Saturday, January 5, 2013


Fiscal Cliff Tax Hike to Hit $30,000 Worker Harder Than $500,000 Earner



Last week, President Barack Obama said that under his fiscal cliff deal “more than 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses will not see their income taxes go up.”

But according to new figures from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, that’s not so—by a long shot. 
In fact, the income taxes of 70% of Americans will rise. Middle-class workers making between $30,000 and $200,000 will pay up to $1,784 more, a larger percentage increase than for those earning between $200,000 and $500,000.

Tax Policy Center co-director William G. Gale explains:
Under the agreement, taxes will go up in 2013 relative to 2012 - not only on high-income households, as widely discussed, but also on every working man and woman in the country, via the end of the payroll tax cut. For most households, the payroll tax takes a far bigger bite than the income tax does.
Throughout the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, Mr. Obama promised to cut taxes for middle class voters. But the Tax Policy Center says the average American’s tax bill, regardless of income, will climb $1,257.

The President says he has more tax hikes in store beyond the fiscal cliff bill’s rate raises. Just prior to the passage of the fiscal cliff bill, Mr. Obama promised he would raise taxes on upper income earners again at a later date: “The deal we are about to strike will raise taxes on the rich. But, the fiscal imbalances we face remain unsatisfactorily large. So, I will ask for more tax increases on the rich later.”

According to Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), Obama’s fiscal cliff rate hike on the rich will cover just eight days of federal spending.

Abraham Lincoln, The Treasonous Tyrant: Judge Napolitano

Via Cousin John


Via Cousin John

What’s More Important: the 2nd Amendment or Sacred Honor?



With all of the attention concerning gun control legislation, now is a good time to consider some of the following points:

1. What good is an AR-15 if you are not willing to use it to defend the second amendment as your duty requires?

If you are willing to turn in your AR-15 (or any other firearm that may be outlawed) to comply with the law, I have to ask why did you buy it initially? You obviously have no intention of defending the Constitution, the country or our founding principles. I suggest that you sell it now to someone who has Sacred honor since the following applies to you:

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
– Samuel Adams

2. Why would you register your AR-15  (or any other firearm that may become regulated) to comply with the law?

Assuming that gun control legislation passes and AR-15′s must be registered, why would you comply with an unConstitutional law?

3. What will you do if law enforcement comes to seize an illegal firearm from you?
After you stop pounding your chest and say “I’ll never give up my firearms”, apply some critical thinking skills. Preparing for this situation will allow you to hide or cache your supposedly “illegal” weapons beforehand. Is a firefight and possibly your life worth the confiscation of your firearms? In some situations, it is better to lose a battle and win the war. Living to fight tyranny another day is not cowardly or dishonorable.

4. What will you do to defend yourself against tyranny?
This is the crux of the matter and it is not only applicable to gun control legislation: it is a definition of all law. I recommend everyone read Bastiat’s “The Law” in its entirety but here is a good start:

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

If you understand what the law really is, you have the right (and duty) to fight for your defense, Liberty and property as a natural right from God. Conversely, let’s look at what the government is trying to do. Existing and new firearm legislation is meant to minimize your ability to defend yourself from the government. Once you are defenseless, history has shown that Liberty is replaced by oppression (at a minimum) and personal property is confiscated. After all the indeterminate “fair share” means the confiscation of the fruits of your labor without qualification.

Our government in Washington passes legislation that does not protect us from criminals but makes us criminals. It is illegal to buy an incandescent light bulb according to federal law but Congress (which originated this law) refuses to fund its enforcement. This allows us to buy incandescent bulbs even though they are not legal. Is this a test to see how the people will react to frivolous laws? Toilets must be the proper size, illegal health care legislation is upheld as a tax and the Senate instead of the House now originates bills for raising Revenue which violates the Constitution:

Article I, Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

At some point, we must understand that our federal government is no longer a representative republic operating under the rule of law. The rule of man now reigns supreme in Washington and men of good conscience must decide their fate: Liberty or Tyranny. Gun control legislation may be the line in the stone which forces us to confront reality. Give up or register my AR-15? This really means give up my Liberty and probably my life.

So what is more important: the 2nd amendment or Sacred honor? Both are important but in the case of gun control legislation, there is no difference between them.

