Freedom is contingent upon [political] knowledge. Here is a 9 minute debated between Paul and Bernanke. Grab a cup and learn something.

From Zero Hedge:

Ron Paul To Ben Bernanke: "People Lose Trust In The Government Because You Lie To Them About Inflation"

Ben Bernanke Ben Bernanke Ron Paul
Anytime Ron Paul sits across from Ben Bernanke you know sparks will fly. Sure enough, they did: starting 3 mins 50 seconds into the clip below, Ron Paul, guns blazing, asks the Chairman if he does his own shopping, if he is aware of what true inflation is, and if he knows that Americans don't trust the government because they are being lied to about inflation. And it only gets better, once Paul starts brandishing a silver coin. The punchline: "The Fed will self-destruct anyway when the money is gone" - amen. And ironically letting the Fed keep on doing what it is doing will achieve that in the fastest possible way. In fact, letting the system cannibalize itself with no further hindrances may be the best option currently available - just go to town.

9 minutes of a normal person confronting Ben Bernanke,  the single more powerful
person in the US,  maybe the world,  in view of his control over the dollar bill 
without have to answer to anyone for his decisions as to the supply of money.  


This college babe is having sex nearly three times a day and wants us all to pay for her sexual excesses.

Reproductive Rights Activist Sandra Fluke
Note: before reading,  keep in mind that the current debate is not about contraception.  It is about the Federal Government determining religious beliefs,  after 240 years of separation of Church and State. (If she was my daughter,  I would hire a phys ed teacher so she could learn to function with her legs somewhat close together).

Sandra Fluke is a student at Georgetown Law. She’s also a “reproductive rights activist” who agrees wholeheartedly with the Obama administration’s controversial contraceptive mandate. Her reasoning, though, is likely to enrage some critics.
During a testimony in front of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on Monday (a meeting that was held by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi), Fluke — who was coincidentally the only witness heard — described the financial constraints that purchasing birth control puts on her peers.
“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke said, referring to the fact that the university doesn’t pay for contraception. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”
She detailed, among other stories, how one woman felt “embarrassed” and “powerless” at the pharmacy counter when she “learned for the first time” that contraceptives weren‘t covered by the university’s health care plan >>>>>>> read the full story and see her video testimony at Glenn Beck's The Blaze.  

In 2008, Obama said this: We are going to close GITMO and restore habeas corpus. Who knew that "Habeas Corpus" was the name of the new soccer field at GITMO

Do any of you "we will take whatever Obama dishes out" Democrats,  believe that he remains serious about closing GITMO when he approves of spending $750,000 for a new soccer field at that prison? 

Couple this nonsense with his continual apology to the very terrorists who are busy killing our soldiers as we speak,  and,  we have a huge election year issue.  

Obviously,  he cares more about the health of GITMO prisoners than he does for the health and well-being of our soldiers,  threatening to increase their monthly premiums and using this increase revenue bank to coddle the very men our soldiers have captured. 

The path to Democrat Party Process is to flee their governing body unless and until that body agrees to align itself with Democrat demands - regardless of voter opinion.

Apparently,  Democrats believe it is perfectly acceptable to flee a house of congress,  whether state or national,  when things do not go their way.  

Screw the results of a general election and  "screw the results of a general election" as a matter of Democrat Party Policy.  

They did it in Wisconsin,  refusing to honor the state's electoral processes,  fleeing to the nearby state of  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Illinois. 

Now,  the Democrats in Illinois are fleeing that state's capital.  No one is saying where these paid whiners are going,  but they are not going to do their job,  that is for certain.  We all know the hell that would be paid if the GOP did anything similar.  Hypocrites all. 

The only good thing about this is the fact that it is happening during an election year. If Illinois voters do not see this as call to restructure their state's political leadership,  there is no hope for that state;  they become "California" and are doomed as an economy  - as is California (my home state, btw).  

Point of post: it is past time to realize just how much an obstructionist party is the Democrat Party under the Obama Regime.  This is an election year.  Let's all do something about "it."  Look,  if we can't agree that a general election vote is final and defines the rules for party politics,  we are all sooooooo  screwed,  whether Democrat or Republican.  

