Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Katelyn Francis, a 13 year old damsel: FB3G 2012 Stage 1. Wow!

Via Traditions and Skills


Saving the world


Antenna and cell tower locator

Via Resistor In The Rockies

A Free Online Source using a searchable database of over 1.9 million cell phone tower and antenna locations from the fcc & the faa. It also includes google maps and detailed information such as the Ownership Details, Contact Information and more. Pinpoint Existing Towers, Future Towers and even small hidden antennas to determine cell phone coverage.

Two Thirds of Millionaires Go Missing in England to Avoid the 50% Tax Rate Hike

Roundabout via Ninety Miles



One might think that the United States would learn from what happened across the Pond. 
So President Barack Obama and the Left think that raising taxes n the so-called rich is the answer, eh? Take a good look what happened when the British PM raised taxes on millionaires. Two-thirds of millionaires either left the UK or reduced their taxable income in order to avoid the 50% take rate. The British naively thought they were going to increase revenues by merely increasing the tax rate on millionaires and doing simple math. However, instead of raising funds, it actually cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue.
Almost two-thirds of the country’s million-pound earners disappeared from Britain after the introduction of the 50p top rate of tax, figures have disclosed.
In the 2009-10 tax year, more than 16,000 people declared an annual income of more than £1 million to HM Revenue and Customs.
This number fell to just 6,000 after Gordon Brown introduced the new 50p top rate of income tax shortly before the last general election.
The figures have been seized upon by the Conservatives to claim that increasing the highest rate of tax actually led to a loss in revenues for the Government.
It is believed that rich Britons moved abroad or took steps to avoid paying the new levy by reducing their taxable incomes.
Think Barack Obama and Democrats could learn from this? Hell no, Obama and Democrats can’t even learn from the government overspending and entitlement program fiasco going on in Greece. Instead Obama continues his class warfare and puts forward the myth that taxing the so-called rich is the answer to all of America’s fiscal ills.

Obama’s Ineligibility Is Still The Elephant In The Room


There is an elephant in the room, and it is not the Republican Party. It is the failure of numerous U.S. citizens in positions of authority to properly vet the qualifications of Barack Hussein Obama and to share that knowledge with all U.S. citizens.

Since those in positions of authority have failed to do their duty, it is left to ordinary citizens to fill the void. Here is what this citizen has deduced from the available facts in making her own attempt to vet Barack Obama. First, I present my conclusion: In January 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. For nearly four years he has been the principle violator of its provisions.

How so?

He is the only person on earth who currently has to fulfill the Constitutional requirement stated in Article II, Section 1:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
This statement gives a very short list of the qualifications needed to hold the most powerful elected position in our nation, yet Barack Obama is unable to fulfill the first requirement: He is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Obama declares that his father was from Kenya, thus making him a dual British-U.S. citizen at birth. For over four years, Barack Obama has perpetrated a lie that he is legally eligible to campaign for, be elected to, and hold the office of President of the United States.
Why is Barack Obama ineligible to be President, and how did he still manage to be elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012? The following summary of facts compiled by Paul Hollrah, a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College, explains the matter. In his treatise “The Obama Eligibility Question,” Hollrah informs us that “the ‘natural born’ question rests principally on the necessity of both parents being U.S. citizens.” His conclusion is based on numerous statements related to the drafting of the Constitution’s citizenship requirement in Article II, Section 1 and its subsequent interpretation throughout U.S. history, including as recently as the McCain-Obama election.
First, “the Founders relied heavily on the work of Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel” who “in his 1758 legal treatise, The Law of Nations… defines the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as follows: ‘…The natives, or natural-born citizens are born in the country, of parents who are citizens…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children…’ (emphasis added).”
Second, “In 1866, John A. Bingham, chief framer of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to the freed slaves, wrote as follows: ‘Every human being born within the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty (emphasis added) is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.’”
Third, in the only defining precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) the Court concludes, “’At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.’”
Fourth, in 2008, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson (a conservative Republican) and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe (a liberal Democrat) were tasked with researching whether Senator John McCain (who was born in the Panama Canal Zone,) is a natural born citizen. “In a March 19, 2008 memorandum, Olson and Tribe concluded that, ‘Based on original meaning of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions, and subsequent legal and historical precedent, Sen. McCain’s birth, to parents who were U.S. citizens serving on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, makes him a ‘natural born Citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution.’”
Fifth, “…in an April 10, 2008 statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, ‘Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens. Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen (emphasis added).”
And finally, in April 20, 2008 a Senate resolution approved by a vote of 99-0 (Senator John McCain abstaining) declared: “’Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.’ Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) voted in favor of the resolution.”
Now that we know the meaning of “natural born citizen,” let’s get back to the question of Barack Obama’s citizenship at birth.

