http://www.ussportsmen.org/page.aspx?pid=2825
My favorite PETA antic was from a few years ago. They were allegedly going to create a remote control robotic fish with blaring speakers to run off all the fish at bowfishing contests. The bowfishers quite liked this idea, immediately placing robot fish above real fish on their target list. PETA however, failed to follow through.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
More fleecing of American taxpayers... Caribean vacations.
Resort trips got federal money
A Fattah-backed group had city students go to the Caribbean for an education program.
Image 1 of 2
The Marriott Frenchman's Reef resort on St. Thomas, where Overbrook High students…
For three years, the Caribbean-American Mission for Research, Education, and Action ran an exchange program for students at Overbrook High School and two island high schools.
The Philadelphia students and their adult chaperones stayed at the Marriott Frenchman's Reef beachfront resort, on what the hotel website calls a "luminous white sand beach framed with the majestic turquoise waters of the Caribbean."
Fattah's longtime friend James P. Baker Jr. was paid as much as $142,000 annually to run the organization, far more than usual for charities of that size. One federal audit said students on one trip spent "less than half" their time learning about the environment.
Time for a Red Tape Rescue
Thursday, August 04, 2011 “The economy isn’t growing as fast as it needs to.”
That’s Commerce Secretary Gary Locke addressing the latest report on the country’s economic output. His comment is a model of understatement: gross domestic product grew less than 1 percent in the first half of this year.
As Reuters news agency put it, the U.S. economy came “perilously close to flat-lining in the first quarter.” Coming on the heels of the last monthly job figures, though, this isn’t surprising. Unemployment is at 9.2 percent.
The numbers are even worse for younger male workers. “In 1954, about 96 percent of American men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked,” writes New York Times columnist David Brooks. “Today that number is around 80 percent. One-fifth of all men in their prime working ages are not getting up and going to work.”
One of the biggest factors behind whether companies hire or not is regulation. It’s expensive to run a business, and if government agencies are saddling you with more and more expensive rules, you’re simply not going to have as much money left over to hire additional employees -- or to pay the ones you already have as high a wage as you might like.
We have fresh evidence, in fact, of just how costly those myriad rules coming out of Washington can be. Regulatory experts James Gattuso and Diane Katz have a new report out on this “hidden tax” -- so-named because, unlike taxes, they don’t have their price tags out in the open. Yet, as with conventional taxes, regulations raise the price of everything for Americans, from consumer goods to health care.
In the first six months of fiscal year 2011, 15 major new regulations were issued. The annual bill? $5.8 billion. And that’s after one-time implementation costs of $6.5 billion.
That’s par, however: So far, the Obama administration has imposed 75 major new regulations, with an annual price tag of $38 billion.
“Major” here, by the way, is a specific term used by the government to refer to regulations that are expected to cost at least $100 million. There are, of course, other rules in effect that fail to meet this threshold. But they’re out there, too, and they add up. Major or otherwise, they’re sitting on the chest of an economy that’s gasping for breath.
Unfortunately, this burden is about to get even heavier. As Gattuso and Katz write:
“This flood of red tape will undoubtedly persist, as hundreds of new regulations stemming from the vast Dodd-Frank financial regulation law, Obamacare, and the EPA’s global warming crusade advance through the regulatory pipeline -- all of which further weakens an anemic economy and job creation.”
Not everyone is sorry to see the regulatory load get heavier, however. After all, more rules mean a bigger federal workforce. One recent study found that the regulatory staff at federal agencies went up about 3 percent between 2009 and 2010. It’s estimated to go up another 4 percent in 2011.
That’s right -- the employment situation isn’t bad for all groups. The ones making it difficult for the rest of us to hire new people and conduct business are doing fine.
This can’t continue. Congress can help free us from this red tape by taking some important steps: 1) Require congressional approval of every major new rule. Right now, they can veto, but it rarely happens. 2) Create a Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis -- a necessary check on the executive branch’s regulatory powers. 3) Establish a sunset date for each federal regulation, to keep outdated rules from outliving their usefulness.
