krome2ez

November 15, 2012 by Tim Brown Cybersecurity Bill Suffers Another Defeat – Obama Signs Secret Directive Desperate Senate leaders eager for control of the internet, brought the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 back to the Senate floor for a vote yesterday, and once again they failed. It was just a couple of votes shy of passing (51-47), but one vote closer than when it was presented back in August (52-46). Immediately following the August vote, the word was out that Barack Obama was considering an executive order to put in place the very thing the Senate had rejected. In addition, part of the reason was additional things tossed into the cybersecurity bill, such as bits of gun control. However, the rumors of an Obama executive order then came to be fact as White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said, “An executive order is one of a number of measures we’re considering as we look to implement the president’s direction to do absolutely everything we can to better protect our nation against today’s cyber threats.” Then, within a month Department of Homeland Security Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that a cybersecurity executive order was indeed near completion. It seems that following the elections that Democrats were eager to push this bill through. Even the fear mongering of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warning of a cyber “Pearl Harbor” or “9-11″ was not enough to advance the bill. So the remaining option seems to be for Obama to just sign a piece of paper that has no Constitutional authority to push what the people have rejected. Many have stood against the government’s involvement in controlling the internet including Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. According to The Hill, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) “warned that the president would be compelled to issue the executive order if the Senate voted against moving the bill forward. But he noted that the cyber order would not accomplish everything that legislation could, including liability protection that would safeguard companies from legal action if they’re hit by a cyberattack.” “I’m confident that if we fail to act, the president will act,” Lieberman said. “I think he has a responsibility to act because if we don’t we’re leaving the American people extremely vulnerable to a cybersecurity attack.” Lieberman was the one that first introduced the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act in 2010 which was dubbed the Internet Kill Switch bill. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said, “Frankly, the underlying bill is not supported by the business community for all the right reasons. They’re the ones that are going to be called to comply with the mandates and the regulations, and frankly it’s just not going to give them the protection they need against cyberattacks.” In addition to Chambliss, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) shot back at claims by Democrats that Republicans were threatening national security for not favoring the bill, saying, “disagreements over how to address policy matters shouldn’t evolve into accusations about a member’s willingness to tackle the issue.” However, The Washington Post reports that Obama signed a secret cybersecurity directive back in mid-October: Presidential Policy Directive 20: Presidential Policy Directive 20 establishes a broad and strict set of standards to guide the operations of federal agencies in confronting threats in cyberspace, according to several U.S. officials who have seen the classified document and are not authorized to speak on the record. The president signed it in mid-October. The new directive is the most extensive White House effort to date to wrestle with what constitutes an “offensive” and a “defensive” action in the rapidly evolving world of cyberwar and cyberterrorism, where an attack can be launched in milliseconds by unknown assailants utilizing a circuitous route. For the first time, the directive explicitly makes a distinction between network defense and cyber-operations to guide officials charged with making often-rapid decisions when confronted with threats. Since the cybersecurity bill has faced defeat twice this year and since we are approaching a new year when people are not paying attention, sort of like they weren’t last year when Barack Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with its section on “indefinite detention,” I would not put it past this administration to wait till sometime around New Year’s and sign his cybersecurity executive order. Then all of the usual fluff pieces about the holidays and record sales will end up dwarfing his undermining of the Constitution and our liberties. I’ll keep you posted… Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/11/cybersecurity-bill-suffers-another-defeat-obama-signs-secret-directive/#ixzz2CUzaYH00

Redneck Jokes You might be a redneck if… Your sophisticated famous cousin is a rodeo clown. Your three-year-old child is a member of the NRA. Your front porch collapses and kills more than three dogs. Your mother has been involved in a fistfight at a high school sports event. You have more cars on your front lawn than in your driveway. You wake up with both a black eye and a hickey. You’ve ever used your fishing license as a form of identification. You cut your toenails in front of company. You consider a good tan to be the back of your neck and the left arm below the shirt sleeve… You consider a three piece suit to be: a pair of overalls, a plaid flannel shirt and thermal underwear. You think the stock market has a fence around it. You’ve ever made change in the offering plate at church. You keep a can of Raid on the kitchen table. You can amuse yourself for more than an hour with a fly swatter. You have spent more on your pickup truck than on your education. Your Christmas tree is still up in February. When a sign that says “Say No To Crack!” reminds you to pull up your jeans. You consider your license plate personalized because your dad made it in prison. Your vehicle has a two-tone paint job, primer red and primer gray. You have a Hefty bag for a Car/Truck convertible top. The Home Shopping Channel operator recognizes your voice. You have more than two brothers named Bubba or Junior. You owe the taxidermist more than your annual income. You consider a six-pack and a bug-zapper high quality entertainment. You gene pool doesn’t have a “deep end.” You think that John Deere Green, Ford Blue, and Primer Gray are the three of the primary colors. There.... does that make you feel better about your self? It seems that it's acceptable for everyone to make ethnic jokes except white people.

