Monday, April 30, 2012

Democrat comic scorches Obama again

Jon Lovitz

“Saturday Night Live” comedic legend Jon Lovitz is doubling down on his harsh criticism of Barack Obama’s alleged wealth confiscation and redistribution policies, claiming the president is lying to Americans.

“The President is lying to get votes … it’s obvious and transparent,” Lovitz, a self-proclaimed Democrat who voted for Obama in 2008, said on his Twitter feed Saturday night.

Lovitz was responding to criticism from those apparently in his own party, after the comic in January went on a graphic, four-letter word diatribe against Obama, calling him “a f—ing a–hole.”

Lovitz seemed a bit surprised his comments became widely reported, tweeting, “Because I criticized the President, it’s news? Last I checked, he’s President, not King! This is America! Freedom of Speech. what’s the bfd?”

One apparent liberal named Peg said to Lovitz, “This is red meat for conservatives who are trying to prove the whole country hates him, you gave them ammo, they’re using it.”

“Excuse me,” responded Lovitz, “the President is lying … I just pointed it out. It’s not my fault he’s lying.”

He added: “I haven’t gotten any backlash. I am a Democrat and liberal … Liberal, from the word “Liberty” Freedom to be who you are … be it conservative, democrat, republican, libertarian … liberal … freedom to be true to yourself … that’s what liberal means.”

Another critic told Lovitz, “You criticized the wrong president. If you’d blasted Bush, you’d be funny, smart, and possibly a hero.”

“I have blasted Bush … in my stand up act,” said Lovitz. “No one commented on it, though.”

Someone with a handle of Dan The Man told Lovitz he should pay more in taxes: “The majority of celebrities I’ve seen on TV lately say they make a lot of money & they don’t mind paying a lil more.”

Lovitz responded, “I don’t mind paying a little more. I pay my fair share now. The President is lying to get votes…it’s obvious and transparent.”

Coretta Graham then tweeted her own obscenities, telling Lovitz, “U Sir are the F*** A-hole. The rich (people making over 250k) do not pay their fair share of taxes. That is a Fact.”

“Well, you’ve proven my point,” said Lovitz. “You believe the propaganda. I know what I am paying in taxes. You are being lied to.”

“I was upset with the President LYING,” he added. “I pay my fair share of taxes and so does everyone else I know who is in the same tax bracket.”

Lovitz, best known for his catchphrase of “Yeah, that’s the ticket” by his character, the pathological liar Tommy Flanagan, dropped the F-bomb on Obama in a January podcast that became widely known last week.

The podcast, titled “The ABC’s of SNL,” was co-hosted by filmmaker Kevin Smith, and billed as being recorded “live from the Jon Lovitz Podcast Theatre.” (WARNING: Comments made in the YouTube video of the event contain obscene material.)

Lovitz said: “This whole thing with Obama saying the rich don’t pay their taxes is f—ing bullsh–. And I voted for the guy, and I’m a Democrat. What a f—ing a–hole. The rich don’t pay their taxes? Let me tell you something, right. First they say to you, you’re dead broke, ‘the United States of America, you can do anything you want, go for it.’ So then you go for it and then you make it, and everyone’s like ‘f— you.’”

Lovitz went on to say Obama “is the perfect example. He’s amazing. He had nothing. He had no father. He was, you know, of mixed race which is a burden in the United, don’t kid yourself, you know, growing up like that, and no money, and the guy ends up being at Harvard. He’s the President of the United States. And now he’s like, f— me!”

Since his “Saturday Night Live” days, Lovitz has appeared in numerous movies, from “Big” with Tom Hanks, to 2010′s “Casino Jack,” the story of notorious Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

His fellow cast member, Victoria Jackson, who’s now a WND columnist, made national headlines in March 2010 when she released a song on YouTube titled, “There’s a Communist in the White House,” which has collected more than a half-million views.

Wind farms are warming the earth, researchers say

Wind farms are warming the earth, researchers say

By Eric Niiler

Published April 30, 2012

New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.

Researchers used satellite data from 2003 to 2011 to examine surface temperatures across as wide swath of west Texas, which has built four of the world's largest wind farms. The data showed a direct correlation between night-time temperatures increases of 0.72 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) and the placement of the farms.

"Given the present installed capacity and the projected growth in installation of wind farms across the world, I feel that wind farms, if spatially large enough, might have noticeable impacts on local to regional meteorology," Liming Zhou, associate professor at the State University of New York, Albany and author of the paper published April 29 in Nature Climate Change said in an e-mail to Discovery News.

PHOTOS: Wind Power Without the Blades

'Wind farms ... might have noticeable impacts on local to regional meteorology.'

- Liming Zhou, study author

Analysts say wind power is a good complement to solar power, because winds often blow more strongly at night while solar power is only available during daytime hours. But Zhou and his colleagues found that turbulence behind the wind turbine blades stirs up a layer of cooler air that usually settles on the ground at night, and mixes in warm air that is on top.

That layering effect is usually reversed during the daytime, with warm air on the surface and cooler air higher up."The year-to-year land surface temperature over wind farms shows a persistent upward trend from 2003 to 2011, consistent with the increasing number of operational wind turbines with time," Zhou said.

