Lazy Gun

Lazy Gun

Today I swung my front door wide open and placed my Remington 30.06 on the deck rail.

I left six cartridges beside it, then left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, my neighbor across the street mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of my house.

After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there, right where I had left it.

It hadn’t moved itself off the deck rail.

It hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had presented to do so.

In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself.

You can imagine my surprise, with all the hype by the Left and the Media about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people.Either the media is wrong or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

The United States is third in murders throughout the World.

But if you take out just four cities:

Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans,

The United States is fourth from the bottom, in the entire world, for murders!

These four Cities also have the toughest Gun Control Laws in the U.S. 

All four of these cities are

CONTROLLED BY DEMOCRATS.

It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data –correct?

Well, I’m off to check on my spoons.

I hear they’re making people fat.

 

The Establishment Isn’t Listening…

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER

To the extent it’s still standing after yesterday, the Stop Trump movement is comforting itself with the world’s biggest lie: that John Kasich is the embodiment of the Republican Party, while Donald Trump is the bastard stepchild.

It’s exactly the opposite.

It is no longer a question of what the party wants. The voters — remember them? — keep showering Trump and Cruz with Ceausescu-like percentages. The combined vote for Trump and Cruz is a ringing chorus of what this party wants: a wall, deportation, less immigration and no job-killing trade deals.

In other words, what the party wants is the diametric opposite of what the donor and consultant class wants. One would have to search the history books to find a party establishment so emphatically rejected by the voters as today’s Republican Party has been.

Trump and Cruz don’t agree on everything — Cruz is more interventionist on foreign policy, and Trump is more aggressive on bringing manufacturing home. But there’s not much daylight between them on the crucial issue of whether to dissolve America’s borders. By now, they both say build a wall, reduce immigration and protect American jobs.

In other words, Trump and Cruz have totally rejected the Bush/Ryan/Rubio/Fox News/WSJ/RNC establishment position on immigration.

After Mitt Romney lost an election he should have won in 2012, the Republican National Committee convened a group of experts to determine what went wrong, producing what it called an “autopsy.” It was an autopsy because, you see, the party was dead. And the people who did the autopsy were the ones who killed it.

Have you ever heard of an autopsy being performed by the murderers?

The murderers’ main recommendation was that Republicans “embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform” — i.e., amnesty. “If we do not,” the autopsy continued, “our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.”

God forbid the party respond to its core constituencies! Instead, the report bristled with advice on winning the Hispanic vote. The GOP was supposed to run Hispanic candidates, hire Hispanic spokesmen, demand yet more Hispanic immigration and correct its “tone.”

It looked like our report got mixed up with the Democratic National Committee’s report in the copier room. At least it was printed in English.

They put all this in their computer and out spit the perfect solution: MARCO RUBIO! Like all ideas developed by focus groups (“New Coke”), how could it possibly fail?

“On issues like immigration,” the report instructed, “the RNC needs to carefully craft a tone that takes into consideration the unique perspective of the Hispanic community.” How’d they like the front-runner’s announcement speech about Mexican rapists and drug dealers? Off-message?

But Trump immediately leapt to the top of the polls and never stopped soaring.

Only Ted Cruz was smart enough — or hated the Republican establishment enough — to adopt Trump’s pro-American immigration policies. Now the only question for voters is, which one is more electable: a Holy Roller preacher, or a brash alpha male billionaire?

They’ve crushed the rest of the field — winning large majorities of Hispanics along the way, incidentally. Between them, Trump and Cruz have won 77 percent of the delegates (1,067). The donor-approved, mass immigration advocates, John Kasich and the (late, lamented) Marco Rubio, have 23 percent (313).

Rubio was the apotheosis of the Republican leadership’s proposal for national suicide — or the “Growth and Opportunity Project,” as the autopsy was officially titled. He was handpicked for the presidency six years ago.

He got to Washington and promptly set about pushing an amnesty bill faster than you could say, “My dad was a bartender.” In the darkest days of the nation’s history, Rubio’s bill actually passed the U.S. Senate. (One of the many hints that voters don’t want amnesty was that the bill was blocked in the House, not by any major media opposition — despite media cheerleading, in fact — but by the people, rising up in a blind rage.)

But still, Rubio was the golden boy among GOP consultants, donors and their hired help, elected Republicans. He had unlimited money, resources, establishment support, conservative media cheerleaders and his own cable news channel.