Conservatives are winning: Olympia Snowe (R-Ma) will not seek re-election as GOP Senator. Here is why this is a good thing.

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe to retire in blow to GOP  —  Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe will not seek reelection in 2012, she announced Tuesday.  —  Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) on Dec. 17, 2011, after leaving the floor of the Senate.  (J. Scott Applewhite - AP) . . . . . 

Chart created by FiveThirtyEight at the NY Times. Click
on image to enlarge.
Editor's note:  not a "blow" at all.  Understand that an important aspect of TEA Party purpose is to "take back the GOP."  While Olympia Snowe stood by the GOP in its opposition to the Stimulus and ObamaCare as it is currently structured,  she is not aligned with a conservative agenda that demands a return to Constitutional values in determining our legislative future.  If a proposed bill,  for example,  has value to the larger population but defies Constitutional principles,  Olympia is just as disposed to ignore the Constitution as are the Democrats.  

Personally,  I feel no animus  toward this Senator.  Olympia simply disagrees with the notion that the founding documents need to play an increasing role in the legislative agenda of Congress.  That is her choice.  But she no longer fits into the scheme of things as defined the by present-day politics of the Right.  

Understand that the GOP is a very compromised party,  allowing the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Bloomberg,  Arlen Specter,  Senator Dick Lugar, Olympia Snowe,  her Maine senatorial partner,  Susan Collins,  Collin Powell,  and the very unpopular John McCain to continue in the party until they see fit to move on.   

The chart, above,  shows a steady progression toward conservative values and away from liberal,  big government intent within the House of Representative.    Of course,  those who created the chart are,  themselves, big government liberals,  but,  nevertheless,  the conservative trend is real and,  even,  substantial.  

It is my belief that "we" should not fear the offering of choice.  While GOP Establishment types (those who work for the status quo) seem to fear the creation of a political agenda that offers a fundamental choice to that of the Democrats,  conservatives say,  "Bring it on."    With the departure of Olympia Snowe,  the conservative positioning is strengthened,  not diminished.  Can a true conservative win election in Maine?  Probably not, at least not now,   but how on earth will we ever know if we continue to refuse to offer Maine voters a choice?  And if Maine voters are so far "gone" that the Constitution is no longer important to them,  who really cares?    

Snowe is not leaving politics.  She is leaving the GOP and may be aligning herself with a group in the "no labels" movement called Americans Elect.

Here is the Senator's announcement:  

As I enter a new chapter, I see a vital need for the political center in order for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us. It is time for change in the way we govern, and I believe there are unique opportunities to build support for that change from outside the United States Senate. I intend to help give voice to my fellow citizens who believe, as I do, that we must return to an era of civility in government driven by a common purpose to fulfill the promise that is unique to America.

The highlighted portions of her statement make it clear that Senator Snowe is looking for a political alternative that is neither "Democrat" nor "Republican."  The frustrating aspect of her decision is found in the fact that she is not looking to continue Constitutional concerns,  per se.  As much as we complain about the court system,  it is the only thing that prevents the Left from simply walking away from the founding documents and our national historicity,  and creating an America that has little to do with its foundational base.  In Snowe's statement, above,  she speaks of  a "time for change in the way we govern"  rather than announcing a call to agreement as to the place and purpose of the Constitution. 

Political angst has, indeed,  increased and no one enjoys that fact.  But, this growing antagonism is  because Leftist concerns and blatant Marxists have decided to take this country down a different path, do it now,  do so whether the people agree or not . . . . . and,  it appears, that the people "do not."   

The causes of the current fuel crisis (at the pump) is not fuel !!! A rogue presidency is the issue.

It is officially called The Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  It was created after the oil embargo of 1973.  Currently,  there is 695 million barrels of crude (sweet and sour) in storage,  the largest reserve in the world.  At current usage levels,  this equates to 33 days of supply if used solely as our fuel source.  Of course,  that is not how the storage would be expended.  

