protests are now common throughout Mexico and confidence in the government is eroding.
The result is this: income flows to Mexico are falling while social unrest is rising. Predictably, this storm is now manifesting in violence in Mexico's northern states and it is becoming apparent that Mexico is having difficulties maintaining stability. Meanwhile, drug cartels are having no such monetary problems.
Well-financed and well-armed drug cartels effectively compete with Mexican police and army units for control of large sections of the border. Open shoot-outs between government forces and drug gangs are becoming more common. When the power shifts enough, the drug cartel effectively becomes the ruling government. When the government gets the upper hand, however, it is not uncommon for the drug lords to flee across the border to sanctuary in the United States, where they rearm, re-equip and reorganize. Some Texas towns are now warning their citizens to stay away from the border because the lawlessness is out of control.
Meanwhile, south of the border, Mexico's honest citizens are faced with one of three choices: hide, fight or flee. Most are currently choosing to hide with the hope that the violence will subside. If, however, the violence escalates and conditions continue to deteriorate, history is clear— flight becomes the next best option. More than likely they will flee north to safety. Thus, while the debate rages in America over illegal immigration, events on the ground are evolving in an entirely different direction. America's next border issue may not involve people crossing to improve their lives, but rather people crossing to save their lives.
Zanetti, along with 80 other members of the N.M. National Guard, is serving a year-long tour at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he is second in command. *All content copyright © ABQJournal.com *
The people in the know, of course, are not those responsibility to do something about it - the congress and the president have chosen to turn a blind eye to what is becoming a national treat to the Sourthen border of the United States.
If we don't move to build the wall as fast as we can, a few cameras and the border patrol will not have a chance to stop tens of thousands of Mexicans from fleeing across the border to safety. They will over run our southern states and then flee further north as fast and far as they can.
How do you think our medical system will handle this? How many terrorists will come across at the same time? What about housing? Food - the real reason why they are here in the first place.
Who will we blame? We are always ready to point the finger at someone. Who dropped the ball? Who didn't care one spit to build the fence when we had the chance?
Read this and remember those in the seats of power that did nothing.
Stay alert and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
*Crisis in Mexico Is Headed North
*By Brig. Gen. Greg Zanetti <http://www.abqjournal.com/cgi-bin/email_reporter.pl>
New Mexico National Guard
The perfect storm for social upheaval is now brewing in Mexico— and in particular Mexico's northern states along the U.S. border.
The first storm front is to the east at a place called Cantarell. Long a blessing, Cantarell is Mexico's largest oil field— and largest source of government funds. Output from Cantarell is down more than 15 percent from last year and many believe the field is now in irreversible decline. Thus, government budgets are being strained.
The second front is to the north. As the U.S. economy has slowed so have remittances from the United States to Mexico. The housing crunch has disproportionately affected Mexican labor (both legal and > illegal). As U.S. construction, landscaping, remodeling, and other housing-related jobs have evaporated so has a vital source of income to Mexico.
The third storm front is food. America's well-intentioned but misguided emphasis on ethanol has caused food prices to rise beyond the poor's income. Corn prices have tripled and tortilla prices have soared. Food riots and protests are now common throughout Mexico and confidence in the government is eroding.
The result is this: income flows to Mexico are falling while social unrest is rising. Predictably, this storm is now manifesting in violence in Mexico's northern states and it is becoming apparent that Mexico is having difficulties maintaining stability. Meanwhile, drug cartels are having no such monetary problems.
Well-financed and well-armed drug cartels effectively compete with Mexican police and army units for control of large sections of the border. Open shoot-outs between government forces and drug gangs are becoming more common. When the power shifts enough, the drug cartel effectively becomes the ruling government. When the government gets the upper hand, however, it is not uncommon for the drug lords to flee across the border to sanctuary in the United States, where they rearm, re-equip and reorganize. Some Texas towns are now warning their citizens to stay away from the border because the lawlessness is out of control.