FAA data shows that the number of wind turbines over the study region has risen from 111 in 2003 to 2358 in 2011, according to the study.The warming could hurt local farmers, who have already suffered through a killer drought over the past few years. Texas agriculture contributes $80 billion to the state's economy, second only to petrochemicals, according to the Texas Department of Agriculture.

West Texas is a dry area that uses irrigation to grow wheat, cotton and other crops, as well as raise cattle. But increased warming can play havoc with plant growth, as well as change local rainfall patterns.

Texas wind farms produce more than 10,000 megawatts of electricity, more than double the capacity of the nearest state, Iowa, and enough to power three million average American homes, according to the American Wine Energy Association.

NEWS: Wind Farms Float Among the Clouds

One solution could be to change the shape of the turbine blades, according to John Dabiri, director of the Center for Bioinspired Wind Energy at the California Institute of Technology who is an expert on wind power design.

"Smaller turbines can avoid this problem," Dabiri said. "However, this presents a tradeoff, because wind speed decreases as you move closer to the ground; so the smaller turbines would experience lower incoming wind speeds on average."

That means a smaller turbine makes less power.

Dabiri said Zhou's findings may mean taking a second look at the trade-offs with renewable energy. "It shows that we need to think carefully about the unintended environmental consequences of any large-scale energy development," Dabiri said, "including green technologies."

Zhou cautioned that his study used satellite data, which can have errors from clouds, for example, rather than temperature readings taken at the surface. He said he hopes to improve his dataset, and look at wind farms in other parts of the world.

Read more:

Warm Regards
___________________ ~ ~
(_____(*)___________} } }


Arianna Huffington: Obama's bin Laden Ad 'Despicable'


Arianna Huffington: Obama's bin Laden Ad 'Despicable'

Monday, April 30, 2012 01:03 PM

By: Newsmax Wires

Arianna Huffington, founder of the liberal leaning news site The Huffington Post, has criticized the Obama campaign for an ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have killed terrorism kingpin Osama bin Laden, calling the move "despicable."

In May 2011 President Barack Obama authorized the raid that did away with the al Qaida leader. But a video ad released by the Obama campaign last week, which included former President Bill Clinton trumpeting Obama’s achievement, also had wording which suggested that presumptive GOP presidential nominee Romney might not have made the same decision.

"I don't think there should be an ad about that," Huffington told "CBS This Morning" Monday. "I think it's one thing to celebrate the fact that they did such a great job [with television specials]. All that is perfectly legitimate. But to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do."

Huffington equated the ad with a Hillary Clinton spot from 2008 that asked, “Who do you want answering the phone” in the White House, when it’s 3 a.m. and a problem has arisen. That was a reference to her opponent Obama’s inexperience. “It’s the same thing . . . 'You're not ready to be commander-in-chief,'” Huffington said.

“It's also what makes politicians and political leaders act irrationally when it comes to matters of war because they're so afraid to be called wimps. They make decisions, which are incredibly destructive for the country.”

Indeed, Obama wouldn’t have increased U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan if he and other Democrats weren’t so concerned that Republicans would make a campaign issue out of a decision not to escalate, Huffington said.

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Recent Activity:

All posts should be something you are not ashamed to show to your young people or your clergy. Suggestions, Complaints, Problems, Personal Criticisms and Subjects that could cause debates that could be controversial are to be kept out of sends to the whole alliance. Either send them personally to each other or directly to a ccpga moderator, or the owner at this address:




Obama's dog jokes go missing in Correspondents' Dinner reports

Obama’s dog jokes go missing in Correspondents’ Dinner reports

Published: 8:31 AM 04/30/2012

President Barack Obama’s after-dinner dog jokes are missing.

They’re entirely absent from some media reports of the April 28 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

There’s a footprint or a faint howl of Obama’s two dog-eating jokes in other media reports, but no articles sought to highlight Americans’ cultural aversion to dog-eating.

An AP report issued after the speech ran for 25 paragraphs, but didn’t include the word “dog,” even though the topic of “President-eats-dog” is basically a guaranteed traffic-magnet.

Reuters dodged any mention of President Obama’s Obama-bites-dog quips, yet did cite a joke by comedian Jimmy Kimmel at Obama’s expense. “When you go to a dog park, is this the same as when we look at a tank full of lobsters?” Kimmel asked, according to Reuters.

The populist New York Post, however, ran with the dog jokes in the first three paragraphs of its short article, which was headlined “Bam’s yuk-y dog tale.”

Obama made two jokes about his dog diet, plus several jokes about Romney’s 1983 treatment of his dog, and several jokes about Obama’s fake second-term agenda for dogs.

Obama’s dog-eating jokes were likely intended to show journalists that he is unexcited about the public’s recognition that he wrote about dog-eating in his 1995 autobiography without acknowledging how Americans regard the practice as foreign and inhumane.

His other dog-related anti-Romney jokes were a treat for the assembled media.

Those jokes portray Romney as unfamiliar with middle-class Americans’ lives. For several months, Obama’s aides and media allies have ridiculed Romney because he took his ill dog on a 1983 family vacation by placing it in a crate on top of the family station wagon.

That man-crates-dog portrayal, however, has been trumped by the man-eats-dog confession.