If we used the supply to augment current purchases in an effort to stabilize prices,  the Reserve could last as long as six months.  

Problem:  such is a temporary fix,  of course.  Oil purchased into the reserve was priced at under $60 per barrel.    Obviously,  replacement costs,  something that investors will be considering,  could be double that price.  

Secondly,  no one knows the full effect of releasing this fuel into the market place.  

To this Okie editor,  it seems like we are selling house furniture to pay the mortgage.  What happens when we run out of furniture?  Unlike 1973,  we actually have plenty of fuel supply.  The price of oil is determined, in part, on the futures market.  Investors have much to do with current pricing as other influences . . . . . . . and they are not all "American."  If they think oil will sell at a higher price six months from now,  they will make purchases today, setting in stone those prices,  as a hedge against higher prices, "tomorrow."   Understand that retirement funds are tied to investment strategies.  It is how most who have 401K's increase the value of their investment.  

A second influence that is driving the price of crude,  is the health of the dollar bill.  For the most part, all commodities, world wide,  are traded with the dollar bill and the United States controls the supply of the dollar bill.    If we print "extra" dollars in an effort to stabilize domestic interest rates (which we are doing),  that very process diminishes the value of the dollar bill and,  as a consequence,  the price per barrel has to increase --  in fact,  the cost of all dollar-traded commodities increase.

As I see it,  me being a layman analyst, this last consideration is that which provides the greatest complication to our current problem.  

Investor's are betting on the Obama Administration and its mindless energy "policy."  Understand that while the Administration is bragging about how much fuel is being produced - as if they were pro-oil - it fails to point to the fact that oil production on Federal lands is down,  and production on private and state owned lands take more than 4 years to "permit."   Think about it,  the production Obama is bragging about is the result of permitting processes begun under the Bush Administration. 

Can anyone say, "Thank God for Bush?" 

Point of post:  as long as the United States trudges along without a comprehensive energy policy,  we will have to deal with the whims of the marketplace.  Free market capitalism demands that when investments are poorly structured,  they be allowed to fail.  The current national economic crisis is not the fault of the free market.  Rather, the very opposite is true.  Barack Obama and the Democrat leadership have all pronounced their displeasure with free-market capitalism, but,  offer no viable alternative to capitalism except government sponsored bailouts, "investments,"  and the manipulation of the monetary supply.  

Startling, isn't it?  The current fuel crisis is not the cause of fuel, at all,  but the idiocy of a presidency that is rogue, out of control,  and bent on taking us away from those principles that made this country great.  The following is the problem:  

MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."  (May of 2008) 

Did you know that Santorum was leading Romney until he asked Democrat Union workers to vote against Romney? Serves him righteous.

Did you know that two weeks ago,  Santorum was 20 points "up" on Romney?   Understand that only losers brag about coming in second.
Update:  Romney had better showings in both Arizona and Michigan than he did in 2008.

Tuesday Primaries: Romney Wins Big in Arizona and by 4 pts in Michigan. He won the Catholic vote in both states.

Blog owner, ex-pastor, 35 year
carpenter, and determined conservative
LIVE THREAD - excuse typos and errors.  I will correct them later - jds.

Michigan:  Romney up 42 to 38 over Santorum with 81% of precincts counted
Michigan is a county by county election process - two delegates per county.  Delegates are not awarded on the basis of the general and popular vote. Santorum will pick up a surprising number of delegates out of Michigan.  

Arizona was called for Romney within one minute of the closings of its voting booths. . . Romney 48% to 25% winner takes all  -- with 70% of precincts reporting. 

A total of 59 delegate votes will be awarded as a result of the Arizona and Michigan primaries.

With all the talk of Santorum and the Democrat vote in Michigan,  just under 10% the primary vote will be "Democrat" and only half that total is voting for Santorum.

53% of Michigan Republicans oppose the auto bailouts.

Michigan as a state,  has not voted "Republican" in the presidential election since 1988.

Exit polling:   developing.

