Tuesday, August 30, 2011

The Truth About Social Security


Email Craig Steiner
Columnist's Archive Sign-Up But if there's a Social Security Trust Fund with trillions of dollars sitting in it, why would we have to borrow money to send money to Social Security recipients? Couldn't we just dip into the trust fund for the money? Isn't that what the trust fund is for?



The reason we can't is because there isn't a trust fund. And there isn't any money. The politicians have been spending the money as fast as it came in for decades and there's nothing there.



Even though it is claimed that Social Security will be insolvent in 2036, the truth is that it's insolvent now. As we've now witnessed in the debt ceiling debate, the only way to pay Social Security benefits is for the government to borrow more money. Why? Because the "surplus" Social Security money was already spent on other things over the decades.



Had politicians been even somewhat responsible, the money that was collected on behalf of these programs over the decades would be in their respective trust funds. If that were the case, Social Security would be solvent until about 2036 and we could use the trust fund to pay Social Security benefits now regardless of whether or not the government can borrow money.



Unfortunately, not only did politicians make promises they couldn't keep with other people's future money, they immediately spent every dime that taxpayers entrusted to them for their future benefits. The money that should have been saved for future Social Security benefits was spent on stimulus, roads and bridges, the EPA, defense, the myth of the Clinton surplus, and every other thing on which government has spent money over the decades.



Americans have been conned for decades. Every dollar that Americans have paid into Social Security has already been spent and America is bankrupt.



And this is true of the other entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, too. None of these programs have any money and there are no trust funds. Just promises from politicians--most of whom have long since retired. The current set of politicians inherited most of these bankrupt systems from their predecessors, and those predecessors inherited it from theirs.



Having said that, today's politicians have a choice: They can ignore the problem and carry on the scam for as long as they can, like their predecessors. Or they can recognize and confront reality, acknowledge it, and tell America the truth.



And the truth is that our entitlement programs are all bankrupt. There is no money. O



nly a fundamental restructuring of the programs can provide a permanent solution. Without fundamentally changing these programs, they're bankrupt and it's only a matter of time before they collapse.



It's time to admit we have a problem. And it's also time we start instituting the fiscal conservative policies that will fix these problems.



Townhall

The Sage of Omaha Speaks, But His Actions Speak Louder


8/24/2011
Email Jeff Jacoby
Columnist's Archive Sign-Up As many critics have noted, Buffett can voluntarily send Washington more money than he owes in taxes. Anyone can. Since 1843, the Treasury Department notes on its website, the government has maintained an account "to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States." Deposits to that account are added to the government's general fund, but the feds also accept contributions -- by credit card, electronic payment, or check -- specifically earmarked for paying down federal debt.



It would be nice to think that those who insist so vehemently that Washington's debt crisis cannot be resolved without higher revenues are taking the lead and freely reaching into their own pockets. Alas, no. Donations to the Bureau of the Public Debt, The New York Times reported last year, only trickle in at an annual rate of about $2 million to $3 million.



What makes Buffett a hypocrite isn't that he champions an immediate tax increase on the wealthy, yet donates nothing extra to Washington himself. Merely favoring a change in the law doesn't oblige anyone to act as if the change has been enacted.



But Buffett doesn't just propose higher taxes on millionaires and billionaires as a matter of abstract policy. He argues that he personally (along with what he calls "my mega-rich friends") has been "spared" any shared sacrifice, that he personally has "been coddled long enough," that he personally shouldn't get "extraordinary tax breaks" when so many Americans are struggling. He frames his call for higher taxes as an avowal of his own moral obligations. Were he to put his money where his mouth is and voluntarily send the Treasury a big check, his call for higher taxes would carry greater moral authority. His failure to do so is not just intellectually inconsistent, but hypocritical.



Buffett isn't greedy. He is an extraordinary philanthropist who has undertaken to give 99 percent of his immense fortune to charity, and who, with Bill Gates, actively encourages other billionaires to spend down half or more of their wealth in charitable donations.



And why is he giving all that money to charity instead of to Uncle Sam? Because, as he has said in interviews, he knows it will do more good that way and be used more effectively. Who would disagree? For all Buffett's talk of being undertaxed, he believes what nearly everyone believes -- that he can allocate his money more wisely than the government. And not just that he can, but that he should.



When the Sage of Omaha calls for higher taxes, his words get plenty of attention. But his actions speak louder, and convey a markedly different message.

Prev21View Full ArticleTags: Budget and Government , Media and Culture , Taxes , Warren Buffet

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com. href="http://www.townhall.com/Secure/Signup.aspx">Sign up today

Be the first to read Jeff Jacoby's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Breaking on TOWNHALL

SWAT Team Shaking Down the Family Dairy Farm


Email Jeff Carter
Columnist's Archive Sign-Up

Last night I went to see the documentary Farmageddon in Chicago. I also stayed for the full panel discussion.



The film is shocking. Documentaries are supposed to shock you. Michael Moore has made millions presenting slanted facts to us. Documentaries are designed to get you to do something.



This documentary illustrates the plight of the organic farmer, specifically the organic dairy farmer. If a dairy farmer wants to sell raw milk, they will be run out of business and many times imprisoned by the federal bureaucracy. The USDA actively tries to run Raw Milk Producers out of the business. They work closely with agents from state agricultural agencies.



The documentary shows film of agents descending on various organic farms and outlets, guns drawn, SWAT teams present. It’s straight out of science fiction and something that you can’t believe happens in America. I can understand a huge police presence when going after a drug lord, but a family farmer? Sure, farmers keep guns but in my experience they aren’t violent people.



There is a controversy raging over raw milk. The FDA says it’s bad for you and is using the long arm of the government to put them out of business and keep you from getting it. Combine the FDA/USDA brutality with the typical bureaucratic revolving door, and you have the seeds planted for a conspiracy theory. ($MON,$DF,$SFD,$ADM,$BG,$CAG)



It seems to me that this whole thing could be settled by some unbiased scientific experiments.



Academics in the Ag community that are unpaid by either special interest group ought to start some trials on people. It seems to me it would be easy to also go to farms, both factory and small, and test for bacteria where it matters. Do it randomly and create a large enough sample size (minimum of 33 times) to make the resulting statistics relevant.



Then we could point to scientific data and decide.



With regard to trials on people there only should be one test. Did you get sick from drinking raw milk or not? If they didn’t get any of the diseases that are talked about at the FDA website, why not allow raw milk production and sale?



That was my only beef with the movie. Lack of science. All the anecdotal stories are only hyperbole without actual data to back them up. But they do help you form a hypothesis. After seeing the movie, I want to experiment myself with raw milk. I have eczema, and wonder if drinking raw milk might help. It is said to help people with eczema. There isn’t any science right now to back up that claim, but I should be free to experiment on myself with a harmless agricultural product. I take fish oil and baby aspirin for my health, I ought to be able to drink raw milk to see if I am healthier by eating it.



The movie though brings up a couple of themes that should resonate with Americans, especially when it comes to the 2012 elections.



Why aren’t we Free to Choose? Armed with information, why shouldn’t we be able to make those choices for ourselves whether we consume raw milk or not?



Obamacare will take all those choices you make for your health care and institutionalize them. It’s not hard to imagine underground doctors giving banned medical treatments one day and government SWAT teams raiding their office.



The other point the movie makes is symptomatic of Big Banking, Big Pharma, Big Oil or Big Business taking roles in the federal bureaucracy and then slanting rules and regulations to help their former businesses, then leaving the bureaucracy and becoming re-employed in their former industry.



The answer is not to change the system or have a counterbalance. The answer is to shrink or eliminate the system and its influence. How do you do that? Strangle it by cutting spending. Don’t give the beast any money and it can’t operate. The additional option you must take is to change the dynamic by putting the power into the hands of individual decision makers and eliminating top down control.



The situation not going to be any better if we don’t have big business involved with the government and have only academics for example.



The point is to create more choice for the individual. Right now, we constrain liberty in every facet of our lives because of the gigantic government apparatus that overseas every aspect of our lives. Constraining liberty is indifferent to who runs it. It is important to be safe-no one doubts that. But we can be “too safe”. Eventually that “too safe” attitude permeates even the most minute aspects of our lives. The Chicago Police Department was arresting people for videotaping snow removal efforts on Lake Shore Drive after the big blizzard last winter. Does this make sense?



