The 2nd Amendment is upheld....for now.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The 2nd Amendment is upheld....for now.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Lot's of controversy over the border issue...
Us Arizonans down on the border aren't real fond of the current gov...but this from her spokesperson is a positive sign:
"Why stop when you're just beginning to get control of the situation," said Jeanine L'Ecuyer, spokeswoman for Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, site of the busiest smuggling corridor. "I don't think anyone in Arizona would tell you that the problem has improved so dramatically that the government should stop the operation."
We need more of that mindest in the government...
June 23, 2008
ON THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER - Tech. Sgt. Wayne Combs of the California Air National Guard is riding aboard "Mad Max," a military truck whose homemade platform evokes the apocalyptic film.
Ten feet above the ground, he and other guardsmen are cutting and straightening posts to make the last line of U.S. fencing taller--to 16 feet --and harder for illegal immigrants to breach.
For most of two years, he has been working on this domestic front near San Diego whose double fence resembles a demilitarized zone. Into this void, however, flows the illegal traffic.
Combs has seen it firsthand, and there hasn't been much he could do: The immigrants walked right by him.
But, the 49-year-old Combs said, "I didn't see one who didn't get caught" later by the U.S. Border Patrol.
The Guard's two-year mission is to end by mid-July, but there's controversy about its withdrawal as there was about its deployment, which some criticized as excessive militarization of the nation's southern boundary.
The Soldiers and Airmen were here in a supporting role for the Border Patrol: They built roads and fences, flew helicopters for surveillance or transport and manned observation posts along the border, but they never made the arrests.
While the federal government--and the governors of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas -- have lauded the military's work, the Bush administration is rejecting the states' requests to prolong the mission.
Under President George W. Bush's Operation Jump Start, 6,000 guardsmen were sent to the border in 2006 when the 11,583-agent Border Patrol began to hire an additional 6,000 people, a target it's set to meet by year's end.
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff has told the governors that the military was a temporary boost during crackdowns that have brought a 20 percent drop in immigrant arrests the past year--an indicator that overall illegal traffic is down.
"In our view, we have had a raging success. We think we made a difference," said National Guard Bureau spokesman Randal Noller.
Impact minor, some say Some experts disagree, saying "operational control" of the border, a federal goal, has yet to be attained.
The Guard "probably did a fair amount of infrastructure work and construction, but I'm not sure they made very much difference to actual border security in any way that you want to categorize it," said Josiah Heyman, a border expert and University of Texas at El Paso professor.
Heyman said several scenarios could explain the drop in arrests: Smugglers are better at avoiding detection. Immigrants avoid back-and-forth trips. Jobs, especially in construction, are fewer.
Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California-San Diego, said his research indicates a fortified border doesn't dent immigrants' 98 percent success rate but makes them hire smugglers.
In fact, 821 would-be immigrants said their biggest fear --cited by 43 percent--is the desert, which kills more than 500 crossers a year. The Guard was feared by only 5.3 percent, ranking between the border fence (5.8 percent) and the Minutemen or vigilantes (2.4 percent), according to Cornelius' study, which was released this month by the pro-Immigration Immigration Policy Center.
Guard needed, others say The governors, however, praised the Guard for toughening the borderlands, which they said could be undone by the drawdown.
"Why stop when you're just beginning to get control of the situation," said Jeanine L'Ecuyer, spokeswoman for Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona, site of the busiest smuggling corridor. "I don't think anyone in Arizona would tell you that the problem has improved so dramatically that the government should stop the operation."
Agreeing is Allison Castle, spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. "There's still a tremendous amount of illegal activity that's taking place," she said. Since March 2006, about 500 immigrants from "known terrorist countries" such as Iran, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan were caught entering Texas illegally from Mexico, Castle said.
U.S. Border Patrol assistant chief Lloyd Easterling responds that the Guard "was never meant to be a 1-for-1 replacement" for the 6,000 Border Patrol agents being hired.
Many guardsmen said they would like to see their work extended.
"We love it," said Combs. "It's good for government. It's good for all."
The Guard learned a basic lesson of the border: Crackdowns in one sector just send smugglers elsewhere. San Diego was the only one of the border's nine sectors that saw an increase in apprehensions last year -- a sign of more crossings.
"It's the thought it might be easier to get across here and blend into the metropolitan area," said Lt. Col. Peter Shaner, executive officer for the California National Guard's border task force. "Out in the desert, it's easier to be spotted."
