A Man Without a (Tea) Party

Wake up Tea Party. You’re backing the wrong man and I can’t figure out why?

Newt’s latest attack of Romney is over Bain Capital and how Mitt has “destroyed jobs”, etc.

There is plenty of things to tag Romney with. Why pick the one capitalist thing he has done? That doesn’t sound like a conservative.

Yet plenty of Tea Party leaders are backing Newt.

“My sense is there is a growing coalition behind Newt Gingrich,” said Joe Dugan, leader of the South Carolina Tea Party. He added that Tea Party members do not want a “moderate” like Romney as their standard-bearer.

He would much rather throw in with an FDR “Progressive” than a moderate or a real conservative like Santorum.

Yes, I said FDR. As I have stated in past articles, Newt has proclaimed reverence for the 4 most despicable presidents in history; Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt. If given enough time, he’ll probably eulogize LBJ.

If I knew nothing more about Newt, that would be enough. No real conservative would ever back such a man.

I recall going to Tea Party events, where many were condemning Obama for his socialist, Marxist, communist, terrorist friends and ties. You do pick your friends, allies and idols, you know.

Now, I suppose, it’s ok to discount the candidate’s own words & alliances.

I guess we’ll just overlook when Newt stated how, “The Four Freedoms still work.”

In his own words:

No Reagan, no Coolidge or Harding. Just FDR & Wilson.

If you are not familiar with the Four Freedoms, it was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech where he said everyone in the world should have the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

The first 2 are fine, but the third & fourth? Really? Are they in the Constitution, Mr. “History Professor” Gingrich?

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said, “Newt Gingrich is not perfect, but he is head and shoulders above the best candidate in the field right now.”

Holy crap!! I think I just figured it out. I began writing this article without knowing why my supposed brethren would do this. I was just hoping to solve it before I completed this.

Let’s read what Phillips said again. He is the best “Candidate” in the field. That’s it; Candidate!

Well folks, a candidate can’t govern. These Tea Partiers backing Newt are evidently giving little to no thought of how he will govern once he becomes president. They are so blinded by the possibility of Barack Obama winning a second term; they are willing to sell out what I thought they/we stood for.

Do they think Newt’s fire & brimstone style will carry the day? He only surges after debates. Without them, he is surely toast anyway.

Remember people; both sides have to agree to debates. How many, where, when, etc.
They will also be moderated by the enemy and the audiences that Newt relies on so heavily, will be stacked against him. I guarantee it.

If Newt wins the nomination, Obama may debate him once, even twice early on and then, nothing. There will more than ample time for any debate bounce to vanish.

I don’t care if Newt says he’ll follow Obama to the ends of the earth, The One, will not continue to debate him and the media will certainly carry his water in that regard.

Now, with my rant finished, I will still more than likely, hold my nose once again and vote for Newt, if he wins the nomination. I would vote for a dirty diaper before casting my ballot for King Barack.

So the Native Americans aren’t Native?

Altai in southern Siberia sits right at the centre of Russia. But the tiny, mountainous republic has a claim to fame unknown until now – Native Americans can trace their origins to the remote region.

DNA research revealed that genetic markers linking people living in the Russian republic of Altai, southern Siberia, with indigenous populations in North America.

A study of the mutations indicated a lineage shift between 13,000 and 14,000 years ago – when people are thought to have walked across the ice from Russia to America

This roughly coincides with the period when humans from Siberia are thought to have crossed what is now the Bering strait and entered America.

“Altai is a key area because it’s a place where people have been coming and going for thousands and thousands of years”, said Dr Theodore Schurr, from the University of Pennsylvania.

Among the people who may have emerged from the Altai region are the predecessors of the first Native Americans.

Roughly 20-25,000 years ago, these prehistoric humans carried their Asian genetic lineages up into the far reaches of Siberia and eventually across the then-exposed Bering land mass into the Americas.

“Our goal in working in this area was to better define what those founding lineages or sister lineages are to Native American populations,” Schurr said.
The region lies at the intersection of what is now Russia, Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan.

Dr Schurr’s team checked Altai DNA samples for markers in mitochondrial DNA which is always passed on by mothers, and Y chromosome DNA which sons inherit from their fathers.