His presidential bid was supported by 14 Republican governors, 22 Republican senators and more than two dozen Republican representatives, Washington think tanks, lobbyists, the Chamber of Commerce, Chipotle and Taco Bell. Time magazine put him on its cover as “Republican Savior.”

And on Tuesday, he lost his own state in a landslide. Rubio lost every single county in Florida to Trump but one. He went 1 for 66 in a state where he is not only a U.S. senator, but also a former house speaker. He outspent Trump by about 500 percent and still lost his home state by 20 points.

Never was there a more perfectly kicked field goal — with Rubio as the pigskin. He was hiked and kicked right through the goalposts.

Gov. John Kasich is as awful on immigration as Rubio, but he’s so boring, no one can ever remember anything he says. He opposes deporting illegal aliens because that’s not “the kind of values that we believe in.” (“We” being “the Democratic Party.”) He bleats that illegals are “made in the image of the Lord,” which would require America to admit everyone in the world — provided they can pass the rigorous background check of being human.

On Tuesday night, Kasich barely won his own state, making him 1 for 29 in GOP primaries. The one and only primary he’s won is in the state where he’s the sitting governor. He was endorsed by his opponent, Marco Rubio. He’s campaigned almost nowhere else.

And yet Kasich came in less than 10 points ahead of a New York real estate developer — half of Trump’s margin of victory over Rubio in Rubio’s home state. Adjusting for the home state advantage, that’s a humiliating defeat.

How many more GOP stars will die for mass immigration? So far, there’s Eric Cantor, Nikki Haley, Trey Gowdy, Ben Sasse, Paul Ryan, Fox News — 14 governors, 22 senators and two dozen representatives.

With increasing desperation, the media claim that 63 percent of voters don’t want Trump based on votes cast for any other candidate in a 12-man race. What the delegate count shows is a resounding rejection of the immigration policies being pushed by the party leadership.

The establishment laughed at us. They wanted our votes, but then ignored us. They lied to us about opposing amnesty while repeatedly conspiring to pass it.

Now we’re going into the presidential election with our 80 percent thunderous will of the people against immigration. I’m not sure someone who is more preacher than president is the most electable expression of that will, but whether Trump or Cruz, make no mistake about what the will is.

Who is Donald Trump?

This is one of the best articles I have seen in quite some time.  It explains EXACTLY why I voted for Trump yesterday.

Excellent read. The author is the political correspondent for Bloomberg and wrote extensively about Obama even before he was elected and he did it with facts and more facts.

“Who is Donald Trump?”

The better question may be, “What is Donald Trump?” The answer: A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment.

Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents. But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demosocialists and the “Republicans in Name Only.” They know there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates.

Ben Carson is not an “establishment” candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson, and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio). The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse.

Besides, lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things. Stranger things have happened. (The nation elected a Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)

Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014 and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016? Why? Trump did not come from out of nowhere. His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures.

No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Czars, etc.). Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education. (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.) No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation’s major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire.

Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with:

Anyone named Bush

Anyone named Clinton

Anyone who’s held political office

Political correctness

Illegal immigration

Massive unemployment

Phony “official” unemployment and inflation figures

Welfare waste and fraud

People faking disabilities to go on the dole

VA waiting lists

TSA airport groping

ObamaCare

The Federal Reserve’s money-printing schemes

Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine

Michelle Obama’s vacations

Michelle Obama’s food police

Barack Obama’s golf

Barack Obama’s arrogant and condescending lectures

Barack Obama’s criticism/hatred of America

Valerie Jarrett

“Holiday trees”

Apologizing to our enemy

Hollywood hypocrites

Global warming nonsense

Cop killers

Gun confiscation threats

Stagnant wages

Chevy Volts

Clock boy

Pajama boy

Mattress girl

Boys in girls’ bathrooms

Whiny, spoiled college students who can’t even place the Civil War in the correct century

. . .and that’s just the short list.

Trump supporters believe that no Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues. They certainly know that none of the establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them, and Trump is their way of saying, “Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!” The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains. (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier.  All the others argue that the voters will eventually “come to their senses” and support an establishment candidate.)

But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage. It needs a new engine installed by experts–and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it. Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned. Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage. Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage. He won’t hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.

“How dare they revolt!” the “elites” are bellowing. Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it. “But Trump will hand the election to Clinton!” That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved “Maverick” McCain down GOP throats in 2008–knowing he would lose to Obama.

But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins, she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates. They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America’s greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation. A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system. But no nation can survive both–and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that. The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on. At some point it will be destroyed by its debt.

Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wanders through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world’s glaciers are not melting; and Rosie O’Donnell is a fat pig.

Is Trump the perfect candidate? Of course not. Neither was Ronald Reagan. But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant. One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands. One jihadist poisoning a city’s water supply could kill tens of thousands. One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions. Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don’t care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

While Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his three wives and who thinks 72 virgins are waiting for him in paradise.

The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation. They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts. While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much. You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016, his or her cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we’ve seen before. The washed-up has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge. The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots. Whether it is Bush’s Karl Rove or Clinton’s John Podesta, who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little. If the establishment wins, America loses.

We had a good rally and info session last night

We had a good rally and info session last night; many thanks to everyone who turned out! If you can cover any of the polling places next Tuesday, please let me know when and where.

12819424_964770600243949_251696022806630577_o

As an example of why it’s so important we make changes, at the BOC Meeting on Monday, March 7, the topic of the Budget Calendar was on the agenda.

A motion to approve as is was made. Ray Gasperson moved to amend the motion and direct the County Manager to propose a budget to the Commissioners which would match the revenues and not include a subsidy from the County Fund Balance. There was no second to Ray’s motion and it failed.

The majority has spent over $1.5 million from the fund balance to augment the budgets during the last 3 years.

Ayn Rand: The difference between socialism and fascism

“The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open. The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.”
— Ayn Rand
(1905-1982) Author
Source: “The Fascist New Frontier,” The Ayn Rand Column, p.98
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Ayn.Rand.Quote.393B

Dear Liberal: Here Is Why I Am So Hostile

Dear Liberal…Here’s Why I’m So Hostile

by Jeremy N. Choate

image

This essay is a bit of departure from my usually reasonable and logical approach to important issues.  That’s not to say that the essay isn’t well-reasoned and is bereft of logical argumentation, but I freely admit that it’s polemical, in nature.  Sometimes you’re just pissed, and you need to vent.  Here’s my vent…

Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically.  No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers.  I know that you’ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.

Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to.  If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears.  If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you.  If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at.  If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy.  If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading.  Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.

First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think.  Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government.  As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.

Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation.  You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor.  The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem – it’s our attitude towards the solution.  We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved.  For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began.  You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away.  We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,

Government is not the solution to our problems;  government is the problem.

Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are.  While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect.  However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service.  There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.

Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda.  First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”.  In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress.  What is the ideal towards which you are striving?  An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away.  So, what is your ideal society?

Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy.  The rights that FDR cited are:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you?  What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated?  These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”

I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America.  After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right?  Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human?  Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.

If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list – none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being.  Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else.  Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens.  Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone.  A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet – and it is unconditional.

FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”.  It’s a list of demands.  If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me?  If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me?  If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?

You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he?  If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not?  Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.

You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy.  It’s quite simple – your political beliefs are a threat to liberty – not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well.  I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.

How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask?  In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents.  If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you.  If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.

The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish.  You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom.  If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity.  If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally.  If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.

However, you cannot say the same for liberalism.  If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor.  If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.

Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle.  You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs.  You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens.  Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty – it’s an axiomatic truth.

What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur.  You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi.  Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.

I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom.  What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.

I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:

“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation.  In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up.  You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else.  In my society, you have the freedom to do that.

In your society, I don’t have the same freedom.  If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders.  In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?

In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you.  It’s nothing personal, necessarily.  If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest.  But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.

Bring it.

Are You A Good Republican/Citizen?

Why in the world Mr. Romney or the GOP establishment would think that it was smart/wise to speak out against the current frontrunner of our own party or why they would think that it would make a lick of difference is beyond me!  But then many things are beyond me this year.

Most of you know that I am No Trump fan. I do Not want him as our president for the next 4 years and I do Not trust him. But I do “get” why people are flocking to him. People are Mad and they have every right to be. Hell, I’m mad! I don’t know if I have been this mad in my lifetime. The people that we elected to represent us from the Republican party, whether that be in local positions, state positions or Federal positions have for the most part let us down – for Years! They tell the voters one thing to get elected and then ignore us until the next election cycle; hoping I suppose, that we wouldn’t notice…

So I get it.

We have people in elected positions that haven’t had a real job in many, many years and in some cases, perhaps never. They come right out of college and start getting a paycheck funded by tax dollars that you and I work hard for.

