Source: CleanTV.com

“…you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.” -Ezekiel 12:2

See also “Why do they not see,” Feb. 24, 2013.

H/t FOTM’s Miss May

~Eowyn

When it comes to the budget proposal released by the Obama administration I have to say – in the words of that great meme – “I am disappoint.”   Two years ago when Obama willingly cut women’s health benefits, clinics and education funds to create a compromise I told myself he was thinking about re-election and he needed people to work together.  Like many who were disappointed with the first term, I thought the second would show us a President who was strong, relentless and pushing for tax equity.  I sorta believed people when they said “When re-election is no longer an issue – he will stand up for us.”   But…no.  This budget shows a President still willing to throw women, older Americans and anyone else under the bus if he gets a compromise – even when he doesn’t get anything in return.

It’s true though that it is hard to make a deal when Republicans are set on “No” and Democrats won’t give a lot of squeeze room to forge a yes. Caught between a sponge and a hard head – President Obama’s budget appears a desperate attempt to create a compromise between two unwilling sides who have no intention of letting go.  About his first time I said, “The person who tries to make everyone happy makes no one happy.”   About his second term I’m starting to think, “The person who makes himself happy – makes everyone unhappy.”

From Fox News    By Todd Starnes       4/09/2013

School: Americans Don’t Have Right to Bear Arms.

The father of a Connecticut child is furious after discovering that his son’s school is teaching students that Americans don’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms

“I am appalled,” said Steven Boibeaux, of Bristol. “It sounds to me like they are trying to indoctrinate our kids.”
Boibeaux’s son is an eighth grader at Northeast Middle School. On Monday his social studies teacher gave students a worksheet titled, ‘The Second Amendment Today.’

“The courts have consistently determined that the Second Amendment does not ensure each individual the right to bear arms,” the worksheet states. “The courts have never found a law regulating the private ownership of weapons unconstitutional.

The worksheet, published by Instructional Fair, goes on to say that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states.
“This means that the rights of this amendment are not extended to the individual citizens of the states,” the worksheet reads. “So a person has no right to complain about a Second Amendment violation by state laws.”
According to the document, the Second Amendment “only provides the right of a state to keep an armed National Guard.”
Boibeaux said he discovered the worksheet as he was going over his son’s homework assignments.
“I’m more than a little upset about this,” he told Fox News. “It’s not up to the teacher to determine what the Constitution means.”
Mat Staver, the founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel, called the lesson propaganda – that is “absolutely false.”
“In fact, the US Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment ensures the individual the right to bear arms,” Staver told Fox News. “The progressive interpretation of the Second Amendment is that it doesn’t give you the right to bear arms – that it’s a corporate right of the government – but that has been rejected by the Courts.”
Boibeaux’s son’s teacher also told the students that the Constitution is a “living document.”
As noted in the worksheet provided to students – that means “the interpretation changes to meet the needs of the times.”
“The judges and courts of each generation provide the interpretation of the document,” the worksheet states.
Boibeaux called that concept mind-boggling.
It’s not up to the teacher to determine what the Constitution means,” he said. “If you want to learn about the Constitution, recite it word for word.”
Staver said the idea that the Constitution is a living document is another progressive tactic.
“This idea that this school is propagating that the Constitution can simply be changed at the whim of someone – or that the Second Amendment does not protect the individual right to bear arms is absolute propaganda and absolutely false,” Staver said.
Boibeaux said he’s demanding meetings with the principal as well as the board of education.
“I just don’t appreciate this as a parent,” he said. “I expect teachers to teach my kids and tell the truth – not what they think their point of view is.”
Ellen Solek, the superintendent of the school district, told Fox News they have now decided to pull the assignment from the classroom.
“It is no longer an assignment in that particular school,” she said, noting that it was an “administration decision in the best interest of the district.”
She refused to answer any questions about the content of the lesson, how it became a part of the curriculum or how many students were assigned the lesson. She also refused to acknowledge whether the school will apologize to students and parents.
“No comment, thank you,” she said.

~Steve~

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/new-york-police-confiscating-firearms-from-people-taking-anti-anxiety-medication/

 I’ve found More details and a list of med’s. I would venture to say that at one time or another many , many people have taken one or more drugs on this list.

Ever have trouble sleeping say 3-4 yrs ago and had your Doc write you a Prescription for something to sleep? Say Ambien, Lunesta

————————————-   ~    Steve  ~   —————————————–

Apr. 9, 2013 6:30pm Mike Opelka

Despite promises from the president and a host of other politicians who are pushing for more gun control that nobody is coming for your guns, the confiscation of guns and gun permits has apparently started in some form in New York State. One attorney representing several people who have been forced to surrender their guns spoke with TheBlaze and alerted us to some disturbing facts:
Gun owners are losing their 2nd Amendment rights without due process.

HIPAA Laws are likely being compromised and the 4th and 5th Amendments are being violated in some of these cases
How did confiscation start happening so quickly? Apparently the gun grabbing was triggered by something inside the NY SAFE Act — New York’s new gun law — that has a provision apparently mandating confiscation of weapons and permits if someone has been prescribed
psychotropic drugs.

Chapter 55.01 Definitions.
(6s) “Psychotropic medication” means a prescription drug, as defined in s. 450.01 (20),
that is used to treat or manage a psychiatric symptom or challenging behavior.
Some psychotropic medications fall into specific medication classes like antipsychotics
or antidepressants. In other cases, the medications may be primarily used for other
diseases but have been found effective in controlling behaviors thus making that specific
use a psychotropic medication.
Below is a list of psychotropic medications or medications with psychotropic uses. This
list is not intended to be all-inclusive, however it can act as a resource to alert you to
psychotropic medications where regulations like psychotropic monitoring, informed
consent or guardianship may impact. If you have any questions about the medication, its
intended use or adverse effects please contact the prescribing physician, pharmacist or
nurse.
Brand Name Generic Name Class
Abilify Aripiprazole Antipsychotic
Ambien Zolpidem Sleep Medications
Amytal Amobarbital Sleep Medications
Anafranil Clomipramine Antidepressants
Aricept Donepezil Other
Asendin Amoxapine Antidepressants
Atarax Hydroxyzine Antianxiety Short Acting
Ativan Lorazepam Antianxiety Short Acting
Ativan Lorazepam Sleep Medications
Benadryl Diphenhydramine Antianxiety Short Acting
Benadryl Diphenhydramine Sleep Medications
Buspar Buspirone Antianxiety Short Acting
Butisol Butabarbital Sleep Medications
Celexa Citalopram Antidepressants
Chloral Hydrate Chloral Hydrate Sleep Medications
Clozaril Clozapine Antipsychotics
Cognex Tacrine Other
Cylert Pemoline Other
Cymbalta Duloxetine Antidepressants
Dalmane Flurazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Depakote Valproic Acid Other
Desyrel Trazadone Antidepressants
Doral Quazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Doriden Glutethimide Sleep Medications
Effexor Venlafaxine Antidepressants