We can keep the economy from flat-lining. But we need to realize that costly, unnecessary regulations are part of what’s making it so critically ill.
Politicians are full of it.
Apocalyptic Thinking Leads to the Apocalypse
Thursday, August 04, 2011 We were told over and over again that if America didn't raise her debt-ceiling, the financial roof would come tumbling down about our ears. We were told that the consequences for our credit rating would be disastrous. We were told that the stock market would crash.
So, our elected representatives passed a debt-ceiling increase. Democrats complained that the increase didn't raise taxes; Republicans complained that the increase kicked the proverbial can down the road on spending. Democrats claimed victory for having forced Republicans to raise the ceiling at all; Republicans claimed victory for having forced Democrats to offset increased spending with certain cuts.
And the economy tanked anyway.
On August 2, the stock market dropped 265 points. Standard and Poor's 500 moved into negative territory for the year. Fitch Ratings said that the U.S. may have its debt downgraded from triple-A status anyway. Microsoft, Exxon Mobil and Johnson & Johnson all have better credit than the government of the United States at this point. "I'm not so sure that the debt deal is well received or if it's what everyone wanted," Steven Carl, head equity trader at Williams Capital Group, told CNBC.
Because of the debt deal, things are slated to become even worse. If the debt-ceiling had not been raised, the government would have been forced to choose between spending initiatives. The debt-ceiling would have provided a hard cap; it would have prevented President Obama from being able to press for new spending initiatives.
Now, with the "Super Congress" (a smaller group of Congress people supposedly dedicated to cutting costs) in charge of cutting the deficit, we can expect a new push for higher taxes, especially since reports are that the constituency of the Super Congress will be "moderate."
None of this would have been possible without the apocalyptic doom-talk coming from the White House and members of Congress. There was no emergency on the horizon. As Kevin Williamson of National Review pointed out, our revenues for the rest of the year easily would have paid our debt service requirements. We would have had to cut back on our discretionary and entitlement spending, but we need to do that anyway if we want to survive the current fiscal crisis.
Instead, Obama and his ilk had to scare us. The press certainly did its share, too. Frightening the American people into accepting wrong action has become a pastime among the chattering class. Karl Popper warned of the consequences of seeking a political utopia; such utopianism, he warned, led to violent action against those who disagreed with the general vision. The flip side of utopianism is apocalyptic thought, which stresses that unless drastic action is taken, the great flood will wipe us all from the planet. Those who stand in the way of such action stand on the side of Armageddon. In the words of Joe Biden, they become "like terrorists."
Apocalyptic doom-saying turns politics from compromise to extremism. How do we know if such predictions are correct, though? There is one clear indicator: If someone sets a hard date, we can fairly guarantee that the doom-saying is nonsensical. Never in history, has a non-mankind-created hard date turned out to be disastrous. No Kal-El prediction of the sun exploding has ever been accurate.
So the next time you hear a politician tell you that something must be done by X date in order to prevent the destruction of the universe, tell them to pipe down. They're full of it.
It's that simple. The only apocalypse that will occur is the one our scaremongering politicians bring down upon us.
Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Abolish ‘Gun-Free Zones’
Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Abolish ‘Gun-Free Zones’
Monday, August 01, 2011 
FILE - In this June 17, 2011 file photo, Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks in New Orleans. Paul says he will retire from Congress when his term runs out in 2012 and will focus on his campaign for president. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)
H.R. 2613, the Citizens Protection Act of 2011, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and remove all federally created criminal safety zones.
The Gun-Free School Zones Act makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.”
Paul’s office did not return calls or e-mails for comment to CNSNews.com, but the group Gun Owners of America said the Citizens Protection Act is needed for self-protection purposes.
In a news release, the group argued that the Gun-Free School Zones Act protects criminals, asserting that such attacks as Columbine, Virginia Tech and Fort Hood “all occurred in government facilities where the private possession of firearms was prohibited.”
“It’s time to say NO to criminal safe zones,” the release said. “And a great place to start is the blatantly unconstitutional Gun-free School Zones Act.”