NRA - The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Hurricane Katrina
The following description provided by the NRA aswell as the video itself...The crimes committed against law-abiding gun owners are beyond comprehension. The arrogance of anti-gun politicians and government officials and their hate of freedom will churn your stomach.The law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution. If ONE local mayor or police chief can decide what the Second Amendment means, it opens the door to tyranny�where ANY mayor or police chief can say what the Second Amendment means.You've seen this brand of abuse of freedom in the history books�in the pages about days of gun confiscations leading to the terror of Stalin, Mao and Hitler. But you'd never in a million years think it could happen in America.Well, it can and it did. And it will happen again unless we take action today.New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Superintendent P. Eddie Compass unleashed a wave of confiscations with these chilling words:"No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."Thousands of firearms were then confiscated from law-abiding gun owners. The police gave no paperwork or receipts for those guns. They just stormed in and seized them.With your help we're going to make the first time in New Orleans the LAST time in America. Thank you!Now, one year later, these crimes against gun owners have snowballed into a far greater threat to our freedoms.Even though NRA secured a court order demanding their immediate and unconditional return, almost every single confiscated firearm remains locked in government trailers.With the stroke of a pen, Mayor Nagin and Police Superintendent Compass are getting away with "murder"�a savaging of the second, fourth and fourteenth amendments of our Constitution. And they have put America on notice that they're going to keep seizing lawfully owned guns under any pretense.New Orleans gun owners are showing up at these trailers, with serial numbers of their firearms, expecting Mayor Nagin and his band of anti-gunners to respect the Federal courts.They are met by stony-eyed bureaucrats who say serial numbers aren't enough�and that gun owners now need PROOF OF PURCHASE of these firearms.How many of those gun owners do you think had original receipts for those firearms? And even if they did, how many do you think could find those receipts in the wreckage of a hurricane?Many of these firearms were passed down from father to son, generation to generation. Some are precious heirlooms. Some are collector's pieces won in our wars. And they were all lawfully owned and they must be returned to their owners.With your help we're going to make the first time in New Orleans the LAST time in America. Thank you!
Die with your boots on....
The most basic fundamental right is the right of arming oneself to protect yourself, family and community. Seems like a n0-brainer, but apparently those without brains still have a voice...
H/T: Bash at Pat Dollard.com
Die with your boots on....
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
I'll believe it when I see it. Some things just don't need fixin'.
'Ma Deuce' Days May Be Numbered...
Lifted from: Military.com
Probably the longest serving weapon in the U.S. military arsenal is the Browning .50-caliber M2 machine gun. Often referred to as "ma deuce" for its M2 designation, the weapon entered U.S. service at the end of World War I, being scaled up from the Browning .30-caliber M1917 machine gun. The .50-caliber weapon was initially designated M1921.
Using a round designed by Winchester, the .50-caliber machine gun was originally intended for ground troops to use against enemy troops. Subsequently, it was employed as an anti-aircraft weapon and then became the standard armament of U.S. warplanes. In 1932, the design was updated and redesignated M2.
Ground and naval machine guns could be air- or water-cooled, the latter having large "jackets" around the barrel. The weapons had rates of fire from 500 to 650 rounds per minute. Mounts for vehicle and shipboard use soon had twin barrels, while a fixed quad-barrel mount was developed for ground and vehicle use. Its light weight permitted up to eight guns to be carried in fighters and it fit into single-, twin-, and quad-barrel turrets on U.S. bombers. The weapon was used in every theater of World War II by U.S. and allied troops--by 1945 the U.S. Army authorized 237 .50-caliber guns in each infantry division, 385 in each armored division, and 165 in each airborne division.
The "ma duce" was used in large numbers in the Korean and Vietnam Wars, in other crises and conflicts, and, of course, in the Gulf War of 1991 and the later invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now, after almost 90 years of service, the U.S. Army has moved to replace Browning's remarkable machine gun. The Army recently ordered three prototypes of a lightweight .50-caliber machine gun. Produced by General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, the weapon weighs about one-half of the current .50-caliber M2HB (Heavy Barrel) machine gun, fires with less recoil and is equipped with technology to improve accuracy, according to the company.
The Army and Special Operations Command (SOCOM) will test the new guns and then apply the lessons learned to a potential production design. Low-rate initial production could begin as soon as 2011.
It would take several years for the new weapon to replace the "ma duce" in U.S. service. But even if it does so, the M1921/M2 would have been in service for a century.
Its inventor -- John Moses Browning (1855-1926) -- was one of America's most prolific gun inventors. After making his first gun from scrap metal at age 13, he went on to design pistols, rifles, and machine guns. The U.S. Army began using his machine guns in 1890. Browning's innovative weapons also included the .30-caliber M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), used in U.S. Army and Marine Corps squads from World War I through the Korean War.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
TOKYO — A man who police said "was tired of life" drove into a crowd of pedestrians Sunday and then went on a stabbing rampage in Tokyo's top electronics and video game district, killing seven people and wounding 10, authorities said.
The deadly lunchtime assault paralyzed the Akihabara neighborhood, which is wildly popular among the country's youth. The killings were the latest in a series of grisly knife attacks that have stoked fears of rising crime in Japan.