Elavil Amitriptyline Antidepressants
Exelon Rivastigmine Other
Gabitril Tiagabine Other
Geodon Ziprasidone Antipsychotics
Halcion Triazolam Sleep Medications
Haldol Haloperidol Antipsychotics
Inderal Propranolol Other
Invega Paliperidone Antipsychotic
Klonopin Clonazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Lamictal Lamotrigine Other
Librium Chlordiazepoxide Antianxiety Long Acting
Lithium Lithium Other
Loxitane Loxapine Antipsychotics
Ludiomil Maprotiline Antidepressants
Lunesta Eszopiclone Sleep Medications
Luvox Fluvoxamine Antidepressants
Marplan Isocarboxazid Antidepressants
Mellaril Thioridazine Antipsychotics
Miltown Meprobamate Sleep Medications
Moban Molindone Antipsychotics
Namenda Memantine Other
Nardil Phenelzine Antidepressants
Navane Thiothixene Antipsychotics
Nembutal Pentobarbital Sleep Medications
Neurontin Gabapentin Other
Noludar Methprylon Sleep Medications
Norpramine Desipramine Antidepressants
Pamelor Nortriptyline Antidepressants
Parnate Tranycypromine Antidepressants
Paxil Paroxetine Antidepressants
Paxipam Halazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Phenobarbital Phenobarbital Sleep Medications
Placidyl Ethchlorvynol Sleep Medications
Pristiq Desvenlafaxine Antidepressant
Prolixin Fluphenazine Antipsychotics
Prosom Estazolam Antianxiety Short Acting
Prosom Estazolam Sleep Medications
Prozac Fluoxetine Antidepressants
Razadyne Galantamine Other
Remeron Mirtazepine Antidepressants
Restoril Temazepam Sleep Medications
Risperdal Risperidone Antipsychotics
Ritalin Methylphenidate Other
Rozerem Ramelteon Sleep Medications
Serax Oxazepam Antianxiety Short acting
Serax Oxazepam Sleep Medications
Serentil Mesoridazine Antipsychotics
Seroquel Quetiapine Antipsychotics
Serzone Nefazodone Antidepressants
Sinequan Doxepin Antidepressants
Sonata Zaleplon Sleep Medications
Sparine Promazine Antipsychotics
Stelazine Trifluoperazine Antipsychotics
Surmontil Trimipramine Antidepressants
Taractin Chlorprothixene Antipsychotics
Tegretol Carbamazepine Other
Thorazine Chlorpromazine Antipsychotics
Tindal Acetophenazine Antipsychotics
Tofranil Imipramine Antidepressants
Tranxene Clorazepate Antianxiety Long Acting
Trilafon Perphenazine Antipsychotics
Tuinal Secobarbital Sleep Medications
Valium Diazepam Antianxiety Long Acting
Vesprin Triflupromazine Antipsychotics
Vistaril Hydroxyzine Antianxiety Short Acting
Vivactil Protriptyline Antidepressants
Wellbutrin Bupropion Antidepressants
Xanax Alprazolam Antianxiety Short Acting
Xanax Alprazolam Sleep Medications
Zoloft Sertraline Antidepressants
Zyprexa Olanzapine Antipsychotics
Updated thru 1/09

http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/rl_dsl/MedManagement/psychMeds.pdf

This is curious because in his January 9th address, Cuomo specifically addressed the issue of confiscation:

The Case:
On April 1st, a legal gun owner in upstate New York reportedly received an official notice from the state ordering him to surrender any and all weapons to his local police department. The note said that the person’s permit to own a gun in New York was being suspended as well. The gun owner contacted attorney Jim Tresmond (a specialist in gun laws in New York) and the two visited the local police precinct.
Mr. Tresmond reportedly went into the precinct and informed the officers that his client, waiting in the parking lot, was coming in to voluntarily surrender his weapons as requested. The local police were aware of the letter because they had already been contacted by the State Police. Apparently, if people do not respond to the initial mailing, local law enforcement is authorized to visit the gun owner at their home and demand the surrender of the firearms. In this case, the gun owner followed the request as written. The guns and permits were handed over and a receipt given to the client.
After the guns were turned over, a request for a local hearing was filed and the gun owner is expecting to have his Second Amendment rights restored. But there is more to this story.
In our conversation with lawyer Jim Tresmond, we learned that this client, who has never had a problem with the law — no criminal record and or violent incidents on record — did have a temporary, short term health issue that required medication. But how were his client’s private medical information accessed by the government? This appears to be a violation of HIPAA and Health Information Privacy policies at HHS.gov. If it is declared a violation, this becomes a civil rights issue.
Some claim that a broad interpretation of this statement from HIPAA might allow the government to have instant access to the medical records and gun ownership records of anyone who is prescribed psychotropic drugs.
“A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well being”.

That short phrase, “protect the public’s health and well being” is probably going to be cited as the reason governments can require notification of any gun owner who is prescribed a class of drugs used to treat Depression and Anxiety known as SSRI ( Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors).
The Mental Health Law provision of the SAFE Act claims
The NY SAFE Act is designed to remove firearms from those who seek to do harm to themselves or others. This means keeping the minority of individuals with serious mental illness who may be dangerous away from access to firearms. This law should not dissuade any individual from seeking mental health services they need.

The law is clear on what it expects:
MHL 9.46 requires mental health professionals to report to their local director of community services (“DCS”) or his/her designees when, in their reasonable professional judgment, one of their patients is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.”
The man who was asked/directed to turn over his guns reportedly did not exhibit any signs of violent or dangerous behavior. According to his attorney, the man’s doctor did not report any danger to the authorities. So, who did report it?

Also known as MHL 9.46, the law talks about who is supposed to report on mental health risks and which patients qualify:
The reporting requirement extends to “mental health professionals,” defined in the law as four professions – physicians (including psychiatrists), psychologists, registered nurses, or licensed clinical social workers.
In addition to what Mr. Tresmond called “the laughable diminution of our rights,” the lawyer speculated about additional unintended consequences of releasing this confidential patient information to law enforcement.
What if an employer learns that a worker had their firearms confiscated? Could that person’s employment be put at risk?
What if your neighbors saw police come to your home and leave with your guns? Could that compromise your safety?
Could this kind of confiscation also make people think twice about getting treatment for a temporary mental illness?

In an effort to learn how many permits and guns have been rescinded due to this medical exception, TheBlaze has made several attempts to contact the Erie County office over pistol permits where this one incident originated. We have yet to be connected with a real person who can answer these questions.
We have also reached out to the Albany office of the New York State Police, but no official response has been received.
Mr. Tresmond has also agreed to keep us posted on his client’s efforts to have his Second Amendment rights restored and get back his guns.
TheBlaze will continue to monitor this story and we are also interested in hearing from other New Yorkers who may have experienced this type of confiscation. Please send all emails to mopelka@TheBlaze.com.

Interview with Jim Tresmond the Atty below.

Tuesday, Buffalo radio talk show host Tom Bauerle spoke with Jim Tresmond on WBEN radio.
http://audio.wben.com/a/73319182/bauerle-with-jim-tresmond.htm

—————————————————————————————————-

So let me ask you, if this is the road the Gov tries to go down, just how long before we have our first, second , third,…. Ruby Ridge’s?

This could go real bad real Fast.

Frankly I am so sick and friggen tired of it. They just trample EVERYTHING that is decent and right that is in this world. They lie, cheat , beat , and yes even kill for their agenda. How bout we start drawing a line in the sand and say you better not cross this or I’m gonna bop you UPSIDE the head. I’m sorry but

the marquis de queensbury rules simply don’t apply anymore.

I forget who said it But it went something like this.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”  

This story grabs me by my gut and makes me want to hurl. HIPPA, Dr. Patient ——privacy, civil rights. Where is the outrage.?—————–

Government increases “onerous activity” to confiscate legal firearms.

Infowars.com
April 9, 2013

The New York State Police are suspending the handgun permits of people in the state who are prescribed anti-anxiety medication, according to Jim Tresmond of the Tresmond Law Firm in Hamburg, New York. Tresmond Law specializes in firearm litigation.

“We are representing a client right now who is impacted by this onerous activity of the government,” Tresmond told WBEN, a news talk radio station in Buffalo, New York.

“We were flummoxed by this whole matter,” the attorney said. “The HIPPA act is supposed to prevent this kind of thing from happening. It’s a gross invasion of our privacy rights.”

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other personal health information, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Tresmond said the New York State Police are responsible for taking action against legal firearms owners. “Based on information the county received from the New York State Police, they’ve suspended the permits. The State Police instigates the proceedings.”

Section 9.46 of the NY SAFE Act of 2013 authorizes therapists, doctors, nurses and social workers to report patients they determine may engage in conduct that may result in harm to self or others. If a determination is made that the person in question poses a threat, the provision permits the government to confiscate firearms. The provision is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment and the legal standard of probable cause.

