Thursday, February 28, 2013


I know I have been very critical of OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM and of teacher’s unions in the past.   Well, every time I decide to back off and cut them some slack, I run across an article like this one.
I’m telling you, if you have kids in public school, at any grade level, you better get involved at the school and keep informed as to what your kids are being taught.  If you think I’m just a paranoid old nut case, then you need to read this…  

Teacher Tells Students to Call 9-11 Hijackers “Freedom Fighters”

By Todd Starnes   2/27/2013

An Advanced Placement World Geography teacher at a Texas high school who encouraged students to dress in Islamic clothing also instructed them to refer to the 9-11 hijackers not as terrorists – but as “freedom fighters,” according to students who were in the class.

Students at Lumberton High School were also told to stop referring to the Holocaust as Genocide – instead they were told to use the term “ethnic cleansing.”

John Valastro, the superintendent of the Lumberton Independent School District, tells me that the teacher did absolutely nothing wrong.

“What is more dangerous – fear and ignorance or education and understanding,” he asked. “From our standpoint, we are here to educate the kids.

Valastro said the teacher involved is a 32-year veteran who was simply following state teaching guidelines.

“I don’t think my freshman-level teacher was trying to politicize radical Islam or anything like that,” he said. “I don’t think our teacher my knowledge ever converted a single student to Islam.”
The Islamic lessons in the small public high school generated national attention after a photograph of four female students wearing burqas surfaced on Facebook.

April LeBlanc’s 15-year-old daughter was one of the students in the photograph. She told me that many parents in the district feel betrayed by school officials.

“My biggest thing is not the burqa,” she said. “That was the key to opening up the rest. It’s scary how far they dove into the Islamic faith. It’s scary what they taught my daughter. Who’s in charge of this? How did our superintendent let this slip through the cracks?”

LeBlanc said the students were told that they could no longer use the terms suicide bomber or terrorist. Instead, they were instructed to use the words “freedom fighters.”

“This teacher taught her that a freedom fighter is when they give their life for the Holy War – and that they’re going to go to heaven,” she said. “They were saturating these kids in Islam and my daughter is an American Christian child.”

Madelyn LeBlanc told me that it was clear her teacher was very uncomfortable lecturing the students.
“I do have a lot of sympathy for her,” the 15-year-old said. “At the very beginning she said she didn’t want to teach it but it was in the curriculum.”

Her mother added that it was her impression that the teacher did not agree with the quote about calling the terrorists freedom fighters and laced her lecture with sarcasm.

During a lesson on Judaism, LeBlanc said the teacher told the class, “Students, I’m supposed to be politically correct and tell you that the Holocaust was not Genocide. It was an ethnic cleansing.”
LeBlanc said her daughter kept detailed notes of every classroom lecture and as she read the transcripts she became disturbed.

“Really,” she asked. “They can’t call the Holocaust Genocide? I was more upset with that than the lessons on Islam. It made me sick.”

And then came the comparison between the 9-11 hijackers and the freedom fighters.
Madelyn said a young man sitting beside her was stunned.

“He was shocked that we had to call them that,” she told Fox News. “He laughed and asked the teacher, ‘Is that a joke? Are you serious? Why do we have to call them that? That makes it sound okay (what they did) And it’s not.’”

Madelyn said the teacher didn’t know how to respond.

“She said it was something we have to learn for the end of the year testing,” she said. “I’m sure it was very difficult for her to do.”

Madelyn said the lesson about freedom fighters made her feel “terrible.”

“That made it sound like what they were doing was okay,” she said.

The superintendent also defended the lesson on freedom fighters.

“The whole idea behind this particular lesson – do you call yourself a freedom fighter or Islamic jihadist – or whatever it is you want to be called – you’ve got to put things in perspective,” the superintendent said. “We’re trying to teach the kids to discern for themselves that one thing can be called many different things.”

Valastro said it’s important for students to understand context.

“We might see it as terrorism, but from the Islamic side they might call it jihadist or freedom fighter,” he said.

The superintendent said he was not aware of the specific comments made about the 9-11 hijackers – but conceded there was only one side to the attack.

“I do agree it was a terrorist attack,” he said. “But in several classes across this country, you’re going to have a make-up of students from all over the world in your class. We teach it as an act of terrorism – whereas they are teaching it to their kids as a revolutionary event.”

LeBlanc said she was especially bothered by the lack of emphasis on other religions. She said there were hardly any lessons on Judaism and none on Christianity.

“I wondered how it was okay for them to go so in-depth into a religion from the other side of the world but it was not okay for them to be like that with Christianity,” she said.

“I try to stay open-minded,” she said. “I don’t want my daughter to be ignorant about the world. My kids watch the news with us. We make them aware. I don’t even mind the high school teaching these things.”