Gun control groups oppose Paul’s bill. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) said the bill would threaten the safety of American families.
“It’s a horrific piece of legislation that will present a direct threat to public safety,” CSGV Communications Director Ladd Everitt told CNSNews.com in an e-mail.
“‘Gun-free zones,’ despite the gun lobby’s propaganda, are far and away the safest places in our country," said Everitt.
He also said that the proposed bill represents the belief of “extremist groups” thwarting public support.
“Rep. Paul’s legislation is the latest in a series of extreme pieces of legislation to come from the National Rifle Association,” he clarified in the e-mail. “Bills like this have no public support whatsoever and seek to elevate the interests of the gun industry and a tiny minority of gun owners over the wishes, well-being, and safety of American families in communities across the United States.”
Paul’s bill would allow teachers and other individuals to carry guns onto high school and middle-school campuses.
After the 2005 shootings at Columbine High School and Platte Canyon, two high schools in Colorado, some pro-gun groups said that repealing the School Zones Act would make schools safer.
As CNSNews.com reported in 2008, after an armed man shot a 16-year old girl in Platte Canyon High School, a pro-gun group argued that it could have been prevented if other people could have carried firearms.
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said at that time that all the law has done “is create target-rich, no-risk environments for monsters who have no fear of encountering an armed teacher or administrator, or a legally armed private citizen who might happen to be in the building.”
Liberal Psycho Babble.
Tea Party Could ‘Potentially Become a Violent Movement'
Thursday, August 04, 2011 (CNSNews.com) – Tea party conservatives are “pursing goals that can’t be achieved,” they are “delusional,” and they belong to “a very angry movement’ that “could, potentially become a violent movement.”
That’s according to a Stanton Peele, a psychologist and addiction expert interviewed by liberal MSNBC host Martin Bashir on Wednesday afternoon.
The Weekly Standard blogged about the interview, as did Newsbusters.
Among other eye-popping exchanges, Bashir asked the psychologist about the “effect giving people their way all of the time.” That’s a reference to tea party Republicans who stood on principle and demanded a deficit-reduction deal that included no tax hikes but offered real spending cuts.
In fact, tea party Republicans are not happy with the compromise deal that did exclude tax hikes, but did not include real spending reform.
Nevertheless, Bashir framed his question as though the tea party conservatives got their way in the debt negotiations: “How does it shape our thinking, behavior, if by being adamant and we get our way?” he asked.
Peele responded, “Well, the way I think about it is, they are pursuing goals that can't be achieved. It's sort of like a child who has some kind of fantasy, and they keep asking you to give them things to acquire that, but it's impossible to arrive at the goal that they want. The idyllic paths that they are pursuing probably never existed and certainly (are) not something we can reach right now.”
Bashir continued: “So you're saying that they are delusional about the past and adamant about the future?”
Peele: “They are adamant about achieving something that's unachievable, which reminds us of a couple of things: It reminds us of delusion and psychosis. It reminds us of addiction because addicts are seeking something that they can't have….”
More fleecing of American taxpayers.
Taxpayers Will Pay for Obama Bus Tour of Battleground States, Says White House
Wednesday, August 03, 2011 
President Barack Obama (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) - President Barack Obama’s upcoming bus tour through the Midwest states typically viewed as swing states during presidential election years will be paid for by the taxpayers, the White House says.
Obama will start the tour on Aug. 15 and will talk about strengthening jobs and the economy, the White House announced on Tuesday.“He is very happily getting out into the country again after a very sustained period here in Washington and he looks forward to talking to folks about growing the economy, creating jobs," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. "We will have more details, as I said, about the specifics of the trip."
Carney indicated he did not know now precisely where the president would go or what he might be announcing.
CNSNews.com asked Carney, “Is that a campaign event or a presidential event?
Carney answered, “Negative. That is an official event.”
CNSNews.com followed, “So it is being funded by taxpayers in battleground states?”
Carney responded, “He’s the president of the United States.”
Friday, August 5, 2011
Drill Baby Drill.