Because of the large number of gene markers examined, the findings have a high degree of precision.

“At this level of resolution we can see the connections more clearly,” Schurr said.

Looking at the Y chromosome DNA, the researchers found a unique mutation shared by Native Americans and southern Altaians in the lineage known as Q.

Mitochondrial DNA is found in tiny rod-like ‘powerplants’ in cells that generate energy. Both kinds of DNA showed links between Altaians and Native Americans.

In the Y chromosome DNA, the researchers found a unique mutation shared by Native Americans and people from southern Altai.

The findings are published today in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Calculating how long the mutations they noted took to arise, Schurr’s team estimated that the southern Altaian lineage diverged genetically from the Native American lineage 13,000 to 14,000 years ago, a timing scenario that aligns with the idea of people moving into the Americas from Siberia between 15,000 and 20,000 years ago.

Though it’s possible, even likely, that more than one wave of people
crossed the land bridge, Schurr said that other researchers have not yet been able to identify another similar geographic focal point from which Native Americans can trace their heritage.

“It may change with more data from other groups, but, so far, even with intensive work in Mongolia, they’re not seeing the same things that we are”, he said.

In addition to elucidating the Asia-America connection, the study confirms that the modern cultural divide between southern and northern Altaians has ancient genetic roots

Attribution: Daily Mail

But You Owe Me; Entitlement America

From The Cleveland Current:

In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan, that it was the USSR that was the “Evil Empire”, Wyatt Emmerich

analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion.

That is, “a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.”

And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability (SSI). America is now a country which punishes those people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system.

Not surprisingly, we only here of the richest and most audacious thieves, but it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip us off each and every day, courtesy
of the world’s most generous entitlement system.

The chart tells the story. You can do as well working at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job:

Stunned? Try it yourself.

Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up “benefits calculators.” Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.

And if this isn’t enough, here is one that will blow your mind:

If the family provider works only one week a month at minimum wage, he or she makes 92 percent as much as a provider grossing $60,000 a year.

First of all, working one week a month, saves big-time on child care. But the real big-ticket item is Medicaid, which has minimal deductibles and copays. By working only one week a month at a minimum wage job, a provider is able to get total medical coverage for next to nothing.

Compare this to the family provider making $60,000 a year. For a typical Mississippi family, coverage would cost around $12,000. Adding deductibles and copays adds an additional $4,500 or so to the bill. That’s a huge hit.

There is a reason why
a full time worker may not be too excited to learn there is little to show for doing the “right thing.”

The full-time $60,000-a-year job is going to be much more demanding than woring one week a month at minimu wage. Presumably, the low-income parent will have more energy to attend to the various stresses of managing a household.

It gets even scarier if one assumes a little dishonesty is throwin in the equation.

If the one-week-a-month worker maintains an unreported cash-only job on the side, the deal gets better than a regular $60,000-a-year job. In this scenario, you maintain a reportable, payroll deductible, low-income job for federal tax purposes. This allows you to easily establish your qualification for all these welfare programs. Then your black-market job gives
you additional cash without interfering with your benefits. Some economists estimate there is one trillion in unreported income each year in the United States.

This really got me thinking. Just how much money could I get if I set out to deliberately scam the system? Getting a low-paying minimum wage job would set the stage for far more welfare benefits than you could earn in a real job, if you were willing to cheat. Even if you don’t cheat, you could do almost as well working one week a month at minimum wage than busting a gut at a $60,000-a-year job.

Now where it gets plainly out of control is if one throws in Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

SSI pays $8,088 per year for each “disabled” family member. A person can be deemed “disabled” if they are totally lacking in the cultural and educational skills needed to be employable in the workforce.

If you add $24,262 a year for three disability checks, the lowest paid welfare family would now have far more take-home income than the $60,000-a-year family.

Best of all: being on welfare does not judge you, even if you are stupid enough to take drugs all day.

Most private workplaces require drug testing, but there is no drug testing to get welfare checks.

The welfare system in communist China is far stingier. Those people actually have to work to eat.

Now we finally know that the very bottom of the entitlement food chain makes out like a bandit while us idiot Americans actually work and pay our taxes.