But, she added, there was no balance.

“They can talk about how important Mecca is – but why aren’t they talking about how important Christianity was to the founding of the nation,” she asked.

LeBlanc and other parents said they feel betrayed.

“We trusted these people,” she said of the school system. “It scares me. I feel like our school is being infiltrated. How can this not be a sign? We’re talking about Lumberton, Texas. We’re talking about a small town with Christian churches on every street corner. Right in our small school this is going on.”

Wednesday, February 27, 2013


Lest We Forget – Lessons From The 1993 Waco Tragedy

By Bob Barr   2/27/2013

Twenty years ago, on February 28th 1993, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) launched an assault on the Branch Davidian religious compound just outside Waco, Texas. The resulting siege ended more than seven weeks later, on April 19, but not before claiming the lives of 80 men, women and children -- many burned to death in the final inferno that destroyed the compound. 

Even today, videos of the burning buildings remain vivid reminders of an assault gone horribly wrong, from start to finish; and, lessons from what has become known as the “Waco Tragedy” should be borne in mind by all Americans lest a similar tragedy occur in the future.

Although I was not yet a formal candidate for the United States House of Representatives in February 1993, two years later in early 1995, I was a member of the House Judiciary subcommittee that led a series of lengthy hearings into the Waco tragedy. In the immediate aftermath of the 1993 Waco siege, then-President Bill Clinton, through Attorney General Janet Reno, accepted “responsibility” for the results of the raid on the Branch Davidian compound. Unfortunately, the difficulty we in the Congress encountered in obtaining answers from Administration witnesses to our many questions regarding its execution of the operation showed the true hollowness of this acceptance of “responsibility.”

Evidence clearly established that Branch Davidian leader David Koresh (who died in the final conflagration) was a charismatic figure who took advantage of the many devoted followers at the Waco compound for his personal gratification. However, of primary concern to many of us in the Congress was the justification for, and actual conduct of, the government’s assault and lengthy siege of the religious compound.

The government claimed it possessed pre-raid evidence that Koresh and his followers were stockpiling illegal, automatic firearms, and was manufacturing illicit drugs within the compound’s several buildings. Ultimately, no evidence was ever revealed establishing that any automatic firearms were located, or being produced, at the Waco compound although this provided the legal basis for the ATF investigation and initial raid.

Similarly, despite government assertions that Koresh and his followers were manufacturing illicit drugs within the compound, no evidence was ever found to support such allegations. As was revealed during the 1995 congressional hearings, assertions that the Branch Davidians were engaged in the manufacture of methamphetamine and possibly other controlled substances provided justification for the FBI to request and obtain assistance from the U.S. military; assistance that would have been prohibited under the Posse Comitatus law without such evidence.

The manner in which the government used the flimsiest of evidence to justify, and then broaden, the assault on the Davidian compound, and the overall manner in which a massive assault was carried out against a religious group -- albeit not a mainstream one -- led many Americans to lose faith in, or at least question, their confidence in federal government power. This always should be of concern to citizens and government officials alike. Actions tending to undermine that relationship should be addressed openly and vigorously by both groups, but especially by the government, which depends on the confidence of the People for its proper functioning, and ultimately for the success of its programs.

The lack of concern for the human cost of the Waco Siege reflected in the refusal by the Clinton Administration ultimately to account for the conduct of the operation, however, is perhaps the darkest and most tragic aftermath of the siege. The government used armored tank-like vehicles to break down walls of the building in which dozens of men, women, children and infants were known to be huddling, then injected massive quantities of tear gas (known to be highly flammable) into that structure. Witnessing the not-unexpected resulting deadly fire seared in the minds of many good, law-abiding Americans the true human cost of unfettered and unaccountable government power.

On this 20th anniversary of the Waco Siege, and in memory of all who died in the tragedy, including four ATF agents, we all should pause and pray that never again might we witness power run so tragically amuck.


We as a nation have been accused a lot in recent years of being too intolerant of other religions, other customs, other this, and other that.  Quite frankly, I’m offended by such accusations, and I will not tolerate being called intolerant. 

We, as a nation, have become way too dammed tolerant.  We are so tolerant in America that we accept the killing of millions of the innocent unborn as “choice,” we tolerate and reward financially millions of illegal aliens trespassing our borders as “undocumented Americans;” we accept political gridlock; we allow government intrusion into our lives, health care; we endure political correctness; we accept Sharia Law which is incompatible with our Constitution, and permit the deliberate incompetence and corruption of politicians.  

We tolerate massive voter fraud which re-elects a President who took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we all know the ONLY time he’s not busy trying to destroy the constitution is when he’s on the golf course.

No my friends, our nation’s problem isn’t intolerance, and our nation’s problem isn’t stupidity as John Kerry suggests.  Our nation’s problem, in a word, is apathy. 