A 25-year-old man, Tomohiro Kato, was apprehended in the attack, authorities said.
"The suspect told police that he came to Akihabara to kill people," said Jiro Akaogi, a spokesman for the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department. "He said he was tired of life. He said he was sick of everything."
I also was a bit apprehensive at first wearing it in public, but in Alaska, seems noone even batted an eye. It was very liberating. So I definitely can empathize with this guy.
Also, if you're interested in open carry check out this site OpenCarry.org
In hot weather, the holster was almost unbearable. Pressed against his skin, the firearm was heavy and uncomfortable. Hiding the weapon made him feel like a criminal.
One evening he stumbled across a site that urged gun owners to do something revolutionary: Carry your gun openly for the world to see as you go about your business.
In most states, there's no law against that.
Jensen, 28, decided to give it a try. A few days later, his gun was visible, dangling from a black holster strapped around his hip as he walked into a Costco. His heart raced as he ordered a Polish dog at the counter. No one called police. No one stopped him.
The age old question of whether the undead would have the requisite muscle and tendon integrity to exhibit fast locomotion has been answered. In the early days of the zombie movie genre, zombies were slow due to the realities of rigor mortis, it was a given. Later films depicted them as possessing enhanced speed, super speed if you will. A level of speed that few outside of Olympic class athletes could ever hope to out outrun.
That development changed the zombie equation from a simple game of ammo supply, to one of ammo supply and stamina. Such a metric was self defeating by its very nature. One could not possibly hope to lug around enough heavy shotgun shells and run fast enough to escape the clutches of the fast undead. One had to choose between carrying plenty of bandoleers of 00 12 gage or run away empty handed but not both. In either scenario, a grisly death was likely to follow.
Back o' my neck
Gettin dirty and gritty......
by Lt. Geoff Vickers
My squadron and air wing were detached to NAS Fallon, Nevada, for strike training. Most of us attended lectures all day, but I was tasked with giving the battle-group-air-warfare commander an orientation flight in the F-14D As skipper of the cruiser in charge of the battle group's air defenses, he had been spending time with the air wing to better understand how we conduct our missions. He had observed a number of the strike events through the tactical-air-combat-training system (TACTS) replays, and he had flown with the E-2C and EA-6B squadrons. He was proud that the Prowler guys hadn't been able to make him sick.
My job was to demonstrate the Tomcat's performance and tactical capabilities. Though this flight was my first without a qualified radar-intercept officer (RIO) in the back seat, I had flown with a number of aviators who had very little Tomcat experience.
The Captain arrived at the squadron a half-hour before the brief to receive his cockpit-orientation lecture and ejection-seat checkout. Once in the ready room, we briefed the flight with our wingman. I covered the administrative and tactical procedures in accordance with our squadron's standard-operating procedures (SOP).
I told the Captain that after the G-awareness maneuver, we would do a quick inverted check to verify cockpit security. Looking back, I should have recognized his anxiety when he mocked me and said, "Just a quick inverted check?" then laughed. I didn't realize hanging upside down with nothing but glass and 11,000 feet of air separating you from the desert floor might not be the most comfortable situation in the world for a surface-warfare officer.
I continued the brief and told the captain we would do a performance demo and a couple of intercepts, followed by tanking from an S-3. I told him if, at any point, he felt uncomfortable, we would stop whatever we were doing, roll wings level, and take it easy. I was determined to avoid the temptation to intentionally make him sick and uncomfortable.
The start, taxi, and takeoff were normal. We joined with our lead and did the standard clean-and-dry checks. We pressed into the working area and assumed a defensive combat-spread formation in preparation for the G-warm I told him what was happening, and he seemed to remember the sequence of events from the brief. After we completed the checks, I asked him, "Are you ready for the inverted check? Do you have everything stowed?"
"All set" was the last thing I heard him say.
I checked the airspeed and confirmed it was above the 300 knots recommended to do the check, and I rolled the aircraft inverted. I decided not to really put on a lot of negative G and unloaded to about .3 to ..5 negative G's-just enough to make anything float that wasn't stowed properly. If he was uncomfortable in such a benign maneuver, it would be better to find out then, rather than when we were racing toward the earth during a radar-missile defense.
As I started to push on the stick, I heard a loud pop, followed by a roar. The cockpit filled with smoke, and we suddenly lost cabin pressure. I first thought a catastrophic environmental-control system (ECS) had failed. I said to myself, "This is new. I've never even heard of something like this happening."
Time compression turned the next few seconds into an eternity. I knew the first thing I had to do was to roll the jet upright and assess the situation. About three seconds after the first indication of a problem, I had the jet upright and knew exactly what had happened.
I transmitted, "Lion 52. Emergency, my RIO just ejected."
I was yelling into the mic, thinking I would have to make all the calls in the blind. I never would have thought I easily could communicate with all the noise of flying at 320 knots without a canopy.