That’s because The Daily Caller pointed out that Obama had never shown any qualms about his canine meal, either when he published his autobiography in 1994, or when he recorded an audio-version of the book in 2005.

The resulting Internet-carried furor has prompted many GOP supporters to ridicule Obama’s tolerance for dog-eating.

But the major media doesn’t want to fetch that subject.

The New York Times’ article on Obama’s speech used its first paragraph to mention one of Obama’s anti-Romney quips. That quip used a mock attack-ad to show a photoshopped Romney standing in front of Air Force One with a dog-carrier strapped to the fuselage.

But the Times’ delayed any mention Obama’s main canine-cuisine quip until paragraph six.

“What’s the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?” Obama asked, recalling a 2008 campaign joke told by then-vice presidential nominee Sarah Pain. “A pit bull is delicious,” he declared to the surprised audience, most of which consisted of Democratic-leaning reporters or Democratic-leaning guests from the culture industry.

The Times choose to interpret that joke as mocking “Republican criticism of him for eating dog meat while a boy in Indonesia.”

Obama’s “delicious” joke got mentioned in the ninth paragraph of Mediaite’s 11-paragraph article, and the 23rd paragraph of The Hill’s 33-paragraph piece.

Politico cited one of Obama’s dog-related jokes in its top 15 list — “as my stepfather always told me, ‘It’s a boy-eat-dog world out there’” — but managed to ignore Obama’s “delicious” bite at dog-food humor.

Seven Washington Post reporters and some editors produced a 20-paragraph article that didn’t mention the Obama-bites-dog jokes, but did include Kimmel’s nip at Romney for placing his ill dog in a dog-carrier on top of the family station-wagon.

“When I think ‘Mitt Romney,’ I don’t think Etch a Sketch — I think of Twister. You can’t even play Monopoly with him, because he keeps putting the dog on the car,” Kimmel said.

There was little chance the friendly audience would turn their nose up at the anti-Romney jokes.

Yet most of the media showed no interest in publicizing Obama’s boy-eats-dog jokes.

In 2009, Obama told the same media event that “most of you covered me. All of you voted for me.”

Top EPA official resigns after 'crucify' comment

Top EPA official resigns after 'crucify' comment

Published April 30, 2012

A top EPA official has resigned after coming under scrutiny for 2010 remarks in which he compared the agency's enforcement strategy to Roman crucifixion. 

Al Armendariz, the top environmental official in the oil-rich South and Southwest region, resigned in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on Sunday, saying he did not want to be a distraction for the agency. The resignation is effective Monday. 

"As I have expressed publicly, and to you directly, I regret comments I made several years ago that do not in any way reflect my work as regional administrator. As importantly, they do not represent the work you have overseen as EPA administrator," he wrote. "I take great pride in having built a career based on integrity and hard work. These are the principles that guide me personally as well. While I feel there is much work that remains to be done for the people of this country in the region that I serve, after a  great deal of thought and careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that my continued service will distract you and the agency from its important work."

Armendariz made the original remarks at a local Texas government meeting in 2010. He relayed to the audience what he described as a "crude" analogy he once told his staff about his "philosophy of enforcement." 

"It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean," he said. "They'd go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they'd crucify them. 

"And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years," he said. 

Armendariz went on to say that "you make examples out of people who are, in this case, not complying with the law ... and you hit them as hard as you can" -- to act as a "deterrent" to others.

Republican lawmakers blasted him for the comments as Obama administration officials made clear the remarks did not represent the views of the EPA as a whole. Jackson said in a statement Monday that she accepted the resignation. 

"I respect the difficult decision he made and his wish to avoid distracting from the important work of the agency," she said, thanking him for his service. 

Republicans in Congress had called for Armendariz' firing, after Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe highlighted the May 2010 speech last week as proof of what he refers to as EPA's assault on energy, particularly the technique of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. 

Several disputed contamination cases in Texas have helped stoke environmental concerns over fracking.

Inhofe said Monday that the resignation would not stop the ongoing investigation into EPA policies. 

"We will continue our investigation into the situations surrounding EPA's apparent crucifixion victims: the American people deserve to know why, in at least three separate cases, EPA tarnished the reputation of companies by accusing them of water contamination; then when the results of their study did not turn out the way they hoped, and they had no definitive evidence to make that link, they quietly walked back their accusations. We will get to the bottom of this -- and we will continue looking into EPA's actions on hydraulic fracturing beyond these three cases as well," he said in a statement. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:


Contempt Charges for Holder -- Your Action Requested


Grassfire Nation Update


Mark R.,

Perhaps due to unlrelenting grassroots pressure in the form of petitions, faxes, and phone calls, CBS News is confirming that House Speaker John Boehner, has given the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee the "go-ahead to proceed" with contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder.

For months now pressure has been mounting against Holder regarding his role and knowledge in the "Fast and Furious" gun-walking scandal that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican nationals, and at least one U.S. Border Patrol Agent.

According to the CBS News report, pursuing a contempt charge is a "strong sanction" against the executive branch, and considered "politically risky."

Grassfire Nation fully supports the effort, and is preparing an emergency petition delivery to Rep. Darrell Issa, the chair of the House Oversight Committee as a show of grassroots support for pushing ahead on this important issue.