--David DeGerolamo


I wholeheartedly agree with Bastiat, one of my heroes. A few more from him:

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”

“See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.”

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

The Law is read in the seventh grade in the Robinson Homeschool Self- Teaching Curriculum.

Georgia Mom Guns Down Intruder, Saves Children

Via Carl



A Georgia mother gunned down an intruder who broke into her home as her children hid in a crawlspace.

The 37-year-old woman initially thought the person knocking at her door was a solicitor. But when the man repeatedly rang the doorbell, she called her husband. He told her to gather the children and hide while he called 911.

By that time, the man had already forced his way into the three-story house in the town of Loganville.
Authorities told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the man was working his way through the home when he came upon the closet where the woman and her 9-year-old twins were hiding.

“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the AJC.

“She fired all six shots,” the sheriff told television station WAGA.  Five of the bullets hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.

“The guy’s face down, crying,” the sheriff told the newspaper.

The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again.

Slater, who has a long rap sheet, survived. He’s listed in critical condition.

The woman’s husband told WSB-TV that his wife is a hero.

“She protected the kids,” he told television station. “She did what she was supposed to do.”

The sheriff agreed.

“That mother’s instinct kicked in,” Chapman told the newspaper. “You go after a mother’s kids and she’ll find herself capable of doing things she never thought she was capable of.”

Residents across North Georgia are praising the unidentified woman’s actions.

“God bless this woman,” one reader wrote on WAGA’s website. “She had the strength and courage to stand and protect her children and herself.”

“That is what I call gun control,” another reader wrote. “Good job, lady. You are brave.”

The New Soviet Asylum "You will take this pill, comrade."

Today I’m going to explain why gun-control is not only entirely reasonable but also certain to be effective. Only the ignorant can deny this.

First, some orientation.  Cement-headed NRA types need to recognize, and state manfully, that the illegalization of guns is in fact perfectly practical. History has shown this repeatedly. When the government outlaws something that huge numbers of people very much want, the outlawed items immediately disappear from society. This has been shown countless times.

When Washington outlawed alcohol, booze vanished overnight and everyone stopped drinking. Can anyone deny this? When Washington banned the use of cannabis, all of those of us made insane by Reefer Madness quit smoking dope, and today there is probably not a town in America in which one might buy a joint. Similarly, Washington made illegal the downloading of copyrighted music—which also stopped immediately. No one now has illegal music. Ask your adolescent daughter.

So with guns.  They are small, easily smuggled, of high value to criminals and will be of higher value when only criminals have them, so it is virtually certain that they will vanish when the government says so.

Mexico, where I live, has stringent laws against guns, which have proved at least a partial success. Criminals have AKs, RPGs, and grenades, while nobody else has anything. That’s a partial success, isn’t it?

While I am in favor of illegalizing guns and thus ending crime, I think the principle should be democratically applied. Let us begin by disarming the Pentagon. If this seems unreasonable, ask yourself: who kills more children in a month, Ritalin-addled little boys in America, or the US Air Force in every Moslem country it has heard of? All I ask is an honest body count. I will accept your numbers.

Rampant INjustice

Via Bill

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

Via hefferman1

Must be in a different world.

"Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper. "

"No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit. "

"we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance."

More @ NYT

Firstest with the mostest and more

Via Teresa

Guns and Drugs: We Can Curb Gun Violence by Ending the War on Drugs

Via Tino


When a hail of bullets extinguished dozens of lives at an elementary school last month, the ugly consequences of the nation’s gun culture shot into the media spotlight. The debate around gun control in the aftermath of Newtown has yielded confused policy proposals like further militarizing schools, or preemptively tracking mentally ill people.

But a key aspect of the gun-control debate remains hiding in plain sight. There's a major driver of gun violence in the U.S. that is neither the bloodlust of the “criminally insane” nor the weakness of public security forces. Failed gun policy is a manifestation of another, arguably more expansive, irrational policy regime: the War on Drugs.  While the most spectacular incidents of mass murder spark public panic, a more relevant, yet typically ignored, source of gun violence lies in the brutality born of the gun industry’s marriage to drug prohibition policies.