As I turned the jet to try and get a visual of my wayward passenger, Desert Control asked, "Understand your wingman ejected?"
"Negative, my RIO ejected. I'm still flying the plane."
"OK. Understand your RIO ejected. You're flying the plane, and you're OK?"
I almost said I was far from OK, but I just told them I was all right, except I was flying a convertible. I was relieved to see a good parachute below me, and I passed this info to Desert Control. Very quickly after the emergency call, an FA-18 pilot from the Naval Strike and Air-Warfare Center, who also was in the area, announced he would take over as the on-scene commander of the search-and-rescue (SAR) effort.
I told my wingman to pass the location of the Captain because I could not change any of my displays. Once my wingman started to pass the location, I started dumping gas and put the needle on the nose back to NAS Fallon.
One of our air-wing SH-60s was in the area and responded, along with the station's UH-1N. The Captain was recovered almost immediately and transported to the local hospital for treatment and evaluation.
The only F-14D boldface procedures for a canopy problem include placing the canopy handle in "boost close" position and then moving the command eject lever to "pilot." Obviously, the canopy already was gone, so that lever action didn't apply, and, if the command-eject lever wasn't already in "pilot," as briefed, I also would have been ejected.
I slowed the aircraft and lowered my seat because that's what I remembered from the rest of the steps in the checklist. However, after sitting at eye-level with my multi-function display for about 30 seconds, I thought it would be more prudent to see outside, so I raised my seat. Slowing the aircraft had little affect on the windblast, but, as long as I leaned forward, the wind hit only my shoulders. Because it was very cold at altitude, I decided to return quickly to base, but I needed to watch my airspeed since the ejection had occurred.
The PCL says to fly less than 200 knots and 15,000 feet and to complete a controllability check for the loss of the canopy, but I never pulled out my PCL to reference it. I figured with the way my day was going, I'd probably just drop my PCL down an intake and complicate my problems. In retrospect, I should have requested my wingman break out his checklist and talk me through the steps. Though this practice of having a wingman assist is common in single-seat communities, Tomcat crews tend to forget this coordination technique is a viable option.
I did consider the controllability check, and I directed my wingman to check for damage to the vertical stabilizers-she found none. The faster I got on deck, the faster I would get warm.
I slowed to approach speed in 10-knot increments at about 3,000 feet AGL and had no problems handling the jet. As I approached the field, I was surprised at how quiet it got. The noise was only slightly louder than the normal ECS roar in the Tomcat. I'll admit I felt silly saying the landing checklist over the ICS when no one else was in the cockpit, but I didn't want to risk breaking my standard habit patterns.
The landing was uneventful, and, when I pulled back into the line, I was surprised to find how many people had come out to see the spectacle. The magnitude of the situation finally set in when my skipper gave me a hug after I got out of the jet.
The Captain and I were very fortunate: All of the ejection and aviation-life-support-systems (ALSS) equipment functioned as expected. Our PR1 had taken the time to properly fit the captain, using components from three different sets of flight gear. This action caused a problem after the mishap-getting everyone's gear replaced-but it renewed my faith in our escape systems. A 48-year-old man ejected from the jet when it was inverted, at negative .5 G's, at 320 knots, and the only injuries he had were two minor cuts to his face.
After talking to the Captain at the O'Club later that night, I realized I better could have briefed elements of the flight. Though I covered all of the details, I didn't fully consider his perspective. He said he didn't know where to put his hands. Consequently, he just left them in loosely clenched fists on his lap, about two inches away from the ejection handle. It never occurred to me that someone would not know what to do with his hands. Obviously, I fly with the stick and throttle in my hands 95 percent of the flight, but I failed to consider his situation.
The mishap board surmised that, during the inverted maneuver, he must have flinched when he slightly rose out of the seat and pulled the ejection handle. Now, before any brief, I try to place myself in the other person's shoes (even if they are black shoes) and imagine what the flight will be like for him. Whether it is the person who never has flown a tactical aircraft before or just the nugget pilot who never has flown with NVGs, remembering what it was like when I was unfamiliar with the environment will prevent this type of mishap from recurring.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
“At least 10,000 would give us the critical mass necessary to do what we need to do on the military front,” Joel Fitzgibbon told The Associated Press at his office in the Australian capital Canberra.
About 65,000 international troops are stationed in Afghanistan, including 51,000 from the 40-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. The United States has about 33,000 troops in the country.
“Having spoken to a number of European countries over the course of the last four months, I don’t see a lot of hope that anyone else is about to put their hand up anytime soon. That’s a worry because if (the extra troops) don’t come, progress will continue to be all too slow,” he said.
He declined to name the European countries he was referring to.