It’s Nice to be Friends


By John Hayward at Human Events:

When President Obama, who is normally a great proponent of “infrastructure” projects, made his bizarre decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline project, I wondered if he might have been induced to create those thousands of American jobs if the oil could be moved by his beloved high-speed rail.

As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety. Fortunately, as Newt Gingrich pointed out during the Monday night Republican debate in Florida, the oil is on private land, so Obama can’t shut production down.

Shipping the oil with a pipeline would have significantly reduced costs, as an Associated Press report explains:

Billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements have been made in recent years to allow North Dakota’s oil shipping capacity to keep pace with the skyrocketing production. North Dakota is the nation’s fourth-biggest oil producer and is expected to trail only Texas in crude output within the next year.

Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources, said the state’s so-called takeaway capacity is adequate, though producers and the state were counting on the on the Keystone XL to move North Dakota crude.

Shipping crude by pipeline in North Dakota adds up to $1.50 to its cost, compared to $2 or more a barrel for rail shipments, producers say.

“Oil that would have moved by the Keystone XL is now going to shift to rail transportation,” Ritter said.

Amusingly, a spokesman for the Sierra Club admitted “there is no question that [transporting] oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than a pipeline,” but that didn’t stop the zero-growth eco-fanatics from calling in their chips with President Downgrade to kill that pipeline.

Those rail shipments are expected to “increase exponentially with increased oil production and the shortage of pipelines,” according to Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. That’s going to be quite a windfall for the railroad companies, isn’t it?

I hereby dub thee, Friend of Obama.

As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. What a coincidence!

For some reason, nobody from BNSF or Berkshire Hathaway would return the AP’s telephone calls, but oilman Harold Hamm told them he was sure this was just a wonderful “lucky break” for Barack Obama’s favorite billionaire, who is “certainly favored by this decision.” I’ve heard Buffett’s famously overtaxed secretary will be a guest at the State of the Union address tonight. Maybe someone could ask her about it.

The “tax me more” refrain from liberal billionaires is one of the oldest sucker games in the book. For the well-connected, the money that can be made through government power – whether by influencing corrupt politicians, or merely predicting what they’re going to do – dwarfs whatever income they offer to cough up.

Military Wife

It’s not just hard on those who actually deploy.

Notes on having a husband deployed in Afghanistan
By Morgan deBoer

WHEN I PICTURE IT happening, I envision myself as a 1960s housewife. I’m wearing a Betty Draper-style dress and an apron instead of the more likely yoga pants and t-shirt. My hair and makeup are done and I’m vacuuming or maybe rolling out a pie crust. I’m home. It’s daytime and two men in khakis come to my door and hand me a note that says my husband has been killed in action. Then they leave. And I’m alone.

The first time my husband deployed, I drove home from the airfield, laid myself down on the living room floor, called my mom and asked, “Can I die from this?” When I imagine what it would feel like for me to actually lose him, I almost can’t breathe.

He is in Afghanistan now and I think about the reality of his dangerous job 100 times a day. I daydream outrageous scenarios all the time, like winning Best New Artist at the Country Music Awards. But losing my husband, or a friend, is an actual possibility. According to the DOD report, as of 17 Janurary, 4,421 service members have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 1,864 in Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan).

When it actually happens, they say, someone will come to your house so quickly that you won’t have time to worry. What if I’m at work? They’ll come to your work. What if I’m at the grocery store? They’ll wait at your house. What if I’m sleeping and I can’t hear them? They knock loud.

Four days after my husband left this time, I was awoken by my cell phone ringing sometime around midnight.

“Hello?”

“Hello Mrs. deBoer. I’m calling to inform you that…”

An officer at my husband’s command told me that there was a serious injury on my husband’s team and then, I swear to God, the longest thirty seconds of my life passed before he said “your husband was not hurt.”

He told me that there was nothing I could do yet, except spread the word that only one person was injured and he was alive in serious condition. He told me the wounded sailor’s name and said I could call back if I needed anything.

I got out of bed and sat on the living room floor and cried.

My husband is on a team of 18 men. I have met about half of them during this training cycle, and I don’t know any of them well.