Experts said many mental health providers will likely ignore the provision.

NY SAFE was passed by the New York State Legislature on January 15, 2013, and was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo the same day.

This article was posted: Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 4:52 pm

~Steve~                   H/T  INFOWARS

Breitbart

WHITE HOUSE CLOSED FOR TOURS, OPEN FOR CELEBRITY SOUL CONCERT

by MIKE FLYNN 9 Apr 2013, 5:43 AM PDT 276POST A COMMENT VIEW DISCUSSION

Tuesday night, the White House throws open its doors for a celebrity packed concert celebrating Memphis soul music. Justin Timberlake, Al Green, Queen Latifah, Cyndi Lauper, Sam Moore, Charlie Musselwhite, and others will be performing at the exclusive event. Maybe they can get a tour of the White House while they are there, because it remains closed to the public.

In reaction to the automatic sequester cuts, Barack Obama shuttered the public, self-guided tours of the White House. The closure was allegedly necessary to trim $2 million from the Social Security budget.

Tuesday’s concert is part of “In Performance at the White House” series. It is an official function, so its costs are borne entirely by the taxpayers. Those unable to get a ticket can watch the festivities on PBS next week. The White House has not released the guest list for tonight’s party.

Now that the Eurozone Powers That Be have succeeded in looting up to 80% of “large” bank deposits in Cyprus, the POS is firing his first post-Cyprus shot aimed at our retirement funds. (See also my posts: “U.S. fed-state govts eliminating private pensions & retirement accounts,” Nov. 27, 2012; and “Obama administration taps into federal retirement funds,” May 24, 2011.)

Typical of his and the Left’s modus operandi, the shot is aimed at “wealthy” IRAs, defined as IRAs worth $3 million or more. This, of course, ensures that most Americans — who don’t have large sums of money in IRAs or even have IRAs at all — will just yawn “Ho hum, who cares?” and sink back into their complacency, thinking Obama’s proposal to limit how much we can sock away in IRAs doesn’t really concern them.

Just wait till he comes after you — as he certainly will. Remember this warning by Thomas Jefferson:

Bernie Becker reports for The Hill that Obama is expected to release a proposed budget this Wednesday that will limit how much Americans can save in IRAs and other retirement accounts.

An unnamed “senior administration official” claims the proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, while also bringing more “fairness” to the tax code because “the wealthy” can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”

Under Obama’s proposed plan, a taxpayer’s tax-deferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement – or right around $3 million, in today’s dollars.

The interest generated in IRAs are not taxable, but when the account owner begins withdrawing from his/her IRA, those withdrawals are taxed as income.

~Eowyn

Number of the Week: Youth Unemployment at 22.9%?

WSJ: 22.9%: The unemployment rate for Americans under age 25, adjusting for the decline in the labor force since the start of the recession.

Perhaps no group has been hit harder by the recession and grinding recovery than the young. The official unemployment rate for those under age 25 is 16.2%, more than double the rate for the population as a whole. In percentage terms, unemployment has fallen far more slowly for young people than for the wider population.

When the recession began in December, 2007, 59.2% of the under-25 population was in the labor force, meaning they were either working or looking for work. Today, that figure has fallen to 54.5%. That may not sound like a big drop, but it makes a huge difference. If the so-called participation rate had remained unchanged, there would be 1.8 million more young people in the labor force today than there actually are. Counting those people as unemployed, rather than out of the labor force, would push the unemployment rate up to 22.9%. That’s only a hair better than the 23.9% youth unemployment rate in the euro zone, and has shown only very modest improvement during the recovery.

The decline in the participation rate among the young can’t all be attributed to the recession. Labor force participation among young people peaked at just under 70% in 1989, and has trended downward ever since, primarily due to rising rates of college attendance.

The youth participation rate has largely flattened out over the past three years, but it fell again in March. Some 236,000 young people left the labor force last month, accounting for nearly half of all drop-outs. That helped push the overall participation rate to a more than 30-year low.

Lesson learned here folks: Elections have consequences.

DCG

• Payrolls grew by 88,000 workers, but 663,000 Americans dropped out of the labor force – a difference of 575,000.
• Altogether, as many as 90 million working-age adults no longer work.
• 15% of Americans are on Food Stamps.
• In 2012, the food stamps program spent a record $80.4B.

H/t Drudge Report, ImpeachObamaCampaign.com, and FOTM’s Miss May

~Eowyn

What Happened

I’ve presented before my hypotheses regarding what happened in the last election, but I’ll do so briefly again. Regardless of the reasoning behind the Republican platform, it remains true that the Republicans have made it a habit to go after issues close to the hearts of blacks, close to the hearts of homosexuals, close to the hearts of Mexicans, and close to the hearts of women. Worse than simply choosing to repeatedly bring up issues that are very important to these other groups, Republicans have a surprising tendency to repeatedly take the side that happens to also piss those groups off.

Regardless of what a Republican thinks about immigration, it does no good to deny the fact that the Republican message about immigration tends to piss off Mexican voters. Regardless of what a Republican thinks about abortion or birth control, it does no good to deny the fact that the Republican message about abortion and birth control tends to piss off female voters. Regardless of what a Republican thinks about gay marriage, it does no good to deny the fact that the Republican message about homosexual marriage tends to piss off homosexual voters.

In truth, the only real defense which Republicans have is one that stems from religious beliefs. Their only complaint against gay marriage stems from religion. Their only complaint against abortion and birth control stems from religion. Their complaints against immigration stem from a dogma which is just as powerful and pervasive as religion: fervent nationalism and this idea that America is an exclusive club and not just anyone can join. Rather than saying their platform is ultimately built on religious beliefs, I should have said that their platform is built on various [dangerous] dogmas, and the most common of those dogmas is the religious one. But whatever.

Elections are popularity contests. If Republicans want to win elections, they must acquire the largest number of votes. And to acquire the largest number of votes, they must appeal to the largest amount of voters they can. But Republicans… aren’t doing that. Rather than appealing to the base of voters that are hispanic, rather than appealing to the base of voters that are female, rather than appealing to the base of voters that are homosexual, and rather than appealing to the base of voters that are black*, Republicans have consistently brought up issues that push these voters away. There are some capable of sticking with the Republican party despite the Republican stance on these issues, but they are few and far between; the vast majority of women, blacks, hispanics, and homosexuals are Democrats, not Republicans, and the reason is only that the Republicans attack ideals important to these groups while the Democrats do not.

I understand the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I don’t agree with it–I think it’s absurdly narrow-minded, trite, and oppressive–but I do understand it. I understand the belief that life begins at conception. I don’t agree with it–I think that it attempts to define “life” in ways that are arbitrary and contraindicated by realty–but I do understand it. I understand the belief that people who sneak into this country are criminals. I don’t agree with it–I think it’s nothing but a nationalism obsession that borders on fascism–but I do understand it. And while I disagree with every single one of these Republican philosophies, I understand that Republicans disagree with me. But–and here’s the thing–if you want to win elections, then you can’t piss off every voter who is not a straight rich white Christian man.

WASPs, they are called, and while I hate to be such a generalizing asshole, the truth of the matter is that the Republican party is at least 80% WASP–White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. When I first heard this term, my response was, “It’s a bit redundant, isn’t it?” I would suggest replacing “Saxon” with “Straight” to get a 100% clear understanding of what the Republican platform is.

Oh. I’m white, in case you didn’t know that. In fact, I’m a former WASP myself. I’m not a Protestant, but I used to be (because Baptists are off-shoots of Protestantism). I’m an atheist now, and once I became an atheist, all of those other dumb-ass concepts that came from being a WASP faded into memory–faded into bad memory. This happened in the late days of junior high for me, but that wasn’t too early for the church to have already instilled me with the idea that birth control, abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and all these other things were wrong. I didn’t have these beliefs in mind when I went from Southern Baptist to Wiccan to Hindu to Muslim to Agnostic (*cough* You would call it an “agnostic”. I would call it a Pantheist. *cough*) to Buddhist to Buddhist Atheist. I am a Buddhist; I am also an atheist. And there is no contradiction between these two concepts.