4.56 pst  Just some commentary:
Coverage has not started yet,  but,  I was thinking,  if this alliance between Santorum and the Socialist Democrats does not work,  what then?  I think,  I hope,  this business works against the man.  I do not believe  Democrats voting for Santorum are Reagan Blue Collar voters within the Democrat party  -  those people "crossed over" about the same time I did,  back in the days of Reagan.  All modern day Democrats are big government types,  all of them.  Some of them are Marxist as is the case with  the leadership of the national Democrat party and these are the ones I rail against day after day.    Democrats voting for Santorum,  today,  are not who he thinks they are.  If his instincts prove to be "bad" in Michigan,  what of his national strategy.

Already,  Santorum want this election season to be about the revival of conservative/religious social values,  the very things that no one has been thinking about over the past three years.  While Obama has campaign strategies for the other GOP representatives,  most of the strategies are well known and not impactive (comparatively speaking), for that very reason.

But with Santorum,  we will be arguing about "new" issues. With "newness" comes  heightened voters interest with the greater benefit going to the Democrat,  in view of the lack of enthusiasm now being felt.  I think this is just the dumbest of campaign strategies. I will support him,  regardless,  but I will be very angry should we lose the election because of Santorum.

My young adult children often take on tasks that look impossible.  As a father,  I keep my big mouth shut as to what I think they can do.  An,  wouldn't you know it, more often than not,  they get it done when I was secretly convinced they couldn't.  Maybe Santorum will pull it off.  If he does,  hero status awaits him  . . . . . . . . . . and an apology from me.

Exit polling

Michigan  -  so far a 40/40 split between Romney and Tricky Ricky.

57% of folks in Michigan prefer a man with business experience;  30% prefer government experience.

Quote of the Week: Santorum as he opposes Democrat involvement in Republican primaries - just four weeks ago !!!

"We want the activists of the party, the people who make up the backbone of the Republican Party to have a say in who our nominee is as opposed to a bunch of people who don't even identify themselves as Republicans picking our nominee,   I don't like that.   I believe that states should only allow Republicans to vote in Republican primaries."

Rick Santorum, Jan 29, 2012. 

Source: CNN ticker on Twitter

The most extreme Gallup poll ever - 72% of America believes ObamaCare mandate is unConstitutional.

Obama has spent years trying to dress up the legislative pig we know as ObamaCare.  It was hatched in the back rooms of congress over the opposition of the majority of the American people.  If fact,  it has never polled in the "positive" since its corrupt conception.    If there is a direct relationship between the information found in this Gallup survey and election year motivation,  Obama is facing a disaster in November.  Think about this:  most understand the midterms (2010) were a collective first response of the electorate to this legislative fiat.  But "we," the people,  all know who is to blame,  and 2012 is the year we get to tell him,  personally,  what we think of his legislative agenda and dictatorial methodology - - blog editor.
From Gallup:
Americans Do Not Think Individual Mandate Passes Legal Muster
The Supreme Court next month will hear legal challenges to the healthcare law, which are focused on the law's requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fine. Americans overwhelmingly believe the "individual mandate," as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20%.
Even a majority of Democrats, and a majority of those who think the healthcare law is a good thing, believe that provision is unconstitutional.
As you may know, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month concerning a requirement in the healthcare law that every American must buy health insurance or pay a fine. Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the law, do you think this requirement is constitutional or unconstitutional? Among all Americans, by party ID, and by view of healthcare law, February 2012

TEA Party, allies of Olbermann?

New partners with Rick Santorum include all of Al Gore's Current TV,  Keith Olbermann,  Markos Maulitsas  (founder of the Marxist Daily Kos),  the fat Michael Moore and friends, and the socialist functioning UAW.
Wait for the video to load - it is slow. 

Santorum defends his strategy,  believing,  I suppose,  that Democrats are actually voting for him,  rather than voting against Romney.  Limbaugh does not agree with me -  but,  hey,  we are to pride ourselves in not being "mind numbed robots," right?  Well,  this is me finally disagreeing with the King of the Conservative Movement.  Understand this:  Santorum is not doing what Limbaugh thinks he is doing.  The ex-Senator actually thinks he is developing a cross-over voting base and I believe that such an opinion is of a fool's mindset.  