Our records show that you haven't yet added your name to this important petition. Please do so now by going here.

Contempt charges for Holder are not a certainty. As the report said, they have only been green-lighted to do so. Grassfire Nation believes this dramatically increases chances that Congress will move forward and bring some law, order and accountability into this scandal.

That's why we are rapidly moving forward with an emergency petition delivery to the House Oversight committee as well as other key members of Congress.

Through this petition, grassroots Americans have an opportunity to exert enough pressure so as to move the committee to action.

But much depends on you.

Take a moment right now to sign our national petition calling for justice and accountability in the "Fast and Furious" scandal by going here.

Mark R. given the rogue and reckless nature of "Fast and Furious", the fact that a U.S. Border agent was murdered, and more than a year of stonewalling from the DOJ, it's long past time for closure.

As Rep. Issa said, "The American people deserve the truth."

Underscore that with an exclamation point by clicking below and signing our petition.

After signing, forward this message to 25-30 friends, urging them to sign our petition in time for our next hand-delivery to the House Oversight committee by going here.

Let them know that by signing quickly they will be included in our next upcoming delivery.

Grassfire Nation

+   +  +   +   +   +   +   +   +   +  +  +   +   +   +   +   +
(Note: Please do not "reply" directly to this e-mail message. This e-mail address is not designed to receive your personal messages. To contact Grassfire Nation with comments, questions or to change your status, see link at the end.)

+ + + + +
Grassfire Nation, a division of Grassroots Action, Inc., is a million-strong network of grassroots conservatives that is dedicated to equipping you with the tools that give you a real impact on the key issues of our day.  Copyright 2012 Grassroots Action, Inc.

+ + Comments? Questions?

+ +

Technical questions only:  For technical questions regarding this email, go here:  (Not for comments/feedback on this update)

+ + + + +

Click here to be removed from this list or send a written request to:
Grassroots Action
PO Box 277
Maxwell,IA 50161
Click here to change your email address.




Don't shoot a good idea because of its messenger

Don't shoot a good idea because of its messenger

April 29, 2012

Derek Hunter

Sun, 2012-04-29 20:00

Is a good idea invalid if it comes from someone with whom you disagree ideologically? Regrettably, some people dismiss ideas based simply upon the political ideology of the person proposing them, not their merits. Democrats are doing this with their reaction to Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's plan to reduce out-of-control government spending. But this out-of-hand dismissal of ideas is a bipartisan problem.

In New Hampshire, Republicans in state government are moving toward cutting off funding to a few school districts not because the curriculum they've adopted is ineffective, but because it was developed by liberals.

The advanced-placement curriculum is called International Baccalaureate, IB for short. It was founded in 1968 and is now used in more than 3,300 schools in more than 140 countries, offering programs to more than 1 million students. It's not widely used in the United States, but where it has been adopted, it has been effective in challenging students and raising test scores.

IB is so well-regarded that graduates of the program in some states are guaranteed admission to many top colleges and universities around the country, or at least offered college credit for IB classes taken in high school.

But, as is often the case in education, there's a problem. In this case, it's the fact that IB has an international focus.

The IB program encourages students to think critically, develop research skills and engage in their education. The program also encourages a focus on community service and learning a second language. It focuses on teaching about a global world, not a one-world government or global citizenship. But that is where the trouble lies.

Many on the political Right reject anything they feel threatens our national sovereignty. In fact, I am one of them. When a Supreme Court justice cites foreign law to justify a decision, or tells other nations that our Constitution should not be a model for them because it's too restrictive, I take issue with that. But an education program that prepares students for global economic realities -- and that, more importantly, works -- is not the same thing.

There are plenty of options for schools when it comes to advanced curriculums. The issue isn't that all schools should adopt IB, it's that schools should be free to adopt whatever program they think is best and that they find works for them.

Local control over education is a cornerstone of conservative education policy and has been from the start. For the New Hampshire state government to tell Bedford High School and the New Hampton School what they must do, rather than leaving it to the local school boards, violates that important principle.

Public education in this country is in shambles. Test scores measure just this side of pathetic when compared with the rest of the world's, especially considering we spend more money on it than any other nation. So why not embrace anything and everything that works?

More importantly, why not allow localities to experiment and find what works for them?

Just as No Child Left Behind proved that the federal government should not be dunking itself in the education pool, state government should only interfere when schools are failing. These schools in New Hampshire are not failing, they're thriving. But some Republicans in the state don't like IB simply because of its origins and focus, not its results. That is the wrong reason to oppose anything.

It doesn't matter where an idea comes from, what matters is if it works. At least that's how it should be, but that doesn't seem to be the case in New Hampshire.

Argylls and Dragoons set to be scrapped


And more tradition dies to feed the Muslim mobs.


Argylls and Dragoons set to be scrapped

Members of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders 5th Battalion. Picture: PA

Published on Sunday 29 April 2012 00:00

THE axe is set to fall on two of the most famous names in Scottish military history with armed forces cuts bringing an end to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and Royal Scots Dragoon Guards as front-line units.

The infantry and tank battalions are victims of a wider cull of 20,000 regular army posts being undertaken as part of the UK government’s strategic defence and security review (SDSR). With the recently-announced disbandment of 40 Regiment, the Lowland Gunners, it will mean that one-third – three of the nine Scottish-raised battalions in the army – will have been scrapped by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition.