Anyway, so if anyone has the right to call Republicans WASPs, it’s me. Because I’m surrounded by them. I was raised into them; I was taught to think like them. I was raised by them. And the fact that I broke off those shackles and said, “Wait–none of this crap is right,” is a testament not to how stupid their beliefs are but to how powerful an individual’s own empathy and rationality can be. I was once as brainwashed as any of them; wanted to be a preacher, in fact. Led the Bible Club at my school, in fact. Organized See You at the Pole rallies, in fact. Loved that Bible. Loved it. I even loved the whole “God raining fire onto sinners” bit–as all WASPs do, even if they don’t admit it. They don’t. But at some point in my life, Reality and “what I was told was true” no longer synchronized. Something was wrong. And I was presented with a choice, as all theists are at some point.

Either I had to say, “My religion is right, and all that science is wrong. The Devil is tricking scientists to push people from God” or some thing along those lines. Or I had to say, “Reality is right; the evidence is right, and it’s my religion that is wrong.” When I was presented with this choice, I, unlike most theists, said, “I don’t know. I’ll have to find out.” And that’s precisely what I set out to do; I set out to find out whether it was my religion or science that was wrong. And I did this in a way that didn’t make sense. Rather than letting go of the belief in god, I simply tried swapping out the god I believed in for other gods. Since I knew Christianity and Reality couldn’t both be right, I assumed that another religion must be right. I didn’t assume that there was no god. So I went to a number of different religions looking for the one that was right, because the idea that there was a god was so ingrained in me, so pervasive in my thoughts, and so much a part of my mind that I never even once stopped to consider the possibility that there was no god at all. The fact that there was a god was one I accepted without question, and when I learned that Christianity was right, I went to different religions in search of “God.” And after a very long quest that lasted from when I was 14 years old to when I was 24 years old–a full decade of my life wasted in search of something that wasn’t there just because I couldn’t honestly ask myself whether or not it was there–I finally was able to ask myself the correct question. The question should never have been, “There is a god, so which religion will put me in tough with God?” My question should have been “Is there a god?” But I couldn’t ask myself that for an entire decade. That’s the power of religious brainwash. The idea that I could even ask myself that question in honesty was completely foreign to me.

And during that quest, if someone had asked me, “Well, how do you know there is a god?” do you know what my answer would have been? I would have said, “I don’t know. I just know there is. There has to be. This can’t all be chance; this can’t all be coincidence.” Looking at what I say now, you may have a hard time believing that, but it’s true. For an entire decade, I accepted that there was a god on faith alone. Nothing else substantiated my belief that there was a god. “I know because I know,” I said during that period. I called myself an “Agnostic”. I never would have said, “There is no god.” Just the opposite; I would have said, “There is a god, because I just feel it. You’ve just got to have faith.” Just a few years ago, I would have said that. Just a few years ago. But eventually, I was able to ask myself the correct question. I was able to ask myself not “Which god is real?” but the more important question: “Is there a god?”

Oops

Sorry about all that.

Republicans

In the five months since the Republicans were roflstomped in the elections, they have apparently learned nothing. And I find this very strange, because even Republicans know why they got roflstomped. They know they lost the elections because they’re pushing away so many voters with their policies. But despite that, they still haven’t done a thing to change. Even right now, Republicans are still fighting in the Supreme Court against gay marriage–despite the fact that homosexuals won’t vote for them because of this.

Republicans can’t just change their party platform so that it’s women-friendly or gay-friendly or hispanic-friendly. No one would believe them if they did that; they’d call the change “fake” and done “just to get voters.” It wouldn’t help the Republicans at all to suddenly say, “Okay, fine. You can get married” to homosexuals.

The Problem

All across the nation, Republicans are saying, “The problem isn’t with the party principles. The problem is with how we’re getting those principles across.” Oh, poor WASPs. No, the problem is with the principles. It’s not how you’re phrasing your anti-gay marriage platform that pisses homosexuals off. It’s your anti-gay marriage platform that pisses homosexuals off. It’s not how you’re phrasing your “anti-illegals” platform that pisses hispanics off. It’s your categorization of hispanics who cross the border as “illegals” that pisses them off. It’s not even how you’re saying stupid things like, “If a woman gets pregnant, then it wasn’t a real rape, because the female body has ways of cutting that process off,” that pisses women off. Well, that did piss them off, actually. But they were even more pissed that you were trying to say something about an action which you could never, ever experience or even imagine. White men cannot fathom what it’s like to be raped. We can if we’re sent to prison or something, but that’s not my point. We can’t imagine how much it would suck to be forcibly fucked against your will–and then to get pregnant from that. It pisses women off, your saying that since they got pregnant, it couldn’t have been a real rape. But it pisses them off even more that you can’t even empathize with what exactly it was they went through because you have absolutely no way of putting yourself in their shoes to imagine what that experience could even be like. And then you say things like, “Women only voted for Obama because he wants to give them birth control and they’re really sluts who want to sleep around without getting pregnant.”

There’s a massive disconnect from reality among the Republican party. In one breath, they say, “We have to do a better job of reaching out to gays,” and in the very next breath, they stand before the Supreme Court saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry. In one breath, they say, “We have to do a better job of reaching out to women,” and in the very next breath, they literally say, “All women who don’t agree with us are whores.”

And you guys expect to ever win another election? It’s not going to happen, not with you guys saying stupid shit like that. And it’s not the “stupid shit” itself that bothers everyone. The stupid shit is stupid shit, to be sure, but it’s not the stupid shit itself that is the issue. The issue is that you can even say that stupid shit. It’s not how you’re trying to justify your narrow-minded party principles to the rest of the world (by saying, “There’s something wrong with everyone who disagrees.”); it’s that you are trying to justify your narrow-minded party principles to the rest of the world. It’s not how you’re phrasing specific examples when you say, “There’s something wrong with everyone who disagrees”; it’s that you think there must be something wrong with everyone who disagrees. It shows that you can’t even fathom the possibility that your beliefs themselves may be wrong. You presume from the beginning that your beliefs are right, so you begin looking for reasons to justify why people disagree. You’re asking yourself the wrong questions.

You shouldn’t be asking, “Why do people disagree with our platform?” You should be asking, “Is our party platform right?” Because you begin with the premise that your party platform is right, and now you must justify to everyone else why they are wrong and why you are right, and the only way in the past five months you’ve thought of to do that is to say, “Well, there’s just something wrong with everyone who disagrees.”

Do you see why you’re losing elections yet? And why you’ll continue losing elections?

Erase that premise. Forget entirely your dogmatic adherence to your party platform and sincerely ask yourselves whether or not the platform itself is “right.” Stop asking yourself why non-white, gay, non-male people say it’s wrong. Start asking yourself is it wrong. And the “Yes, the platform is wrong” will be resounding and will reverberate through your mind for months. The platform is wrong. You’re not right while everyone else is wrong. You’re wrong.

Cling To Your Beliefs

Hey, I understand if you want to go on thinking that gays shouldn’t marry or that women shouldn’t have birth control or abortions or whatever. Go ahead thinking that. I don’t really care. But if you want to ever win another election, you can’t put into your party platform your personal beliefs about these things. You can still believe them and you can still work toward them, but you can’t attempt to set yourself up to legislate your view of morality onto the rest of the country.

Libertarianism is the only thing which can save you. Republicans, you are never going to be able to win elections with your current platform. The number of seats in the Senate and House will continually decline, and you’ll never have a man in the White House again. Progress doesn’t go backward, and that’s true in technological progress and social progress. Our social progress has brought us to a place acceptance of a few mistakes (abortions) that could wreck several people’s lives forever, our social progress has brought us to a place of preventing mistakes whenever possible (birth control), our social progress has brought us to a place of accepting homosexuals and not trying to make a distinction between “their rights” and “our rights.” These trends cannot be reversed. They will only continue. We will only become more tolerant of homosexuals, of contraceptives, and all the other stuff. We can never go back, as a society, to the days of Leave It To Beaver. 