Cruz Joins Senate, Moves to Repeal Obamacare


Tea Party favorite and newly-elected Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) took his oath of office today – and immediately moved to take on President Obama’s chief legislative accomplishment, Obamacare. Cruz is the first Hispanic to serve as a Texas Senator. His first bill, Cruz said, would move to strike “every syllable of every word” of Obamacare. With the retirement of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and the increasing battle between Tea Party conservatives and Republican Party establishment types, Cruz is set to become a leader early in his tenure – and grassroots conservatives are already rallying to his cause.

Cruz, 42, is slated to appear on Fox News Sunday. He is a Harvard Law graduate, the first Hispanic to clerk for a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (William Rehnquist), and a former Department of Justice lawyer. His rise has been so swift that he is already vice-chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Hamilton man arrested in plot with 'cannibal cop'

Via Tino

 A township man has been accused of arranging for New York’s alleged “cannibal cop” to kidnap a woman, stuff her into a suitcase and deliver her to the Hamilton resident so he could rape and kill her.
Michael Vanhise, 23, was arrested yesterday by FBI agents, who said he negotiated the woman’s abduction in a series of e-mails with Gilberto Valle, 28, a New York City police officer who was arrested in October on charges of conspiracy to commit kidnapping. 

“Michael Vanhise engaged in conduct that reads like a script for a bad horror film, but fortunately, neither he nor his co-conspirators were able to act out the twisted conspiracies described in the complaint in real-life,” Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said. “His arrest ... is the second in this bone-chilling case, but we are not finished.”

Valle was accused of plotting to kidnap, torture, “slow cook” and eat women he tracked down, partly through alleged illegal use of law enforcement databases. 

More @ NJ

Obama broke a promise? I'm shocked.......

I'm so surprised........

After President Obama wrapped her in a well-publicized embrace, Donna Vanzant became the face of a promise of “immediate” assistance from the federal government in the days after superstorm Sandy devastated the East Coast.
“You promise something, you keep it. And that was a broken promise."
- Donna Vanzant
But as Vanzant battled with her insurance company for the funds to rebuild her Jersey Shore marina, she had another brush with the commander-in-chief that left her feeling less confident in Washington's efforts. After sending an email to the White House asking for the federal government to make good on its promise to help, Vanzant received a form letter that never answered her questions.
“It had nothing to do with what I was asking him. It was a form letter. It thanked me for supporting the troops,” Vanzant said in an interview The Philly Post blog on Friday. “He made a promise to rebuild on national television, and I can’t even get this money. It’s heartbreaking, really.”

More @ Fox

Journal News gun permit map endangers officers, officials say

Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco speaks during a

Criticism of The Journal News, which published a gun permit database last month, broadened Friday with Rockland law enforcement officials saying the map listing the names and addresses of those with gun permits is endangering lives.

Inmates at the Rockland County jail are taunting corrections officers by saying they know the guards' home addresses -- information they got from the list published by Westchester-based newspaper, Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco said.

"Since about 9:30 this morning, I've been in a meeting with my corrections officers and their unions. They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said at a news conference Friday morning in New City, where local leaders condemned the list.

Falco, along with other supporting police chiefs and county legislators, wants the paper to remove the information from its website.

"It's hurting law enforcement as a whole and it's directly affecting our ability to do our jobs," Falco said. "And then when we leave our jobs, we're going to have to defend our jobs and that's going to make for a very serious incident that's going to happen someplace in this county."

More @  Newsday

Author describes U-Boat menace from German perspective

Via Cousin Colby

The ‘SS Byron T. Benson' burns after it was attacked by U-552, commanded by Erich Topp. It sank off Cape Hatteras on April 7, 1942. 

The coast of North Carolina was as much a battleground during World War II as any other region on earth. Seventy Allied ships of all types went down because of U-Boat attacks off the coasts of North and South Carolina beginning in 1941. The operations off North Carolina were as dangerous to the Germans as they were to the Americans, according to several submarine commanders interviewed over the years. Examples are below.

Peter Erich Cremer commanded U-333, earning the Knight's Cross. He personally considered the waters off the North Carolina Coast the most dangerous to work in. “The target rich environment was alluring, yet the very shallow waters, tidal variances and strong currents also created a danger for the U-Boats.”

One of Cremer's kills was the unescorted British freighter Clan Skene, which was hit by two torpedoes at 09:05 a.m. May 10, 1942, and sank 300 miles southeast of Cape Hatteras. The U-Boat had already been badly damaged by depth charges three days earlier and was limping back to France. Cremer wrote in his report: “… that the sinking of this ship was like .. a balm after these terrible depth charges.”