Al Gore Made Millions While Saving The World November 13, 2012 by Jon Rappoport This is a lesson on how the major media can slant facts and give them new meaning. Let’s start with the explosive facts, as revealed in a Washington Post story. In 2001, Al Gore was worth less than $2 million. Now, in 2012, it’s estimated he’s locked up a nice neat $100 million. How did he do it? Well, he invested in 14 green companies, who inhaled — via loans, grants and tax relief — somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion from the Federal government to go greener. Therefore, Gore’s investments paid off, because the Federal government was providing massive cash backup to those companies. It’s nice to have Federal friends in high places. For example, Gore’s investment firm at one point held 4.2 million shares of an outfit called Iberdrola Renovables, which was building 20 wind farms across the United States. Iberdrola was blessed with $1.5 billion from the Federal government for the work which, by its own admission, saved its corporate financial bacon. Every little bit helps. Then there was a company called Johnson Controls. It makes batteries, including those for electric cars. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, doubled its holdings in Johnson Controls in 2008, when shares cost as little $9 a share. GIM sold when shares cost $21 to $26 — before the market for electric-car batteries fell on its head. For a while, the going was good. To make it go good, Johnson Controls had been bolstered by $299 million dropped at its doorstep by the Administration of President Barack Obama. On the side, Gore has been giving speeches on the end of life as we know it on planet Earth, for as much as $175,000 a pop. (It isn’t really on the side. Gore is constantly on the move from conference to conference, spewing jet fumes in his wake.) Those lecture fees can add up. So Gore has $100 million. Now, we get to the slant. The headline for this piece in The Post was “Al Gore has thrived as green-tech investor.” Pretty soft, don’t you think? I mean, the man has worked every angle to parlay fear of global-warming catastrophes into a humdinger of a personal fortune. And he didn’t achieve his new status in the free market. The Federal government has been helping out with major, major bucks. This wasn’t an entrepreneur relying exclusively on his own smarts and hard work. Far from it. And here’s the kicker: Nowhere in The Post’s story was the issue of manmade warming mentioned as “unsettled” or “controversial” or even “the subject of intense debate.” Nope. Not even close. That’s called a clue. You see, suppose The Post admitted that warming theories are up for grabs — which they most assuredly are. How would it look if Gore were portrayed as a man circling the globe many times to hype an unproven hypothesis, while profiting enormously from the effort because the Federal government was backing his plays? Hmm. Not very good. No, the story would have taken on a whole new and darker hue. So the underlying assumption of the Post story, as reflected in its wimpy headline, was: Yes, Gore has been making money, but his cause is just and right and the situation of humankind is, in fact, dire because the Earth’s temperature has been rising dangerously as a result of carbon technology; and Gore is, after all, trying to stave off “humanity destroying humanity.” He’s a good man, in the end. Let him be rich. That’s the slant. It doesn’t really matter what facts The Post exposes about Gore’s sleazy business operations. He is doing it all “to save us.” I don’t think so. How many scientists and other Ph.D.s have been just saying no to the theory of manmade global warming? Let’s see. Remember the 49 astronauts and scientists who used to work at NASA and wrote a letter just saying no? Nobel-prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever just said no. A letter to The Wall Street Journal signed by 16 scientists just said no. Among the luminaries: William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton University; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. And then there was the Global Warming Petition Project, or the Oregon Petition, that just said no. According to Petitionproject.org, the petition has the signatures of “31,487 American scientists,” of which 9,029 stated they had Ph.D.s. I’m not automatically assuming these people are absolutely correct in every detail of their positions. A definitive argument against manmade warming would take up many pages. In this context, I’m merely indicating that, indeed, the science is not settled, because many researchers are willing to step up and defend a counterargument. Yet somehow, all these people’s voices are dimmed by the time elite media outlets like The Post cover the story. Mainstream reporters “who count” in the scheme of things look down their noses at those who claim manmade warming is incorrect science or a hoax. I’ve worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, and I can tell you that, one for one, these arrogant “journalists” know absolutely nothing about warming. They have no significant personal knowledge of the subject. Their whole talent is making it seem as if they do. That’s the game. That’s why they make the big money. It’s all a matter of style. That’s how you get to be an anchor on the evening news in prime time: You can fool most of people most of the time. You know how to talk, how to convey certain cues and emotions that put you over the top. Anchors can make it seem as if they represent the best thinking and most intelligent consensus. That’s their skill. Many years ago, George Burns famously said: “The secret of acting is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” That’s the bottom line for a news anchor. And that’s the bottom line for the theory of manmade warming. Is Gore faking it all the way or does he actually believe his all-encompassing, all-seeing global-warming message? It’s a very interesting question. From my experience interviewing politicians, I’d say many of them lose the distinction after a while. They come to believe what they’ve previously been faking. This happens because they’re successful. They think to themselves: “I must be speaking the truth, because look at how well it’s playing, look at how well I’m doing, look at how many people support me.” To stretch an analogy, a few of the bestselling medical drugs in the world cause brain damage. Does that mean they really don’t cause brain damage all of a sudden when sales figures reach $1 billion or $10 billion or, as in Gore’s case, $100 million? People tell people who tell other people who tell other people, going all the way up the ladder, that the science on global warming is settled. Very, very few of the people on the ladder know the first thing about warming. They are parrots. They tell the rest of us what’s really what and who’s really who, and they expect us to kneel down in adoration. That’s mainstream news, and it’s falling apart as the online alternative media pick up the ball and run with it, as people indoctrinated to have faith in the major networks wake up from their slumber. Big Al: $100 million, lockbox, an honorable man saving lives. The first two items are facts. It’s the third item that should be open to robust debate in major media, but that’s not happening. Major media, in most cases, echo the assumptions of their sources. The biggest source for stories, by far, is the Federal government. The Obama Administration has had a strict policy of declaring the global-warming issue wrapped up in a package with a red ribbon. It’s decided; it’s “settled.” If The Washington Post suddenly investigated global-warming science and declared it bogus, it would suffer grave consequences. Many of its best sources, angered, would dry up overnight. If The Post went too far with its investigation, it could find itself on the outside looking in. At the level of day-to-day news reporting, this is why big-time media outlets fold up under pressure and support the government consensus. Of course, at a much higher level, The Post is playing partner with radical environmentalists who, in turn, are funded by titans of globalism. These deadly opponents of the free market want to encompass the planet in one management system (one central-planning system) from which all goods and services are distributed. Global warming is one of their chief issues. Manipulating it entails convincing populations that a massive intervention is necessary to stave off the imminent collapse of all life on Earth. Therefore, sovereign nations must be eradicated. Political power and decision-making must flow from above, from “those who are wiser.” Gore is their boy. He is their front man. He jets here and he jets there, carrying their messages. He’s their pizza delivery kid. And for his work, he is paid $100 million — a drop in the bucket. –Jon Rappoport http://personalliberty.com/2012/11/13/al-gore-made-millions-while-saving-the-world/