Even with plans to double the size of the presence of the army in Scotland, to 6,500 by 2020, the move will provoke fury north of the Border and has already been taken as evidence by the SNP that the UK is “removing Scotland from the British army”.

The last time a government proposed to scrap famous Scottish military names, in 2004, it provoked a huge backlash, with 2,000 protesters marching in London. This time it could play a part in the independence referendum campaign. The decision means that regiments, which are part of British military folklore for the capture of Napoleon’s imperial eagle at Waterloo and the thin red line at the Battle of Balaclava in 1854, are to disappear from the regular army.

Although a review into which battalions will be axed is expected to be announced in June, military sources have told Scotland on Sunday that a decision has been reached about the Scottish battalions.


A senior source said: “The Argylls are to go and a Scottish tank regiment as well.” The only Scottish tank regiment is the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, the oldest cavalry regiment in the British army. It has fallen victim to the change of strategy in the SDSR, with the government deciding that tanks are not needed to fight the wars of the future.

The decision also raises a question mark over the future of the Leuchars air base in Fife, where it had been expected that the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards would be relocated once the RAF pulls out and army units are brought home from Germany.

Meanwhile, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, based in Canterbury in Kent, have been selected because it is the most junior of the five regular battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. It may re-emerge as the name of a Territorial Army unit, but its demise as a regular army unit means that the fourth battalion, the Highlanders, currently in Germany, and the third battalion, the Black Watch, based at Fort George near Inverness, have both been given a reprieve.

Last night the SNP claimed that the decision was part of a history of cuts to the military in Scotland. The party’s Westminster leader and Defence spokesperson, Angus Robertson, said: “The disbandment of these senior units, which include Scotland’s only regular cavalry regiment, would be an intolerable betrayal by the UK Government. It brings into focus the shocking decline of Scottish recruited units and starkly exposes the extent to which the UK Government are running down Scotland’s defence capabilities.

“With the recent disbandment of the 40th Royal Artillery Regiment only eight of 140 regular units will be Scottish-recruited and only three of those, or a shocking 2 per cent, are actually based in Scotland.

“In contrast to the need for a well-funded conventional defence presence in Scotland, the reality is completely the opposite. For over a decade Scotland has been short-changed, losing more than 10,500 defence jobs and enduring a £5.6 billion underspend.

“Nobody outside of Whitehall wanted to see the [former] amalgamation of Scottish regiments. It was a small comfort that the unique identities of the battalions would be preserved, and now even that seems to going.”


MF Global probe sensitive for obama

Political slowdown in Corzine probe?

The implosion of MF Global appears to be the single most investigated event in recent Wall Street history. The FBI, two US attorneys, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and several congressional committees all say they’re looking into the firm’s spectacular collapse last fall — and at just who’s responsible for the mysterious disappearance of $1.6 billion in customer money in its final days.

Yet investigators say they’re having a tough time assigning culpability. Then-CEO Jon Corzine insists he was clueless about what was happening; mass confusion is the best explanation the probes seem to have found.

Don’t buy it.

The probers sifting through documents and taking depositions from witnesses are no doubt dedicated professionals, but their bosses are political — and that’s the best clue as to why a probe that’s allegedly been running full steam for six months has made such slow progress.

The bumbling Corzine, one of Wall Street’s most prominent Democrats, is a close ally of President Obama and one of his best bundlers of Wall Street campaign cash.

Obama has returned some of the money Corzine has donated personally, but not the cash Corzine collected from others for the presidential re-election campaign — meaning the taint from the MF collapse isn’t bad enough to stop Obama from accepting the money Corzine brings in.

Still, it would be pretty bad if a top presidential fund-raiser were implicated in the loss of more than a billion dollars of investor money. Many victims here were regular people — ranchers and farmers who used the firm to hedge their crops and livestock in the commodities market.

Again, the probers no doubt want to do the right thing, but the heads of the investigative agencies can hardly be described as impartial. Many are presidential appointees or at least have a vested interest in helping Obama avoid a major embarrassment.

The publicity hungry and hyper-ambitious Preet Bharara, the US attorney for the Southern District, as well as the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, are all longtime Democrats.

Some, like Bharara, are fairly partisan Democrats looking for bigger future jobs. They have much to gain if the investigation doesn’t blow up before Election Day — so it’s pretty convenient that they keep hitting what we’re told are dead ends.

Bharara is rumored to be on the short list of possible successors to Attorney General Eric Holder in a second Obama term, as is FBI chief Robert Mueller.

In other cases, Bharara’s been so eager to drum up good press that’s he’s falsely taken credit for personally recording wiretapped conversations of alleged insider traders. Which makes it odd that he’s said so little about MF Global, the biggest scandal to develop on his watch — especially when we’ve got real victims here, whereas it’s usually impossible to trace investors’ losses in insider-trading cases.

Again, mounting a criminal or civil case is not a lay-up; you need to show intent to commit a crime. Corzine’s record on Wall Street and in government is that of a screw-up rather than a crook.

Maybe we’ll still get action — maybe some MF Global player will provide breakthrough eyewitness testimony, trumping any political reasons that could be slowing things down.