Fitzgibbon said Australia was already carrying its fair share of the burden with 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, the 10th-largest national contribution and the largest outside NATO.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Embassy in Canberra could not comment Thursday. A Defense Department official in Washington was not immediately available.
Fitzgibbon said he expected Washington would send more troops to Afghanistan as it withdrew others from Iraq.
He said Defense Secretary Robert Gates, whom he met at an international security conference in Singapore last weekend, agreed on the need to substantially increase troop numbers in Afghanistan.
“He’s certainly given me the impression that the United States remains absolutely committed to the project and he’s certainly given me the impression that there’s likely to be continuity on that issue across the administration regardless of who wins in November,” Fitzgibbon said, referring to the upcoming presidential elections.
The head of Australia’s defense force told a Senate inquiry Wednesday the military campaign in Afghanistan “will last at least 10 years.”
Fitzgibbon said Thursday that military operations could take less time with adequate resources, although reconstruction of the country will take longer.
Fitzgibbon’s center-left government, which came to power in November elections last year, fulfilled a campaign pledge this week by beginning to withdraw 550 combat troops from Iraq. Another 1,000 Australian troops, sailors and air crew will remain in and around Iraq in non-combat roles.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Samuel Adams Boston Lager
Complex and balanced, with a beautiful hop aroma.
Samuel Adams Boston Lager® is the best example of the fundamental characteristics of a great beer, offering a full, rich flavor that is both balanced and complex. It is brewed using a decoction mash, a time consuming, traditional four vessel brewing process discarded by many contemporary brewers. This process brings forth a rich sweetness from the malt that makes it well worth the effort. Samuel Adams Boston Lager® also uses only the finest of ingredients including two row barley, as well as German Noble aroma hops. The exclusive use of two row barley not only imparts a full, smooth body but also gives the beer a wide spectrum of malt flavor ranging from slightly sweet to caramel to slightly roasted. The Noble hops varieties, Hallertau Mittelfruh and Tettnang Tettnanger, add a wide range of floral, piney and citrus notes, which are present from the aroma, through the flavor, to the lingering smooth finish. We take great pride in the Noble hops used in our beers. They are hand selected by Jim Koch and our other brewers from the world's oldest hops growing area. Among the world's most expensive, they cost twenty times as much as other hops.
" Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well....."
On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions as well, and the results were catastrophic.
Barack Hussein Obama seems to radiate an aura of pure evil as he attempts to call upon the inspirational speaking styles of both Billy Graham and Adolf Hitler, and it makes me feel an almost primal fear every time I see this person, not a man to man fear but a deeper and much more spiritual fear, as if a pall of doom were being cast across America…
Here are just a few things that define Barack Hussein Obama:
– He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
– He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
– Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
– In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
– Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as a minimum wage affair.
– Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
– His religious convictions are very murky.
– He is willing to meet, unconditionally, with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
– Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
– Opposed the Patriot Act.
– First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
– Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
– Supports universal health care.
– Voted Yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
– Supports granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
– Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
– Voted Yes on comprehensive immigration reform. Would result in 20 million instant citizens never having paid SS, many refusing to speak English, immediately sending for their 40 to 50 million extended relatives telling them not to wait and obey the laws, the once mighty USA is theirs for the taking.
– Voted Yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
– Wants to make the minimum wage a ‘living wage’.
– Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
– Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
– He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.
– He voted No on repealing the ‘Death’ Tax.
– He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
– Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
– Has never served in the military and has never visited Afghanistan, and hasn’t bothered to visit Iraq since Jan. of 2006.
– He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.
– Is a notorious gun grabber, he wants to completely disarm the American population and is a total supporter of ALL anti-gun legislation.
If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama’s and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride and not re-post this message as we attempt to stop this poser from ascending to the Oval Office.
If you agree that this is an important issue, please pass it on in a nationwide emailing and re-post it on your blogs…
The mainstream media will not do it for you!
Die with your boots on...
Born and raised on his parents’ cattle ranch on the Great Plains of Eastern Montana, and the grandson of German and Irish immigrants who homesteaded in Montana, Brian and his wife Nancy have three children and a now-famous border collie, Jag.
Scientist that actually gives a damn about our economy
Governor Schweitzer brings a unique global perspective to his job as Governor. He has a Master of Science degree in Soil Science from Montana State University, worked overseas to bring American agricultural methods to the developing world. In Africa, Asia, Europe, South America, and Saudi Arabia, he oversaw large-scale irrigation projects and the construction of several of the world’s largest dairies.
The Governor is interested in bio-fuel and wind energy production. He is a leader on national energy issues especially domestic production of clean energy and fuels to replace foreign oil.
Governor Schweitzer and his wife Nancy, who is a botanist, share an interest in science. Together, they launched the Governor and First Lady’s Math and Science Initiative. Brian is looking forward to challenging students in high school and encouraging them to prepare for a career in math, science and technology.