All married men will attest to some real wisdom in this email... > > > > Life's Demerit System: > > > ...In the world of romance, one single rule applies: > MAKE THE WOMAN HAPPY! > > Do something she likes, and you get points. > Do something she dislikes, and points are subtracted. > You don't get any points for doing something she expects. > Sorry, that's the way the game is played. > Here is a non-exhaustive guide to the point system: > > > SIMPLE DUTIES > You make the bed. (+1) > You make the bed, but forget the decorative pillows. (-10) > You throw the bedspread over rumpled sheets. (-3) > You go out to buy her what she wants (+5) in the rain (+8) > But return with Beer. (-5) > > PROTECTIVE DUTIES > You check out a suspicious noise at night. (+1) > You check out a suspicious noise, and it is nothing. (0) > You check out a suspicious noise, and it is something. (+5) > You pummel it with an iron rod. (+10) > It's her pet Schnauzer. (-20) > > SOCIAL ENGAGEMENTS > You stay by her side for the entire party. (+1) > You stay by her side for a while, then leave to chat with an old school friend. (-2) > Named Tina (-10) > Tina is a dancer. (-10) > Tina has breast implants. (-40) > > HER BIRTHDAY > You take her out to dinner. (+2) > You take her out to dinner, and it's not a sports bar. (+3) > Okay, it's a sports bar. (-2) > And its all-you-can-eat night. (-3) > It's a sports bar, it's all-you-can-eat night, and your face is painted the colors of your favorite team. (-10) > > A NIGHT OUT > You take her to a movie. (+1) > You take her to a movie she likes. (+5) > You take her to a movie you hate. (+6) > You take her to a movie you like. (-2) > It's called 'Death Cop.' (-3) > You lied and said it was a foreign film about orphans. (-15) > > YOUR PHYSIQUE > You develop a noticeable potbelly. (-15) > You develop a noticeable potbelly and exercise to get rid of it. (+10) > You develop a noticeable potbelly and resort to baggy jeans and baggy Hawaiian shirts. (-30) > You say, "It doesn't matter, you have one too." (-80) > > THE BIG QUESTION > She asks, "Do I look fat?" (-5) > (Yes, you lose points no matter what) > You hesitate in responding. (-10) > You reply, "Where?" (-35) > You give any other response. (-20) > > COMMUNICATION > When she wants to talk about a problem, you listen, displaying what looks like a concerned expression. (+2) > You listen, for over 30 minutes (+50) > You listen for more than 30 minutes without looking at the TV. (+500) > She realizes this is because you have fallen asleep. (-4000)

Last time I checked, your allowed to protect life and property. Man Fighting Fire Shocked By Police With Taser November 16, 2012 by Sam Rolley SCREENSHOTA Florida man who was attempting to keep a fire that had engulfed his neighbor’s house from reaching his own was shot with a Taser by police officers who told him to “let it go, that’s what insurance is for.” Daniel Jensen, a 42-year-old father of two, woke up early last Thursday evening to his neighbor’s house being engulfed in flames. After clearing his own home and making sure no one was inside his neighbor’s, the man proceeded to attempt to keep the flames from spreading to his property with a fire extinguisher and water hose, as the fire department had not arrived. “They kept telling me, ‘Let it go, that’s what insurance is for.’ That’s not acceptable to me,” Jensen told WTSP. The Pinellas Park Police Department claim that Jensen ignored several commands to get away from the fire, and that after exhausting all other options they were forced to use a stun gun to keep him and officers out of the path of the flame. The man was shot with the stun gun just as he grabbed a water hose to attempt to put out flames that were beginning to lick the roof of his home. “As I went to grab the hose, I hear an officer on this side. There was a boat here; he was just behind it. He said, ‘Hit him, hit him! Take him down, tase him!’” explained Jensen. “I didn’t know they were talking to me, or about me. I was concerned about putting water on the fire, and the next thing you know I’m being tased.” Jensen is filing suit against the department claiming that they used excessive force and poor judgment. “It was horrible. I was laying [sic] in a puddle of water being electrocuted here by the people that are supposed to protect us. I’m trying to protect my family, my neighbor, and they bring harm to me. I don’t understand,” he said. http://personalliberty.com/2012/11/16/man-fighting-fire-shocked-by-police-with-taser/

Ole and Sven have a snowmobiling accident, drunker than skunks, both die, and go to Hell. The Devil observes that they are really enjoying themselves. He says to them 'Doesn't the heat and smoke bother you?' Ole replies, 'Vell, ya know, ve're from nordern Minnesooota, da land of snow an ice, an ve're yust happy fer a chance ta varm up a little bit, ya know.' ; The devil decides that these two aren't miserable enough and turns up the heat even more. When he returns to the room of the two from Minnesota, the devil finds them in light jackets and hats, grilling Walleye and drinking beer. The devil is astonished and exclaims, 'Everyone down here is in misery, and you two seem to be enjoying yourselves?' Sven replies, 'Vell, ya know, ve don't git too much varm veather up dere at da Falls, so ve've yust got ta haff a fish fry vhen da veather's dis nice.' The devil is absolutely furious. He can hardly see straight. Finally he comes up with the answer. The two guys love the heat because they have been cold all their lives. The devil decides to turn all the heat off. The next morning, the temperature is 60 below zero, icicles are hanging everywhere, and people are shivering so bad that they are unable to wail, moan or gnash their teeth. The devil smiles and heads for the room with Ole and Sven.. He gets there and finds them back in their parkas, bomber hats, and mittens. They are jumping up and down, cheering, yelling and screaming like mad men. The devil is dumbfounded, 'I don't understand, when I turn up the heat you're happy. Now its freezing cold and you're still happy. What is wrong with you two?' They both look at the devil in surprise and say, 'Vell, don't ya know, if hell iss froze over, dat must mean da Vikings von da Super Bowl.'

And you know this as fact? Highly doubtful. Even though Obama is good for sales, I'm sure the owners of gun stores know that this would be short lived. I think you would have a difficult time finding any gun store owner, who is not pro 2nd Amendment. And we all know how Obama feels about the 2nd Amendment. Heck, we all know how Obama feels about the entire US Constitution, for that matter.