The other broader point is this. The more we try big government programs to fix problems, the more it benefits big, gigantic business and kills off small business. It really doesn’t matter what industry you are in. Gigantic business can afford to find a way to use economies of scale and scope to overcome the cost of regulation. The little guy can’t.



One anecdote I heard was that in Virginia, small dairies were going out of business by the dozens. Milk was being imported from California to Virginia. The question I ask is “Why?”. Why can’t the dairy farmers of Virginia create enough economies of scale locally to overcome the cost of transporting milk from California? Something is wrong with the economics. It might be subsidies, might be regulation, but there is something incorrect. Or, on the other hand absent subsidy or regulation maybe the economics work out perfectly and the most efficient economic solution is for California milk to be sold in Virgina. You don’t know by hearing an anecdote-you will know with data and numbers.



The last point I want to make is that government regulation is deliberately killing off a whole industry that could create thousands of jobs across the country. Raw milk produces some of the best cheese known to mankind. If we allowed raw milk cheese production, raw milk yogurt production, raw milk butter, and raw milk ice cream an entire industry would be created. Existing dairy producers have set their production up to use pasteurized milk. A new raw milk industry would give consumers a choice and alter industry economics.



Once you see the movie, go read the book Free to Choose by Milton Friedman. Then brush up on your Coase Theorem. You will then understand that when the power lies in the individual to choose, with clearly designed property rights, whatever outcome two individuals decide on is the best for overall society. I think the raw milk debate is a textbook example of those concepts in action.



ADDENDUM



Here are two web pages on the pros and cons of raw milk. You can decide for yourself.



Pros and cons



My stance is as long as it’s labeled raw milk and you know what you are getting, why not allow it to be sold. If I were pregnant, I might not take the risk.



thanks for the link Instapundit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Ransom
Create Your Badge



Thursday, August 25, 2011


SOME POLICIES ARE WORTH SECOND-GUESSING, SAID AULA'S YOEST IN RESPONSE TO VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN'S REMARKS ON

CHINA'S ONE-CHILD POLICY

Washington, D.C. (08-24-11) – Americans United for Life Action President and CEO Dr. Charmaine Yoest said that second-guessing a policy as gruesome as forced abortion is “a moral imperative” and urged the Obama Administration to engage the Chinese government on the “deadly human toll that forced abortion is causing for millions of families.”



While in China, Vice President Joe Biden made a remark about the Chinese one-child policy, in which families in urban areas are permitted only one-child while families in rural areas may have two if the first child is a girl, an outcome considered less desirable. When families do not comply with the policy, forced abortions, sterilizations and other human rights abuses occur.



LifeNews reported Biden’s comments as follows: “But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net,” Biden said in the prepared remarks. “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”



A Biden spokesperson said Tuesday that the Vice President’s remarks were clearly about an economic issue and that the Obama Administration does not support the one-child policy.



“The Obama Administration should engage the Chinese government on the need to end such a gruesome practice as forced abortion,” said Dr. Yoest. “Already the country is suffering from the impact of the lack of girls that has been widely reported, along with the unintended economic consequences that the Vice President spoke about during his visit to China. This policy is morally, economically and socially harmful. The Obama Administration should second-guess such a policy and speak out about the human rights violations committed in its name.”













Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Hold their feet to the fire!








Hold Congress accountable for the debt limit vote.





Dear Londa,



The debt bill passed this month effectively gives liberal Democrats carte blanche to increase taxes and gut our military. This threatens the very foundation our country was built on.



We must take action now to hold lawmakers accountable for their votes.



As we warned, the spending reductions in the deal negotiated by Speaker John Boehner, President Obama and Senate Democrats were entirely and woefully inadequate. The “cuts” made will do nothing to reduce the current $14.3 trillion debt.



Conservatives have no choice but to hold each member of Congress accountable for their votes on this and other travesties.



Find out what you can do right now to make this possible.



Heritage Action for America is launching a tool to ensure Congress is held accountable. Next week, we are making public for the first time a scorecard that grades every member of Congress based on votes on key bills and amendments.



With your help today, our scorecard will play an instrumental role in shaping future legislation and protecting your freedoms. Our plan is to promote this in Washington and in key Congressional districts. We cannot do this without your immediate help.



Thank you for all you do.



Sincerely,







Michael A. Needham

Chief Executive Officer

Heritage Action for America


P.S. Americans are waking up to the bigger problem at hand and we have a plan. Be a part of the movement to hold Congress’ feet to the fire by visiting Heritage Action today.





TOWNHALL

America, the Needy-ful


Email Kathy Fettke
Columnist's Archive Sign-Up “How can the government help me?”



This seems to be a growing sentiment among the American middle class. “The land of opportunity” is quickly becoming the “nation of the needy.”



Here’s a question I received from a reader just last week:



“I am not happy with how things are going since the Bush Administration allowed tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. These cuts were supposed to end for those who just keep earning more off the middle class. My question is: I am told that investors can invest as little as $1000.00 in real estate, and make a living doing so. As a person who has followed the straight and narrow, and helped others, how can I help myself in this attitude?” - Suzie from Los Angeles



I applaud Suzie for wanting to change her attitude, because in spite of her desire to live “straight & narrow and help people,” she has chosen a victim attitude - one that will never give her the financial success she seems to desire.



Suzie’s question first assumes that businesses and the “wealthy” are taking from her. Is this really true? If there were no businesses or wealthy people, would she be better off?



Where would Suzie get her groceries if there was not a business owner nearby selling food supplies? She would either have to grow food, hunt for it, or start her own store.



Where would Suzie live if no business existed to build a home or apartment for her? She would have to build her own.



Where would Suzie work if there were no businesses or wealthy people who could afford to hire her? She would have to create her own income source.



Businesses provide needed goods and services. They are not “taking” from the middle class. They are giving what is needed.



Businesses that don’t offer what is needed go out of business quickly. Just ask the former CEO’s of Blockbuster or Borders. We, the consumers, decide who is worthy of our wallets.



People who work for failed businesses lose their jobs. The government offers unemployment benefits, but how long can a government sustainably pay the unemployed?



The government has to get its money from somewhere, and if it relentlessly takes it from successful employers, more businesses will eventually fail and more jobs will be lost.



Wouldn’t it make more sense for the government to support solid businesses in growth so they can provide more jobs, rather than tax them to death to pay for those without jobs?



Rather than blame successful businesses and the wealthy for our troubles, let’s learn from them. What does it take for businesses to survive today? They must:



- Stay current with trends (and trends change quickly).



- Be the best at what they do



- Be willing to grow through on-going education



- Live with in their means and avoid unsustainable debt



- Enjoy what they do because customers notice



I told Suzie that if she follows these five success tips, she could become a wealthy business owner herself. In fact, she started to think like a business person when she asked about real estate.



People can indeed buy real estate with $1000. It requires education and effort, but it can be done. Do you think Donald Trump uses his own money in his acquisitions? No, he uses OPM.



Using OPM (other people’s money) is a skill that can be learned and sustained as long as the OP (other people) are making money too. This is one of the keys to building a successful business.



Millions of people have created financial independence through smart real estate investing. They live off the income generated from their rental properties and are totally unaffected by the ups and downs of the stock market. Most of those people saved for a down payment, and used OPM for leverage (OPM can be bank money, private funds, or seller financing.)



If you are like Suzie and desire financial independence, consider this:



Instead of paying for expensive real estate classes that teach you how to buy property with no money down, go to a book store and get educated for $12. There are thousands of books on how to increase your wealth mindset and financial success. Pick one that jumps out at you.



Then start looking around for people who are successful at what you’re trying to achieve. Get to know them. Hang out with them. Work as an intern. Gather as much information as you can possible get your hands on. You may be surprised to find that in every town in this country, there are successful people thriving in any stage of the economy. These are the folks you want to emulate.



Relying on the government, your employer or anyone besides yourself can end in grave disappointment. The truth is, no one has your best interest at heart the way you do.



Once you realize it’s ultimately up to you to make decisions that are best for you and your family’s financial future, you will take back control of your life. Independence is true freedom.