Here is his Biogrophy from the Montana Government Website:
Governor Brian Schweitzer is a farmer and rancher who held no elected office prior to being elected as the first Democratic Governor to serve Montana in 20 years.
The grandson of Montana homesteaders, he grew up on his folks’ cattle ranch in the Judith Basin. Governor Schweitzer went on to earn a Bachelor of Science degree in international agronomy from Colorado State University, and later earned a Master of Science degree in soil science from Montana State University.
He worked overseas on agricultural projects and has visited 37 countries across the world. Governor Schweitzer oversaw the building of major irrigation projects and the construction of the world’s largest dairy farm in Saudi Arabia.
With his unique global perspective, Governor Schweitzer is a leading national voice to end our addiction to foreign oil by developing clean and green American energy with Montana leading the way.
Under Governor Schweitzer, Montana is on the move:
• Created more jobs at higher wages than anytime in history.
• Cut more taxes for more Montanans than any other time in the state’s history, including a $400 rebate to Montana homeowners.
• Increased Montana’s electrical generation capacity more during his administration than the previous 16 years combined where the state is one of only two states in the country to have increased oil production; in fact it’s up by 50%.
• Invested more in both K-12 and higher education than any previous administration – while also capping tuition at our state’s colleges and universities, the first such effort in a generation.
• Increased the number of children on the Children’s Health Insurance Program by more than 3,000 now providing quality healthcare to more than 16,000 kids and giving the future a healthy start in life.
• Montana’s bond rating has been upgraded for the first time in 26 years with Moody’s, Fitch and Standard and Poor’s Investment Services – a sign of sound fiscal management in state government.
Here's some gems from an interview with Glenn Beck:
Governor Schweitzer: Well, we’re not going to lose our gun rights in Montana. You can bet on that, but I can assure you of this: Montana will continue to take the lead to make America energy independent. We’re not going to allow dictators to push us around anymore. We have an infinite supply of energy in this country. We just have a finite supply of resolve to get it right … (on Cap and Trade) We’re already giving $2 a gallon to dictators who are trying to destroy our way of life. Look, I support the concerns that people world have with carbon dioxide but we have the technology right now to produce all of our energy domestically, to drive all of your cars, run of all trains and plains, light all of your light bulbs without importing oil from them and we can sequester our CO2 … (on domestic drilling and Congress) Here’s what I’d say to you. We don’t ask much from Congress and they don’t deliver much. Most of us as governors are building our own energy proposals. We’re putting together our own energy independence because God help us if Congress was the only ones responsible to save this country. Here’s a couple of things that we would need from Congress. There are some certain things that have to be passed at a Federal level. Otherwise, you create problems with competition between states in a bad way. In other words, people will just run over the border to do something because you can’t do it in another state.
Some Of Gov. Schweitzer’s ideas: No. 1, Congress passes two pieces of legislation. The first one would be a 15 percent tax credit for any consumer that buys a plug in hybrid car SUV or pickup that gets a minimum of 40 miles on a charge and runs on electricity for the first 40 miles. Let me tell you what that would do. Pacific Northwest Labs, a primary contractor of the Department of Energy, has already studied this. They found that we could decrease the consumption of oil in all of our transportation fleet by 83 percent if we had plug-in hybrids the first 40 miles. 93 percent of all the cars in America drive less than 40 miles a day. That means we could run the whole fleet on electricity 93 percent of the time.Second, every utility in America, they must buy electricity from anybody on the system that they sell electricity to, so that when you drive home from work, you plug your car in, you walk in, you turn on your light and the electricity comes from the charge power in your car. You make your meal with your battery in your car and in the middle of the night when we have excess electricity three times as much electricity grid capacity as we actually need because we build this grid for today, your car recharges. The next day, if you don’t need a full 40 miles, you start selling electricity right back into the grid for three or four times what you paid for it. We make every consumer a better consumer, a bar capitalist. We couldn’t have to put up one copper wire. Northwest, this same lab, they found that we have the grid capacity to level the electrons and then, with coal gasification, places like Montana, with wind power, solar power, we can tell the dictators to boil in their own oil.
I don’t agree with cap and trade. I have a better idea, one that’s better for this country, better for the world, and it’s simply this: I wouldn’t give another nickel to the Federal government because they’ll find some play to pee it away. What I would do is I would say instead of a cap and trade system, folks, I want you to understand what cap and trade means. If you’re a big utility that’s been using coal over the last 100 years, Congress is going to franchise you to produce that quantity of CO2. You could turn around and sell out of the business and put a trillion dollars in your pocket. What we’re doing is we’re shifting wealth from the population as a whole to a few utilities and it’s not going to do a dang thing about developing new technology. Here’s what I would do: Those of us who produce carbon dioxide, I would put a technology fee of $12.50 per ton. I would use 100 percent of that money as a technology fee. I wouldn’t give it to the Federal government. We would create a quasi-private corporation that would do all the research and development. Those of us who pay in will own the intellectual property and we’ll be able to sell this technology all over the world in China, in India, and other places that are producing great quantities of CO2 and the consumer, the consumer will not see their energy prices go up because that $12.50 a ton, we can start decreasing the carbon dioxide emissions by at least 5 percent per year. It won’t increase the cost of your energy, and we’ll develop the technologies that the be giving the greatest boom to America’s industry since the industrial revolution. What’s wrong with that?