On second thought, perhaps I am becoming intolerant…VERY INTOLERANT.

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Take Joe Biden’s advice

Take Joe Biden’s advice, buy your wife or girlfriend a Shotgun.

They’re much easier to use.


Monday, February 25, 2013

Another ObamaCare Update

This is So Alarming! We All should be Outraged!
This is a Declaration of War Against Seniors!
This Kind of Treatment MUST NOT Stand!

This should be read by everyone.
It’s especially important to those over 75.
If you are younger, then it applies to your parents......
Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it!

If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 & 2014!

Age 76, Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have been getting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out the needle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got very quiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that my insurance takes care of it.

She said that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Doctor about it. Fifteen minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but they had tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn many things away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. She was brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old, I am so very sorry!”

For the sake of many good people. . . Be Informed Please.
At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment.
* see page 272 of the healthcare bill
What Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed.
Remember when she said,
"We have to pass the Bill so that we can see what's in it."
Well, here it is.
Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number
Judge Kithil of Marble Falls, TX - highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200.
Please read this, especially reference to pages 58 & 59
Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.
Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.
Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).
Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)
Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.
Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling...)
Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.
HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:
"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress.
Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas

All of the above should give you the ammo you need to oppose Obama Care.
Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

American History You Should Know

20 Of The Most Embarrassing Moments In The History Of The Democrat Party

By John Hawkins   2/23/2013

For example, one will virtually never hear that the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, or American eugenics were thoroughly progressive phenomena. These are sins America itself must atone for. Meanwhile, real or alleged “conservative” misdeeds — say McCarthyism — are always the exclusive fault of conservatives and a sign of the policies they would repeat if given power. The only culpable mistake that liberals make is failing to fight “hard enough” for their principles. Liberals are never responsible for historic misdeeds because they feel no compulsion to defend the inherent goodness of America. Conservatives, meanwhile, not only take the blame for events not of their own making that they often worked the most assiduously against, but find themselves defending liberal misdeeds in order to defend America herself. -- Jonah Goldberg

1) The Trail of Tears (1838): The first Democrat President, Andrew Jackson and his successor Martin Van Buren, herded Indians into camps, tormented them, burned and pillaged their homes and forced them to relocate with minimal supplies. Thousands died along the way.

2) Democrats Cause The Civil War (1860): The pro-slavery faction of the Democrat Party responded to Abraham Lincoln's election by seceding, which led to the Civil War.

3) Formation of the KKK (1865): Along with 5 other Confederate veterans, Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest created the KKK.

4) 300 Black Americans Murdered (1868): "Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly 300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper editor."

5) The American Protective League and The Palmer Raids (1919-1921): Under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, criticizing the government became a crime and a fascist organization, the American Protective League was formed to spy on and even arrest fellow Americans for being insufficiently loyal to the government. More than 100,000 Americans were arrested, with less than 1% of them ever being found guilty of any kind of crime.

6) Democrats Successfully Stop Republicans From Making Lynching A Federal Crime (1922): "The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer’s (R., Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate Democrats killed the measure."

7) The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (1932-1972): Contrary to what you may have heard, Democrats in Alabama did not give black Americans syphilis. However, the experimenters did know that subjects of the experiment unknowingly had syphilis and even after it was proven that penicillin could be used to effectively treat the disease in 1947, the experiments continued. As a result, a number of the subjects needlessly infected their loved ones and died, when they could have been cured.

8) Japanese Internment Camps (1942): Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an executive order that led to more than 100,000 Japanese Americans being put into "bleak, remote camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards."

9) Alger Hiss Convicted Of Perjury (1950): Hiss, who helped advise FDR at Yalta and was strongly defended by the Left, turned out to be a Soviet spy. He was convicted of perjury in 1950 (Sadly, the statute of limitations on espionage had run out), but was defended by liberals for decades until the Verona papers proved so conclusively that he was guilty that even most his fellow liberals couldn't continue to deny it.

10) The West Virgina Democrat primary is rigged by John F. Kennedy (1960): From an interview with the late, great Robert Novak.
John Hawkins: You also said that without question, John F. Kennedy rigged the West Virginia Democratic primary in (1960), but that the Wall Street Journal killed the story. Do you think that sort of thing is still occurring with great regularity and do you wish the Journal had reported the story when it happened?
Robert Novak: In my opinion, they should have. They sent two reporters down to West Virginia for six weeks and they came back with a carefully documented story on voter fraud in West Virginia, buying votes, and how he beat Humphrey in the primary and therefore got the nomination. But, Ed Kilgore, the President of Dow Jones and publisher of the Wall Street Journal, a very conservative man, said it wasn’t the business of the Wall Street Journal to decide the nominee of the Democratic Party and he killed the story. That story didn’t come out for many, many years — 30-40 years. It was kept secret all that time.