Man With Strange Watch Arrested at Oakland Airport OAKLAND, Calif. November 17, 2012 (AP) A Southern California man was arrested at Oakland International Airport after security officers found him wearing an unusual watch they said could be used to make a timing device for a bomb, authorities said Friday. Geoffrey McGann, 49, of Rancho Palos Verdes was taken into custody Thursday night after he tried to pass through airport security with an ornate watch that had switches, wires and fuses, according to Sgt. J.D. Nelson, a spokesman for the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. A bomb squad arrived within five minutes and determined there were no explosive materials in the watch, Nelson said. The checkpoint was closed while officers secured the area. McGann was taken to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin where he was charged with possessing materials to make an explosive device, sheriff's officials said. He was still in custody Friday night and could not be reached for comment. McGann told Transportation Security Administration officers that he's an artist and the watch is art, Nelson said. While no actual explosives were found, McGann was carrying potentially dangerous materials and appeared to have made alterations to his boots, which were unusually large and stuffed with layers of insoles, Nelson said. A profile for a person named Geoffrey McGann on the website LinkedIn.com lists him as the owner and creative director of a media production company called Generator Content. He attended the Art College Center of Design in Pasadena from 1984 to 1987, according to the website. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/man-strange-watch-arrested-oakland-airport-17744579

Florida restaurateur to impose surcharge for ObamaCare By Joshua Rhett Miller Published November 15, 2012 FoxNews.com John Metz, who operates roughly 40 Denny’s locations and five Hurricane Grill & Wings franchises, told FoxNews.com intends to add a 5 percent surcharge to customers’ bill to offset costs for ObamaCare in January 2014 when the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented. Get ready to pay more for your Grand Slam. A Florida restaurateur who operates roughly 40 Denny’s locations and five Hurricane Grill & Wings franchises in Florida, Virginia and Georgia intends to add a 5 percent surcharge to customers’ bills to offset costs from ObamaCare beginning in January 2014 when the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented. “People are trying to find ways to avoid the penalties and to avoid having to pay for ObamaCare,” John Metz told FoxNews.com. “Everyone’s looking for a way to not have to provide insurance for their employees. It’s essentially a huge tax on all us business people.” To further offset the costs, Metz, who oversees roughly 1,200 employees as president and CEO of RREMC Restaurants, LLC, said he also will slash most of the staff's time to fewer than 30 hours per week. That change will be announced to employees next month, he said. “I want to explain it to everybody, to let them know what’s coming down the pike,” he said. “We like to keep our employees informed.” The changes will force some front-of-the-house employees to look for second jobs, Metz said, but he simply cannot afford the penalties associated with ObamaCare. “I have a choice: try to live within the rules, or go out of business.” - John Metz, Florida restaurateur “It’s a great concept,” he said. “We want to have everyone insured. The problem is, who is going to pay for it and how are we going to accomplish this?” Under the current law, employers with more than 50 full-time (or equivalent) workers will be charged a penalty for the number of employees exceeding 30 full-time staffers who are not covered. With an average of 35 full-time employees per location, Metz said the $2,000 penalty would total roughly $70,000 per restaurant. Current coverage costs Metz up to $6,000 annually per full-time employee, he said. He currently provides coverage to about 250 employees. “It’s going to be a big issue for all of us — for my employees and for me,” said Metz, who has been in the industry since 1975. “The ones that are working more than 28 hours, they’re going to act as if I’m cutting their hours and they’ll have to find another job.” At Denny’s restaurants operated by Metz, the average check is $9, he said, meaning the ObamaCare surcharge if implemented would be 45 cents on that bill. At Hurricane Grill & Wings locations, where the average bill is $14.50, the surcharge would total 72 cents. Metz said he believes the entire restaurant industry — even high-end locations — will ultimately embrace the idea. “That is what I foresee and that is the easier, least painful way to deal with these added costs,” he said. “In a true playing field, everybody will impose this, from McDonald’s to Denny’s to even maybe the fine dining restaurants in order to have the funds to be able to pay for either insurance or the penalty for not providing insurance to their employees.” Metz also is urging his employees to consider contacting their local elected officials in hopes of finding another solution to offset his looming increased costs. “It’s never good news, but it is what it is,” Metz said of increasing customers’ checks. “We really should look for a better or different way to pay for [ObamaCare]. I think what we’re going to ultimately see here is a European-type system where we have a value added tax or a national sales tax.” Metz continued: “I have a choice: try to live within the rules, or go out of business.” In a statement to FoxNews.com, the National Restaurant Association said it’s “premature” to assess precisely how the health care law will affect individual businesses. “We have warned for some time that the mechanics of the health care law are very difficult for the restaurant industry, which is a low-margin industry that works to keep costs down in order to provide value to customers,” said Scott DeFife, executive vice president of policy and government affairs for the National Restaurant Association. “All costs, from gas and commodities to labor and insurance, eventually impact the price on the menu. It is important that operators get very familiar with the provisions of the law and start planning for its implementation; however, it’s premature to make a specific assessment of exactly how the law will affect any individual business because there are so many details that are unknown.” Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/15/florida-restaurateur-to-impose-surcharge-for-obamacare/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2CTnZlpyh

Arizona Gun Store Owner Tells Customers: If You Voted For Obama “You Business Is Not Welcome Here”… “You have proven that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm.” Via TPM: A gun shop in Arizona has a clear message to would-be customers who happened to vote for President Barack Obama: take your business elsewhere. The Southwest Shooting Authority in Pinetop, Ariz. took out an advertisement last week in the local newspaper, the White Mountain Independent, that spelled out the store’s new policy in explicit terms. “If you voted for Barack Obama your business is not welcome at Southwest Shooting Authority,” the ad reads. “You have proven that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm.” A sign on the store’s front door contains a similar message. Cope Reynolds, the owner of the Southwest Shooting Authority, posted a letter on the website AmmoLand shortly after the election last week to explain his motives, writing that his personal convictions trump profit: To Whom it May Concern: I thought you all might be interested in this. We will try to demonstrate once again that the bottom line for our business is principle, not money. Yes, it has been damaging at times but our values are intact. Effective immediately, if you voted for Obama, your money is no good here. You have proven beyond a doubt that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm. We have just put a sign up on the front door to save you the trouble of walking all the way in here… I took this ad out in our local paper. It will come out in the White Mountain Independent tomorrow, 9 November Sincerely, Cope Reynolds http://weaselzippers.us/2012/11/16/arizona-gun-store-owner-tells-customers-if-you-voted-for-obama-you-business-is-not-welcome-here/