Exactly! What is wrong with that?
All this and Constitutional Defender...jeez we need this guy bad.
I wanna move to Montana...
Monday, June 2, 2008
Well, Sidney has done it again. This guy is extremely well read and researched on ever post he gives.
Another metal musician that isn't blinded by the socialist left in this country...a breath of fresh air....
H/T: Sidney Allen Johnson
It is a lie. It is probably the lie most often told by politicians of a particular persuasion, and repeated even more by their parasitic adherents in the press. "The rich do not pay their fair share." Class warfare has been the modus operandi for socialist movements all over the world, and it is a practice that is alive and well right here in the United States.
All of the candidates currently running for President will make various claims as to whose taxes they will raise and whose they will lower. The truth is, they all are lying. By themselves, they haven't the authority to do it. Or as article 1, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution says:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;..."
So the next time a Democrat claims she or he is going to repeal the "Bush Tax Cuts" it would be fair to remind them that President Bush only "suggested" them. It was the Congress that made them the law of the land. Congress had all the power in the U.S. law to resist them. And they can repeal them any time they want...if they really want to do it. We currently have a Democrat controlled House and Senate now. So what are they waiting for? Congressmen tend have a short career when they start raising taxes. Its an election year.
It is true, however, that we do have a lot of Presidential candidates eager to "redistribute" the wealth of the proverbial "rich" to the "less fortunate" in our society. Robin Hood is alive and well. This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt to buy the votes of those people who will be on the receiving end of that money. That is a primary motivating factor in the Democratic party's embracement of government controlled "Universal Health Care." The more people they can get on the "receiving" end of a government programs the more people will be inclined to vote for those people who supply those programs. Naturally, the money has to come from some place. Raising taxes is the common method of acquiring the financing. This is prototypical Socialism. Class warfare being used as a wedge to force in these expensive big government programs into existence. It's all about getting influence and control over the lives of the nation's population. The less money you have, the less control you have over your own life and the more dependent you are on government. It is typical socialist propaganda to claim the rich ought to pay more. Tax cuts, it is argued, only benefit the rich.
Well, it is a fact that you have to be paying taxes to benefit from a tax cut. It is also true that cutting taxes has the effect of increasing revenue. Why? Tax policy is the one way the government can truly effect the economy. When you cut taxes, you leave money (capital) in the economy that can then be used for investment. This leads to an expanding community that adds jobs and therefore adds more taxpayers and new businesses to the tax base. Raising taxes has absolutely the opposite effect by reducing capital in the economy and shrinking investment you therefore reduce the tax base. You would think this would be simple. Yet the Democrats feel emboldened to not only repeal the so called "Bush Tax Cuts," but also to increase taxes still more in order to finance their socialist government programs.
The argument against tax cuts is always the same. Tax cuts are for the rich and therefore if we are reducing their taxes then the burden of financing the government must be "unfairly" shifting onto the poor. But is that the truth? According to the most recent statistics from the Internal Revenue Service, it isn't even a distant relative of the truth.
In 2005 the top 1% of all income earners, which means all those whose annual income exceeds $365,000, paid a whopping 39% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 they were paying 35%. So not only are the richest 1% paying well over third of all federal income taxes, they are carrying an even greater share of the tax burden than they were under President Clinton. This AFTER the "Bush Tax Cuts!" Imagine that.
If we look at the top 5% of income earners, those with annual incomes over $145,000, we see they are paying 60% of all federal income taxes! In 1999 their share of the tax burden was 55%. Once again we see the tax burden of the wealthiest 5% of income earners increasing AFTER the tax cuts. Impressive.
It continues no matter how you look at the numbers. The top 10% of income earners, $103,000 and above, pay 70% of all federal taxes. The top 25%, $62,000 and above, pay 86% of federal taxes. And get this...the top 50% of income earners, those earning $31,000 and above, pay 97% of all federal income taxes!!
That leaves the 3% of income earners who earn less than $30,000 annually. They are currently paying 3% of all federal taxes but in 1999 they were responsible for 4%. So who is bearing the tax burden of the federal government? Have the tax cuts really shifted the tax burden in the direction of the poor? It would appear that tax cuts have brought nothing but desirable results all around. They have provided an expanding economy, more jobs and fair dispensation of the tax burden. Now the Democrats propose to improve this by raising taxes? Lunacy.