Kathy Fettke is CEO of www.RealWealthNetwork.com, a company that provides education and resources for its members who wish to become independently wealthy through real estate investing.



Kathy Fettke

Kathy Fettke is an active real estate investor, licensed Realtor, certified coach, and former mortgage broker, and hosts The Real Wealth Show.
Ezekiel 38 and 39: On the Horizon?




http://www.cbn.com/





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Last year, an international crisis exploded when Israel stopped a flotilla of ships from breaking its naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.



The incident left Israel feeling more isolated, but some Jews saw the pages of scripture coming alive through the crisis.



When Israeli commandos stormed the Turkish-owned flagship, Mavi Mamara, leading the flotilla, things quickly turned deadly. Pro-Palestinian activists attacked the soldiers, who then defended themselves. Nine activists died in the melee.



Israel acted to keep weapons out of Hamas-controlled Gaza, but that didn't stop an international rush to judgment.



The U.N. Security Council condemned Israel and called for an investigation.



Sweden, Ireland and other nations planned boycotts against the Jewish state.



Shifting Allegiance



The incident also revealed Turkey as a major player in the Middle East, with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan shifting his allegiance from Israel to Iran, Syria and their axis of power.



"Turkey was a friend of Israel for much of the last six decades," author Joel Rosenberg told CBN News.



"It's a democracy, it's a moderate Muslim country, it's a NATO ally and a friend of the United States, a tourist destination spot for tens of thousands of Israelis, and yet all of that is changing right now," Rosenberg said.



This change represents a major realignment in the Middle East.



Turkey - once a close ally of Israel and the West - is now openly courting the likes of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and ultimately Russia's Vladmir Putin.



Gog and Magog Soon?



So what does this shift of power and increasing isolation of Israel mean? Some in Israel and around the world believe it reflects biblical prophecy.



"Given the fact that Ezekiel 36 and 37 have largely come true - the rebirth of Israel, Jews pouring into the Holy Land after centuries in exile, rebuilding the ancient ruins, isn't it remotely possible that Ezekiel 38 and 39 - the war of Gog and Magog - couldn't that come true in our lifetime also?" Rosenberg reasoned.



Following last year's flotilla incident, the Rabbinical Council of Judea and Samaria issued a statement saying the aftermath seemed to "place us at the beginning of the Gog and Magog process, where the world is against us, but which ends with the third and final redemption."



Gog and Magog is a biblical reference in chapters 38 and 39 of the Book of Ezekiel when a coalition of nations attack the land of Israel. No one knows whether or not this will happen soon, but many believe war in the Middle East is looming.



"As you watch the trajectory of events geopolitically here in the epicenter, the events are living up more and more in favor of Ezekiel 38 and 39 coming true, possibly sooner than most of us realize," Rosenberg said.



Hezbollah in Lebanon now has more than 50,000 rockets for a future conflict with Israel. Hamas in the Gaza Strip continues to arm itself and Iran's nuclear and missile programs stand poised to fulfill the mullahs' dream of destroying the Jewish state.

The Rules Have Changed: Pentagon Prepares For Economic Warfare




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The scene: the war games suite of the mightiest military power in the world.



The guests were assembled in the Warfare Analysis Laboratory, surrounded by uniformed officers from the highest levels of the Pentagon and a dizzying array of screens normally used to simulate nuclear world war.



The gentlemen were called to order and the games began.



"If you imagine the war room in Dr. Strangelove, you're not far off," says participant James Rickards.



Yet this was no traditional battle game, but rather the Pentagon's first economic war game, and the authorities are loath to talk about it.



Economic war? It sounds preposterous. Except it gets less so with every dollar of debt run up by the US.



Behind the scenes, the military are worried about the market. For who owns much of this debt? China, the US's most powerful rival and threat. And that makes America vulnerable to a new kind of bloodless but ruthless war.



Rickards is not a soldier but a banker. He was joined in the war game by dozens of his Wall Street colleagues, flown in from Manhattan to this bunker at the Applied Physics Laboratory in Maryland for the two-day event in 2009, when the Pentagon started to get really alarmed.



The group was split into five teams: America, Russia, China, Pacific Rim, and a "grey team", representing shady outfits such as terrorist organisations. They were sent into "bunker rooms" and told to use financial or economic tools - currency, debt, stocks, gold - to bring their enemies to their knees. Everything was conducted via computer, and they could be as devious and ruthless as they liked. The bankers liked.



"These people would normally never come together. But there is nothing more fun than to take a Wall Street guy and tell him to be a bad guy," says Mr Rickards, a former senior executive who was involved in planning and executing the war game.



When the game was halted, the result left the military men quiet and sobered. Why did the bankers scare the soldiers? The answer lies in the way the world is now interconnected as never before.



Over the past few years, China has been buying up US government debt and is now its biggest holder. If China were to dump this debt, it would totally screw with the economy. China could, hypothetically, win any number of foreign policy objectives by making it impossible for you to pay your mortgage.



Paul Bracken is a professor and expert in private equity at the Yale School of Management who serves on government advisory committees at the US Department of Defence. He was one of the key players behind the 2009 economic war game, and the smaller versions that have been played out since.



"The atmosphere that day was one of surprise at the magnitude of the threat," he says.



"The Pentagon people were used to dealing in terms of military battles: how many ships, how many missiles. This opened up whole new strategies."



Of course, economic warfare is not new. God's plagues on the Egyptian pharaoh's crops, as reported in the Book of Exodus, were an early skirmish. Winston Churchill created a Ministry of Economic Warfare, to run as a "new instrument of war" against Hitler. Embargoes and sanctions have been targeted at dozens of countries, from South Africa to the former Soviet Union.



But this is different. The markets are now global, the holdings in each other's finances deep, and the technical ability to manipulate them instantaneous. In the 1970s the West feared that its enemies had their fingers on a nuclear button. The modern equivalent may be China's ability to press the button on US Treasury bills.



China is, Professor Bracken says, "the huge threat", but Russia, with its oil and gas, has shown no compunction in waging economic war on its neighbours, and could do so on a larger scale.



Another possibility is that major oil-producing countries could destabilise America by switching to euros instead of dollars as the currency in which oil is priced - so-called "petro-dollar warfare". Or a terrorist organisation might trigger a financial crash via some kind of shady hedge fund or computer attack.



What the economic war game showed Professor Bracken was that military and economic decision-making has to be more unified. Banks and bonds are now weapons, just as much as bombs. "That makes the military nervous, as they had always been in charge of operations. That's why they know they need to understand this," Professor Bracken says.



Mr Rickards says that, "If you're going to confront the US military, you would spend billions.But if you can do so just as effectively in financial space, and it would cost less, why not?"



Perhaps Britain felt a taste of this last year, with some stockmarket shocks that wiped millions off three British companies. BT lost pound stg. 969 million ($1.5 billion) on one afternoon in August, Next lost pound stg. 275m. Security services had to probe the possibility that it was not technical faults, as initially supposed, but a concerted attack by a nation state.



John Bassett, a fellow of the Royal United Services Institute, says the British government is just waking up to the new order.



"If those were deliberate attacks on the London stockmarket, it was highly unlikely to be a criminal gang, much more likely an economic rival," he says. "This is a ruthless competition for global economic supremacy, and the West isn't winning."



At the end of that Pentagon session, the 80-odd players returned from their bunkers and assessed the damage.



China won, without so much as reaching for a gun. And the soldiers looked at each other and wondered if it was still only a game.



Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Vote Now On Our Tea Party Debt Commission!






Dear Londa,



Whether it's President Obama's "National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform" or the new "super committee" formed in the debt ceiling deal, politicians have become very good at promising to cut spending and then trying to raise taxes.



That's why I need you to join our Tea Party Debt Commission and vote now to tell Washington what America wants to cut. For example, which spending cut would you prioritize here?



Back in 2010 we helped organize and implement the Contract From America, a grassroots-generated candidate pledge voted on by hundreds of thousands of activists across America. Instead of Washington dictating policy, Americans demanded that candidates sign their ten-point plan for fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets. Isn't that the way it should be?



That's why I'm proud to invite you to join our new Tea Party Debt Commission, which over the next several months will be holding grassroots activist hearings around the country and developing a plan that, at a minimum, cuts $9 trillion and balances the budget.