My Blog Ranking: What sounds terrible is really a good thing.

Global 7,559,095  --  Our best ranking on Alex. Yes,  I am excited about being the 7.55
millionth  most visited blog on the Google internet browser. That translates into 35,000 
views per month.  Understand that there are 280 million blogs in the American Google.  
This puts me in the top 2.7% of all Google blogs.  If you roll in Meet Sarah Palin and 
the Charts and Graph blogs, my monthly readership rises to 44,000.  I come in under
the 2% mark.  For an educated Okie and retired carpenter of 35 years, well,  I don't 
know what to say except "Eeeh haaa!"   

You should have this book -- if you are a Constitutionalist Patriot, that is.

You can shop around and find this book for 10 to 12 dollars.  Here is what the author,  Steven Hayward,  has to say about the constitution and our progression away from Constitutional values.  

True, the Constitution gets a brief mention now and then. But it is amazing that there’s been virtually no serious question asked of the candidates about their extended views of, for example, the Commerce Clause of Article I, and whether they think Obamacare is compatible with it. It would provide an occasion for each candidate to anchor their limited government views in our charter of limited government, and remind the American people of the fundamental principles of that document. Ron Paul seemingly does the best job overall, referencing a strict view of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8, but he doesn’t really offer a fully developed constitutional philosophy.
This contrasts sharply with previous presidents and successful presidential campaigns, which often signaled important changes in direction in our understanding of the Constitution by making sustained arguments about its meaning. In modern times, Franklin Roosevelt made an extensive argument, on the eve of the 1932 election, about why the Constitution needed to be understood in new ways amidst the crisis of the Great Depression, and then again in his infamous “court packing” crusade in his second term. A few years before FDR, Calvin Coolidge, who was not the “Silent Cal” of historical repute, argued vigorously against the Progressive Era idea that’s come to be known as the “living Constitution.” And the most prominent champion of that idea was Woodrow Wilson, who enjoys the dubious reputation of being the first president to criticize the Constitution openly.
With only a few exceptions (Ronald Reagan was one), for some reason in recent decades presidential candidates have grown increasingly illiterate about the Constitution, supinely surrendering to the view that constitutional interpretation is a matter relegated to the Supreme Court. Presidents and candidates for the office throughout the whole of the 19th century took seriously not merely their duty to the Constitution, as spelled out in their oath of office “to preserve, protect, and defend” it, but their indispensable role as teachers of the American people. Most inaugural addresses of 19th-century presidents devoted half their length to discussing the Constitution and our obligations to uphold it. Today it typically receives a brief and almost ceremonial mention in most inaugural addresses.
Both liberal and conservative candidates do themselves and the American people a disservice in reinforcing the idea of judicial supremacy — the idea that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, rather than belonging to all three coequal branches of government and, ultimately, to the people. Maybe we shouldn't blame the candidates alone for this strange gap in our modern practices. The media doesn’t reflect much on the Constitution beyond self-interested particulars of the First Amendment. And most of the leading textbooks about the presidency contain little or no discussion of the constitutional context of the office, instead treating the president as just a grander variation of a corporate CEO. This is why my “Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Presidents” assigns letter grades on modern presidents’ “constitutional quotient” rather than judging them on their whole record, which often depends on circumstances.

Read more:

Conservative dress can look sexy: Diane Kruger is proof of that .

Diane Kruger at the Oscars. On second thought, if
that is her red bra,  maybe the dress is not all that

Santorum decides that democrat socialist union workers make for good bed-fellows.