Despite $15.9 billion loss, U.S. Postal Service execs see boost in pay The Washington Times Thursday, November 15, 2012 Despite nearly $16 billion in annual losses announced by the U.S. Postal Service on Thursday, all but one of the top five executives for the nation's mail service had an overall compensation increase this year, records show. Unlike past years, when the Postal Service’s politically appointed, bipartisan board of governors awarded executives lucrative deferred compensation deals and incentive bonuses, this year’s compensation increases came mostly in the form of pension plan earnings. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe, for instance, earned a base salary of $276,840, but even without a bonus or incentive payout, his overall compensation came to $512,093, compared with $384,229 in 2011, according to regulatory filings. Fueling the rise was the fact that his retirement account grew by $186,536. A 37-year employee of the Postal Service, Mr. Donahoe was paid $4.76 per hour during his first job as a postal clerk. Meanwhile, two other executives — Ellis Burgoyne, chief information officer, and Mary Anne Gibbons, general counsel — also received hefty increases in their retirement plans. In fact, Mr. Burgoyne’s retirement plan grew by more than $270,000, bringing his total compensation to $510,505, slightly less than Mr. Donahoe‘s. Compensation for Joseph Corbett, the Postal Service’s chief financial officer, rose from $310,483 in 2011 to $315,841 last year, though he earned more than $330,000 in 2010. In addition, the Postal Service’s chief human resources officer, Anthony J. Vegilante, received $60,000 in retention bonuses for fiscal 2011 and 2012 on top of his $240,000 annual salary, filings show. Nonetheless, Mr. Vegilante’s overall compensation for 2012 dipped to $363,002, compared with $364,667 the previous year. A sixth postal executive, acting Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President Stephen Masse, was not subject to compensation reporting requirements until this year, and he earned $222,919 overall. Dave Partenheimer, a Postal Service spokesman, said the organization has more than a half-million workers and operates more than 32,000 locations. He said postal executive compensation lags compared with private-sector corporations. “As we continue to adjust to a changing business environment, it’s important that we recruit and retain the forward-thinking leadership we need to continue to remain viable,” he said. “Compensation is important to that equation.” Unlike most private companies, however, the Postal Service has borrowed billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury and has a legal monopoly over first-class mail service. Total compensation for top postal executives is capped at $276,840, based on a rule that executives can’t earn more than 120 percent of the salary of the vice president of the United States. But the board of governors, which approves executive compensation for the Postal Service, can authorize hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred compensation payments. The Washington Times reported last year, for instance, that retired Postmaster General John E. Potter, now chief executive of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, was still owed more than $800,000 in deferred compensation payments with payouts scheduled over a decade. In an annual financial report released Thursday, the board noted that no performance awards would be paid in 2012 because of the Postal Service’s “dire financial condition.” Read more: Despite $15.9 billion loss, U.S. Postal Service execs see boost in pay - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/15/us-postal-service-loses-159-billion/#ixzz2CThGpOZj Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Teachers Fill Marxism Conference to Map Future Indoctrination of School Kids posted on November 16, 2012 by da Tagliare In September, the Chicago Teachers Union went on strike, shutting down the Windy City’s schools for 10 days. Many of those same teachers were in attendance on Nov. 10 at the Midwest Marxism Conference held at Northwestern University in Chicago. The topics of the conference were: Marxism, Crisis & Resistance The Meaning of Marxism The Flint Sit-down Strikes & The Founding of the UAW From Apartheid Schools to the New Jim Crow: Racism, USA The Democrats: A Critical History Russia: A Case Study in Workers Power & Revolution Socialists & Trade Unions Class, Race & the Civil Rights movement Education & Capitalism Lenin’s Theory of the Revolutionary Party Marxism & Women’s Liberation Whose City? Labor, the 1%, and the Democratic Party Machine in Chicago Imperialism: Why Capitalism Creates War Detroit, I Do Mind Dying Among some of the speakers at the conference was Jesse Sharkey, vice president of the Chicago Teachers Union. Another speaker who kicked off the conference was Becca Barnes, a Chicago teacher, who refers to American capitalists as capitalistic vampires. Barnes told the crowd: “The struggle here in the United States has entered a new phase. Nowhere have we pointed the way forward more clearly than here in Chicago with the teacher’s union strike.” One person who attended the conference noted that with the abundance of teachers and their response to the messages and participation in the workshops, it gave a clear message that the Chicago Teachers Union is one with the local Marxists. A number of the workshops were led by members of the local Chicago Teachers Union. Each of the sessions that this person attended started with congratulating Barack Obama for winning his re-election. After listening to language filled with hate and anger aimed at America it became obvious to this person that the agenda of the Chicago socialists and teachers was to change society to be more like that of the former Soviet Union. He noticed that the philosophy of mass murderers such as Lenin were upheld and embraced by those in attendance. Teachers strategize on what and how to teach the school kids in Chicago to train them up with the Marxist philosophy. Eventually the people at the conference discovered that this person was not a communist or socialist and they forced him to leave against his will. Not only was he asked to leave the conference but they told him to leave the entire School of Journalism building there at Northwestern University. His eviction from the conference was caught on camera as you can see below: After being evicted for not being a Marxist, one has to wonder what the people at the conference had to hide from the outside world. Were they trying to hide the joint efforts of the Chicago socialists and the Chicago Teachers Union? Were they trying to hide their agenda for what they are going to be teaching children in the public schools in the Chicago area? As I was reading this account I could not help but think to myself that Barack Obama launched his political career in Chicago. Even he has admitted to having numerous Marxists mentors and professors and how much they meant to him and influenced him. Since the conference occurred after the election and Obama no longer has anything to fear about being re-elected I’m a little surprised that he did not show up as a guest speaker for a Marxist conference in his home city of Chicago. I also noticed in the list of topics how they enjoin Marxism with the labor unions, with the Democratic Party, with women’s liberation, and with racism. They are clearly infiltrating all areas that are associated with today’s liberals and progressives which ultimately make up the Democratic Party. Parents please take note of this especially if you live in the Chicago area. Do you know what the schools are teaching your children? I would hope this information would cause some concern on the part of parents and grandparents not only in Chicago but throughout the nation. Don’t get complacent thinking that this happened only in Chicago, as it could well be happening in your own area without your knowledge. You owe it to yourself, to your children and to the future of this nation to find out what the public schools are teaching in your area and if indeed they are teaching socialistic philosophies then you seriously need to consider getting your kids out of the public schools as soon as possible! Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8121/teachers-fill-marxism-conference-to-map-future-indoctrination-of-school-kids/#ixzz2CR5GPvHa