11) The Bay of Pigs (1961): After training a Cuban militia to overthrow Castro, Kennedy got cold feet and didn't give the men all the air support they were promised. As a result, they were easily defeated by Castro's men and today, Cuba is still ruled by a hostile, anti-American dictatorship.

12) Fire Hoses And Attack Dogs Used On Children (1963): Birmingham, Alabama's notorious Commissioner of Public Safety, Democrat Bull Connor, used attack dogs and fire hoses on children and teenagers marching for civil rights. Ultimately, thousands of them would also be arrested.

13) Escalation In Vietnam (1964): Lyndon Johnson dramatically escalated our troops’ presence in Vietnam while he simultaneously put political restrictions in place that made the war unwinnable. As a result, 58,000 Americans died in a war that ultimately achieved none of its aims.

14) Stand In The Schoolhouse Door (1963): Democrat George Wallace gave his notorious speech against integrating schools at the University of Alabama in which he said, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

15) Chappaquiddick (1969): The Democrats’ beloved "Liberal Lion" of the Senate, Ted Kennedy ran off the road into a tidal pool with passenger Mary Jo Kopechne in the car. Kennedy swam free and then spent 9 hours plotting how he would reveal the news to the press while she slowly suffocated to death.

16) Democrats Deliver South Vietnam To The North (1975): "In 1975, when there were no Americans left in Vietnam, the left wing of the Democratic Party killed the government of South Vietnam, cut off all of its funding, cut off all of its ammunition, and sent a signal to the world that the United States had abandoned its allies." -- Newt Gingrich

17) The Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979-1981): 52 Americans were held hostage by the government of Iran for 444 days. After Jimmy Carter’s disastrous, failed rescue attempt, the hostages were finally released after Ronald Reagan's inaugural address.

18) Bill Clinton turns down Osama Bin Laden (1996): In Bill Clinton's own words, "'Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start meeting with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.' — Bill Clinton explains to a Long Island, N.Y., business group why he turned down Sudan’s offer to extradite Osama Bin Laden to America in 1996." Had Bill Clinton accepted Sudan's offer, 9/11 would have likely never happened.

19) Bill Clinton was impeached (1998): Clinton became only the 2nd President in American history to be impeached after he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

20) America loses its AAA credit rating (2011): The United States was first given its AAA credit in 1917, but it couldn’t survive Barack Obama's record breaking spending. In 2011, America lost its AAA credit rating.

20 Of the Greatest Moments In the History Of the Republican Party

1) Emancipation Proclamation (1863): The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, issued an order freeing all slaves in the confederacy.

2) End of the Civil War (1865): Abe Lincoln guides the north to victory in the Civil War and reunites the nation.

3) Women's right to vote (1872): Republicans Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton write the text of the 19th Amendment, which is introduced by Republican Senator Aaron A. Sargent of California. The Amendment was finally ratified in 1920.'

4) Victory in the Spanish American War (1898): Republican William McKinley achieves victory in the Spanish American War and forces Spain to give up its claim on Cuba.

5) Construction of the Panama Canal (1904): Under Republican Teddy Roosevelt, America takes control of the Panama Canal and builds it into one of the most crucial locations in world shipping.

6) First woman elected to U.S. House of Representatives (1916): "Jeannette Rankin, Republican from Montana, becomes the first woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives."

7) Construction of the Hoover Dam (1928): Calvin Coolidge signed a law allowing the construction of the Hoover Dam to begin.

8) Jessie Owens wins four gold medals in the Olympics (1936): Republican Jessie Owens humiliated Hitler by winning 4 gold medals in the Berlin Olympics. Owens said he "was treated marvelous by everyone. Anything any of the American athletes, including myself, wanted they got for us. My biggest thrill was when the American flag was raised after my victory in the 100 meters." FDR responded to Owens legendary victory by refusing to invite him to the White House, prompting Owens to say, "Hitler didn't snub me – it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram." Truman also ignored Owens, but when Republican Dwight Eisenhower became President, he made him "Ambassador of Sports."

9) Jackie Robinson becomes the first black American to play in the Major Leagues (1947): Republican Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball when the owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, Republican Branch Rickey, brought him up to the major leagues.

10) The Interstate Highway System (1956): Republican Dwight Eisenhower begins construction of the Interstate highway system.

11) Desegregating schools (1957): Dwight Eisenhower "deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate Little Rock’s government schools over the strenuous resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.)."

12) The First Asian-American U.S. Senator (1959): The first Asian-American senator, Republican Hiram Fong, is elected in Hawaii.

13) Civil Rights Act of 1960: "Eisenhower signs the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats."