While Rush is defending Santorum's claim that he is only bringing "Reagan Democrats" into the campaign,  William Jackson,  Cornell Law School professor,  dedicated conservative patriot and editor of Le-gal In-sur-rec-tion has this to say about Santorum's strategy:  

Rick Santorum is running robocalls in Michigan urging Democrats to vote in the Republican primary for Santorum and against Romney because … wait for it … Romney opposed Obama’s auto industry bailout but supported the Wall Street bailout.
Got it? The great conservative hope is attacking a Republican for not supporting the auto industry bailout, and is encouraging pro-bailout Democrats to help put him over the top in the Republican primary.
Where is all the outrage from conservative supporters of Santorum, who lashed out at Newt for criticizing Bain?
Instead, almost everyone is focused on Romney’s whining about the robocalls, which is ridiculous considering Romney’s underhanded tactics against Newt.
This is not an attempt to attract Reagan Democrats, it’s an attempt to attract Obama-Big Labor Democrats who never will vote for a Republican in the general election.  >>>>>Read more here.

TEA Party !! Is this what you want - an alliance between big government Socialist union workers and tricky Ricky Santorum? I don't.

Call me crazy,  but this TEA Party patriot does not want a GOP representative who will ally himself with Big Government Democrat/Socialists to defeat one of his GOP opponents.   

Understand that the Left wants Santorum as the GOP candidate.  With Rick as the GOP offering,  Democrats will be able to run a campaign based on their world view of moral issues versus Santorum's.  With Santorum in place,  the fight will be about Rick as much as it will be about Obama . . . . . . . . . . .  if not more so,  

In the face of this reality,  Santorum has decided to partner with big government union workers in Michigan,  inviting them to vote in the Michigan open primary,  helping him to defeat Romney.  

Santorum stupidly defends this moves,  expressing the belief that he is forming an election season alliance that will [also] help him beat Obama.  Anyone,  absolutely anyone,  who believes that Santorum is not crafting his own general election victory in this alliance,  is simply not paying any attention to what is going on within Democrat voters. 

What has me most upset,  is the fact that Michigan TEA party folks are supporting this "small government, principled" phony.

On Principle - Santorum is a Phony.
In the most recent debate,  Santorum made it clear that,  on occasion,  he is fully capable of  voting against his principles as he "takes one for the team."  

On Big Government - Santorum is a Phony
In our research of this Pennsylvanian Loser, we found that he voted to double the size of the Department of Education,  voting to support one of the more godless/secular agencies in our governmental system,  voting to keep Big Government at the center of our children's education,  voting to ultimately support the godless educational agenda of the Far Left.

On Abortion - Santorum is a Phony
In defending his statements on contraception,  Santorum used his several votes in support of Title X as evidence that,  should he be elected,  he would not oppose contraception,  legally.  Turns out that his much touted support of Title X translated, also, into support for the continual funding of Planned Parenthood and its 325,000 abortions, annually.   

On the Auto Bailouts - Santorum is a Phony
Yesterday,  Santorum's Michigan  robo-calls sought to inflame the passions of unionized Democrat auto workers, making the point that Romney voted for TARP but not for the auto bailouts.  The fact that Santorum voted against the auto bailouts,  as well,  is apparently not important since he opposed TARP,  as well.  Idiot.  

Understand that all remaining GOP candidates are less than desirable,  but far better than the corruption and collectivism of the existing imperialist president. On point, however,  I find that Santorum is a more dangerous proponent of political compromise than any of the other candidates.  The time to stop this phony baloney, plastic banana,  clown is now.  

Sarah Palin details a viable energy policy - something that Obama has not done.

With just the stroke of a pen, President Obama could lead us in the direction of real energy security and reduce our oil imports threatened by Iran’s threats to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Here are just a few commonsense measures we can do right now, and most of them don’t require any new legislation or regulations:

Open Alaska to drilling. Billions and billions of barrels of U.S. crude (and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of clean natural gas) sit untapped up here in the far north, my friends. We have the TAPS pipeline and infrastructure; we invite the development! Open ANWR. Think of how much safer and secure we would be if we had done this decades ago.

Build the Keystone Pipeline. President Obama doesn’t understand we live in a land woven with untold miles of pipe to carry safe energy supplies to protect and prosper America. Common sense dictates we need another one now to secure our energy future. It is key. It is the Keystone. If we’re worried about instability in the Middle East, it makes no sense to shun safe and reliable oil from Canada. Obviously, China understands this, and we should too.