I met the now injured sailor once when my husband and I drove him to the airfield the day he deployed. There was no major sendoff, it was just us, at 10pm dropping two guys off in a parking lot on a big military base. One grabbed his bags, shook my husband’s hand, and walked away.

The other grabbed his bags, shook my husband’s hand, and looked at me and said, “Can you be my…” and I gave him a hug, and patted his back, and said, “Please be safe.” And he is now recovering from a traumatic brain injury. He has a wife, and a baby, and they lived in my neighborhood.

Don’t forget to thank those who serve, have served & those left behind. It may be tougher on them. After all, they’ve had no training.

Attribution: Bev

Deja Vu, All Over Again

Obama 2010: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”

***

Obama 2010: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”

Obama 2011: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”

Obama 2012: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”

***

Obama 2010: “We face a deficit of trust.”

Obama 2012: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”

***

Obama 2010: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”

Obama 2012: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”

Attribution: Weekly Standard

George the Clairvoyant

From SHTFplan:

From time to time we get a peek inside the mind of a true insider. George Soros knows a thing or two about destabilization and far from equilibrium situations. He’s been on the giving and receiving ends of both.
From surviving the Nazi occupation of Hungary during World War II, to single handily crashing the currencies of entire nations, the experience he brings to the table should not be ignored.

With his deep connections in economic and political circles, if there’s anyone who knows what’s coming next, it’s Soros.

In his book The Crash of 2008 and What It Means, Soros warned that no matter what governments did, there was no way out of the trap in which the world – namely The United States – finds itself:

“So what does the end of an era really mean? I contend that it means the end of a long period of relative stability based on the United States as the dominant power and the dollar as the main international reserve currency. I foresee a period of political and financial instability, hopefully to be followed by the emergence of a new world order.”

Nearly four years on, the crisis, according to Soros, is now very much teetering on the edge of the instability he forecast in his book:

Via The Daily Beast:

For the first time in his 60-year career, Soros, now 81, admits
he is not sure what to do. “It’s very hard to know how you can be right, given the damage that was done during the boom years,” Soros says. He won’t discuss his portfolio, lest anyone think he’s talking things down to make a buck.

Has the great short seller gone soft? Well, yes. Sitting in his 33rd-floor corner office high above Seventh Avenue in New York, preparing for his trip to Davos, he is more concerned with surviving than staying rich.

“At times like these, survival is the most important thing,” he says, peering through his owlish glasses and brushing wisps of gray hair off his forehead. He doesn’t just mean it’s time to protect your assets. He means it’s time to stave off disaster. As he sees it, the world faces one of the most dangerous periods of modern history—a period of “evil.”

Europe is confronting a descent into chaos and conflict. In America he predicts riots on the streets that will
lead to a brutal clampdown that will dramatically curtail civil liberties. The global economic system could even collapse altogether.

“I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career,” Soros tells Newsweek. “We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.”

Soros draws on his past to argue that the global economic crisis is as significant, and unpredictable, as the end of communism. “The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening.”

As anger rises, riots on th
e streets of American cities are inevitable. “Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”

One of the leading financial minds and policy influencers in the world has just outlined the best and worst case outcomes for this crisis, and both of them are disastrous.

We cannot stress enough to our readers that, despite the many criticisms, Mr. Soros knows what he’s talking about. He is connected to all of the major players on all levels – economic, financial, political – you name it.

He has gone so far as to suggest that the consequences for America are a complete breakdown in law and order, riots in the streets, financial collapse, and a repressive government response.

Even the best and the brightest don’t know what to do, other than to duck and cover.

It’s coming, and it can’t be stopped.

Editorial Comment: You all know how I feel about George Soros. He may actually be the Devil. He is, I agree, about as well-connected as anyone on earth. Many

of us like-minded people have been warning of this possibility & preparing for it. I don’t know what will happen, nor does anyone else.

Recently & by sheer coincidence I’m sure, Obama signed the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act. Buried in this law is the fact that the Commander-in-Chief can have anyone, citizen or non, pulled off the street, dragged away & detained for as long as they wish, without being charged.

What’s Ann Been Smokin?