14) The Reagan tax cuts (1981): Republican Ronald Reagan revitalized the listless U.S. economy with tax cuts that created a massive surge of jobs, economic growth, and prosperity.

15) Collapse of the Soviet Union (1991): Ronald Reagan's tireless work against the Soviet Union finally paid off as it formally dissolved in 1991, while his former Vice-President, George H.W. Bush was in office.

16) The Gulf War (1991): George H.W. Bush formed a coalition that forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.

17) Welfare reform (1996): After Clinton vetoed two previous versions of welfare reform, Republicans sent it back to him a third time and he finally reluctantly agreed to fulfill has campaign promise and sign the bill.

18) A Republican Congress balances the budget (1998-2001): Republicans in Congress forced an unenthusiastic Bill Clinton to balance the budget in his second term.

19) Retaliation in Afghanistan (2001): After the 9/11 attacks, Republican George W. Bush retaliated by driving the Taliban and their allies in Al-Qaeda from power. He then helped establish democracy in the country. Whether the nation will remain a democracy or how the war will be viewed by future generations is still unknown at this point.

20) Condi Rice becomes Secretary of State (2005): George W. Bush selected Condi Rice to be his Secretary of State. She was the first black woman ever to hold that position.

  Here's a good article on American history...


The Third Row?

 Just watch the video.  All of it.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

This judge tells it like it is!

Please listen to this short video, then send it to everyone you know!

This is a good example of why I watch FOX news.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013


SHOVEL READY JOBS No thanks to the Obama administration, but they will probably try to take credit.

Don't Get Sick: ObamaCare update

Don't Get Sick: Obama's Health Insurance Premiums are Going Through the Roof

By Donald Lambro   2/20/2013

WASHINGTON - Brace yourselves for higher medical insurance costs that will hit young and old alike as a result of President Obama's nationalized health-care mandates.

Younger, healthier people, many of whom voted for him in droves, will see their insurance premiums climb sharply as Obamacare demands that insurers provide them with more medical coverage than they want or need.

Older Americans and retirees are already seeing a steep rise in their insurance bills, too. And businesses great and small are either curtailing their employee health care plans or dropping them entirely in anticipation of rising costs.

Many seniors who have supplemental policy plans -- that pay 20 percent of the medical bills Medicare does not -- have seen their premiums rise this year.

In California, Blue Shield is seeking state approval to raise its premiums by up to 20 percent, saying that federal mandates under Obamacare was a factor in their request.

Obama and White House officials (where taxpayers foot the bills for a generous health care plan) refuse to acknowledge any of this is happening across the country.

"Already, the Affordable Care Act is helping to slow the growth of health-care costs," Obama boasted in his State of the Union address last week.

"Apart from the fact that the statement is untrue, the line will be a real howler next year, especially for the young people who so enthusiastically supported him," writes veteran health care analyst Grace Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute think tank.

Obama has made outlandish promises for his health care plan since he began selling it in his 2008 presidential campaign. That's when he promised his plan would "bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family" by the end of his first four years in office.

Four years later, "health insurance isn't any cheaper," writes Sally Pipes, president and CEO, and Taube Fellow in Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute, in Forbes magazine.

"In fact, it's more expensive. Premiums have increased by an average of $3,065. And they're about to go up even more, as Obamacare takes effect during the president's second term," Pipes says.

Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna -- the nation's third largest health insurance company -- warned at the end of 2012 that Americans will face a "premium rate shock" when the president's tidal wave of regulations kick in next year.

Bertolini predicts unsubsidized insurance premiums will shoot up by 20 to 50 percent, on average.
They may be the lucky ones. Some consumers will see their costs double. "We're going to see some markets go up as much as 100 percent," Bertolini told Bloomberg News.

The reasons for the jump in health care costs were as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. Obama's nationwide plan forces insurers to offer a larger, far more costlier package of benefits, including long-term treatment for the mentally ill, prescription drugs, contraceptives, and capping out-of-pocket expenses.

"Many 20-somethings who buy their own insurance have plans that are considerably skimpier. So under the new rule[s], they will be getting and paying for more, whether they want the added coverage or not," the Washington Post reported in a front page story earlier this month.

Other factors: Health insurance plans can't charge higher premiums for customers with preexisting illnesses, or rejecting them altogether. And they are limited in charging older customers higher prices than younger and healthier ones.

A new survey by the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank headed by economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, reveals just how much Obama's health care takeover will cost ordinary Americans.

The survey asked insurers in six key markets (Chicago, Phoenix, Atlanta, Austin, Milwaukee and Albany) how the multiple mandates in Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) will affect their prices.
"The findings highlight the sticker shock in health care premiums that awaits the relatively young and healthy in both the small group and individual markets as the ACA is fully implemented.

The survey finds the cost of premiums for this group will increase by an average of 169 percent," the AAF report says.