Drill for natural gas. Natural gas is the future. It’s clean, it’s green, and we’ve got lots of it. Whether we use it to power natural-gas cars or to run natural-gas power plants that charge electric cars – or ideally for both – natural gas can act as a clean “bridge fuel” to a future when more renewable sources are available.

There are many more steps we need in order to establish a true energy plan to secure our future. But these three steps, plus increased resource development in the Lower 48 and reversing President Obama’s nonsensical, knee-jerk, anti-American energy shut down of off-shore developments would create hundreds of thousands of jobs as millions of barrels of oil every single day would flow under American control, and lessen our dependence on the Persian Gulf.

It’s time our country had a real energy plan that includes a genuine all-of-the-above approach that doesn’t ignore conventional resource development. We need the jobs, we need the energy, and we need the security.

- Sarah Palin

Day 23 of the Hostage Crisis (Egypt) - no article.

Also,  it is day 23 of rising prices at the pump.  

40 Days for Life is underway and is bigger than Occupy is thought to be.

40 Days for Life in Greensboro, North Carolina

The 40 Days for Life campaign is firmly rooted on a foundation of prayer and fasting. To help maintain focus on the Lord and stay in tune with His guidance, we have prepared a series of daily devotionals — one for each of the 40 days of the spring 2012 campaign.

We fervently believe that prayer and fasting will end abortion, and your prayers are very much needed and appreciated. Please follow the links below to read and meditate upon these brief reflections.
Printable versions are available; please click the link at the bottom of each devotional.

Law professor sees the Ohio campus shootings as an opportunity to be funny.

A law professor (Calvin Johnson) out of the University of Texas,  making fun of the 2nd Amendment,  posted a comment to the effect that the shooting incident at the Ohio high school in the news,  was "another typical exercise in 2d Amendment rights . . "  

My first response has to do with the man's use of the word "typical."  Funny,  a college professor who has no clue as to the meaning and use of the word "typical."  Kind of makes you wonder if he knows how to pronounce "corp" as in Marine corpsman.   Obama,  another collegiate professor,  certainly did not know. Maybe academia is not as intelligent as it wants us all to believe.  

Don't like the 2nd Amendment?  Change it but don't try to legislate around it.  It is a part of the US Constitution.  The 2nd Amendment is not only the law,  it is a part of a larger narrative that is the foundation of all American law or move to England.  

By the way,  as far as gun use is concerned,  inner-city schools do not have these shootings.  Every wonder why?  Could it be that most of the student bodies are armed?  

Besides,  I heard that the young shooter at the Ohio school was considering being a law teacher.  

Here is the contact information for this clown.  Let him know who you feel.  I intend to do just that.  --  blog editor.  


Calvin Johnson CJohnson at 
Mon Feb 27 10:03:35 PST 2012

Another typical exercise of 2d Amendment rights today.

Calvin H. Johnson
Andrews & Kurth Centennial Professor of Law
The University of  Texas  School of Law
727 E. Dean Keeton (26th) St.
Austin, TX 78705
(512) 232-1306 (voice)
FAX: (512) 232-2399
Website with links to publications:
For an inventory of Shelf Project proposals see
For reviews, and chapters of Johnson, Righteous Anger at the Wicked States: The Meaning of the Founders Constitution (Cambridge University Press 2005) see

A Jolt to the Volt : A Commercial That Tells The Truth -

This YouTube post came from Thurber's Thoughts.  I had just watched the
this "commercial" on The Five (Fox News) and,  before I went looking for
this on the web,  I thought to go over to Thurber's Thoughts.  She does her

They are going to build the Keystone pipeline, anyway.