Your party’s platform idealizes the world found in Leave It To Beaver. Your party’s platform idealizes an age that has died and which can never return. Your party’s platform attempts to undermine all of the social progress we’ve made as a civilization in the past century, and your party’s platform is rapidly becoming obsolete. Jump ship, or we will be left with a one-party system. For the good of the nation and its longterm survival prospects, you MUST abandon the Republican Party because it will NOT survive through the next century. And we cannot leave the Democratic Party unchallenged. Abandon the Republican Party and join its sister: the Libertarian Party.

Because you can still believe all those things if you’re a Libertarian. You can still believe gay people shouldn’t marry, that women shouldn’t get abortions, and whatever else you want. But as a Libertarian, you have to recognize that the fact that you believe it doesn’t give you any right to force anyone else to abide by it on a national level. As a Libertarian, you would push for your specific state to align with your religious beliefs, not the entire country as a whole, and you would accept that if people disagree with you, that is their right.

Republican Backing

But Republicans don’t think “that is their right” when people disagree with them. They say it, but they don’t think it. If they truly believed it, they would be Libertarians, after all. The distinction between Republicans and Libertarians is that Republicans want to legislate their beliefs onto everyone else. Libertarians want everyone else to decide what is best for themselves. Republicans want to go into government and legislate their morality into law. And this is because Republicans believe they have a “Supreme Authority” on their side and that their “Supreme Authority” is the source of the Republican principles. They won’t openly admit this, but just look at their party beliefs–their party beliefs are direct extensions of Catholicism and Protestantism. The party belief of “anti-abortion” is a direct result of the Christian philosophy that dominates the party.

And they won’t back down on the anti-abortion ideas and the rest of it because they believe that “God” is on the side of their principles; they won’t abandon “God’s principles.” So when “Society” disagrees with those principles (as it clearly did in the 2012 election), they must look for things that are wrong with Society. Their principles must be right because their principles come from a “Supreme Moral Authority.” They can’t question their principles because to do so would be to question their religion. They can’t change their principles because to do so would be to spit in the face of their religion.

The Only Way Out

The only way out of this fiasco is Libertarianism. The only way for Republicans to say, “We still believe our principles are right” and to still win elections, is to say, “We still believe our principles are right… but we don’t think we should be allowed to force our principles onto you.” Anything else will be hypocrisy. If they change the platform, not only will it make them hypocrites, it will also strike the rest of the country as lacking any sincerity; it will be a ploy to get votes, and everyone will know that. You can’t just change “what you believe” at the drop of a hat, for no reason, and you certainly can’t change “what you believe” to its exact opposite and expect to be even marginally credible.

The only way to hold to your beliefs and ever win elections again is to say, “We still believe that homosexuality is wrong,… but we recognize that this is our belief and that we have no authority or right to force that belief onto you.” The only way to hold to your beliefs and ever win elections again is to say, “We still believe that contraceptives are wrong,… but we recognize that this is our belief and that we have no authority or right to force that belief onto you.”

And, luckily, “not forcing your beliefs onto others” happens to actually AGREE with the Republican principles… but Republicans have forgotten that. They have forgotten that “small government not interfering with our lives” also means that THEY can’t interfere in the lives of others when THEY are the ones with the power. Republicans have twisted the idea of “small government allowing people to live their own lives” into meaning, “Democrats can’t force their beliefs onto us, but when we are in power, we can force our beliefs onto them.” No, that’s wrong. Small government, people. Limited government. Liberty. LIBERTY.

Liberty is the answer–the right of every Individual to decide what is best for himself, herself, or itself. And Liberty is the only way for the “Republican party” to survive. The only way for the Republican party to survive is to commit suicide and join the Libertarian Party. One way or another, the Republican Party is not going to survive through the next century. The only question is: Will we be left with a one-party system, or will Republicans have the sense to abandon their burning party platform and accept Liberty for what it should be? 

*I can’t, off the top of my head, think of any particular examples of the Republican party antagonizing the black community. But I know they’re there. I haven’t been up long enough for my brain to be functioning at 100% yet. My brain is kind of like a diesel truck; it takes a while to get going and warmed up. Once it’s going, it’s going, but my brain certainly isn’t cranking up and jumping into any races first thing. No games of chess 5 minutes after waking up.

In fact, for about the first 30 minutes I’m awake, I can’t even be spoken to. For about the first minute, I can’t even produce a coherent thought. I’m not kidding. People have waked me to ask me something and have gotten some of the most absurd statements from me: “I can’t get you a bottle of water; we’ve got to wait on Zack to open the store,” I said once. The first few minutes I’m awake is identical for me to someone who sleepwalks. I can walk and talk and everything else, but my brain isn’t on; one just gets automatic and nonsensical answers from me. I’ve had people wake me and about three minutes later, I’d say to them, “Wait–what are you doing here? What do you want?” despite the fact that we’d just spend three minutes having a conversation.

Current: Associate Professional Specialist and Concurrent Associate Professor of Law at University of Notre Dame.

Past: Director at Gigot Center for Entrepreneurial Studies, Associate Director and Clinical Professor at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Education: University of Notre Dame Law School, University of Notre Dame.

Summary: She has 20+ years’ experience in curriculum and other program development and delivery.

I am already reading so many pundits and other talking heads analyzing the disaster that was this year’s elections. I am adding my own ten cents. Here goes:

1. We are outnumbered. We accurately foresaw the enthusiasm, the passion, the commitment, the determination, and the turnout. Married women, men, independents, Catholics, evangelicals – they all went for Romney in percentages as high or higher than the groups which voted for McCain in 2008. It wasn’t enough. What we saw in the election on Tuesday was a tipping point: we are now at a place where there are legitimately fewer Americans who desire a free republic with a free people than there are those who think the government should give them stuff. There are fewer of us who believe in the value of free exchange and free enterprise. There are fewer of us who do not wish to demonize successful people in order to justify taking from them. We are outnumbered. For the moment. It’s just that simple.

2. It wasn’t the candidate(s). Some are already saying, “Romney was the wrong guy”; “He should have picked Marco Rubio to get Florida/Rob Portman to get Ohio/Chris Christie to get [someplace else].” With all due respect, these assessments are incorrect. Romney ran a strategic and well-organized campaign. Yes, he could have hit harder on Benghazi. But for those who would have loved that, there are those who would have found it distasteful. No matter what tactic you could point to that Romney could have done better, it would have been spun in a way that was detrimental to his chances. Romney would have been an excellent president, and Ryan was an inspired choice. No matter who we ran this year, they would have lost. See #1, above.

3. It’s the culture, stupid. We have been trying to fight this battle every four years at the voting booth. It is long past time we admit that is not where the battle really is. We abdicated control of the culture – starting back in the 1960s. And now our largest primary social institutions – education, the media, Hollywood (entertainment) have become really nothing more than an assembly line for cranking out reliable little Leftists. Furthermore, we have allowed the government to undermine the institutions that instill good character – marriage, the family, communities, schools, our churches. So, here we are, at least two full generations later – we are reaping what we have sown. It took nearly fifty years to get here; it will take another fifty years to get back. But it starts with the determination to reclaim education, the media, and the entertainment business. If we fail to do that, we can kiss every election goodbye from here on out. And much more.

4. America has become a nation of adolescents The real loser in this election was adulthood: Maturity. Responsibility. The understanding that liberty must be accompanied by self-restraint. Obama is a spoiled child, and the behavior and language of his followers and their advertisements throughout the campaign makes it clear how many of them are, as well. Romney is a grown-up. Romney should have won. Those of us who expected him to win assumed that voters would act like grownups. Because if we were a nation of grownups, he would have won.