To replicate the success of the Contract From America, the results of our new Tea Party Debt Commission are determined by YOUR votes. So today I'm asking that you vote right now to help us determine which cuts to make.



The mainstream media often claims that the Tea Party movement says it wants to cut spending but lacks a coherent plan. You and I know that's not true. The Tea Party Debt Commission is proof—not just that we are serious about cutting spending—but that we are ready to demand that Washington implements our plan.



For far too long, average Americans have been unable to exert enough influence on politicians to counter the entrenched interests that perpetuate bloated budgets. The Tea Party Debt Commission changes that, showing legislators that when they have the courage to cut spending we'll have their backs.



When the media asks, ‘what would the Tea Party cut,' we will have an answer. When the "super committee" struggles to eliminate wasteful programs, we will do their work for them and hand them a list of our priorities. After all, if you take politics and lobbyists out of the equation, cutting spending is not that difficult. Average citizens balance a budget and set spending priorities every day.



Thomas Jefferson once said that the citizenry is "the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Help us prove that he was right. Join now.



Thank you.



In Liberty,





Matt Kibbe

President and CEO, FreedomWorks





From Townhall

Obama Judge Rules Against Obama Agenda


Email Marita Noon
Columnist's Archive Sign-Up What if you paid $38,000 to lease a house and were then told you cannot move in until some studies are done to determine if it is safe, but you do not get your money back? Years go by while the landlord is holding your money.



This is exactly what the Obama administration has been doing to the oil and gas industry since May of 2010. The same Obama who is crisscrossing the country touting “fair.”



On Friday, a US District Judge, appointed by Obama, decided that the administration wasn’t playing fair.



In October 2010, the Western Energy Alliance (WEA), representing more than 400 independent natural gas and oil producers in the western states, filed a law suit against the federal government to force action on oil and gas leases that companies had already paid for. The leases had been purchased at Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lease sales. But because of environmental protests and uncertainty over endangered species, the BLM has a backlog of leases needing additional examination.



The Energy Policy Act of 2005 encouraged domestic energy development by allowing wells drilled from a site that had been used within the last five years, and already had a full environmental analysis, to proceed without repeating the expensive, time consuming, and redundant studies. Additionally, in areas with extensive energy development—and therefore environmental impacts have been fully evaluated, permits could be expedited. Extraction and jobs could happen more quickly—helping America’s debt.



In May/June 2010, in response to an environmentalist lawsuit, the BLM/Forest Service (FS) adopted new rules for interpreting the Energy Policy Act. The rules were aimed at slowing down development by increasing environmental oversight of drilling on federal lands.



The WEA lawsuit focused specifically on 118 leases for which companies had paid $4.5 million—an average of $38,000 per lease—though hundreds of leases and more than $100 million were impacted by Friday’s decision.



U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled that the BLM and FS had failed to follow the correct procedures when they issued a memorandum and letter, respectively, changing the application of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. The Obama administration sought to introduce a screening process would have increased environmental oversight. Turning down the administration’s argument that the memorandum/letter were “policy statements,” Judge Freudenthal said, “They are rules which bind the agency and impose or affect individual rights and duties”—as such, notifying the public and engaging in proper rule-making are required. She threw out the 2010 rewrite of Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and reinstated expedited oil and gas drilling.



“The judge’s ruling,” said Kathleen Sgamma, director of Government & Public Affairs for WEA, “is a victory for responsible American energy development, and holds the promise of new jobs and economic growth.”



The judge’s ruling was the second strike against the Obama administration in as many days. Just the day before, a three judge panel—made up of one Bush appointee and two Clinton appointees—struck down Obamacare, ruling that Congress does not have the power to require all Americans to buy insurance.



Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman ruled that the Obama administration was acting in contempt, stating that regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting the offshore ban and then reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling.



Just last month, Louisiana Senator David Vitter (R) begged the administration to allow “our energy industry to get back to work.”



In an economic crisis, with a president who has pivoted to jobs numerous times in the last year, his policies have turned even those within his own party against him. At long last the job destroying policies of the Obama administration and his czars is seen for what they are—and they are not “fair.”



OK Mr. President. Let’s be fair. Let the tenants move into the house they’ve leased.



Townhall

Oh-bummer for Obamacare


8/16/2011
Chuck Norris
Columnist's Archive Sign-Up President Barack Obama's pride-and-joy health care reform law (aka the Affordable Care Act of 2010) suffered a super setback last Friday, when an appeals court ruled that it is unconstitutional to penalize Americans who do not purchase medical insurance.

Reuters reported, "The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law."

Do you hear angels singing, too?

Of course, it ain't over until the Supreme Court sings a similar judgment. It is upon the high court's voice that the legality of the individual mandate ultimately hinges, and the court will decide whether it will be placed upon the already burdened backs of Americans in 2014. And the Supreme Court's ruling could be handed down a few months before the November 2012 presidential election.

The White House wasted no time in denouncing Friday's federal court ruling: "We strongly disagree with this decision and we are confident it will not stand."

The White House loves to cite how a few other courts have upheld Obama's health care law. But last week's ruling was the first time a Democratic-appointed judge ruled against a critical aspect of Obamacare.

The president knows everything rides on the perpetuity of Obamacare's individual mandate. Without it, the entire law collapses. So Obama adviser Stephanie Cutter reiterated in the White House response the administration's same weak defense and rhetoric in hopes of sparing what the president calls the "individual responsibility provision."

First, she wrote, "The Congressional Budget Office estimated that only 1 percent of all Americans would pay a penalty for not having health insurance in 2016."

But how can the government-instituted CBO project the number of Americans who in some way will renege on Obamacare in 2016? If citizens can't afford to buy medical insurance in 2016, what makes the feds think they can afford to pay a penalty for not having it? What are the feds going to do then, throw the economically downtrodden in jail? Who is going to pay for the incarceration of 1 percent of society, or roughly 3.5 million potential new inmates?

Though the CBO says only 1 percent will pay penalties, you can bet that 100 percent will pay for this mammoth health care reform law one way or another via taxes and trickledown costs for employer mandates, Medicaid expansions, tax credits for uninsured, funding grants for states, additional government personnel, etc.

In June, the nonprofit Employment Policies Institute released new research from economists at Cornell University and Indiana University that not only exposes the bias of the CBO but also posits that Obamacare has been grossly underestimated and will result in "much higher costs for taxpayers" than the CBO has estimated.

Friday's White House blog rebutting the appellate court's decision also alleged: "Without the individual responsibility provision, people could wait until they're sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies could no longer say no or charge more. That would lead to double digit premiums increases -- up to 20 percent -- for everyone in the individual insurance market."

Wrong again.

Just this past week, Forbes reported on the annual projections from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Forbes' article is titled "Medicare Actuary: Obamacare Will Triple the Growth Rate of Net Insurance Costs." It says that in 2014, "the actuaries find that growth in the net cost of health insurance will increase by nearly 14 percent, compared to 3.5 percent if (Obamacare) had never passed. The growth rate of private insurance costs will rise to 9.4 percent, from 5.0 percent under prior law: an 88 percent increase."

Why is it that anytime the feds talk dollars and financial projections, they are in diametric opposition to the experts?

I don't care how the Obama administration bends the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution; Obamacare is unconstitutional and going to run U.S. commerce further into the ground. Any junior certified public accountant knows the last thing our flailing government and economy need is another entitlement! (There's a reason the majority of the states in our union -- 26, to be exact -- have defied Obamacare's legality and are fighting its enforcement right now.)

One conclusion the White House did get right in its rebuttal to the appellate court's ruling is this: "Today's ruling is one of many decisions on the Affordable Care Act that we will see in the weeks and months ahead."

The feds' constant botching of facts, figures and our future leaves me thinking that too many kids are running our country. And just for them, I'm wrapping up this column with a poem that a friend sent me from the Internet. I don't know the exact source, but I know I'd like its author. It is titled "Dr. Seuss 2011":

I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam.

I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books.

I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like White House backdoor deals.

I do not like when they kick the financial can, I do not like this 'YES, WE CAN!'

I do not like their spending sprees. Why can't they get it -- nothing's free.

I do not like their smug replies, broken promises and corruption ties.

I do not like this kind of hope. I do not like it -- Nope nope nope!

Tags: Obamacare , Government Spending , Health Care , Judges and Courts

Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris is a columnist and impossible to kill.



Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Isaiah 61

24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?




25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?



26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.



27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.



Matthew 17:24-27

24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?


25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.



Dear Londa,




Obama's union boss buddies poured hundreds of millions into getting him and his Democratic allies elected in 2008, but they were unable to pass their signature legislation stripping workers of private ballot rights. And in last year's midterm election, they were wiped out.



But Obama's union buddies at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) won't take no for an answer.



The board is packed with radical union lawyers that Obama installed by the back door – so-called recess appointments to sidestep the Senate. Consider the words of Craig Becker, the former SEIU lawyer Obama put on the NLRB without Senate approval:



"Employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representatives."



Now Becker and his allies are proposing to gut workers rights with a proposal to force ambush elections on employers in as little as 10 days, without giving employers an opportunity to educate workers on the implications of forming a union. (This identical "ambush elections" proposal was the centerpiece of one of the last versions of the 'card check" bill that collapsed last Congress.)



The result: workers can be forced into unions and forced to pay dues that will be funneled to support left-wing political causes.



Fortunately, the NLRB is required by law to respond to public comments, and the public comment period ends August 22.



Please click here to tell the NLRB to STOP its assault on worker rights!



Thank you for your activism,



Phil Kerpen

Vice President, Policy

Americans for Prosperity



P.S. Like what AFP is doing? Can't get enough legislative information and in-depth policy analysis? Sign up to receive additional updates from AFP on specific policy issues and pieces of legislation

Heart with Holly

Last week I wrote about climbing the impossible. And as I set out on my bike last Sunday, I felt sure no hill could stand in my way.


And then.

As I tackled the last steep incline, I felt a pop beneath me and skidded to a halt miles away from home in the blazing summer sun. I spotted a police car parked a few yards away. Timidly, I approached the vehicle and cleared my throat.

"Can I use your cell phone?"

The phone rang without an answer. The policeman looked at my bike quizically and asked, "Think it will fit in the back seat?" I shrugged my shoulders, "Worth a try."

We wedged that bike into the back like a sardine. The policeman cleared the passenger seat, pointed to it and said, "I usually don't let people ride up here."

I nodded and slipped in the door. I tried to reassure him that I was not, in fact, an intimidating traveling partner. "I've never been in a police car before!" I declared. "That's a good thing," he responded sternly. I noted he drove above the speed limit--probably because I smelled so bad.

As we pulled up in front of my house, my wide-eyed husband came to the front of the garage and looked at me as if to ask, "What did you do now?"

We popped my bike out of the back seat and I was home. The policeman answered my thanks with a single sentence, "Have a nice day, ma'am."

Safe on my sofa, I reflected on the difference between last week's ride and this one. Sometimes we do climb the impossible. We push through and realize we're stronger than we ever knew. And sometimes God, in His loving care, makes a way for us to be carried instead just when we need it most.

Either way, He promises we'll finish the ride.

Either way, we get Home.

And, in the end, that's really all that matters.

Monday, August 15, 2011

6 Creepy New Weapons the Police and Military Can Use To Subdue Unarmed People




http://www.alternet.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US is at the forefront of an international arms development effort that includes a remarkable assortment of technologies, which look and sound like they belong in a Hollywood science fiction thriller. From microwave energy blasters and blinding laser beams, to chemical agents and deafening sonic blasters, these weapons are at the cutting edge of crowd control.

The Pentagon's approved term for these weapons is "non-lethal" or "less-lethal" and they are intended for use against the unarmed. Designed to control crowds, clear streets, subdue and restrain individuals and secure borders, they are the 21st century's version of the police baton, pepper spray and tear gas. As journalist Ando Arike puts it, "The result is what appears to be the first arms race in which the opponent is the general population."

The demand for non-lethal weapons (NLW) is rooted in the rise of television. In the 1960s and '70s the medium let everyday Americans witness the violent tactics used to suppress the civil rights and anti-war movements.

Today’s rapid advancements in media and telecommunications technologies allow people to record and publicize images and video of undue force more than ever before. Authorities are well aware of how images of violence play out publicly. In 1997, a joint report from the Pentagon and the Justice Department warned:

"A further consideration that affects how the military and law enforcement apply force is the greater presence of members of the media or other civilians who are observing, if not recording, the situation. Even the lawful application of force can be misrepresented to or misunderstood by the public. More than ever, the police and the military must be highly discreet when applying force."

The global economic collapse coupled with the unpredictable and increasingly catastrophic consequences of climate change and resource scarcity, along with a new era of austerity defined by rising unemployment and glaring inequality have already led to massive protests in Spain, Greece, Egypt, and even Madison, Wisconsin. From the progressive era to the Great Depression to the civil rights movement, Americans have a rich history of taking to the streets to demand greater equality.

Meanwhile, tens of millions of dollars have been invested in the research and development of more media-friendly weapons for everyday policing and crowd control. This has lead to a trade-in of old school weapons for more exotic and controversial technologies. The following are six of the most outrageous "non-lethal" weapons that will define the future of crowd control.



1. The Invisible Pain Ray: The 'Holy Grail of Crowd Control'

It sounds like a weapon out of Star Wars. The Active Denial System, or ADS, works like an open-air microwave oven, projecting a focused beam of electromagnetic radiation to heat the skin of its targets to 130 degrees. This creates an intolerable burning sensation forcing those in its path to instinctively flee (a response the Air Force dubs the "goodbye effect").

The Pentagon's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (JNLWP) says, "This capability will add to the ability to stop, deter and turn back an advancing adversary, providing an alternative to lethal force." Although ADS is described as non-lethal, a 2008 report by physicist and less-lethal weapons expert Dr. Jürgen Altmann suggests otherwise:

" ... the ADS provides the technical possibility to produce burns of second and third degree. Because the beam of diameter 2 m and above is wider than human size, such burns would occur over considerable parts of the body, up to 50% of its surface. Second- and third-degree burns covering more than 20% of the body surface are potentially life-threatening – due to toxic tissue-decay products and increased sensitivity to infection – and require intensive care in a specialized unit. Without a technical device that reliably prevents re-triggering on the same target subject, the ADS has a potential to produce permanent injury or death. "

The weapon was initially tested in Afghanistan, but later recalled due to a combination of technical difficulties and political concerns, including the fear that ADS would be used as a torture tool making it "not politically tenable," according to a Defense Science Board report. The tens of millions of dollars spent to develop the ADS did not necessarily go to waste, however.

While the weapon may be too controversial for use on the battlefield, it appears that nothing is too sadistic for use on US prisoners, so the ADS has since been modified into a smaller version by Raytheon, for use in law enforcement. Last year, the renamed Assault Intervention System (AIS) was installed at the Pitchess Detention Center's North County Correction Facility at the behest of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD). Former LASD Commander, Charles “Sid” Heal had been lobbying for the pain ray for years, calling it the "Holy Grail of Crowd Control," due to its ability to make people scatter almost instantly.

The device is operated by a jail officer with a joystick, and is intended to break up prison riots, inmate brawls and prevent assaults on officers. Sheriff Lee Baca added that it would allow officers to quickly intervene without having to physically enter the area to incapacitate prisoners.

The ACLU claims that use of such a device on American prisoners is "tantamount to torture." The organization even sent a letter to the sheriff in charge, demanding he never use the energy weapon against inmates. “The idea that a military weapon designed to cause intolerable pain should be used against county jail inmates is staggeringly wrongheaded,” said Margaret Winter, associate director of the ACLU National Prison Project. “Unnecessarily inflicting severe pain and taking such unnecessary risks with people’s lives is a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment and due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

The pain ray’s use in the Pitchess Detention Center is a pilot program. If successful, the weapon could find its way into other prisons around the country. The National Institute of Justice has also expressed interest in a hand-held, rifle-sized, short-range weapon that could be effective at tens of feet for law enforcement officials.



2. The Laser Blinding 'Dazzler'

The Personal Halting and Stimulation Response rifle, or PHaSR, is a massive laser shooter. PHaSR technology is being co-funded by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program (JNLWP), and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and is being developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory. While JNLWP is interested in the technology for military applications, NIJ is focusing on its law enforcement use.

So what is the purpose of this light-shooting toy? Well, it won't kill you, but it will temporarily blind you — or as the NIJ prefers to say, it will "dazzle" you into disorientation — by shooting you with two low­-power diode­-pumped lasers.

Protocol IV, the Blinding Laser Protocol of the United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons, states that, "The use of laser weapons that are specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision is prohibited."

After the US agreed to the Blinding Laser Protocol in 1995 under President Clinton, the Pentagon was forced to cancel several blinding laser weapon programs that were in the works. But the PHaSR rifle can skirt this regulation because the blinding effect is apparently temporary due to its low-intensity laser.

According to a U.S. Air Force fact sheet, "The laser light from PHaSR temporarily impairs aggressors by dazzling them with one wavelength. The second wavelength causes a repel effect that discourages advancing aggressors.” The JNLWP website says that a significant amount of research and experimentation is still required to gain a full understanding of the safety, military effectiveness, and limitations of these future capabilities.



3. The Taser on Steroids

The Albuquerque Police Department now has Taser shotguns in its arsenal. Most of us are familiar with hand-held Tasers and understand that they only work if the police are standing pretty close to you (about 20 feet).

But Taser has developed the Taser X12, a 12-gauge shotgun that instead of firing lethal bullet rounds, is designed to fire Taser projectile rounds. Known as Extended Range Electronic Projectiles (XREP), the XREP cartridge is a self-contained, wireless projectile that delivers the same neuro-muscular incapacitation bio-effect (a fancy way of saying electric shock) as the handheld Taser, but up to 100 feet.

According to a July 21 press release, Taser International has taken the XREP to the next level, teaming up with the Australian electronic gun company Metal Storm to enhance the 12-gauge Multi-Shot Accessory Under-Barrel Launcher (MAUL).

The two companies will combine Metal Storm's MAUL stacked projectile technology to "provide semi-automatic fire as fast as the operator can squeeze the trigger," which boasts a full weapon reload of up to five rounds in less than two seconds. Picture five rounds of Taser XREP cartridges flying out in less than two seconds up to 30 yards away -- that is the plan.

In September 2010 Raw Story reported that the rate of Taser-related deaths were on the rise. The story cited an Amnesty International report from 2008 that found 351 Taser-related deaths in the US between June 2001 and August 2008, a rate of just slightly above four deaths per month. About 90 percent of the victims were unarmed and did not appear to pose any serious threat, according to an article in the Boston Review. The Amnesty report points out that Tasers are “inherently open to abuse as they are easy to carry and easy to use and they can inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving substantial marks.“ In Amnesty's US 2010 report, the Taser-related death toll had increased to 390. If the MAUL-Taser combined shooter find its way into police departments around the country, it may not bode well for the rate of Taser-related deaths.

Another project of Taser International, which was unveiled in 2009, is the Shockwave Area-Denial System, which blankets a large area with electrified darts, and a wireless Taser projectile with a 100-meter range, helpful for picking off “ringleaders” in unruly crowds. In 2007, Taser's French distributor announced plans for a stun-gun-equipped flying saucer that fires stun darts at criminal suspects or rioters; however, it has yet to be unveiled. Clearly there is no limit to Taser International’s capacity for creativity.



4. Calmative Agents for Riot Control

Calmatives are chemical or biological agents with sedative, sleep-inducing or similar psychoactive effects. Although the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of riot control agents in warfare, JNWLP and NIJ have long considered calmatives for both military and law enforcement applications, such as dispersing a crowd, controlling a riot or calming a noncompliant offender.

The most well-known and widely used riot-control agents are tear gas (CS) and chloroacetophenone (CN), also known as mace. A few ways that more advanced non-lethal calmatives might be administered, depending on the law enforcement environment, would include a topical or transdermal skin application, an aerosol spray, an intramuscular dart, or a rubber bullet filled with an inhalable agent.

In the March 2010 issue of Harper's magazine, Ando Arike gives an extensive overview of riot control technology in his article "The Soft Kill: New Frontiers in Pain Compliance." He wrote:

Pentagon interest in “advanced riot-control agents” has long been an open secret, but just how close we are to seeing these agents in action was revealed in 2002, when the Sunshine Project, an arms-control group based in Austin, Texas, posted on the Internet a trove of Pentagon documents uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act. Among these was a fifty-page study titled “The Advantages and Limitations of Calmatives for Use as a Non-Lethal Technique,” conducted by Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory, home of the JNLWD-sponsored Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies.

Penn State’s College of Medicine researchers agreed, contrary to accepted principles of medical ethics, that “the development and use of non-lethal calmative techniques is both achievable and desirable,” and identified a large number of promising drug candidates, including benzodiazepines like Valium, serotonin-reuptake inhibitors like Prozac, and opiate derivatives like morphine, fentanyl, and carfentanyl, the last commonly used by veterinarians to sedate large animals. The only problems they saw were in developing effective delivery vehicles and regulating dosages, but these problems could be solved readily, they recommended, through strategic partnerships with the pharmaceutical industry.

Little more was heard about the Pentagon’s “advanced riot-control agent” program until July 2008, when the Army announced that production was scheduled for its XM1063 “non-lethal personal suppression projectile,” an artillery shell that bursts in midair over its target, scattering 152 canisters over a 100,000-square-foot area, each dispersing a chemical agent as it parachutes down. There are many indications that a calmative, such as fentanyl, is the intended payload—a literal opiate of the masses.



5. Screaming Microwaves That Pierce the Skull

Researchers are in the process of developing the Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio or MEDUSA (that's right, from Greek mythology), which uses a beam of microwaves to induce uncomfortable auditory sensations in the skull. The device exploits the microwave audio effect, in which short microwave pulses rapidly heat tissue, causing a shockwave inside the skull that can be detected by the ears. MEDUSA’s audio effect is loud enough to cause discomfort or even incapacitation. It may also cause a little brain damage from the high-intensity shockwave created by the microwave pulse.

MEDUSA's intended purpose is deterring crowds from entering a protected perimeter, like a nuclear site, and temporarily incapacitating unruly individuals. So far the weapon remains in development and is funded by the Navy.



6. Ear-Splitting Siren

The Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, built by American Technology Corporation, focuses and broadcasts sound over ranges of up to hundreds of yards. LRAD has been around for years, but Americans first took notice when police used it in Pittsburgh to ward off protesters at the 2009 G-20 summit. It is generally used in two ways: as a megaphone to order protesters to disperse; or, if they disobey, as an “ear-splitting siren” to drive them away. While LRAD may not be deadly, it can permanently damage hearing, depending on how it’s used.

Similar sonic blasters have proven deadly. One is the Thunder Generator, an Israeli-developed shock wave cannon used by farmers to scare away crop-threatening bird. According to a Defense News report last year, the Israeli Ministry of Defense has licensed a firm called ArmyTec to market the Thunder Generator for military and security applications.

It works using gas from a cylinder of domestic liquid petroleum, which is mixed with air and then detonated, producing a series of high-intensity blasts. Patented “pulse detonation” technology ensures high-decibel blasts. With an effective range of up to 50 meters, the makers say it is extremely loud but will not do any lasting damage. They warn, however, that within 10 meters the Thunder Generator could cause permanent damage or even death.



The Impact

The application of pain to control or coerce people into submission helps achieve the desired aims of perception management, while sheltering the public from the brutality of such devices.



Perhaps these less-lethal tactics for crowd control do result in fewer injuries. But they also severely weaken our capacity to enact political change. Authorities have ever more creative ways to manage dissent, at a time when the need for change by popular demand is vital to the future of our society and the planet.

Mark Of The Beast Technology? Electronic Skin Tattoo Blurs The Distinction Between Electronics And Biology


http://www.breitbart.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A hair-thin electronic patch that adheres to the skin like a temporary tattoo could transform medical sensing, computer gaming and even spy operations, according to a US study published Thursday.

The micro-electronics technology, called an epidermal electronic system (EES), was developed by an international team of researchers from the United States, China and Singapore, and is described in the journal Science.

"It's a technology that blurs the distinction between electronics and biology," said co-author John Rogers, a professor in materials science and engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

"Our goal was to develop an electronic technology that could integrate with the skin in a way that is mechanically and physiologically invisible to the user."

The patch could be used instead of bulky electrodes to monitor brain, heart and muscle tissue activity and when placed on the throat it allowed users to operate a voice-activated video game with better than 90 percent accuracy.

"This type of device might provide utility for those who suffer from certain diseases of the larynx," said Rogers. "It could also form the basis of a sub-vocal communication capability, suitable for covert or other uses."

The wireless device is nearly weightless and requires so little power it can fuel itself with miniature solar collectors or by picking up stray or transmitted electromagnetic radiation, the study said.

Less than 50-microns thick -- slightly thinner than a human hair -- the devices are able to adhere to the skin without glue or sticky material.

"Forces called van der Waals interactions dominate the adhesion at the molecular level, so the electronic tattoos adhere to the skin without any glues and stay in place for hours," said the study.

Northwestern University engineer Yonggang Huang said the patch was "as soft as the human skin."

Rogers and Huang have been working together on the technology for the past six years. They have already designed flexible electronics for hemispherical camera sensors and are now focused on adding battery power and other energy options.

The devices might find future uses in patients with sleep apnea, babies who need neonatal care and for making electronic bandages to help skin heal from wounds and burns.

US concern grows over al-Qaida poison threat




http://www.jpost.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Obama administration is concerned that a dangerous regional arm of al-Qaida is trying to produce the deadly poison ricin to use in attacks against the United States, the New York Times reported on Friday.

Citing unnamed intelligence officials and classified intelligence reports, the newspaper said al-Qaida's affiliate in Yemen has been trying to acquire large quantities of castor beans, used to produce ricin.

It said the apparent intent was to pack the poison around small explosives that could be exploded to disperse the ricin, a white powdery substance so deadly that a speck can kill if inhaled or taken into the bloodstream.

The Times said the apparent intent was to detonate the explosives in enclosed spaces like a shopping mall or airport.

US President Barack Obama and top security aides were briefed about the threat last year and have received updates since then, but senior US officials said there was no indication an attack was imminent.

The Times noted that there were limits on ricin's utility as a weapon because it loses its potency in dry, sunny conditions - like those in Yemen - and is not easily absorbed through the skin like some other nerve agents.

Senior administration officials said ricin was among the threats being tracked by a secret government task force created after printer cartridges packed with powerful explosives were found in cargo bound for Chicago in October 2010, according to the Times report.

It said the task force was working with Saudi officials and with the remnants of Yemen's intelligence agencies to counter the threat. It said regional al-Qaida affiliates, especially al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, were seen as a menace to the United States and US interests abroad.

The virtual collapse of Yemen's government has enabled al-Qaida to widen its control in the country and strengthen its operational ties with al Shabab, the Islamic militancy in Somalia, the Times said.

Friday, August 5, 2011

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Chronicle · August 3, 2011




The Foundation

"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt." --George Washington



Editorial Exegesis"After months of talk about the nation's runaway debt, lawmakers managed to agree on a plan that, at most, will cut spending by a mere 5%. Is it any wonder federal spending is out of control? ... According to IBD's analysis of available budget numbers, the deal's $2.4 trillion in 10-year cuts amounts to a mere 5% trim off total projected federal spending during that time. It's like a 400-pound man boasting that he plans to drop 20 pounds over a decade, while his doctors warn about the risks of losing weight so fast. Even calling these 'cuts' is a bit of a stretch, since spending will continue to increase, just at a slightly slower pace. ... By 2021, federal spending would still equal 22% of the nation's economy, above the post-World War II average of 20%. Not really a cut, is it? Plus, in the short term, these 'deep,' 'sharp,' 'slashing' cuts would still leave the federal government spending roughly 4% more in 2012 than it did in 2010, and 20% more than it did in 2008. Shorn of all the hyperbole, what this agreement really demonstrates is why it's so hard to get federal spending under control. Both sides routinely use budget gimmicks to exaggerate spending cuts, while armies of special interests swarm Washington to make sure their pet programs don't get touched. All the while, spending marches upward. And reporters too dumb, lazy or biased to understand how budgets work keep falling for this nonsense." --Investor's Business Daily



Essential Liberty

"It is true that the Tea Party has 'won' within the context of what constitutes a political win in Washington. But have they accomplished enough to change our future? No, by this deal, they have not. To have a chance at actually changing our future, Washington would have to risk shocking and unpredictable change that might rock, temporarily, the financial prosperity of the nation. The establishment is not ready for that. To wit: Whether to risk radical change now or not is the measure of whether to support the deal. Thus, Washington politicians and politically alert citizens across the country can be broadly divided into those who fear losing the status quo and those who fear losing the future." --columnist Tony Blankley



Share your thoughts

Upright

"Federal outlays now make up a quarter of the total national output. Federal spending is up 46% in the last decade while the economy has grown by just 14% (inflation adjusted dollars). In other words, government is growing over 3.5 times faster than our ability to sustain it. Normally, spending numbers are lost on much of the voting public, but the debt ceiling offers a chance at national reflection over what we have purchased and what we've committed to buy. Instead of framing the debate around government freebies, as in the case of the federal budget, the debt ceiling shows Americans how much it all costs. It is the difference between the euphoria of a credit card-financed shopping spree and the realism [of] the next month's Visa statement." --columnist Joseph Ashby



"If the debt-ceiling had not been raised, the government would have been forced to choose between spending initiatives. The debt-ceiling would have provided a hard cap; it would have prevented President Obama from being able to press for new spending initiatives. Now, with the 'Super Congress' ... in charge of cutting the deficit, we can expect a new push for higher taxes, especially since reports are that the constituency of the Super Congress will be 'moderate.' ... If someone sets a hard date, we can fairly guarantee that the doom-saying is nonsensical. Never in history, has a non-mankind-created hard date turned out to be disastrous. No Kal-El prediction of the sun exploding has ever been accurate. ... The only apocalypse that will occur is the one our scaremongering politicians bring down upon us." --columnist Ben Shapiro



"The political class predicted 'disaster' if Congress didn't raise its debt limit. I think that was a scam to get more money. See, the poor politicians don't have enough, and they need to borrow more. We taxpayers are cheap. This year we'll give them only $2.2 trillion. They want to spend $3.8 trillion." --columnist John Stossel



Insight

"No government is respectable which is not just. Without unspotted purity of public faith, without sacred public principle, fidelity, and honor, no machinery of laws, can give dignity to political society." --U.S. senator Daniel Webster (1782-1852)



"If you are afraid to speak against tyranny, then you are already a slave." --author John "Birdman" Bryant (1943-2009)



The Demo-gogues


He should take his own advice: "[This debt-ceiling deal is] an important first step for ensuring that as a nation we live within our means. ... [But the economy] didn't need Washington to come along with a manufactured crisis. It's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling -- for both businesses and consumers -- has been unsettling, and just one more impediment to the full recovery that we need. And it was something that we could have avoided entirely. Voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional government." --Barack Obama



Pity party: "If I were a Republican, I would be dancing in the streets. I don't have any idea what the Republicans wanted that they didn't get." --Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)



Government is great: "[Some] of us ... believe that government has a role for positive achievement in society along with the private sector doing things only government can do. ... I don't like this deal. But I think it would have been worse. ... Tax cuts are fun, but I never saw a tax cut put out a fire. I never saw a tax cut make a bridge. We need to have to make the case for positive government." --Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)



Hating the Tea Party: "[A]s result of the Tea Party direction of this Congress these last few months has been very, very disconcerting and very unfair to the American people." --Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)



"The Tea Party acted like terrorists in threatening to blow up the economy." --Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA)



"They have acted like terrorists." --Joe Biden, repeating and approving the line



Gun grabbers: "The easy availability of high-capacity ammo magazines in the U.S. has once again helped enable a large-scale massacre. ... This is another tragic example of our lack of common-sense gun laws failing us with deadly consequences, allowing a cold-blooded killer to easily acquire the tools of mass murder even from another country. How many more innocent people need to die before we realize that some simple, common-sense gun safety laws in the United States could actually save lives?" --Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) on the Norway massacre, while her pals call conservatives "terrorists"



Dezinformatsia

Media vs. Tea Party: "So the question, I think, some people might be asking is, do you think that members of the Tea Party Caucus know how to govern or are they -- do they understand that standing up for a cause is not the same as governing?" --NBC's Ann Curry



"They truly did not know what the words 'debt ceiling' meant. Look, let's admit it. It's true of most of the media, most everybody because these things were never covered before. And so they didn't know what it was. Now they were going to have to learn what it was, and they certainly weren't going to take their lesson from Washington about what the debt ceiling is. ... So, there is no educating these Tea Party people. It's just a matter of how do you maneuver around them, and how do you govern." --MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell



"We know that the federal government has promised more benefits than it can currently afford. The only way out of this problem involves some combination of tax increases and cuts to Medicare, Social Security and the military. Anyone who won't get specific about which ones they favor is not a fiscal conservative." --New York Times reporter David Leonhardt



The BIG Lie: "The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president -- actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform -- his only major change to government -- was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else -- including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment -- is according to the conservative playbook." --New York Times columnist Paul Krugman



Newspulper Headlines:

Questions Nobody Is Asking: "Is Michelle Obama Trying to Kill Me?" --PajamasMedia.com



Now He Wants a Rematch With the Rabbit: "Pres. Carter Sees Guinea Worm Stopped After 23-Yr. Fight" --Atlanta Business Chronicle



Not the Sharpest Knife in the Drawer: "Glendale Man Attempts Self-Surgery With Butter Knife" --Associated Press



Everything Seemingly Is Spinning Out of Control: "McDonald's to Make Happy Meals More Healthful" --Los Angeles Times



Bottom Story of the Day: "Obama Polling Better Than Nixon" --Washington Examiner website



(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)



Village Idiots

Broken record: "Everything is on the table for that [special congressional] committee, everything, including both entitlement reform and tax reform. Let's be clear: The president thinks, as you know, that the biggest possible overall accomplishment in terms of deficit reduction is a desirable goal, as long as it's balanced. He looks forward to, through the process set up by that committee, to having that debate about what our priorities are. If we need to, as legislated through this deal, find another $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in deficit cuts, how are we going to do that? Are we going to do it by asking sacrifice only of middle-class Americans, or seniors, parents of children who are disabled? Or are we going to ask that others, including oil and gas companies, corporate jet manufacturers, or the wealthiest Americans share in the sacrifice?" --White House Press Secretary Jay Carney



Heated rhetoric: "Once having been successful at blindfolding the American public, putting a gun to the president's head, forcing him to sign into law this extraordinary act of ... unpatriotic and irrational frenzy -- I think that now [Republicans are] emboldened, they will now take this as a blueprint and ... a manifesto of sorts to go forward and to disrupt the workings of American government at the behest of a splinter group that is a radical right-wing organization that really needs to be brought to ... account for the devastation that it has wrought on this economy." --Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson on MSNBC



"When any faction in America that would put a gun to the head of 310 million people and say 'if you don't do it our way we will blow your dreams away, we will blow a hole in the American economy,' that is un-American and that is not how we do business and we refuse to bow down to those kind of bully tactics. ... The Tea Party is saying if they don't get their way they will refuse to have America pay our bills; if America becomes a dead-beat nation we are finished as a first-rate power. And nobody should threaten that kind of harm to America and get away with it." --former Obama "green czar" Van Jones



Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was actually shot in the head in January, was present for the vote on the debt ceiling. After she was shot, leftists couldn't say enough to blame toxic right-wing rhetoric for the shooting. Yet here they are, using "gun to the head" metaphors. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Short Cuts


"They used to say that Richard Nixon had a 'secret plan' in the 1968 presidential campaign to end the Vietnam War. President Barack Obama outdid Nixon with a secret plan to control the deficit. He kept telling us of all the virtues of his plan. It was balanced, responsible, courageous and fair. It was just very, very secret." --columnist Rich Lowry



"President Obama admitted in a Kansas City radio interview the next election will be a referendum on him and his presidency. The White House quickly clarified his statement. What the president meant to say is that Bush has screwed up left field so badly that nobody can play it." --comedian Argus Hamilton



"That thoughtful observer of the passing parade, Nancy Pelosi, weighed in on the 'debt ceiling' negotiations the other day: 'What we're trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We're trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.' It's always good to have things explained in terms we simpletons can understand. After a while, all the stuff about debt-to-GDP ratio and CBO alternative baseline scenarios starts to give you a bit of a headache, so we should be grateful to the House Minority Leader for putting it in layman's terms: What's at stake is 'life on this planet as we know it today.' So, if right now you're living anywhere in the general vicinity of this planet, it's good to know Nancy's in there pitching for you." --columnist Mark Steyn



"Someone said President Obama was wrong for telling the American people to call their representatives about the debt ceiling. If there's one thing that congressmen hate, it's being told what to do by the people that put them there." --comedian Jay Leno



Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

The Patriot Post Editorial Team





(To submit reader comments click here.)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Patriot News Review

Obama Signs Debt Ceiling Bill

Debt Deal Could Cut Defense $900B Over Next Decade

Dow Plunges 265 Points

Asian Markets Fall Amid Fears

Chinese Credit Rating Agency Downgrades U.S. Debt

US Private Sector Added 114,000 Jobs in July

More News





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Right Opinion

Terence Jeffrey: Boehner's Next Bad Deal

Austin Bay: Turkey's Military Resigns

Michelle Malkin: Back to Big Government-Spending as Usual

Ben Shapiro: Apocalyptic Thinking Leads to the Apocalypse

John Stossel: Balancing the Budget

L. Brent Bozell: Brian Williams vs. the Tea Party

Jacob Sullum: Where Are These Government-Slashing Republicans I Keep Hearing About?

Tony Blankley: Debt Status Quo Triumphs Over Future -- Again.

George Will: A Clarifying Debate

Jonah Goldberg: Obama Is Out of Options

Thomas Sowell: Misleading Words: Part II

Walter E. Williams: Cruel Laws

More Opinion





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Grassroots Commentary

Or Is It a Jon?

Unprecedented

Jim Crow Lives on

With Malice Aforethought

The Corrupt Bargain

Dreaming of a Post August 2nd World

More Commentary





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Policy and Analysis

Heritage Foundation Insider

Heritage Foundation Research

American Enterprise Institute

Center for Strategic and International Studies

The Cato Institute

Hoover Institution

National Rifle Association

Ludwig von Mises Institute

Citizens Against Government Waste

National Center for Policy Analysis

The Heartland Institute



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)



Church Failing Youth With 'Cool' Ministers, Entertainment




http://www.christianpost.com/





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The current state of youth ministry in the U.K. is falling far short of the mark, fears one veteran youth minister.



Addressing this year’s Keswick Convention, Dave Fenton outlined just some of the challenges facing youth ministry and highlighted where he thinks the church – and parents – are getting it wrong.



Fenton runs the Root 66 Youth ministry courses and has recently written a book on the issue of youth ministry, entitled Growing Up.



He said that youth ministry in Britain could be described as “patchy” and questioned why it was that churches so often decide youth ministers according to age rather than gifting.



“Why do we graduate people out of youth ministry so young? Why do we say youth leaders have to be cool, to dress in a certain way? And why are we so reluctant to teach them the Bible?” he posed.



Fenton said it was wonderful to have the enthusiasm and energy of young youth leaders but encouraged churches to take on more mature youth leaders.



He argued that including older youth leaders in the mix would encourage better discipleship.



“Young youth leaders are cheap but we need people who can model true discipleship at every age – to help young people grow up in the faith," he said. "You don’t have to be a certain type of person – you just need to love kids, and to be willing to spend time with them, to listen to them and to engage with their questions.



“So often in churches we are looking for quick fixes but we have to be prepared to put the time in, to build those good relationships.”



Parents also need to rethink their attitude to the church and what they want their children to get out of their time there, he contended.



Fenton said that parents seemed to care more about their kids just going to church than they did about them growing in discipleship.



There was “pressure” on the church, he continued, to “entertain” children and just give them a fun time.



“But what about content? Are we teaching them the Bible?" he asked. "That is the great weakness of youth ministry in the U.K. I don’t think the Bible is generally taught well.



“We need to prepare young people for discipleship.”