TransCanada Corp. to begin construction of Keystone pipeline

By Andrew Restuccia 02/27/12 11:59 AM ET
TransCanada Corp. said Monday it plans to begin building a major portion of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline despite the Obama administration's decision to reject a key permit for the project.
The company told the State Department in a letter Monday that it will begin construction of a section of the pipeline that runs from Cushing, Okla., to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The stand-alone portion of the project, which TransCanada dubbed the Gulf Coast Project, will cost $2.3 billion and will be completed in mid-to-late 2013, according to the company. The project must still receive other regulatory approvals.
Separately, TransCanada said it would reapply "in the near future" for a permit that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to cross from Alberta, Canada, into the United States.
The Oklahoma-to-Texas portion of the pipeline would carry crude oil pumped from land in the Midwest and surrounding areas to refineries in Texas. It would not carry Canadian oil sands. . . .  go to The Hill for the full article
Editor's notes:  after all the huffing and puffing by the Obama Administration,  TransCanada Corp (pronounced "core" for all you Democrat readers),  has determined that Obama is no longer a relevant political figure. They do not need to get approval to build on already approved right-of-way property.  The only permit required to complete a pipeline from Canada to the Gulf is one that takes the transcontinental pipeline across the Canadian/American border.   

Swing States will be his demise: If Obama loses the election, he has no one to blame but himself.

Swing State Map taken from the USA Today article
reviewed in this post

Swing states poll: Health care law hurts Obama in 2012  —  WASHINGTON - The health care overhaul that President Obama intended to be the signature achievement of his first term instead has become a significant problem in his bid for a second one, uniting Republicans in opposition and eroding his standing among independents. . . . 

The black colored states are the current crop of "swing states."  Obama's signature piece of legislation,  one that was crammed down the throats of us all, may be the very thing that brings down his Administration.  Time will tell,  but,  as of today,  even his press allies see a serious election-year problem developing. 

Some may have forgotten that the TEA Party movement is still hanging around,  bigger than ever,  with  more congressional power and another legislative series of victories just one election away.  The TEA party influence elected 86 new and allied congressmen to Washington D.C. but,  more than this,  TEA party "fanatics" took down more than 700 Democrat leaders,  nationwide,  in the 2010 elections.  

Libs should be afraid,  very afraid. 

Obama a big loser in today's Rasmussen election match up polling.

It is not going to get better for the Slickmeister after the GOP selects its candidate of choice.  

RASMUSSEN POLL: Obama Approval at 45%, Lowest in Month -- Falls Behind Romney, Paul...
Romney 45% Obama 43%...
Paul 43% Obama 41%
Obama 45% Santorum 43%
Obama 49% Gingrich 39%...

One dead, four wounded: Want to stop senseless high school shootings? Arm the student body. Here is the argument.

Did you know that no  high school mass murder scenes are located on inner-city campuses?  You can take it from there.  

Are radical black leaders hoping for an assassination attempt on Obama?

The Chicago Tribune presented the hate speech of Louis Farrakhan in an assembly of thousands of dissident blacks  

Farrakhan, the man who loves Obama

From the Tribune:

In a fiery lecture to thousands of followers of the Nation of Islam on Sunday in Chicago, Minister Louis Farrakhan warned that racial hatred could lead to attempts to assassinate President Barack Obama.
Farrakhan spent much of his oration decrying what he cast as Satan's influence over racist forces in politics and society before asking a pointed rhetorical question: "Do you think they're wicked enough to be plotting our brother's assassination as we speak?"
Farrakhan delivered his speech to an enthusiastic crowd of adherents packed loosely into the United Center for the Nation of Islam's annual observance of Saviours' Day, which celebrates the birth of the faith's founder, W. Fard Muhammad. This year's events marked the 82nd year of the religion's existence in North America. . . . . . 

Editor's notes:  here is my concern.  Since no one I know in the conservative camp is talking about violence against Obama,  what if Farrakhan and other black leaders,  men who have spoken out in their deeply felt disappointment of Obama,   are stoking the fires of violence in the hopes of winning the day for the Violent Black Agenda,  one which is detailed and supported by Farrakhan.  Listen to this March 19, 2011 tirade as Farrakhan accuses Obama of treason in the killing of Momar Kadafi.  

Farrahkan, the man who hates Obama

You heard the man.  Anyone think he is a supporter of Obama?  Anyone think that this man,  Farrahkan, is a man of peace?   Anyone think I have lost my mind or that there is not something else going on here?  Can anyone tell which Farrakhan we are need to pay attention to?