Meanwhile, south of the border, Mexico's honest citizens are faced with one of three choices: hide, fight or flee. Most are currently choosing to hide with the hope that the violence will subside. If, however, the violence escalates and conditions continue to deteriorate, history is clear— flight becomes the next best option. More than likely they will flee north to safety. Thus, while the debate rages in America over illegal immigration, events on the ground are evolving in an entirely different direction. America's next border issue may not involve people crossing to improve their lives, but rather people crossing to save their lives.
Zanetti, along with 80 other members of the N.M. National Guard, is serving a year-long tour at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he is second in command. *All content copyright © ABQJournal.com *
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Personal Protection : Own a Gun
Did you ever wonder why we have a love affair with guns? It's called taking responsibility for your own safety and those that you love. Aside from that, it is the power of freedom and dominance that we want to own a gun. We feel like we can control our immediate environment without asking for help, i.e., we take responsibility for ourselves as individuals, not depending on the group to do it for us. We do not want to have government intervention at all levels of our lives.
This is what the liberals want though, total dependence on others - control of the population is so much easier that way.
This is what makes America strong - Yeah, there are those that take advantage of the weak with the use of a gun, but that element is everywhere in this world - to deny this is liberal poppy-cock.
So keep your powder dry and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Ready to Shoot
by Ed Nowicki and David Kopel
This article appeared in the Baltimore Sun = baltimoresun.com on February 27, 2008.
Taking handguns away from law-abiding civilians can endanger them - that's a familiar argument. What most people might not know is that many police organizations also oppose handgun bans because of the harm they can cause to police training and preparedness.That's what we argued this month when we filed a friend-of-the-court brief against the District of Columbia's handgun ban in the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of us, Ed Nowicki, is head of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, a professional association of police trainers. We were joined in the brief by the other major police firearms training organization, the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors.
The lawful availability of handguns for citizens provides the police with a much larger pool of recruits who have experience with handgun safety, and who have learned basic familiarity or developed proficiency in the use of handguns. That's why our brief was joined by a broad coalition of law enforcement organizations, including the Maryland Fraternal Order of Police.
The widespread civilian possession of handguns also helps the police do their job.
A citizen who has experience with handguns in hunting or target shooting will have acquired the habit of keeping his finger off the trigger until the last instant before the shot. For a police officer, this is a life-or-death skill; staying off the trigger while drawing the weapon in an emergency prevents accidental shootings.Likewise, a police recruit who has enjoyed target shooting as a civilian will have learned how to hold a handgun with a strong but not over-tight grip, and how to keep the gun steady while firing, avoiding the muzzle flip that causes missed shots.
There are only so many hours in a police academy for firearms training. If a trainee is picking up a handgun for the first time, he will have to spend time acquiring elementary familiarity with its operation - flipping the safety on and off, and reloading quickly. It takes a while for these actions to become second nature, and that time would be better spent refining already developed skills, such as practicing engagement with multiple targets.
Another amicus brief, filed by a group of retired generals and admirals, makes a similar point about military training and describes research showing that military recruits who have firearms training in civilian life perform much better in combat.
Many innovations in police firearms training have been created by civilian trainers, who often have more time to dedicate to the subject than do police instructors; many police instructors do not teach fulltime, and those who do must teach a variety of subjects. For the same reason, many police firearms instructors are civilians.
Ed Nowicki, a 33-year police veteran, is executive director of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association. David B. Kopel is an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute. ore by David B. Kopel http://www.cato.org/people/kopel.html
Jeff Cooper, a civilian, invented The Modern Technique, which is now the standard model for defensive pistolcraft. Mr. Cooper created the technique after World War II, based on his observations that Army handgun shooting methods were far from optimally effective. Many thousands of police officers - and police trainers - learned their skills at Mr. Cooper's Gunsite Ranch in Arizona. Other civilian experts, such as Massad Ayoob of New Hampshire and John Farnam of Colorado, have also made important contributions to handgun doctrine, and have themselves trained many police officers and police instructors.
The widespread civilian possession of handguns also helps the police do their job. In countries such as the United Kingdom (where handguns are banned) or the Netherlands (where handguns are rare), the home-invasion burglary rate is 48 percent to 59 percent, and many home-invasion burglaries lead to assaults or rapes.