The Democrat-controlled Senate fled the Beltway on Tuesday night for a five-week summer vacation without taking action on a House measure to expedite the long-delayed Keystone XL oil pipeline.The pipeline, 36-inches in diameter, would stretch more than 1,600 miles from Alberta, Canada, through several U.S. states and into Nederland, Tex.
The House legislation directs President Obama to make a decision by Nov. 2, and is endorsed by several labor unions, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
The $7 billion project is privately funded, and would inject $20 billion in new spending into the U.S. economy, create nearly 120,000 jobs and generate nearly $600 million in state and local taxes along the pipeline route, according to the Teamsters.
In addition, the pipeline is endorsed by the Laborers' International Union of North America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U.S. and Canada.
“This bipartisan bill has a simple and straightforward objective—set a schedule, coordinate that schedule, and execute a decision process,” said Rep. Lee Terry (R.-Neb.), the bill’s sponsor.
“The more we delay this decision, the more reliant we become on oil from countries in the Middle East. This bill means less reliance on foreign oil, more jobs, and an energy policy that doesn't rely on less-than-friendly foreign nations. We cannot afford any more delay,” Terry said.
The measure passed the House last week 279 to 147, but supporters say they will have a harder time getting it through the Senate. The U.S. has been reviewing the pipeline proposal since 2008.
The White House called the House measure “unnecessary” and said it “could prevent the thorough consideration of complex issues.”
Environmentalists oppose the pipeline because they say that the Canadian oil is a more corrosive grade than what is drilled in the U.S. and that it would eat away at the pipeline and cause a catastrophic spill.
“Oil is oil,” said Dan Kish, senior vice president of policy for the Institute for Energy Research. “It’s the same oil they have in Venezuela, and none of the environmentalists are opposed to their oil."
“This ought to be a simple deal,” Kish said. “This is our allies, they are our biggest trading partner, and we’re not worried they will cut us off.”
NRA Delivers Remarks at United Nations Concerning Proposed Arms Trade Treaty
| Thursday, July 14, 2011 |
| National Rifle Association's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre addressed the United Nations this afternoon. He told the U.N. to not interfere with the Second Amendment freedoms of Americans and pledged to continue the fight to preserve civilian ownership of firearms in the U.S. He said the NRA will oppose any U.N. provision that seeks to prohibit or regulate U.S. civilian firearm ownership. LaPierre said in his remarks, "The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind." United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Preparatory Committee - 3d Session Statement of the National Rifle Association of Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents. This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny. We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government. Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust. We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected. We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures. We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade. We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name. We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy. We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters. We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight. Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned. Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom. It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind. Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss i f I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them. To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate. So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners. The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind. Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope. Thank you. |
Obama needs to eat some peas.
| ||||||||||||
| Thursdays with John Hayward | 08.04.11 |  |
As it turns out, the federal government ate a very small serving of peas. The rate of spending growth will be reduced by 10% or 15% at most under the agreement that was reached. Obama is back to talking about tax increases and making “the wealthiest Americans” pay “their fair share.” He obviously thinks we’re the ones who have to tear off Band-Aids and choke down vegetables, by giving up more of the private sector to government control.
I will not eat my peas. I’m not interested in any more lectures about “sacrifice” from politicians who never have to make do with less. When private citizens trapped in the Obama economy talk about making “cuts” to their expenses, they’re not talking about slight reductions in the rate of growth.
I will not be a hostage, or go to the back of the bus. I will not “get in people’s faces,” as Obama has demanded of his followers. I am not interested in knowing who follows ATM manufacturers and corporate jet owners on the President’s official list of public enemies.
I do not want a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction, which involves giving more money to a government that has not earned our trust. I’m not waiting for a state-approved list of “Sputnik moments” to fill Americans with shared purpose. I will bring my “sacred cows” to the county fair, and match them up against anyone else’s cows in fair competition. I will not view my income as a gift from the State, or allow it to use tax and regulatory policy to “transform” me.
It is time for the bankrupt and dying State to be transformed. It is time for the architects of our massive national debt to eat their peas. — John Hayward
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)