Thousands Jailed in UK For Online Rants; Trend Continues to US posted on November 16, 2012 by Philip Hodges In the UK, hundreds of people are jailed every year for things they’ve said online, particularly on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. In fact, over 1,200 mostly young people were convicted last year, up from 873 in 2009. They’re arrested, questioned, convicted, and jailed for posting electronic messages that are “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.” Most of these people are being charged under the 2003 Electronic Communications Act, which was merely an updated version of a 1930’s bill enacted to protect telephone operators from harassment. But even if these teens were posting things that were offensive, that is not the same thing as someone being harassed or threatened by another. Those who voice their opinions on social networking sites are doing just that…voicing their opinions. Their statements aren’t meant to threaten any particular person. They’re meant to be seen by their “friend” audience. It would be different if someone was actually being harassed and threatened directly by someone else’s electronic messages. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. If you are truly offended by something someone said, unfriend that person, and you won’t have to look at his account statuses anymore. Many of these people were reported to police, which prompted the investigations. So instead of ignoring “offensive” posts, people would call the police. All it takes is one call from a disgruntled viewer, and that’s all it takes to land you jail. In one such case, someone posted a picture of a burning poppy on Remembrance Day (similar to our Veterans Day) and was jailed as a result. A New York Fox affiliate reports: “On Sunday — Remembrance Day — a 19-year-old man was arrested in southern England after police received a complaint about a photo on Facebook showing the burning of a paper poppy. He was held for 24 hours before being released on bail and could face charges.” Poppies are traditionally worn in England and other countries on Remembrance Day, commemorating soldiers who lost their lives in the field of duty. I can imagine how offensive this would be to many, but should it land someone in jail for posting a picture of one online? I can think of far more offensive online images that are still permissible in the UK. They only care about the posts that are critical of their government or military. We are headed in the same direction here in the States. People have already been arrested and detained for things they’ve said on Facebook and Twitter and even on radio talk shows. However, nothing was done about all those murderous rants against Romney on Twitter. Politicians talk a great deal about preventing terrorism and protecting people from internet child pornography. But it’s clear all they really want to do is silence their opposition…and keep the child porn only for themselves. Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/8114/thousands-jailed-in-uk-for-online-rants-trend-continues-to-us/#ixzz2CR3xRYRQ

Obama Thanksgiving Friday, November 16, 2012

Politics White House petition for Obama impeachment tops 28,000 signatures 1:27 PM 11/16/2012 With national attention focused on a long list of petitions asking the Obama administration for permission to secede from the United States, a little-watched petition to impeach the president has crept up in the rankings on the White House’s “We the People” petition Web page. “We request that Barack Obama be impeached,” the petition reads. Launched on Nov. 11, it collected 28,850 digital signatures from all 50 states in five days. The White House has promised to review petitions that attract more than 25,000 such signatures. The petition’s creator, identified only as “Stephen M” — the website does not provide last names — based the proposal on complaints about the president’s health care law, his declaration of war on Libya without congressional consent, the appointment of unelected policy “czars” in the White House and a claim that he has tried to “change” the Constitution. “He proclaimed war in libya without getting congress approval first,” the petition reads. “Article I, Section 8- Only congress can approve to start war.” “Obamacare is unconstitutional,” it claims, objecting to “[f]orcing US citizens to get health insurance whether they want it or not.” “Obama disrespects our Constitution,” it continues, “calling it flawed and trying to change it even after taking [his] oath” “Appointing agency ‘czars’ without Senate approval,” the petition concludes, is another reason for impeachment. Bill Clinton was the last sitting president to be impeached. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives based that action in December 1998 on Clinton’s alleged perjury when he testified that he had not engaged in a sexual tryst with a White House intern. A report from independent counsel Kenneth Starr later showed that testimony was false. Ten Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in the U.S. Senate in refusing to convict Clinton by a 10-vote margin. A conviction would have resulted in his removal from office. Andrew Johnson was the only other U.S. president to be impeached, in 1868. The Senate voted not to convict him, sparing his presidency by a single vote. The 71 existing petitions to allow states to secede from the U.S. have accumulated a combined 859,000 signatures. Another petition, to “repeal Obamacare,” had more than 38,800 votes Friday afternoon. Follow David on Twitter http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/white-house-petition-for-obama-impeachment-tops-28000-signatures/