In the United States, only 13 percent of house burglaries take place when someone is home, and studies show this is because about half of U.S. homeowners have a gun. And handguns are by far the best guns for home defense, because they're easy to maneuver in confined spaces and hard for criminals to grab.
Because there are so many fewer home invasions in America, there are many fewer emergencies to which the police must respond. Thus, the police have more resources available to thwart, investigate or deter other crimes.Where law-abiding people are allowed to have guns, criminals know they're rolling the dice.
This is what the liberals want though, total dependence on others - control of the population is so much easier that way.
This is what makes America strong - Yeah, there are those that take advantage of the weak with the use of a gun, but that element is everywhere in this world - to deny this is liberal poppy-cock.
So keep your powder dry and keep the faith, the battle is joined!
Ready to Shoot
by Ed Nowicki and David Kopel
This article appeared in the Baltimore Sun = baltimoresun.com on February 27, 2008.
Taking handguns away from law-abiding civilians can endanger them - that's a familiar argument. What most people might not know is that many police organizations also oppose handgun bans because of the harm they can cause to police training and preparedness.That's what we argued this month when we filed a friend-of-the-court brief against the District of Columbia's handgun ban in the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of us, Ed Nowicki, is head of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, a professional association of police trainers. We were joined in the brief by the other major police firearms training organization, the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors.
The lawful availability of handguns for citizens provides the police with a much larger pool of recruits who have experience with handgun safety, and who have learned basic familiarity or developed proficiency in the use of handguns. That's why our brief was joined by a broad coalition of law enforcement organizations, including the Maryland Fraternal Order of Police.
The widespread civilian possession of handguns also helps the police do their job.
A citizen who has experience with handguns in hunting or target shooting will have acquired the habit of keeping his finger off the trigger until the last instant before the shot. For a police officer, this is a life-or-death skill; staying off the trigger while drawing the weapon in an emergency prevents accidental shootings.Likewise, a police recruit who has enjoyed target shooting as a civilian will have learned how to hold a handgun with a strong but not over-tight grip, and how to keep the gun steady while firing, avoiding the muzzle flip that causes missed shots.
There are only so many hours in a police academy for firearms training. If a trainee is picking up a handgun for the first time, he will have to spend time acquiring elementary familiarity with its operation - flipping the safety on and off, and reloading quickly. It takes a while for these actions to become second nature, and that time would be better spent refining already developed skills, such as practicing engagement with multiple targets.
Another amicus brief, filed by a group of retired generals and admirals, makes a similar point about military training and describes research showing that military recruits who have firearms training in civilian life perform much better in combat.
Many innovations in police firearms training have been created by civilian trainers, who often have more time to dedicate to the subject than do police instructors; many police instructors do not teach fulltime, and those who do must teach a variety of subjects. For the same reason, many police firearms instructors are civilians.
Ed Nowicki, a 33-year police veteran, is executive director of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association. David B. Kopel is an associate policy analyst with the Cato Institute. ore by David B. Kopel http://www.cato.org/people/kopel.html
Jeff Cooper, a civilian, invented The Modern Technique, which is now the standard model for defensive pistolcraft. Mr. Cooper created the technique after World War II, based on his observations that Army handgun shooting methods were far from optimally effective. Many thousands of police officers - and police trainers - learned their skills at Mr. Cooper's Gunsite Ranch in Arizona. Other civilian experts, such as Massad Ayoob of New Hampshire and John Farnam of Colorado, have also made important contributions to handgun doctrine, and have themselves trained many police officers and police instructors.
The widespread civilian possession of handguns also helps the police do their job. In countries such as the United Kingdom (where handguns are banned) or the Netherlands (where handguns are rare), the home-invasion burglary rate is 48 percent to 59 percent, and many home-invasion burglaries lead to assaults or rapes.
In the United States, only 13 percent of house burglaries take place when someone is home, and studies show this is because about half of U.S. homeowners have a gun. And handguns are by far the best guns for home defense, because they're easy to maneuver in confined spaces and hard for criminals to grab.
Because there are so many fewer home invasions in America, there are many fewer emergencies to which the police must respond. Thus, the police have more resources available to thwart, investigate or deter other crimes.Where law-abiding people are allowed to have guns, criminals know they're rolling the dice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