According to Cremer: “The shallow waters and strong current made escape difficult. Every victory was an invitation to be sunk right afterward.” Nine crew members from the Clan Skene were lost. The ship's captain and 72 survivors were picked up by USS McKean (APD 5) and taken at San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Oak Leaves recipient Georg Lassen of U-160 sank the City of New York off of Hatteras at 7:36 p.m. March 29, 1942, attacking in 20-foot seas, with great loss of life in foul weather. When interviewed, he stated: “I could not believe how many ships were around. We never had enough torpedoes.”

Oconee sheriff boycotts gun dealer over gun ban to public

Via Tino



Oconee County Sheriff Scott Berry has decided not to buy weapons for his department from a company that won’t sell self-loading and semi-automatic weapons to the public — a move that has been met with significant support, he said Friday.

Recently, Berry sent an e-mail to Dana Safety Supply in Sugar Hill telling the company that because he understood it had stopped selling self-loading rifles to the general public, he would no longer seek bids or purchase items from the business.

Emails of support have poured in to his office, according to the sheriff. “I’m well over 400 (emails). I can’t even answer them, and the phone calls from across the country,” Berry said Friday.
The sheriff’s office has purchased guns from Dana Supply in the past, he said.

“They made a decision not to sell semi-automatic rifles to law-abiding citizens, so I made a decision that we wouldn’t ever buy anything from Dana Safety Supply,” he said.

Dana “won’t go broke because I don’t spend any money there,” Berry added. “I won’t have any impact on their firearm sales. That’s not the point. The point is there is an overreaction to a national event and there’s no good reason for law-abiding citizens not to be able to buy or possess a semi-automatic rifle.”

Last month, 27 people, including 20 children in an elementary school, were gunned down in Newtown, Conn. by a lone gunman.

A company representative could not be reached Friday, but the Associated Press quoted a representative saying that “Dana Safety remains dedicated to selling firearms responsibly.”
Berry said he hasn’t seen much of a backlash from his decision. “I’ve gotten two negative emails out of the 400,” he said.

Besides emails to the sheriff, some websites that oppose gun control have signaled their support.
“Kudos to Sheriff Berry for standing up for the civilian right to bear arms,” read one comment on the Guns Save Lives website.

Comment on Are You Willing To Die To Take My Guns?


The following Oath at the end of this letter is taken by every US Army Service member upon entering the United States Army. Notice it says “defend the Constitution of the United States”. It doesn’t require defense of anything except the Constitution. Since I am no longer active duty I have no Officers appointed over me and will make my own decisions on what is, or is not a Constitutional or lawful order and have placed a modified Oath with my name.

I actually read the Constitution, have studied the writings and documents of the Founders of America, and have a very good understanding of its content as it pertains to the restraints it places on Government. America is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and continued assaults against the document intended to restrain Government will be met with the same contempt and derision that our forefathers demonstrated against the King of England. Our elected officials in Washington are losing the consent of the Governed and are so detached from the reality of life in America that they don’t even know this truth; or maybe they do and don’t care. It is time they became aware that millions of Americans are not simply going to sit back and watch as the Ruling Elite in Washington determine our fate and perhaps the fate of the world with their bungling examples of over spending and over regulation against the free men and women of America.

The Obama victory has emboldened those on the left with the belief that their views have finally prevailed and America is ready to roll over. I know many of you read the letter to Senator Feinstein from the Marine and that sentiment is prevalent throughout most of the 50 States. I'm not sure how many the number is exactly who actually understand what Molon Labe really means and how many will actually practice what they preach but I and many friends will not submit. Though freedom may be restricted they can never take our spirit or our will, and those who built this Nation expected that spirit to remain true. I recently read an article asking if there is a Warrior Class that has grown up in America centered on military service and I would say was always there...

A hero is nothing more than a man or woman who had to make a tough choice in a tough situation. The hardest thing to do is move, and once that barrier has been crossed instinct kicks in. I believe that America is full of Heros and warriors and if the need comes they will step forward. The enemies of freedom are making themselves known to all who are willing to see. Who will the defenders of freedom be? My name signifies I will be one…MJ

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

My slightly modified version as a citizen of the United States of America

I, Michael A Johnston, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; So help me God.