GOP senator outlines $68 billion in defense cuts from ‘Department of Everything’ By Associated Press, Published: November 15 WASHINGTON — Defense spending could be slashed by $68 billion over 10 years if the military stopped spending millions on running grocery stores, operating its own schools and even developing a roll-up version of beef jerky, insists one of the Senate’s leading fiscal conservatives. In a new report, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn dubs the Pentagon the “Department of Everything.” Coburn details how the Pentagon could save money — vital in a time of rampant federal deficits — if it eliminated duplicative and excessive programs that have nothing to do with the nation’s security. By turns sober and cheeky, the report points out that the Pentagon has spent more than $1 million on the 100-year Starship Project, including $100,000 for a workshop sure to attract Trekkies. One of the discussions was titled “Did Jesus Die for Klingons Too?” “Our nation’s $16 trillion debt is the new red menace, posing perhaps a greater threat to our nation than any military adversary,” the report says in chilling Cold War terms. The report from the Oklahoma lawmaker comes as President Barack Obama and Congress are trying to figure out a way to make deep cuts in the deficit. A Republican pushing for significant reductions in Pentagon spending is certain to draw attention in the coming weeks as Congress’ defense hawks try to spare the military from anything more than the nearly $500 billion, 10-year cut in projected spending that lawmakers backed last year. Coburn identified five areas that he said had nothing to do with national security yet represent a significant chunk of the annual $600 billion-plus Pentagon budget: —Nonmilitary research, $6 billion. —Education, $10.7 billion. —Tuition assistance, $4.5 billion. —Pentagon-run grocery stores, $9 billion. —More than 300,000 military members performing civilian jobs and numerous general officers, $37 billion. Coburn also said the Pentagon spent $700 million on alternative energy research that was duplicative or unnecessary. Citing defense budget requests, previously published material and correspondence with the department, the report said the Foreign Comparative Testing program, dedicated to improving warfighter capability, has spent more than $1.5 million to develop a beef jerky in roll-up form. “Beef jerky so good it will shock and awe your taste buds,” the report said. “That is the goal of an ongoing Pentagon project, which is attempting to develop its own brand of jerky treats that are the bomb! Only, the money is coming from a program specially created to equip soldiers with the weapons they need.” One of the costliest programs for the Pentagon is education. The department operates 64 elementary and secondary schools on 16 military facilities in the United States, teaching 19,000 students. The cost is more than $50,000 per student, far above the national average of about $11,000 per student. The schools have 2,000 teachers and staff. Initially, the schools were justified because the military after World War II was integrated while some of the local schools were not, the report said. The schools are located in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina. At the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., the Pentagon operates an elementary and junior high school with just 90 students even though the Potomac Elementary School is less than a mile away. And recently, Congress approved a $1.48 million request to upgrade a new kitchen and computer room for Dahlgren. The report argued that the money could be spent instead on lightweight machine guns for warfighters in Afghanistan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/gop-senator-outlines-68-billion-in-defense-cuts-from-department-of-everything/2012/11/15/64150c34-2f3d-11e2-af17-67abba0676e2_story.html

No worries, George Thorogood already let the cat outta the bag.

Sorry, but that's more folklore that truth. I heard, and believed the same when I was in the service, but have found out that it was all a legend.

The Dem's would want you to believe that the Electoral College does not represent the people. Check this out and see if you feel the same way. Bill Whittle Explains the "Electoral College" Once and for All! (Ep 27) http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RWoEVM9gkpY Read more:

Obviously you don't understand how the system works. The winner of the popular vote in the state, wins the electoral vote. The difference in the count is enough to change who won Ohio, thus winning Ohio's electoral votes. That's the way it's supposed to work, anyway.

Week later, more than 300,000 Ohio votes remain uncounted November 13, 2012 | 2:13 pm Byron York Chief Political Correspondent The Washington Examiner The presidential election results in Ohio were close: According to still-unofficial figures from the Secretary of State, Barack Obama won the state with 2,690,841 votes to Mitt Romney’s 2,583,582 votes — a winning margin of 107,259 votes for the president. In percentage terms, that is 50.18 percent of the vote for Obama, and 48.18 percent for Romney. But those numbers will change. Remember when, before the election, many observers discussed the possibility the results could be decided by the large number of provisional ballots that might be cast in Ohio? Well, those provisional ballots were cast, and they have not yet been counted. Neither have a significant number of absentee ballots. Together, the number of uncounted ballots is larger than Obama’s margin of victory. According to the Secretary of State, there are 204,927 uncounted provisional ballots and 119,535 absentee ballots, for a total of 324,462 ballots. That is roughly three times the president’s 107,259-vote winning margin. “The official canvass starts on the 17th of this month,” says Matt McClellan, a spokesman for the Ohio Secretary of State. “There will be no updated numbers until the counties have certified their results, which could be as late as the 27th.” That means no provisional or absentee ballots will be counted until at least the 17th, and no announcements until days after that. In fact, some absentee ballots are still being received; Ohio law says they will be counted if they arrive by November 16, as long as they were postmarked by November 5. Not all provisional or absentee ballots will be counted. They are subject to challenge and often contain mistakes made by voters or poll workers. In 2008, Ohio issue 206,859 provisional ballots, and in the end 166,870 were counted. If that rate were to hold this year, that would mean the same number of provisional ballots, about 165,000, will be added to the vote totals. As for absentee ballots, in 2008 the state issued a total of 1,744,753 of them, and 1,717,256 were counted — a fairly high percentage of valid ballots. So this year, if the number of outstanding ballots is greater than Obama’s victory margin, it is at least theoretically possible that the Ohio results could change. A look at the location of those outstanding ballots, however, suggests the outcome will stay the same. The largest number of outstanding ballots, about 60,000, is in Cuyahoga County, which Obama won by 69 percent to 30 percent. Another 49,000 ballots are out in Franklin County, which went for Obama 60 percent to 38 percent. In Hamilton County, which Obama won by 52 percent to 47 percent, there are about 25,000 outstanding ballots. Romney-friendly counties have fewer outstanding votes. Butler County, for example, which Romney won 62 percent to 36 percent, has about 9,000 provisional and absentee ballots. Clermont County, which Romney won 67 percent to 31 percent, has about 4,000 outstanding ballots. Licking County, which Romney won 56 percent to 42 percent, has about 5,000 outstanding ballots. There do not appear to be enough outstanding ballots in pro-Romney places for Romney to make significant progress in the final count, and in the end Obama’s lead might actually increase. You can check the numbers for county-by-county turnout as well as absentee and provisional ballots here and here. Link Link http://washingtonexaminer.com/week-later-more-than-300000-ohio-votes-remain-uncounted/article/2513354#.UKMoUIXgK8q