When it comes to unfairness in the tax system, the problem isn't the taxpayer. Any taxpayer. The problem arises from those who do not pay any taxes at all. If you have no financial stake in the government, your voting practices are going to reflect that fact. Tax cuts mean nothing to the non-taxpayer. However you might be led to believe that tax cuts could effect you negatively if you are dependent on government programs and government income. That is where the Democrats come in, providing misleading information to those dependent on the government for their wellbeing. Truthfully, tax cuts will benefit those dependent on this redistribution of income as well, but politicians practicing class warfare find these "less fortunate" people to be vulnerable to this misinformation. After all, if they have any education at all it was government provided public education. Remember, the idea is to mislead and gain control.
Consider these figures. 41%of whites, 56% of blacks, 59% of American Indians and 40% of Asians and pacific Islanders paid absolutely NO federal income taxes. They have ZERO tax liability. Yet each and every one of them has an equal voice at the ballot box as those who do fund the federal government. How "fair" is that?
The socialists, who continually present the argument that the rich do not pay their fair share, know all of this. They intentionally misrepresent this information in their attempt to gain power and influence over us. It is their desire to destroy the U.S. economy so as to eliminate the independence of the American people. It's all about control. It is a deception that has worked before when people who have a stake in government allow those who do not to participate as equals in the selection process of government officials. Once a population realizes it can vote itself money from the treasury it can hold the government hostage to its demands. We have arrived at that point in this country.
This country was founded by people who were sick and tired of paying taxes to England and not having a voice in its government. They were paying money to a government that was not responsive to their concerns. "No Taxation Without Representation" was the battle-cry of the revolutionaries. Well the pendulum has shifted too far the other direction now. People who are NOT paying taxes should NOT have as equal a say in the government as those who do! We as taxpayers are once again being governed by a government that is not responsive to our concerns. Our politicians are too busy doling out the treasury to non-producers in exchange for votes.
If more taxpayers were aware of how truly unfair and biased the tax system is against them, I believe they would insist on a "new revolution" to correct this "injustice." That is a word the socialists love. Injustice. They use it to validate all of their programs. "Social justice" is how they validate their demands for more money from the treasury to placate a variety of social ills. But "justice" for some is ultimately a crime against someone else.
Those receiving the "redistributed" benefits of the work of others should not be allowed to dictate the terms of that redistribution! When they are allowed to do so we are no longer "promoting the general welfare" of the population. Nor is this any form of charity. It's robbery! Why should the weakest, non productive element of our society be allowed to destroy our entire society with their demands? Perhaps a new battle cry is necessary to fix this "social injustice:"
'No man can accept being left by a woman in Iraq. But I would prefer to be killed than sleep in the same bed as a man who was able to do what he did to his own daughter.'
It is not known who killed Leila. All that is known is that she was staying at the house of 'Mariam', one of the women's rights campaigners, whose identity The Observer has agreed not to reveal. On the morning of 17 May, they were joined by another volunteer worker and set off to meet 'a contact' who was to help Leila travel to Amman, where she would be taken in by an Iraqi family.
'Leila was anxious, but she was also happy at having the chance to leave Iraq,' said Mariam. 'Since the death of her daughter, her own life was at serious risk. And this was a great opportunity for her to leave the country and to fight for Iraqi women's rights.
'She had not been able to sleep the night before. I stayed up talking to her about her plans after she arrived in Amman. I gave her some clothes to take with her and she was packing the only bag she had. She was too excited to sleep.'
Mariam said that when she awoke Leila had already prepared breakfast, cleaned her house and even baked a date cake as a thank-you for the help she had been given. After the arrival of 'Faisal', the volunteer (whose identity is also being protected), the three left the house at 10.30am and started walking to the end of the street to get a taxi. They had walked less than 50 metres when they heard a car drive up fast and then gunshots rang out. The attack, said by witnesses to have been carried out by three men, was over in minutes. Leila was hit by three bullets. Mariam was hit in her left arm and Faisal in her left leg. 'I didn't realise I had been shot for a few seconds, because as I heard the gunfire I saw Leila falling to the ground and saw blood pouring from her head,' said Mariam. 'I was so shocked, I didn't immediately feel the pain.'
The story is here: The Observer
I've been told, and it is true that honour killings pre-date Islam and that they also happen in other religions as well. Ok, I'll buy that for a dollar, but with the frequency of honour killings in Islamic society, and the fact that the honour is attached to the religion...well, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I posted recently about Leila's daughter Rand and this is a follow up of sorts to that.
My question is this: Where is the outrage? Where are all the human rights activists?
Pam Gellar at Atlas Shrugs asks these questions all the time and it seems they fall on so many deaf ears. Where are the Feminists? At what point do we wake up and admit there is a problem here that bears scrutiny and more importantly, action?