In Milwaukee, the hardest-hit of the six markets, younger, healthier people will see premiums hiked by 190 percent.

For example, a young man will see his premium jump from $58 a month to $175, according to the survey. In Phoenix, which reported the lowest increase in insurance rates, younger people will face a 157 percent increase.

"Older, sicker people will see their premiums reduced as a result of the changes required by Obamacare, which limits how much insurers can use age and health status in calculating premiums," Turner points out.

But charging younger people more may threaten the precarious financial house of cards foundation on which Obamacare is built. The plan is based on drawing millions of younger people into the insurance market, to offset the higher costs of older Americans who require more medical care.

"With prices like these, that is unlikely, even with [federal] subsidies," Turner says. The AAF survey "provides more evidence of the failure of Obamacare in meeting its main goals of lowering costs and expanding coverage."

While the White House refuses to be honest with the American people about sharply higher health insurance costs, some of its key supporters admit they will go up.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, an architect of the new law, predicted that premiums in Wisconsin would jump by about 30 percent. In four of five states he has examined, "one-third of them are worse off," he said.

Perhaps the severest impact will be among employers who can't afford Obama's higher health insurance prices. Last year, a Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation report suggested that about three to five million fewer people each year will be able to obtain employer-provided health insurance in the years to come.

Throw in an economy that's not growing and a very high unemployment rate Democrats call "the new normal," and the future under Obama is looking bleaker every day.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013


I received this today by email, and had to pass it on, even though it has nothing to do with politics.

Being a veterinarian, I had been called to examine a ten-year-old Irish Wolfhound named Belker. The dog's owners, Ron, his wife Lisa, and their little boy Shane, were all very attached to Belker, and they were hoping for a miracle.

I examined Belker and found he was dying of cancer.

I told the family we couldn't do anything for Belker, and offered to perform the euthanasia procedure for the old dog in their home.

As we made arrangements, Ron and Lisa told me they thought it would be good for six-year-old Shane to observe the procedure as they felt that Shane might learn something from the experience.

The next day, I felt the familiar catch in my throat as Belker's family surrounded him.

Shane seemed so calm, petting the old dog for the last time, that I wondered if he understood what was going on. Within a few minutes, Belker slipped peacefully away.

The little boy seemed to accept Belker's transition without any difficulty or confusion.

We sat together for a while after Belker's Death, wondering aloud about the sad fact that animal lives are shorter than human lives.
Shane, who had been listening quietly, piped up, "I know why."

Startled, we all turned to him.

What came out of his mouth next stunned me. I'd never heard a more comforting explanation. It has changed the way I try and live.

He said, "People are born so that they can learn how to live a good life -- like loving everybody all the time and being nice, right?"

The six-year-old continued, "Well, dogs already know how to do that, so they don't have to stay as long."

Remember, if a dog was the teacher you would learn things like:
  • When loved ones come home, always run to greet them;
  • Never pass up the opportunity to go for a joyride;
  • Allow the experience of fresh air and the wind in your face to be pure DELIGHT.
  • Take naps;
  • Stretch before rising;
  • Run, romp, and play daily;
  • Thrive on attention and let people touch you;
  • Avoid biting when a simple growl will do;
  • On warm days, stop to lie on your back on the grass;
  • On hot days, drink lots of water and lie under a shady tree;
  • When you're happy, dance around and wag your entire body;
  • Delight in the simple joy of a long walk;
  • Be loyal;
  • Never pretend to be something you're not;
  • If what you want lies buried, dig until you find it;
  • When someone is having a bad day, be silent, sit close by, and nuzzle them gently;

North Korea threatens "final destruction"

North Korea threatened South Korea with "final destruction" during a debate at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament on Tuesday.


I’m beginning to wonder if maybe it’s too late now to stop North Korea

President Bill Clinton's administration coaxed the North Koreans into signing an agreement to halt their nuclear program. But they cheated on the deal, and when the Bush administration exposed the fraud, the U.S. initiated a tougher policy. That didn't work either. In 2006, Pyongyang carried out its first nuclear detonation.

When Obama took office, his secretary of state made conciliatory gestures toward North Korea. What happened? Oh, you can guess. Within months, it launched a long-range missile and carried out a second nuclear test.

The assumption among both doves and hawks is that there is some action we can take that will show the regime the error of its ways. Hawks are the latest to have their turn: An editorial in The Wall Street Journal urged the president to threaten military strikes so Pyongyang knows "it faces a choice of giving up the bomb or failing."

But perhaps that's no longer a credible threat. The regime can now respond to any attack by using one of its nuclear weapons. But it doesn't even need that option: With a mass of artillery and rocket launchers within range of Seoul, it is fully capable of turning the capital into a "sea of fire," to use its charming phrase.