Still, not long after MF Global collapsed and the money went missing, there was little doubt that something bad had happened at the firm. Terry Duffy, the head of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the firm’s front-line regulator, publicly stated that the activities that led to the loss of customer money were so egregious as to be illegal.

That’s why some investigators would like to accept an offer from the attorney of MF Global’s former assistant treasurer, Edith O’Brien, that she provide a tell-all account about what went down — including how much Corzine knew or didn’t know about the missing money. But O’Brien wants immunity in exchange — and the word from the top of the Justice Department is that such blanket deals are rare, no matter how valuable the witness.

It seems they’re even rarer when the target is one of the president’s money men.

Charles Gasparino is a Fox Business Network senior correspondent.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Conservative States Prosper, While Liberal States Decline


The Results Are In: Conservative States Prosper, While Liberal States Decline

By Troy Senik
Thursday, April 26 2012

States that embrace free-market principles are beating jurisdictions that prefer big government to within an inch of their lives.

Advocates of federalism – the belief that, consistent with the Tenth Amendment, as much responsibility for public policy as possible should be given to the states rather than the federal government – have long embraced the notion of the states as “laboratories of democracy.” As originally enunciated by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, this theory holds that, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Chalk up another victory for the Founding Fathers. In a nation now continental in scope and 50 states strong in composition, federalism is more useful than ever. It not only allows states to adjust to the specific cultural contours of their populace, but also allows competing visions of public policy to play out throughout the country, with the ultimate results documenting what works and what doesn’t.

Unfortunately, the results from the 50 state laboratories are not stacked up against each other nearly often enough. How are we to learn best practices for governing, after all, if a comprehensive process of comparing and contrasting public policy outcomes throughout the nation is never carried out?

Thankfully, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has remedied that deficiency with its study “Rich States, Poor States,” the fifth annual edition of which was released earlier this month. Authored by famed supply-side economist Arthur Laffer, Wall Street Journal economic guru Stephen Moore and ALEC’s own Jonathan Williams, the 100-plus page report looks at economic competitiveness among the 50 states in exacting detail.

The conclusion of the most recent edition: States that embrace free-market principles are beating jurisdictions that prefer big government to within an inch of their lives. As the authors themselves put it, “If we had to summarize the findings of this publication and our comparative analysis of state policy in one sentence, it would be this: Be more like Texas and less like California.”

Riddled with data, “Rich States, Poor States” gives striking testimony to the virtues of unobtrusive government on nearly every page. A comparison between the nine states with the highest and lowest tax burdens, for instance, shows remarkable disparities.

During the decade that ended in 2010, GDP in the low-tax states grew by 20 percent more than in the high-tax jurisdictions; Population growth in the low-tax states was nearly four times greater than in the high-tax states. And the low tax rates didn’t exactly make paupers out of the states that embraced them either; those jurisdictions actually realized substantially larger increases in the growth of state and local tax revenue than did their more confiscatory brethren.

Tax policy wasn’t the only variable that affected the capacity for human flourishing. The authors also compared and contrasted the performances of right-to-work states with states where union membership is compulsory. The results: GDP growth was more than 10 percentage points higher in right-to-work states. Personal income growth was higher by an almost identical margin. And population growth in the right-to-work states was nearly double.

Any time such disparities in performance are pointed out, liberals are quick to argue that non-political factors – weather or natural resources, for example – are the real culprits. But comparing the numbers in “Rich States, Poor States” gives the lie to that claim.

Warm-weather states throughout the Sunbelt (such as Florida, Texas, Arizona and Georgia) may have been among the top states for domestic immigration, but if climate were the dominant explanation one wouldn’t expect such a dismal performance from temperate California (which came in 49th in the category). Similarly, if frostbitten Massachusetts could blame its travails on the weather (the Bay State was 43rd for immigration), you’d expect neighboring New Hampshire (a low-tax paradise) to do a lot worse than number 22 in the rankings.

No matter how you slice the numbers, the outcome is always the same: states that embrace conservative policies – low taxes, restrained regulation, free labor markets, a friendly business environment – consistently outperform states where big government carries the day.

Consider this statistic: The 10 states that saw the biggest domestic immigration in the previous decade gave their electoral votes to the Republican candidate for president 76 percent of the time during those years; exclude Washington state (primarily the beneficiary of emigration from liberal basket case California) and the number increases to 85 percent.

On the flip side, the states that attracted the least new citizens gave their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate 83 percent of the time; exclude Louisiana, whose population loss owed primarily to Hurricane Katrina rather than economic policy, and the number jumps to an astonishing 93 percent.

Liberal Democrats are fond of touting themselves as believers in science, rationality and empiricism. With the results of “Rich States, Poor States” in hand, we now know that to be false. If it were true, they’d have to be conservatives.






Obama: 'I was born in Hawaii,' wink, wink


Obama: 'I was born in Hawaii,' wink, wink

Invites reporters to join with him in joke on American people

Published: 7 hours ago

author-imageby Drew ZahnEmail | Archive

Drew Zahn is a former pastor who cut his editing teeth as a member of the award-winning staff of Leadership, Christianity Today's professional journal for church leaders. He is the editor of seven books, including Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching & Teaching, which sparked his ongoing love affair with film and his weekly WND column, "Popcorn and a (world)view."More ↓Less ↑


Barack Obama opened last night’s White House Correspondents Dinner – an annual chuckle-fest with D.C. reporters and pop culture celebrities – with a pair of jokes and a wink about his supposed Hawaii birthplace.