But what did win? Sex. Drugs. Bad language. Bad manners. Vulgarity. Lies. Cheating. Name-calling. Finger-pointing. Blaming. And irresponsible spending. This does not bode well. People grow up one of two ways: either they choose to, or circumstances force them to. The warnings are all there, whether it is the looming economic disaster, or the inability of the government to respond to crises like Hurricane Sandy, or the growing strength and brazenness of our enemies. American voters stick their fingers in their ears and say, “Lalalalalala, I can’t hear you.” It is unpleasant to think about the circumstances it will take to force Americans to grow up. It is even more unpleasant to think about Obama at the helm when those circumstances arrive.

5. Yes, there is apparently a Vagina Vote. It’s the subject matter of another column in its entirety to point out, one by one, all of the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the Democrats this year. Suffice it to say that the only “war on women” was the one waged by the Obama campaign, which sexualized and objectified women, featuring them dressed up like vulvas at the Democrat National Convention, appealing to their “lady parts,” comparing voting to losing your virginity with Obama, trumpeting the thrills of destroying our children in the womb

(and using our daughters in commercials to do so), and making Catholics pay for their birth control. For a significant number of women, this was appealing. It might call into question the wisdom of the Nineteenth Amendment, but for the fact that large numbers of women

(largely married) used their “lady smarts” instead. Either way, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are rolling over in their graves.

6. It’s not about giving up on “social issues” No Republican candidate should participate in a debate or go out on the stump without thorough debate prep and a complete set of talking points that they stick to. This should start with a good grounding in biology and a reluctance to purport to know the will of God. (Thank you, Todd and Richard.)

That said, we do not hold the values we do because they garner votes. We hold the values we do because we believe that they are time-tested principles without which a civilized, free and prosperous society is not possible.

We defend the unborn because we understand that a society which views some lives as expendable is capable of viewing all lives as expendable. We defend family – mothers, fathers, marriage, children – because history makes it quite clear that societies without intact families quickly descend into anarchy and barbarism, and we have plenty of proof of that in our inner cities where marriage is infrequent and unwed motherhood approaches 80 percent. When Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, many thought that the abortion cause was lost. Forty years later, ultrasound technology has demonstrated the inevitable connection between science and morality. More Americans than ever define themselves as “pro-life.” What is tragic is that tens of millions of children have lost their lives while Americans figure out what should have been obvious before. There is no “giving up” on social issues. There is only the realization that we have to fight the battle on other fronts. The truth will win out in the end.

7. Obama does not have a mandate. And he does not need one. I have to laugh – bitterly – when I read conservative pundits trying to assure us that Obama “has to know” that he does not have a mandate, and so he will have to govern from the middle. I don’t know what they’re smoking. Obama does not care that he does not have a mandate. He does not view himself as being elected (much less re-elected) to represent individuals. He views himself as having been re-elected to complete the “fundamental transformation” of America, the basic structure of which he despises. Expect much more of the same – largely the complete disregard of the will of half the American public, his willingness to rule by executive order, and the utter inability of another divided Congress to rein him in. Stanley Kurtz has it all laid out here.

8. The Corrupt Media – is the enemy too strong? I don’t think so. I have been watching the media try to throw elections since at least the early 1990s. In 2008 and again this year, we saw the media cravenly cover up for the incompetence and deceit of this President, while demonizing a good, honorable and decent man with lies and smears. This is on top of the daily barrage of insults that conservatives (and by that I mean the electorate, not the politicians) must endure at the hands of this arrogant bunch of elitist snobs. Bias is one thing. What we observed with Benghazi was professional malpractice and fraud. They need to go. Republicans, Libertarians and other conservatives need to be prepared to play hardball with the Pravda press from here on out. And while we are at it, to defend those journalists of whatever political stripe (Jake Tapper, Sharyl Atkisson, Eli Lake) who actually do their jobs. As well as Fox News and talk radio. Because you can fully expect a re-elected Obama to try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in term 2.

9. Small business and entrepreneurs will be hurt the worst For all the blather about “Wall Street versus Main Street,” Obama’s statist agenda will unquestionably benefit the biggest corporations which – as with the public sector unions – are in the best position to make campaign donations, hire lobbyists, and get special exemptions carved out from Obama’s health care laws, his environmental regulations, his labor laws. It will be the small business, the entrepreneur, and the first-time innovators who will be crushed by their inability to compete on a level playing field.

10. America is more polarized than ever; and this time it’s personal. I’ve been following politics for a long time, and it feels different this time. Not just for me. I’ve received messages from other conservatives who are saying the same thing: there is little to no tolerance left out there for those who are bringing this country to its knees – even when they have been our friends. It isn’t just about “my guy” versus “your guy.” It is my view of America versus your view of America – a crippled, hemorrhaging, debt-laden, weakened and dependent America that I want no part of and resent being foisted on me. I no longer have any patience for stupidity, blindness, or vulgarity, so with each dumb “tweet” or FB post by one of my happily lefty comrades, another one bites the dust, for me. Delete. What does this portend for a divided Congress? I expect that Republicans will be demoralized and chastened for a short time. But I see them in a bad position. Americans in general want Congress to work together. But many do not want Obama’s policies, and so Republicans who support them will be toast. Good luck, guys.

11. It’s possible that America just has to hit rock bottom. I truly believe that most Americans who voted for Obama have no idea what they are in for. Most simply believe him when he says that all he really wants is for the rich to pay “a little bit more.” So reasonable! Who could argue with that except a greedy racist? America is on a horrific bender. Has been for some time now. The warning signs of our fiscal profligacy and culture of lack of personal responsibility are everywhere – too many to mention. We need only look at other countries which have gone the route we are walking now to see what is in store.

For the past four years – but certainly within the past campaign season – we have tried to warn Americans. Too many refuse to listen, even when all of the events that have transpired during Obama’s presidency – unemployment, economic stagnation, skyrocketing prices, the depression of the dollar, the collapse of foreign policy, Benghazi, hopelessly inept responses to natural disasters – can be tied directly to Obama’s statist philosophies, and his decisions.

What that means, I fear, is that they will not see what is coming until the whole thing collapses. That is what makes me so sad today. I see the country I love headed toward its own “rock bottom,” and I cannot seem to reach those who are taking it there.

Laura Hollis

I can think of no better critique of mainstream news and journalism than Nick Davies’ Flat Earth News, originally published in the United Kingdom in 2008. Davies is perhaps best known as the journalist who broke the phone-hacking scandal that rocked the United Kingdom in the summer of 2011. In addition to highlighting newsroom cuts and stories that were severely distorted or mishandled by the media, like the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Davies writes about major global events that are simply not covered by the media. Non-stories. One of these non-stories is the massive problem of tax evasion and the use of offshore accounts. He writes:

[In 2003], bankers estimated that a third of the gross domestic product of the entire planet was being channelled through offshore accounts, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimated that 60% of world trade consisted of transfers made within multinationals, passing their profits to anonymous subsidiaries in tax-free jurisdictions, while some three million corporations were avoiding tax simply because they had no identifiable owner. (emphasis mine).

Since the book was published in 2008, however, a dramatic change has taken place in the coverage of tax avoidance. This week may have been particularly important and dramatic in marking these ongoing changes. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) have announced what is “the largest cross border journalism collaboration in history.”

The initial results of this investigation of 200gb of files have been stunning. Part of the process will be naming and shaming people who take advantage of tax havens. The Guardian, in cooperation with the ICIJ, identifies several:

In France, Jean-Jacques Augier, President François Hollande’s campaign co-treasurer and close friend, has been forced to publicly identify his Chinese business partner. It emerges as Hollande is mired in financial scandal because his former budget minister concealed a Swiss bank account for 20 years and repeatedly lied about it.

In Mongolia, the country’s former finance minister and deputy speaker of its parliament says he may have to resign from politics as a result of this investigation.

Five or six years ago, we weren’t talking about tax evasion so much. Now, we’re talking about it daily and in the context of a broader discussion about tax policy as well as social and economic injustice, and it is worth pointing out what has happened and why.