The North Koreans are staunchly resolved to build a large nuclear arsenal and a verity of delivery systems. We may entertain fantasies that we can stop them. But they are convinced our opportunity to stop them is long past. 


A study by the Department of Justice’s research wing, the National Institute of Justice, has the feds admitting that so-called “assault weapons” are not a major contributor to gun crime.  
The study also concluded those weapons are not a major factor in deaths caused by firearms, nor would an “assault weapons” ban be effective.

“The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions,” it said. “Therefore a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

The report finds no significant link between “assault weapons” and murders.

“Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicides and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence,” the report said.
The report undermines most of the talking points by the Obama administration in its pursuit of more limits on guns, ammunition and accessories.

The document, titled “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies,” also sees no epidemic of mass shootings.

This administration spends millions of our money on studies only to ignore all results that don’t confirm their original ill-conceived agenda. 

Monday, February 18, 2013

Warning To All Gun Owners

Warning To American Gun Owners From Canadian News Anchor


Alex Baldwin demonstrates what an ignorant A-hole he is- (again).
This article doesn’t mention the fact that he is an outspoken, Obama supporting Democrat, but that’s ok, because it’s not reverent to the story.   However, IF he were an outspoken, anti-Obama Republican, this story would be ALL OVER the news media and I guarantee every single one of them would be sure to mention his political affiliation.   

Just in case you didn’t know, he has ALWAYS been an A-hole.
Here is another story about him which proves my point.



Numerous Firearms Manufacturers Refuse to Sell to Government


While the President and the rabid left continue to pursue a ban on semi-automatic firearms, manufacturers are fighting back by refusing to sell to government agencies that support the President’s plan.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emannuel tried to pressure Bank of America to stop doing business with firearms companies. Viewed as perfectly acceptable behavior by a large portion of America, firearms manufacturers copied the tactic and returned the favor.

Larue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Templar Custom, Extreme Firepower and now RAM Arms have vocalized that they will not sell their products to government agencies that support the President’s position on gun rights.

The President believes that ordinary citizens do not need shotguns with more than 5 rounds, pistols with more than 10 or rifles with more than 10. The math is a bit fuzzy as most murders are committed with handguns containing relatively few rounds. The number of rounds is actually irrelevant. In fact, the gun is irrelevant – apparently, when someone decides to kill someone else, they prefer baseball bats or choking the life out of them over guns.

The number of gun crimes committed by lawful gun owners is infinitesimal - yeah, like, near non-existent compared to the total. I know, who wants facts when emotion can lead us to a final decision?

Oddly, criminals get guns that the lawmakers in Chicago, New York and LA have banned.  How is that possible? They made the law, certainly that means everyone will follow it?

Sarcasm aside, many firearms manufacturers have decided to answer the government’s unconstitutional overreach by refusing to sell government agencies arms or ammunition. As the President says, the people should come first – and so they shall.

The firearms and ammunition manufacturers have been clear that they will sell to law enforcement officers who need equipment and support citizen’s ability to defend themselves during the several minutes (10+ on average) that it would take police to get there. Think about what an assailant could do to you or your family  in 10 minutes…

Read More:


Well known radio talk show host Mark Levin recently said “Federal, non-military agencies have purchased enough ammunition recently to not only shoot every American five times, but also engage in a prolonged, domestic war.

The numbers are based on recent reports that put the total federal ammunition buy in the last 10 months at approaching two billion rounds.

“To provide some perspective,” Levin noted, “experts estimate that at the peak of the Iraq war American troops were firing around 5.5 million rounds per month. At that rate, the [Department of Homeland Security] is armed now for a 24-year Iraq war. A 24-year Iraq war!”
What do federal agencies need with all that ammunition?

The government’s only official explanation for the massive ammo buy is that law enforcement agents in the respective agencies need the bullets for “mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions.”
The staggering number and lack of details in the official explanation, however, has led to rampant speculation, including concerns the DHS is arming itself to fight off insurrection among Americans.
“I’m going to tell you what I think is going on,” Levin offered.  “I don’t think domestic insurrection.  Law enforcement and national security agencies, they play out multiple scenarios. … I’ll tell you what I think they’re simulating: the collapse of our financial system, the collapse of our society and the potential for widespread violence, looting, killing in the streets, because that’s what happens when an economy collapses.

“I suspect that just in case our fiscal situation, our monetary situation, collapses, and following it the civil society collapses, that is the rule of law, they want to be prepared,” Levin said. “I know why the government’s arming up: It’s not because there’s going to be an insurrection; it’s because our society is unraveling.”



$5 Gas Returns To Southland

Friday, February 15, 2013

UPDATE TO: North Korea Nuclear Test

Recently I posted a blog about North Korea’s nuclear weapons test.