Google: Government Internet Spying On The Rise November 15, 2012 by Sam Rolley A new Transparency Report out from Google shows that world governments increasingly ask the search engine to remove content from the Web and to provide information about users. This is Google’s sixth transparency report, and the Internet giant says one thing is remarkably clear: Government surveillance is on the rise. The graph below illustrates how government demands for user data have increased steadily since the company first launched the Transparency Report. In the first half of 2012, there were 20,938 inquiries from government entities around the world for information about 34,614 accounts. Worldwide government requests for the company to remove data from the Internet also rose in 2012. During the first half of the year, there were 1,791 requests from government officials around the world to remove 17,746 pieces of content. A bulk of the requests came from government entities in the United States. Google reported: We received five requests and one court order to remove seven YouTube videos for criticizing local and state government agencies, law enforcement or public officials. We did not remove content in response to these requests. We received a court order to remove 1,754 posts from Google Groups relating to a case of continuous defamation against a man and his family. We removed 1,664 of the posts, which fell within the scope of the order. We received three court orders to remove 641 search results for linking to websites that allegedly defame organizations and individuals. We removed 233 of the search results requested, which fell within the scope of the orders. In response to a court order, we removed 156 search results because the web pages in question used a trademark in violation of an earlier order. The number of content removal requests we received increased by 46% compared to the previous reporting period. Government entities in the United States also made 7,969 requests for user data related to information of 16,281 accounts. Google reports that it complied with 90 percent of these requests. You can view Google’s full Transparency Report here. Link http://personalliberty.com/2012/11/15/google-government-internet-spying-on-the-rise/

Well, actually he did come close. Very close. And if you were to add in the military absentee votes that were not counted or had even made it back to the US, and if you were to subtract all the double votes, and votes from the dead or illegal, then..... well you know the answer now don't you.

The Demise of Twinkies? Yes, It’s True. Parasitic Unions Kill Their Hosts (or, in this case, Hostess) By: LaborUnionReport (Diary) | November 13th, 2012 at 09:00 PM | 55 Back in September, following acceptance by the Teamsters. the bakers’ union (BCTGM) at bankrupt Hostess brands—makers of the iconic Twinkies, Ding Dongs and Wonder brand breads—rejected a company proposal to help keep the company in business. By a voice vote of its members, the union opened the door to conduct a company-killing strike and potentially putting 18,500 Hostess workers onto the streets. Well, on Friday, the bakers’ union called its members on strike nationwide. Now the job cuts begin. On Monday, Hostess permanently closed three of its plants, thanks to the union’s strike: Hostess Brands permanently closed three bakeries Monday, including a plant in St. Louis where 365 jobs were cut, in response to a bakers’ union strike that started Friday. The bankrupt maker of Twinkies and Wonder bread said it’s trying to avert liquidating the entire company, and it shuttered three plants that were no longer able to produce and deliver products because of picket lines. The other plant closures are in Seattle and Cincinnati, where a combined 262 jobs were cut. “We deeply regret this decision, but we have repeatedly explained that we will close facilities that are no longer able to produce and deliver products because of a work stoppage — and that we will close the entire company if widespread strikes cripple our business,” Hostess CEO Gregory Rayburn said in a statement. In an unconscionable game of chicken, the bakers’ union is welcoming liquidation, according to Indianapolis union boss Dennis Howard, betting that another company will come along and buy the union facilities. Hostess strike could lead to closures Unfortunately, it appears the only thing the union’s game of chicken will accomplish is the putting of union members onto the unemployment lines once they realize their facilities are closed–permanently. According to a website dedicated to the strike: “Some employees are apparently under the misimpression that if they force Hostess to liquidate, another company will buy our bakeries and offer them employment,” Rayburn said. “The fact is, the bakery industry already has far too much capacity, and there is a strong risk that many of our facilities may never operate as bakeries again once they are closed. I believe the leadership of the Bakers Union knows this fact, but is willing to sacrifice its Hostess employees for the sake of preventing other bakery companies from asking for similar concessions.” Rayburn continued: “That hardest part of the decision to close any facility is knowing that it will result in the loss of jobs for those Hostess Brands employees who did not support the strike and who wanted to help revive the Company,” Mr. Rayburn said. “They didn’t ask for these strikes, but they are paying a terrible price for them.” The bakers’ union seems to have chosen a course of action that so many other union bosses have chosen for the last several decades: Suicidal strikes to preserve wages and benefits that are unsustainable in a competitive market. The Teamsters, the other union at Hostess, has alerted its members that they may soon be unemployed: Teamster members at Hostess need to be prepared for the likely outcome of a Hostess liquidation should the strikes continue. We have said it consistently throughout the process that Hostess could not survive any serious labor disruption. That opinion was formed based on extensive financial and legal review by our expert financial and restructuring advisors[sic] (some of the same advisors that worked on President Obama’s Auto Task Force to save GM and Chrysler) over the past 16 months. [snip] It’s unclear whether the goal of the Bakers strike is to force Hostess to negotiate or just put Hostess out of business. In interviews Hostess claims BCTGM leaders have not returned calls for many weeks. In addition, Teamster Leaders were not informed by the BCTGM of its actions that began on Friday While the Teamsters have their own history of driving companies into bankruptcy, by walking its members down the perilous path toward oblivion, the bakers’ union appears to be walking Hostess over the cliff that so many other union companies have fallen off of, like Eastern Airlines, Stella D’Oro and so many thousands of others. Right now, the clock is ticking for the bakers’ union bosses to come to their senses. If they don’t, more union members (and non-members) will likely be losing their jobs. Unfortunately, like the bakers’ union has done to its members before, it appears the union is going to kill off its host–or, in this case, Hostess. _______________________ “Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.” Andrew Breitbart http://www.redstate.com/2012/11/13/yes-its-true-parasitic-unions-kill-their-hosts-or-in-this-case-hostess/