In 2008, the IRS dealt a major blow to U.S. tax evaders due to its revamped whistle-blower program, having received a UBS client list of Americans who parked their money in Switzerland and illegally avoided taxes. The worldwide financial crisis that followed made a fact plainly visible to everyone: the rich and the powerful play by a different set of rules. Many countries were forced to implement heavy cuts to basic services, safety nets and public sector employment. This seemed kind of incredible, as the economics problems were caused by large-scale political and financial malfeasance, while everyone else paid the price. Why should that be? A timid thought began to creep up. Shouldn’t the rich pay more?

And it is impossible to talk about tax policy and getting the rich to pay more without also having a serious look at tax avoidance. Interest in tax avoidance initially centered around Greece, where the problem was widespread. We looked to Greece and saw a completely dysfunctional system where no one paid what they owed, and no one had faith that their neighbor would pay. And somehow, they were about to take down the entire Eurozone.

But the conversation didn’t end there. For instance, in Britain, Gordon Brown’s government instituted a 50 percent top tax rate. This seemed reasonable to do. What was the reaction? Countless stories of high profile (but anonymous, of course) British citizens threatening to go elsewhere to avoid paying higher taxes. This was a legal and low-tech threat of tax avoidance, but it highlighted a deep schism in society that had arisen out of three decades of rising inequality in virtually every developed country. The subjects of these articles just couldn’t understand. Of course, these turned out to be empty threats. The same thing has happened in France (only one confirmed departure, by the way).

From an American perspective, there is one and only one person who was able to elevate tax havens and offshore accounts to a topic of national discourse. Mitt Romney. Despite massive budget deficits, high unemployment and slow growth, large corporations and rich individuals were doing fine and paying very little in taxes. It was in this context that the 2012 Presidential Campaign took place.

Enter Mitt Romney, who supposedly had a net worth in the hundreds of millions of dollars. And then came his (lack of) tax returns, releasing only his 2010 returns, which turned out to be incomplete. Even in its incomplete form, the hundreds of pages show Swiss bank accounts, partnerships in the Cayman Islands, and blind trusts. The blind trusts turned out to be elaborate (but legal) schemes at tax avoidance, as reported by Bloomberg. And remember the IRS whistle-blower case that involved Americans with Swiss bank accounts? The IRS instituted an amnesty program soon after, where people with accounts in UBS could come forward, pay a fine, and retain anonymity. There’s speculation about whether Romney was one of these individuals. Throughout the presidential campaign, Romney’s taxes and tax fairness remained an issue, and probably played some role in his losing the election.

Romney is no longer in the picture, but this issue is not going anywhere. Just this past month, Cyprus’s role as an offshore tax haven to Russian oligarchs played prominently into bailout talks. With talks of huge losses being imposed on foreign depositors, this entire offshore banking system that makes up much of the economy in Cyprus is likely gone for good.

It is good to see multiple newspapers and the ICIJ devote considerable efforts in the fight against tax avoidance, tax havens and secrecy that allow the rich and the powerful to unfairly maintain their status at the expensive of everyone else.

Join Birch Bay residents Al Krause and Ruth Higgins for an author event and discussion on their book, Lessons from the Obama 2012 Grassroots Campaign: What Two Devoted Volunteers Learned on Sunday, April 14 at 4:00 p.m., in the Readings Gallery of Village Books, 1200 11^th Street, Bellingham.

Ruth Higgins was one of the first recruits by Organizing for America in Whatcom County in August 2011, hosting the first organizational meeting in her Birch Bay cottage. Al Krause, her husband, immediately joined and their small team grew to more than 70 volunteers. By the end of that year, the Northwest Whatcom neighborhood team, they were told, had become one of the strongest in the nation.

In February 2012, Krause and Higgins, were selected as two of the few volunteers in the state to be photographed with President Obama when he spoke in Bellevue. (Most of the others photographed were large-money contributors.)

“I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in becoming a political organizer,” wrote a volunteer leader with the Whatcom County Democrats in a review posted on Amazon.

Just ran across this lovely article and thought I would share. Now if some nincompoop would like to debate the fact that having people armed to defend themselves makes for a safer society, well just jam some of these facts down  their throats.                      ~Steve~

———————————————————————————————–

Florida Update: Concealed Carry Permits Up, Violent Crime Down.

Written by  Bob Adelmann

The recent report from ABC News that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history, delighted Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, Inc. “We’re happy to have facts and statistics put into these debates, because every time they do, we win,” he said.

Firearm-related violent crimes in Florida have dropped by one-third in just four years, 2007 to 2011, while concealed carry permits jumped by 90 percent in that period. Further, violent crime of any kind dropped almost as much, 26 percent.

There were naysayers, but their voices are becoming muted as more and more states have adopted “shall-issue” carry laws and have seen their own crime rates drop as well. One of the naysayers was Gary Kleck, a Florida State criminologist who calls himself “as liberal as they get.” He said the link between more permits and less crime might just be a coincidence. He said that nationally, crime has been falling steadily since 1991 and Florida’s numbers might just be part of that trend. He warned against drawing too hasty a conclusion that one statistic caused the other. “The real problem there in drawing conclusions is that you’re guessing why that decline or change in gun violence has occurred,” he stated.

In a backhanded support of Kleck’s warning, Arthur Hayhoe, the executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said “It’s difficult to attach gun control to the reduction of crime, and vice versa. We don’t know what works. We can’t prove that gun control works because we don’t have gun control laws.”

( Excuse me while I move this rock…  OK ,Mr. Hayhoe, hey that sounds like..ah never mind. You say we can’t prove it because we don’t have gun control laws. Well since you’ve been under a rock, believe it or not they have laws in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles. Guess what? As far as helping your argument, they suck. Just so you know. Scurry back under that rock now.    ~Steve)

Kleck has authored numerous books and articles over the last 20 years, but none garnered as much national attention as his 1994 National Self-Defense Survey which, based on a survey of 5,000 households, concluded that there were far more incidents where gun owners defended themselves against potentially violent crime than there were actual crimes involving the use of guns. This outraged liberals who thought Kleck would find something that would support their typically anti-gun posture. One such was Marvin Wolfgang, another liberal Florida criminologist who described himself as being “as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among all criminologists in this country.” He said,

I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns — ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people…. What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck … The reason I am troubled is that [he has] provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator … I do not like [his] conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault [his] methodology….

Such a report from Florida must encourage Professor John Lott, who in 2000 authored the groundbreaking book More Guns, Less Crime. Lott never intended to become the lightning rod for the anti-gun forces. He began the study initially because he saw that much of what passed for valid statistical analysis in the field was poorly done, and he saw an opportunity to correct and update it. What it did was change his life, and not necessarily for the better. In his recent update to the book, Lott wrote,

Ten years have passed since the second edition of this book. During that time, both the argument and the data have been hotly debated. This debate has often been unpleasant, vociferous, and even disingenuous. To say that my career has suffered as a result is something of an understatement.… And yet … within the scholarly community [my] research has withstood criticism and remains sound. Further, the additional ten years of data provide continued strong support for [my] arguments.…

When Florida passed the first “shall-issue” law requiring authorities to issue concealed weapons permits to qualified citizens upon request in 1987, critics warned that the Sunshine State would soon become the “Gunshine” State, with predictions of differences being settled by gun fights in the streets, and crime soaring. The exact opposite happened. As Guncite.com noted, “homicide rates dropped faster than the national average [and] through 1997, only one permit holder out of over the 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide.”

That was then. This is now. Lott provided an update on right-to-carry laws for the Maryland Law Review last October in which he noted that there are now more than 912,000 permit holders in Florida, many of whom have had their permits for years. Across the country, as some 40 other states have joined Florida in its decision to allow “shall-issue” permits to its citizens, the number of permit holders has reached nearly eight million, and is still climbing. And Lott is getting support for his once-controversial view by recent studies showing similar declines in violent crime. Wrote Lott:

There have been a total of 29 peer reviewed studies by economists and criminologists, 18 supporting the hypothesis that shall-issue laws reduce crime, 10 not finding any significant effect on crime … and [one] paper … finding that right-to-carry laws temporarily increase one type of violent crime: aggravated assault.