But people (including me) are asking themselves why Romney or McCain or any number of other so called “leaders” in the GOP are comfortable taking on someone in their own party and yet they are (and were) frightened to death to take on anyone in the Democrat party. Hell, if Mr. Romney or Mr. McCain would have been so bold and so forth right, Barrack Obama (the worst president in my lifetime) might not have come to pass…  but nope, both of these men held back and they both let us down… So to a large degree, I get the whole Trump thing, honestly I do… but at the risk of pissing some of you off, I’d like to know where the hell some of you have been for the last 8-12 years?

 

The people that are now saying that they are “fed –up” answer this:

 

  • When is the last time that you volunteered to work the polls (a long 12 hour day) or even volunteer to stand out in front of a polling place to hand out information?
  • When is the last time you wrote a letter to the editor of your local newspaper or wrote a letter to your congressman or senator?
  • How often do you attend GOP meetings, PAC meetings or County Commissioner meetings?
  • Have you EVER volunteered for a campaign that you believed in?
  • How much time have you spent researching the issues and keeping track of how specific elected officials voted on each such bill?
  • How many of you have served your country in the military; your spouse; your children?
  • And how many of you only vote in the General election and never in the Primaries or the local – off year – elections?
  • Do you honestly thing that “Liking” something on Face book or Re-posting something on your FB page is enough?

 

I think you see where I am going with this. A few months of paying attention is not enough! It never has been. The Republican party is now consequently going thru a metamorphosis that was bound to come given the career politicians we now have. The Democrats have the exact same problem, they are just coming to this realization later than we are; but mark my words, their party has just as many problems – if not more – than our party does.

Just showing up every 2 to 4 years to vote is NOT enough if you want good representation. You must participate in the process and it must become a lifelong habit.

Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves to see how little we do to keep what we were given. So yes, Trump is a manifestation of the dysfunction that has been going on for a LONG time.

But I am sorry to say, many of you are just as much at fault!

And in case you care, the reason I don’t particularly care for Mr. Trump is because I believe he uses words to Disguise, and not to Illuminate….

Anonymous Contribution

Climate Change Researchers Double Dipping

House Probe Reveals Audit Detailing Climate Change Researcher’s ‘Double Dipping’

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, at left during a 2012 House committee meeting, says a university professor’s finances related to the climate change debate are cause for taxpayer concern. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

Congressional investigators have obtained an internal audit from George Mason University that suggests that one of its professors—a major proponent of man-made climate change—mismanaged millions of dollars in taxpayer money by “double dipping” in violation of university policy.

The professor, Jagadish Shukla, received $511,410 in combined compensation from George Mason University and his own taxpayer-funded climate change research center in 2014 alone, without receiving required permission from university officials, the audit found.

The audit looking at more than a decade of Shukla’s finances is disclosed in a letter sent this morning from Rep. Lamar Smith,  R-Texas, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to the inspector general of the National Science Foundation.

“The committee’s investigation has revealed serious concerns related to Dr. Shukla’s management of taxpayer money,” Smith writes in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Signal.

The Daily Signal is the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation.  We’ll respect your inbox and keep you informed.

Since 2001, Shukla used his research center to pay himself and his wife more than $5.6 million in compensation, “an excessive amount for a nonprofit relying on taxpayer money,” Smith writes.

In the letter, Smith offers to assist Allison Lerner, the National Science Foundation’s inspector general, in any investigation she “may deem appropriate” in response to the GMU audit.

The Daily Signal previously reported that the Texas Republican began making inquiries last fall about reports that Shukla had received tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants to study climate change in addition to his publicly funded salary.

>>> Lawmakers Probe Taxpayer-Funded Academic Who Wants to Prosecute Climate Skeptics

Shukla, 71, who specializes in atmospheric, oceanic, and earth studies at GMU, is also the founder and president of the Rockville, Md.-based Institute of Global Environment and Society, or IGES, a nonprofit outfit that is now the focus of congressional scrutiny.

Smith writes:

IGES has apparently received $63 million from taxpayer funded grants since 2001, comprising over 98 percent of its total revenue. These grants were awarded by the NSF [National Science Foundation], National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  Since 2001, as president of IGES, Dr. Shukla appears to have paid himself and his wife a total of $5.6 million in compensation—an excessive amount for a nonprofit relying on taxpayer money. This information raises serious questions about Dr. Shukla’s financial management of IGES.