He began with more veiled joke alluding to April 28 of last year, when the White House released to the press a copy of his purported long-form birth certificate, a move prompted in part by calls from Donald Trump to see evidence of Obama’s eligibility to be president.

“My fellow Americans, we gather during a historic anniversary,” Obama said. “Last year at this time, in fact on this very weekend, we finally delivered justice to one of the world’s most notorious individuals.”

Video screens in the room then flashed a photo of Trump.

Join thousands of Americans in signing the petition urging Congress to take the issue seriously with an investigation of its own!

Obama then explained he was advised to “reintroduce himself” to America.

“My name is Barack Obama. My mother was born in Kansas. My father was born in Kenya. And I was born, of course,” the sitting president said with a mischievous, knowing wink, “in Hawaii.”

The White House continues to point to the released document as proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, despite dozens of lawsuits and an investigation by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio suggesting Obama’s eligibility is no laughing matter.

Several of the lawsuits contend that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, his birth to a British national father and admitted dual-citizenship status mean he cannot fulfill the “natural born citizen” requirement to be president spelled out in Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

And as WND reported, an investigation by Arpaio concluded probable cause to believe the document submitted by the White House as a copy of Obama’s birth certificate is, in fact, a forgery.

Gathering of Dem women turns into angry showdown

Gathering of Dem women turns into angry showdown

San Francisco ChronicleApril 29, 2012 04:00 AMCopyright

Heather Knight, City Insider columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, is seen on Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012 in San Francisco, Calif.

It was supposed to be like "A League of Their Own," but it's showing shades of "Mean Girls."

We told you recently about an effort by the 18 women running in the June 5 election for seats on the city's Democratic County Central Committee to band together to publish slate cards, hold fundraisers, walk precincts and mentor each other. It was supposed to show that women can change the often nasty tenor of politics.

But the group's most recent meeting devolved into an angry showdown featuring a wagging finger, shouting "Shut up!", accusations of sabotage, a fuming early exit by three members and at least one upturned chair. And former Supervisor Chris Daly wasn't even there!

At issue was some progressive newcomers' inability to pony up the $1,000 they'd all agreed to contribute to publish the slate cards. Those will be going out soon to the roughly 23,000 "perfect women voters" in the city, meaning females who've voted in the past five city elections.

Apparently, Supervisor Malia Cohen told the cash-poor women they had to "pay to play," and attorney Kat Anderson accused them of sabotaging the entire effort. Then somebody accused Anderson of "living in the Marina," which is a fact, but apparently a mean one.

That's when Hene Kelly, a progressive stalwart and self-described "den mother" for the newcomers, told school board member Hydra Mendoza - who was trying to calm everybody down - to shut up and wagged her finger. Then, Kelly upturned her chair (she says that was out of sheer clumsiness) and stormed out of the room with the newcomers, Wendy Aragon and Kelly Dwyer.

"I just didn't want people to be shamed in there or to feel like second-class citizens," Kelly said. "What is this saying about women ... they can't help each other? It is breaking my heart."

Aragon said she's definitely not participating in the women's slate anymore.

"It turned into animal farm - it was even worse than watching men fight," she said. "It was mean girl bullying in that room - that's not why I'm here as a woman or here in politics."

Sounds like Kelly is out too. She said, "I am comfortable with being on a slate who wants me for who I am, not because I have ovaries."

Cohen, Anderson and women's slate founder Alix Rosenthal said they'd like all to come together again, but also point out that anybody who can't raise $1,000 doesn't have a shot at winning anyway.

"Running for office is more than a notion," Cohen said. "There's a certain level of organization that has to exist, and part of it has to do with fundraising."

Rosenthal said what happened is a sign of a larger problem in San Francisco politics.

"I think it's a symptom of this male-dominated political system we have where progressives and moderates have been conditioned to hate each other in this city," she said. "We all have to practice kindness."

That three-hour Ethics Commission hearing Monday to launch the investigation into whether suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi should be removed from office left far more questions than answers.

The chief one: Just how long will this drag on?

"Two months, 27 days, 14 hours," joked John St. Croix, director of the commission. "It's hard to say, but maybe two to three months from now, it should be resolved."

Well, not fully. That's his guess for when the Ethics Commission will turn over its findings to the Board of Supervisors, which then has 30 days to decide Mirkarimi's fate.

That means the supervisors could be voting right around Labor Day, the traditional start of full-fledged campaign season leading up to the November election in which six seats are up for grabs. It'll take nine votes of the 11-member board to remove Mirkarimi, and his closest friends and political allies are all up for re-election.

Like they say, timing is everything - and the timing couldn't be worse for the progressive supervisors.

Count another former commission member who's irked by Mayor Ed Lee's handling (or lack thereof) of his removal. As we've reported, Police Commissioner Jamie Slaughter and Health Commissioners Jim Illig and Steven Tierney were told by Lee's secretary in phone calls that they were off their boards.