He noted that the predicted disasters following passage of such laws never happened. In fact, despite more and more states adopting them, not a single one of those laws has been repealed. As Lott noted,

One simple measure of how well these laws have worked is a political one: despite states adopting right-to-carry laws as long ago as the 1920s, there has never even been a legislative hearing held to rescind these laws.

In that paper, Lott took delight in debunking so-called studies by anti-gun groups that have distorted the data to prove a different, and less favorable, conclusion:

A June 2010 analysis of the gun control groups’ claims examined those groups’ claims for Florida: the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center portray Florida as Ground Zero for problems with concealed handgun permit holders.

They boldly assert that seventeen Florida permit holders have “killed” people with their guns over the past three years [from May 2007 to May 2010] and that this one state by itself accounts for seventeen of the ninety-six “killer” permit holders nationwide.

( Liar Liar Big Fat Stupid Pants on Fire…. I’m such a child.  LOL)

Yet even though a newspaper reported on the shooting, seven cases were such clear-cut cases of self-defense that no one was even charged with a crime, three cases involved suicide, and two of the other cases, including one involving a police officer, actually didn’t involve permit holders. [Emphases added.]

That means that, following Lott’s rigorous refutation of those inflated statistics, just five out of more than half a million permit holders were involved in a criminal case in that three-year period.

That latest information from Florida just confirms what Lott had discovered years ago: Carrying reduces crime. Wrote Lott: “Armageddon never happened … in state after state when right-to-carry laws have been adopted, the entire debate quickly becomes a non-issue within a year.”

The time is almost here when carrying a concealed firearm is so commonplace that it won’t even be worth commenting on. Florida and Professor John Lott have led the way.

A graduate of Cornell University and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American and blogs frequently at www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached atbadelmann@thenewamerican.com.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down

WASHINGTON, DC – Sources close to the White House have learned that Barack Obama is planning to run for the office of Pope when the College of Cardinals convenes to elect a successor to ailing Benedict XVI at the end of this month. Calling on the promise of Equality for All, Obama is said to firmly believe that the time has come for a non-Catholic to occupy the Vatican‘s highest office.

Foreseeing a looming citizenship issue he states that he has discovered an Italian birth certificate that proves he was born in Rome before he was born in Kenya. “That Hawaiian birth certificate never has been worth what I paid for it anyway,” he noted.

Continuing, he concluded, “And there’s no way that a handful of cardinals could be more expensive to buy than 10 million voters in Michigan.” Further questions should be directed to Obama’s Papal Campaign Manager, Abdul Azeem Khan.

~Steve~                         H/T   Miss May         

Sullivan talked to me about a variety of subject relating to his office, but two topics stood out. First, he told me that his office is working on allowing the use of credit cards for transactions at the Tax Assessor’s office. It actually took me by surprise that it wasn’t already like that–you can use plastic at the District/County Clerk and for most City transactions. Allowing the use of credit cards for such an operation, that is, in a place where the rubber really meet the road on Government (taxes and titles), is a good no-nonsense first step that reminded me of Mayor White synchronizing the lights downtown.

Second, Sullivan went to lengths talking to me about making the Voting Registrar segment of his office more accessible to the public. This was done by some symbolic gestures (such as opening the blinds on the office’s windows), as well as more concrete steps (making it easier to find out how to register and stopping the dead-but-not-dead voter purges). The way I see it, the Voting Registrar’s office (if it has to be an elected office), should be quite visible to the community. Sullivan is making good inroads to do that.

The beauty of a County or City office, be it even the partisan ones, is that the issues are very local. Far too many Democrats in local offices lost in 2010 because they were wrongly connected with all of Obama’s policies. That was wrong, and it would be wrong to write-off all local Republicans because of the bad apples in the Tea Party. I would have a little reluctance to Sullivan’s candidacy to the State Legislature or Congress, as we disagree on some more national issues (gun control, for one), but as long as he is managing the Tax and Voter departments, I have no disagreements.

But, anyways, back to Boston tomorrow.

UPDATE: Since yesterday, the site administrators have placed the following disclaimer: “The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. While every caution has been taken to provide our readers with most accurate information and honest analysis, please use your discretion before taking any decisions based on the information in this blog.”

Toward the end of the post, Sears writes, “How then can we as Christians stay in a party that adopts Homosexuality [sic] into the fabric of the tent. I say we cannot. Homosexuals make up less than one percent of the total population. They must prey on our children to increase their numbers. Why then, would we, as a party, entertain this perversion? We as a party should be purging this perversion and send them to a party with a much bigger tent. When we lose track of foundational principles we lose the very essence of our party. By throwing God under the bus we become nothing more than the poor Democrats who have lost their way and by doing so have lost their party.”

Let’s focus in on that middle sentence… “We as a party should be purging this perversion and send them to a party with a much bigger tent.”  We as a party should be purging homosexuals and sending them to the Democratic Party?  Does that strike anyone else as wrong?

Now let’s take a look at the Republican Party platform… you know, the one that was adopted by the Republican National Committee last year and represents what Republicans nationwide believe: “We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”  And what was it that Ronald Reagan said?  Something like, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”

Clearly Sears’ idea of purging gays from the party fits neither with Reagan’s ideology, nor the GOP’s platform.  And that’s fine if it’s her personal opinion, but this woman represents the 1st District Republican Committee.  If that wasn’t bad enough, the Schoolcraft County GOP administrators posted that post on their blog–with no disclaimer of any kind.  A county GOP committee endorsing district executive board member advocating the idea of purging people from the party based on one issue?  That seems extreme, to put it lightly.

It also seems counterproductive to one of the stated purposes of the County Committee in its bylaws, which is to “benefit the general welfare of the Republicans of Schoolcraft County”.  In 2010, gays, lesbians, and bisexuals accounted for 3% of the vote, and 29% identified as supporting Republican Congressmen.  In 2012, they accounted for 5% of the vote, and 22% identified as voting for Romney.  The County Committee’s goal is to benefit the party, yet they support “purging” a group of voters So we should purge a group that adds 1% of the vote to the GOP column?  And while 1% doesn’t sound like a lot, why would you willingly ostracize a group of people who are trying to help you?

It is one thing to defend traditional marriage–something that remains a part of the party’s platform.  It is an entirely different thing to call for “purging” gays from the party because they are a “perversion” in the minds of some.  Ms. Sears seems to have ignored the party platform clause that calls for “respect and dignity.”  Traditional values can be defended in a respectful and dignified way.

We as a party cannot afford to lose any voters, and I welcome any gay, lesbian, or bisexual voter who agrees with even 51% of the party platform (for that matter, I welcome anyone who is willing to vote for Republicans more often than Democrats).  And to any gays, lesbians, or bisexuals reading this, let me tell you that Ms. Sears and the Schoolcraft County GOP do does not speak for the Republican Party that I believe in and defend.  And that is why I believe it is so important to write what I am writing today.  The members of the GOP who are embarrassed and offended by the hatred coming from some in our party need to stand up for what is right and defend what is actually in the party platform–respect and dignity.

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican

UPDATE: When I wrote my original post, the SCRP’s blog had the header, “Published March 31, 2013 | By SCRP“. Since then, I have talked to the chairman of the SCRP who has informed me that while the post was posted by “SCRP” (they should probably create a “Guest” account to post unofficial blog posts), they post opinion pieces from many people, and blog posts do not represent the SCRP.  I have since edited this post by striking out anything that has been revealed to be inaccurate.  I still think the original post should have been taken down by the SCRP, as it blatantly violates the party platform, but the SCRP has put a disclaimer up and posted a copy of this blog post.