An environmental institute run by Jagadish Shukla is the beneficiary of more than $60 million in taxpayer funds. (Photo: Evan Cantwell/George Mason University)

An environmental institute run by Jagadish Shukla is the beneficiary of more than $60 million in taxpayer funds. (Photo: Evan Cantwell/George Mason University)

The RICO 20

Steve McIntyre, a statistician noted for challenging the data and methodology used in United Nations reports on climate change, offers a detailed analysis of Shukla’s compensation and how it squares with university and government policies in his Climate Audit blog.

The India-born Shukla, who joined the faculty of Fairfax, Va.-based George Mason University in 1993, drew a salary there of $314,000 by 2014, according to Climate Audit.

Smith also raised concerns about the relationship between Shukla’s “partisan political activity” and taxpayer funds in a letter he sent to the professor in October.

Shukla’s name appears on top of a list of 20 signers of a letter sent to President Barack Obama; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; and John Holdren, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy asking them to investigate corporations and other groups skeptical of climate change under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Federal prosecutors typically use that law, known as RICO, to pursue organized crime.

Some who hold that man-made climate change is not established scientific fact say Shukla’s “RICO 20” letter essentially calls for the federal government to prosecute companies and scientists who dissent from the Obama administration’s views on climate change.

>>> Lawmakers Urged to Question Taxpayer-Subsidized Climate Alarmists

However, signatories who spoke with The Daily Signal said they advocated RICO investigations only if it could be demonstrated that certain climate change skeptics had “knowingly deceived the public.”

No such RICO investigations appear to be under way. But by putting his signature at the top of the letter to Obama and Lynch, Shukla drew scrutiny and attention to his own activities.

Taxpayers ‘Picked Up the Tab’

In the new letter, Smith details key findings of the George Mason University audit. He writes:

It appears IGES may have improperly commingled taxpayer funds with private charitable contributions when it shifted $100,000 to an education charity in India founded by Dr. Shukla, the Institute of Global Education Equality of Opportunity and Prosperity Inc.  This raises concerns that taxpayer money intended to be used for climate research was redirected to an overseas organization favored by Dr. Shukla.

The Texas Republican adds:

The recent audit conducted by GMU appears to reveal that Dr. Shukla engaged in what is referred to as “double dipping.” In other words, he received his full salary at GMU, while working full time at IGES and receiving a full salary there. This practice may have violated GMU’s university policy, his employment contract with the university, and Virginia state law.

For example, according to GMU’s Faculty Handbook, ‘outside employment and paid consulting cannot exceed the equivalent of one day per work week without written authorization from the collegiate dean or institute director.’ Dr. Shukla violated this policy [in] five different time periods from 2003 to 2015 because he failed to receive approval for paid consulting in excess of one day per week. This allowed Dr. Shukla to double dip by receiving his full salary from GMU while receiving an excessive salary for working 28 hours per week at IGES.

In another instance, in 2014, Dr. Shukla received $292,688 in compensation from IGES for working 28 hours per week while simultaneously receiving 100 percent of his GMU salary.  In total, Dr. Shukla received $511,410 in compensation from IGES and GMU during 2014, without ever receiving the appropriate permission from GMU officials, apparently violating university policy.

Instead of serving the public interest with his nonprofit research center on climate change, Smith concludes in the letter, Shukla put taxpayers in a position where they “picked up the tab for excessive double dipping salaries, nepotism, and questionable money transfers.”

‘Serious Risks’

“The irony here is over the top,” said Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who writes on global warming and energy policy, among other issues.

“First, Shukla appears to have made millions from taxpayers through funding improprieties,” Lewis said. “But Shukla also led the call for a RICO investigation of organizations challenging climate orthodoxy—a campaign which his co-ringleader at GMU admits aims to impose financial penalties on political opponents while yielding payouts to further underwrite the climate alarm movement.”

Last year, CEI asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate Shukla’s nonprofit research center, the one now the subject of the House probe.

“We hope Congress’s progress spurs the IRS to turn a serious eye to our November complaint,”  Lewis said, adding:

Shukla and his comrades … accuse fossil fuel companies of hiding climate risks from the American people, an impossible offense given the billions in annual government, pressure group, and media spending on climate advocacy. Yet, they refuse to acknowledge that their agenda, which would put an energy-starved world on an energy diet, poses serious risks to the world’s people, especially the poorest of the poor. By hiding climate policy risk, Shukla and his allies have deceived the American people. By his own logic, he should be the target of a RICO investigation.

This report has been updated to include the comments from Marlo Lewis Jr.