Tom Pier, husband of former Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier, wasn't surprised. Appointed in 2010 by then-Mayor Gavin Newsomto serve on the Human Rights Commission, he, too, got the boot. Right after his wife spoke out in October against questionable voting practices by Lee's supporters during the mayor's race.

"The next day or the day after that, I got a call from some woman in the appointments office who said not only are you not getting reappointed, but she explicitly told me not to attend the next meeting," Pier recalled. "I think people would appreciate a little thank you note or something at least recognizing their services."

Christine Falvey, spokeswoman for Lee, said Pier's term had simply expired and any link between his dismissal and his wife's mayoral campaign "would be pure fantasy."

The recent column on rude Muni riders who won't give up their seats for pregnant women prompted a deluge of response - but no change in the courtesy level on buses.

I was riding an underground train the other day with my toddler. We were standing alongside an elderly man. The seats for disabled people and seniors were filled with hipsters who stayed seated the entire time.

"I wanna get off," my boy said. Yeah, buddy, we know the feeling.

Heather Knight is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer and covers City Hall politics.

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Read more:

Messaging for MItt

Messaging for Mitt

Does Mitt Romney really want to win the Presidency? He keeps showing up for Debate Club when this is Fight Club.   The first rule of fight club is not that you do not talk about fight club.  The first rule of fight club is that you win.

Does Mitt Romney really want to win? 

Who knows? 

But if Romney wants to win, he had better get on message quickly.  He had better learn messaging.  

Here is messaging for Mitt.  I hope he is taking notes. 

First, Barack Obama is not a nice guy.   Quit saying that.  No anti-American Marxist is a nice guy.   You say he is a nice guy and he says you are an uptight jerk, born with a silver spoon in your mouth and you want to see Americans fired, starved and have all of their rights stripped away. 


If you start with the premise that he is a nice guy, you lose.  The drive by media and Madison Avenue are working overtime to help Obama win the popularity contest.  You won’t.  

But then again, you don’t need to. 

Tip O’Neil said, “All politics is local,” and you do not get any more local than the individual American and his or her economic situation. 

Quit saying that we are in economic recovery.  We are not.  This is the Great Obama Depression.  Make him own the economy. 

You are not offering us a conservative alternative.  Your message is that you can manage the nation better.  First, your message sucks.  But if that is going to be your message, then you must make him own the Great Obama Depression.
That should be your talking point.  Every time you start talking about the economy, that should be your tagline.  If the economy is recovering, even slowly, what the hell are you offering us? 

Right now, this is the Great Obama Depression.  If we calculated unemployment today, the way we did back in the first great depression, unemployment would be 17%.  One out of every two college graduates cannot even find a job.  The last time the Republicans controlled the government, 90% of college graduates found a job 

This is not hard.  It only takes a little discipline and the willingness to fight.  Your big problem is that you have a serious case of “Member of the club syndrome.”  

You treat Obama and the other Democrats as “members of the club.”  The club is of course, the governing class.   John McCain made that mistake, as did Bob Dole before him.   He will not show you the same courtesy so why d

Perfect Trojan Horse


By Lloyd Marcus


As millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated, and extremely angry by the Democrat's unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming "no" from the rooftops, they forced Obamacare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened: "Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining." Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. The Democrats are lying. Signing Obamacare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama's promise to fundamentally transform America.

I keep asking myself: How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.

Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, Progressives used America's goodness, guilt, and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, Progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted golden shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lauded Obama as the first clean and articulate African-American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said Obama only uses a black dialect when he wants.

White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America's sins of the past. Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, "I'm votin' for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me."

Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the Progressive's young, handsome, articulate and so called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.

Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of Democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it.

Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the Democrats landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing Obamacare.

The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question. "Why are you siding with these white racists against America's first African-American president?" I defend my fellow patriots who are white stating, "These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama's skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama's race is not an issue."

Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama's race not being an issue. In reality, Obama's presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator's virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama's race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care which is clearly unconstitutional.

No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said "no" to both presidents' proposals and it was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer: He is black.

The mainstream liberal media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.

My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be "played" and intimidated by Obama's race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, Obama's progressive agenda must be stopped. Lloyd MarcusBlack, Unhyphenated American, Singer/Songwriter, Entertainer, Author, Artist, & Tea Party Patriot SHARE THIS WITH AMERICA!












Everybody Out Of The River

One like this in the Congo River ate a Kinshasa Embassy Defense Attache in 1987…got his legs (knees down, complete with shoes) back a few weeks later, in a carboard box, when natives killed the croc and opened up its stomach.





 22-FOOT, 2500 POUNDS!

 The village called the Army, because they were losing people!


Remember to BCC email and Protect your friends from Hackers
If you forward this email, please delete the forwarding history, which includes my email address!
It is a courtesy to me and others who may not wish to have their email addresses sent all over the world!
Erasing the history helps prevent Spammers from mining addresses and viruses from being propagated.


Recent Activity:

All posts should be something you are not ashamed to show to your young people or your clergy. Suggestions, Complaints, Problems, Personal Criticisms and Subjects that could cause debates that could be controversial are to be kept out of sends to the whole alliance. Either send them personally to each other or directly to a ccpga moderator, or the owner at this address: