Friday, October 28, 2011

Concealed Carry Handgun Class -- Texas Style!

Makes me wish I lived in Texas...

From Libertarian Republican

Down in the Lone Star State they know how to handle Terrorists

From Eric Dondero:

This is an actual radio ad. This is not a spoof. Y'all will want to listen to the whole thing, beginning to end. It gets really, really good towards the end.

We won't spoil it for ya!

Against bicyclists? or against wasting taxpayer money? You decide

The left sees this as being "against bicyclists", Libertarians see it as not taking taxpayer's money to fund something they can't use.

A Libertarian would solicit donations to build the paths.

From AlterNet:

What Do Republicans Have Against Biking and Walking?
In these antagonistic political times, bikers and walkers are now targets of controversy for some members of Congress.
October 28, 2011 |

This story first appeared on Shareable.

How in the the world can biking and walking be controversial?

They’re good exercise, fun to do and—as an alternative to driving everywhere—help us save money and the environment. Both biking and walking are increasingly popular for transportation and recreation today, thanks in large part to a recent flowering of federally-funded trails, bikeways and pathways that make getting around on two wheels and two feet safer and more convenient.

But in these antagonistic political times, bikers and walkers are now targets of controversy for some members of Congress. In September, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn proposed stripping all designated federal funding for bike and pedestrian projects from the pending Transportation Bill. After an outpouring of opposition from citizens coast-to-coast, Coburn withdrew his amendment.

Now bicyclists and pedestrians are under attack again, this time in an amendment from Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. He wants to redirect every last penny of money dedicated to bicycling and walking to bridge repair instead.

His proposal is scheduled for a vote next Tuesday. (Here's how to contact your Senators and Representatives to save federal bike and walk programs.)

Now we all agree that safe bridges are important. Look at the tragic bridge collapse four years ago in Minneapolis that took 17 lives.

But safety for the millions of kids and adults that bike and walk every day is important, too. Since 2007, 2,800 cyclists and 20,000 pedestrians have died on America’s roads—many due to the lack of sidewalks, bike lanes and other safety measures that federal funds provide.

We shouldn’t have to choose between safe bridges and safe streets. Here’s why.
First of all, Senator Paul’s amendment will not even come close to fixing America’s bridges. Biking, walking and other so-called “transportation enhancements” that Paul wants to kill account for less than two percent of the total Transportation Bill. It would take 80 years using money saved from scrapping these programs to finance the backlog of current bridge repairs—not to mention future needs.
States are not spending the money already allocated for bridge repairs. Last year, they returned $530 million to the federal government. That represents a big chunk of total bike and pedestrian projects.
Federal money to make biking and walking safer and more convenient is a great investment in America’s future that pays off in safer streets, reduced environmental damage, greater energy security, improved public health and more resilient, neighborly, pleasurable communities.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

State Department Buys $70K Worth Of Obama Books

By who's order was this? 

Have we done similarly with other presidents?

By Jim McElhatton, The Washington Times
The U.S. Department of State has bought more than $70,000 worth of books authored by President Obama, sending out copies as Christmas gratuities and stocking “key libraries” around the world with “Dreams from My Father” more than a decade after its release.
The U.S. embassy in Egypt, for instance, spent $28,636 in August 2009 for copies of Mr. Obama’s bestselling 1995 memoir. Six weeks earlier, the embassy had placed another order with the same book seller, Kalemat Arabia, for more than $9,000 for copies of the same book, federal purchasing records show.

Read more:

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Republicans: The party of bigger Government

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

These words, from Loving v. Virginia, in 1967, set aside anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. What politician would openly refute those words? All of them, it seems. While they would never indicate an intention to roll back laws allowing people of different races to marry, query them about people of the same sex marrying.

No, I am not gay, I am straight male, happily married (to a woman). But I cannot see in any way how allowing two homosexual people to marry would impact my marriage in any way. The Republican-backed "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) purports that the very act of two people of the same sex marrying would cause damage the institute of marriage.

Republicans call themselves the "Party of smaller Government". Please someone explain to me how the DOMA is "Smaller Government".

I still like this guy... Ron Paul: Let's kill Fed student loans

It seems like Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate to truly embrace freedom and smaller government.
Cain at one time looked like he was, but now with his pro-government control over our morals, I can't continue to support him.

Ron Paul: Let's Kill Federal Student Loans

By the Associated Press

Posted Oct 23, 2011 12:34 PM CDT

AP) – Republican presidential contender Ron Paul said today he wants to end federal student loans, calling it a failed program that has put students $1 trillion in debt when there are no jobs and when the quality of education has deteriorated. Paul unveiled a plan last week to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget that would eliminate five Cabinet departments, including education. He's also wants young workers to be able to opt out of Social Security.

The student loan program is not part of those cuts, but Paul said today on NBC's Meet the Press that he'd kill the loan program eventually if he were president. That could put him at odds with some of his young followers, many of whom are college students. Paul blamed government intervention in the economy for rising tuition. "Just think of all this willingness to want to help every student get a college education," said Paul, a graduate of Gettysburg College and Duke University School of Medicine. "I went to school when we had none of those. I could work my way through college and medical school because it wasn't so expensive." Annual tuition for Gettysburg College is $42,610 for the 2011-2012 academic year. Annual tuition at Duke's medical school runs $46,621.

Ron Paul Student Loans: Federal Government Needs to get Out of Lending Business

Blacks can't seem to criticize Cain without mentioning race

Chauncey DeVega is at it again. He must have some deep down resentment of his color. He's seemingly not able to criticize a black person without calling him an "Uncle Tom", or "minstrel". 

Read the latest race-bating garbage below link below

Stop Funding College Sports

NCPA Logo - National Center for Policy Analysis

Though the economic crisis has taken a striking, media-grabbing toll on the federal government, state governments are also scrambling to address budgetary issues. Many states are implementing across-the-board spending cuts, while others are targeting those programs that they believe are most expendable. Whatever their strategy, lawmakers are ripping through budgets, looking for excess fat that can be eliminated to trim down expenditures. Given this political and budgetary climate, it seems remarkable that state lawmakers continue funneling taxpayer dollars toward college and university athletic departments, says A. Barton Hinkle, a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
A Bloomberg study found that 46 of the 53 schools examined subsidize their sports programs, supporting a statement by the NCAA that most athletic departments operate in the red.
According to a story in USA Today, six Virginia schools charged each of their students more than $1,000 as an athletics fee for the 2008-2009 school year, constituting between 10 percent and 23 percent of the total tuition and mandatory-fee charges for in-state students.
Using the University of Florida as an example, while the school gained $44 million and $2 million from its profitable football and basketball teams, respectively, it lost $2.8 million on women's basketball, $5.3 million on other men's sports, $10 million on other women's sports, $17.4 million on coaches' salaries, $7.5 million in aid to student athletes and $1.4 million in recruiting.

Given that most athletic departments are net losses for funds, it is time that state lawmakers ask themselves a more fundamental question: how does athletic entertainment further the purpose of universities? While some claim that university athletics programs help to produce better-rounded students, this is only true for those few students who actively participate -- it is difficult to accept the argument that merely watching the game molds character.

This underlines the crux of the issue: universities and the lawmakers who fund them need to revisit the purpose of higher education, and rededicate themselves to attaining it. In a time of budget cuts and belt-fastening, wasteful and unproductive spending should not be allowed to continue.

Source: A. Barton Hinkle, "Stop Funding College Sports," Reason Magazine, October 14, 2011.

Stop Funding College Sports

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Keeping Poor People Poor

by John C. Goodman - Townhall

If you live in a middle-class household, you generally expect your needs to be met through the marketplace. You buy or rent housing in the real estate market. When you aren't driving your own car, you catch a taxicab or maybe even hire a limo. You or your employer buy health insurance, and you choose your doctor in the medical marketplace.

For most poor families, the experience is very different. Regulations designed to protect entrenched special interests have succeeded in raising the costs of basic services so much that low-income families have been priced out of the market for many essential services. Middle-class and poor communities differ not just by income. For the middle class, basic needs are met by markets and they benefit from the customer-pleasing innovations that competition produces. All too often, the poor must turn to public programs with all of the customer-pleasing attributes of the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Take housing, for example. The cheapest form of housing is small, prefabricated homes for zero-lot developments. However, zoning regulations in most cities outlaw them — an act that effectively doubles the price of the cheapest housing. There are also other expensive restrictions on new housing, such as forcing builders to build on bigger lots and mandating specific types of materials and construction methods. Regulations vary widely across the United States. In Houston, a less restrictive city, regulatory costs add about $13,200 to the price of an average home. In San Diego, a multitude of regulations add $240,000. These cost-increasing regulations have essentially priced many low-income residents out of the market for a private home, forcing them to turn to public housing instead.

Then there is transportation. Did you know that people in the bottom fifth of income distribution take more taxicab rides than middle-income families? The reason: a lot of poor people don’t own automobiles. Taxi fares are far higher than they need to be, however, because local governments tightly control entry into the taxi market. There is no reason in principle why someone with a van couldn’t pick up workers in a low-income neighborhood and transport them to a jobsite, charging each passenger a few bucks. The problem: Most cities make this activity against the law.

When low-income families are priced out of the market for private transportation, they must turn to public transportation. Since only a few cities have subways, that means turning to buses. Yet, even a simple trip to work or a supermarket can be a logistical nightmare if you have to follow city bus schedules.

And consider health care. Sad to say, but the paramedics who treat our soldiers on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan are not allowed to provide the same services back home for people who can’t afford, and perhaps don’t need, the attention of a physician. Although the restrictions differ from state to state, laws everywhere “protect” patients from care delivered by anyone other than a physician. This is despite studies showing that non-physician clinicians can competently provide from 60 percent to 90 percent of all primary care.

In some parts of the country, walk-in clinics in shopping malls allow nurses to give flu shots, take temperatures, prescribe antibiotics and deliver other timely, inexpensive care. But even these innovative services are often saddled with burdensome regulations. For example, in Massachusetts, regulations for clinics have such cost-increasing requirements as a separate entrance for patients, minimum size requirements for exam rooms, and a separate reception desk. When low-income families find they cannot afford private care, what’s the alternative? Community health centers and the emergency rooms of safety net hospitals. Yet these care sites often involve crowding and waiting, which limits access to care.

Child care is another basic service needed by many low-income families. In fact, low-income families spend about a third of their income on child care, as much as a typical middle-income family might spend on a home. In recent years, state and local governments have been making child care ever more costly, however. All manner of regulations are emerging, including the licensing of day care workers. Did you know that in most places, it’s illegal for a neighbor down the street to oversee children from the neighborhood for pay? Again, what’s the alternative? Low-income mothers must seriously consider abandoning the labor market altogether and rely solely on the welfare state.

Even a basic activity like keeping the neighborhood safe runs into regulatory barriers. In response to inadequate public police protection, an increasingly popular alternative is private police. In the United States, private security guards actually outnumber public police officers by a ratio of three to one; and they can perform most, if not all, of the necessary law enforcement tasks. Yet, government regulation has created substantial barriers for would-be security firms, including criminal background checks, examinations, training requirements, and insurance and bonding minimums.

A task force report produced by the National Center for Policy analysis calls for an end to these senseless policies, and advocates allowing our lowest-income citizens access to the benefits of the free market. I’ll write about it in a future column.

Keeping Poor People Poor - Page 1 - John C. Goodman - Townhall Conservative

Herman Cain no longer for freedom

Herman Cain Exclusive: Tells Brody File He Will Support Constitutional Amendments on Life and Marriage

In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain says he would support a pro-life amendment to the constitution and would use the bully pulpit to push pro-life legislation. He also said he now supports a federal marriage amendment to the constitution.

Reed full details at:

Herman Cain Exclusive: Tells Brody File He Will Support Constitutional Amendments on Life and Marriage

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Corporate greed

"Stolen" from Theo Spark

Friday, October 7, 2011

Proof:the Wall Street Protesters aren't really anti-corporation

Here you see a group of the Wall Street protesters, and their "shop". You can see at least 5 or 6 laptops , with one, maybe three made by Apple. This is a company that made almost 25% profit last year. if these idiots were really against the big, bad corporations, they wouldn't be using their products.

The fact is, these people don't have a clue what they're protesting against. Sure, they have catchy slogans ("Take back America", "Stop corporate crime", "Heal America", etc.), but go up and ask one and you'll probably get some gobbledygook punctuated with a dozen or so "like"s: "You know, like, man, we're, like protesting, like, the greedy fat cats on, like Wall Street, who, like are bringing the country, like down you know."

Plus, who's supporting them financially? 10 to 1 they're probably living with their parents, sucking up their groceries (bought from the greedy corporate grocery chains), all the while moaning and groaning about "taxing the corporations out of business".

They think they're imitating the youth anti-establishment movement of the sixties, when in fact, they're protesting against those very people. Ask any 60-year old executive what his political views were in the 60s and you'll probably find that he was as left-wing as these protesters are.

If they put as much time and effort in productive society as they are here, maybe it would kick start our economy.