What’s Happened to Ann Coulter?
From Godfather Politics:

On a Sunday morning appearance on “Fox & Friends,” conservative columnist Ann Coulter tried unsuccessfully to explain why Romney got beaten by Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina GOP presidential primary. Here’s what she said:

“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall.”

When I first heard this, I thought the article was about Catherine Coulter, the mystery writer.

Ann Coulter is the queen of the “snotty remark.” Her entire career has been built on the quick retort, the turn of a clever phrase, and buckets of snotty remarks. Coulter is the epitome of the put down. She has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do.”

Consider some of her books: Slander, Treason, and Godless. They are appropriately snotty titles. Maybe Coulter
doesn’t like the competition from a politician who can out-snot her.

Who is Coulter supporting? Romney. You all know the run-down on Romney. This is not to say that Gingrich doesn’t have his own load of excess baggage. What many people like about Gingrich is that he’s not afraid to take on the media.

Something has happened to Coulter in the past year or two. She began to move leftward. Maybe she was trying to broaden her speaking options. She used to get pies in the face by liberal groups. Now she’s invited to speak at their conferences.

For example, she spoke at GOProud’s HOMOCON
2010. This engagement resulted in her removal from World Net Daily’s “Taking America Back” conference. It is unfortunate that Coulter is willing to be a vehicle of legitimacy for a group that certainly goes against the foundation of conservatism.

Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, had this to say about the incident:

“Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud. The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning.”

Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: “They hired me to give a speech, so I’m giving a speech. I do it all the time.”

She went on to say, “I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion.”

Soon after, Coulter joined the board of the pro-homosexual GOProud. “I am honored to serve in this capacity on GOProud’s Advisory Council, and look forward to being the queen of fabulous,” Coulter said in a statement.

Coulter can’t be trusted as a reliable conservative voice.

Profits are Obscene

Six House Dems Would Confiscate Oil Company Profits
by Steve Maley

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D’OH), have filed a bill aimed at controlling gasoline prices. Styled the “Gas Price Spike Act”, H.R. 3784 would establish a “Reasonable Profits Board” which would have the power to confiscate 100% of oil company profits above a level that they deem to be “reasonable”.

I know: “You had me at ‘Kucinich’.”

Which is which?

Which is which?

Kucinich is either a naive fool, a craven panderer to his electorate, or a throwback to Soviet-style central planning. That he could find five other elected nitwits (Reps. Woolsey, Langevin, Conyers, Fudge and Filyers) to put their names on such an anti-capitalist, unconstitutional fantasy is an indication that the Far Left Wing of the Democratic Party has left the ranch.

Consider, too, what it says about “Republican” presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who recently declared that he would consider Kucinich for a cabinet post in a Paul Administration.

Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich, who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance.

Paul joked that if he brought the Ohio congressman aboard in his administration, he might have to create a “Department of Peace.”

“You’ve got to give credit to people who think,” he said.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and [natural] gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members “shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board.”

Oil companies would only be able to make less than a reasonable profit without penalty. Anything over 105% of reasonable would be taxed at 100%. Proceeds of the confiscation would be dedicated to tax credits for high-milage vehicle purchase and mass transit subsidies for the poor.

Peeling back the layers of stupidity in H.R. 3784 would be akin to peeling an artichoke. In the interest of time, I will cut to my central point.

Implicit in the very suggestion that a Windfall Profit Tax is called for is the notion that somehow the oil companies are able to manipulate the price of oil, and hence, gasoline.

Gasoline prices are at historically high prices. Despite the spike above $4.00 per gallon in 2008, you actually paid 10% more at the pump in 2011.

When we refer to the industry as “oil and gas”, we mean “oil and natural gas”, not oil and gasoline. All oil companies make a substantial fraction of their revenue — many more than half — from natural gas.

The price of natural gas has plunged to 10 year lows recently as a result of warm winter temperatures, slack industrial demand and burgeoning supplies.

Natural gas prices have fallen to levels that make it difficult to justify drilling for more. Many of the new supplies of gas that come on will be incidental to the successful search for oil.

I challenge anyone who believes that oil companies control the price of oil and gasoline to explain how they do it, and why they seemingly have no control of natural gas.