Today I found this related article on the internet.

 Arms Race in Korea

By Night Watch   2/15/2013

South Korea: South Korea's military will deploy cruise missiles capable of striking North Korea and accelerate the development of ballistic missiles, officials said on 12 February.

Comment: The significance of this development, when implemented, is that it would represent the public manifestation of an arms race that has been evolving for decades. Unable to support an air force, the North Koreans developed ballistic missiles to give them the ability to strike their enemies beyond the peninsula, in other words, to hold the populations of South Korea, Japan and lately Guam or possibly part of the western US at risk.

Constrained by the US and by international arms control agreements from building its own ballistic missiles, South Korea has continued to modernize its air force and has developed cruise missiles against which North Korea has no defense. It has not fielded the cruise missiles, but probably can do so quickly. The combination of North Korean long range rocket tests and nuclear detonations has removed most reasons for South Korean restraint.

If North Korean assertions about the success and potential sophistication of the device are accurate, South Korea might deem itself more vulnerable than ever, despite US assurances, and justified in quietly starting or continuing its own nuclear or other weapons research.

US and Allied deterrence measures have prevented war for six decades, but lately have had no measurable influence in deterring North Korean provocations, preventing the development of nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems or in stopping sales of North Korean missiles and conventional weapons to Pakistan, Iran, Syria and Libya. The US also has shown itself recently to be slow or unable to respond to provocations in a timely fashion. As a result, the new North Korean leader seems less intimidated by the US than were his forbears.

China cannot or will not restrain North Korea. 

There is a strategic imbalance in northeast Asia now. North Korea is a nuclear weapons state and South Korea is not. Having an Allied counter-attack capability is far less comforting than having a first strike doctrine and capability at hand. That was the key point made by the South Korean Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in testimony last week

North Korea: For the record. There follows excerpts from key North Korean statements on 12 February.

Test Announcement. "The Korean Central News Agency released the following report on Tuesday: The scientific field for national defence of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK) succeeded in the third underground nuclear test at the site for underground nuclear test in the northern part of the DPRK on Tuesday."

"The test was carried out as part of practical measures of counteraction to defend the country's security and sovereignty in the face of the ferocious hostile act of the U.S. which wantonly violated the DPRK's legitimate right to launch satellite for peaceful purposes."

"The test was conducted in a safe and perfect way on a high level with the use of a smaller and light A-bomb unlike the previous ones, yet with great explosive power."

"It was confirmed that the test did not give any adverse effect to the surrounding ecological environment."

North Korean Commentary. "Our third nuclear test is a resolute self-defensive measure to counter the United States' hostile act against the DPRK."

"The successful launch of the second version of the artificial earth satellite Kwangmyo'ngso'ng-3 in December last year, to all its intents and purposes, was a project for peaceful purposes, which was carried out according to the scientific and technological development plan for economic construction and for the improvement of the people's living standards."

"The main purpose of the nuclear test this time is to show our army and people's surging indignation at the United States' brigandish hostile act and to demonstrate the determination and capabilities of military-first Korea to defend the sovereignty of the country to the end…"

"Our nuclear test is an absolutely just self-defensive measure that violates no international law…"
"It is since long ago that the United States has put our country in the list of the targets for preemptive nuclear strikes…

"The nuclear test conducted this time is the first round of countermeasures that we have carried out by exercising maximum self-restraint…."

"If the United States makes the situation complicated by remaining hostile through to the end, we will have no choice but to take serial measures with more intense second and third response."

Comment: The North Koreans sell anything that earns hard currency. There is no evidence yet in the public domain, but it is highly likely that there were Iranian observers of the nuclear detonation, as there reportedly were for the so-called space launch in December.

China-North Korea: China's official reaction. China "firmly" opposes the latest nuclear test conducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), according to a statement issued by the Chinese Foreign Ministry on Tuesday.

"On 12 February 2013, the DPRK conducted another nuclear test in disregard of the common opposition of the international community," said the statement. "The Chinese government is firmly opposed to this act."

The DPRK's official KCNA news agency has confirmed the nuclear test took place.
The Foreign Ministry said in the statement that it is the firm stand of the Chinese side to bring about denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, prevent nuclear proliferation and safeguard peace and stability in Northeast Asia.

Comment: The Chinese are likely to vote for more sanctions in the UN, but they are unlikely to announce in public the punishments they will inflict on North Korea for disregarding Chinese advice, if any. An easy first start is to cut off the flow of crude through the Chinese pipeline which supplies up to a million tons a year, nearly the entire North Korean supply. The range of Chinese economic pressure points on North Korea is quite extensive.

China's private reaction to the North Korean test will be a measure of its maturity as a rising world power as well as the regional hegemon. If China cannot control North Korea, it does not deserve to be considered a world power.