Tossing Susan Rice Under The Bus


Trying to make some sense of the Susan Rice fiasco is like trying to make some sense of how the most incompetent and the most corrupt presidential candidate in American history managed to get himself reelected. It probably can’t be done. But, just for the sake of argument, it might be interesting to engage in a bit of conjecture about how Susan Rice got picked to go under the bus.

First some background. On Sunday morning, September 16, five days after an Islamic terrorist group, Ansar al Sharia, attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Barack Obama sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to appear on all five Sunday morning network talk shows. Rushing from one broadcast studio to the next, Rice appeared on ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation, CNN’s State of the Union, Fox’s Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press, and all within a time span of just two hours.

The tale that Rice told at each stop was typical of what she stated on ABC’s This Week, where she said, “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo… In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated. We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to – or to the consulate, rather – to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons… And it then evolved from there.”

So the question arises… and persists… why was the U.N. Ambassador chosen to deliver such a whopper to the American people when, in fact, she had no connection to and no responsibility for the consulate in Benghazi?

The most logical pecking order of people who should have been called upon to answer for what happened at Benghazi is, in order of importance: Barack Obama, President and Commander in Chief; Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State; Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense; General James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence; Michael Morrell, Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor; and General David Petraeus, former Director of Central Intelligence.

As the principal architect and political beneficiary of the Benghazi fable, Barack Obama was not about to go on record as the bearer of what everyone would soon know was a false narrative. But because he had hopes of explaining away the Benghazi terror attack in a way that would not damage his “al-Qaeda-is-on-its-heels” narrative two months before the November election, he had to have a patsy to carry his tale to the American people who was not only credible, but also expendable. The one person who fit that description was U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. And who is the only person who could make that decision, and who is the only person who could tell her exactly what to do and what to say? Ambassador Rice is not in Hillary Clinton’s chain of command, so the order could have come from only one person: that would be Barack Obama.

Your federal tax dollars are being used to prepare for the zombie apocalypse

Via Bill

The above film clip is not a “behind the scenes” of the latest Dawn of the Dead straight-to-DVD ripoff. It is the actual footage of first responder seminar in San Diego, California. The Department of Homeland Security deemed the event an allowable expense, enabling participants to use federal grant funding to pay to go.

That’s according to “Safety at Any Price: Assessing the Impact of Homeland Security Spending in U.S. Cities” a report compiled by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who chairs the investigations subcommittee of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. The report focuses on grants made by the DHS and the Urban Areas Security Initiative. Coburn says the report shows that DHS was “directing scarce dollars to low-priority project and low-risk areas.”

Coburn found that, among other things, DHS was spending money on teaching first responders how to stop flesh-eating ghouls. The report said the event was held by the HALO Corporation “at the Paradise Point Resort & Spa on an island outside San Diego 9 (and) the 5-day summit was deemed an allowable expense by DHS, permitting first responders to use grant funds for the $1,000 entrance fee.”

Coburn’s report explained further:



Weapons Sent to Libyan Rebels With U.S. Approval Fell Into Islamist Hands

Via Don


The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September. 

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government. 

More @ NYT

Man who was subject of manhunt told undercover trooper about bunker, surveillance cameras

Via Tom

A Sharpsburg man charged last week with illegal possession of firearms is a "doomsday prepper" who told an undercover Maryland State Police trooper about an underground bunker and surveillance cameras on his property, according to a charging document filed in Washington County District Court.

Terry Allen Porter, 46, of 4433 Mills Road, Sharpsburg, was charged Friday with seven counts each of being a convicted felon in possession of a rifle or shotgun and possession of firearms after being convicted of a disqualifying offense, court records said.

Porter was the subject of a manhunt after his property was searched Thursday. He turned himself in Friday morning and was briefly held on $75,000 bond before posting bail, court records said.

Contacted Monday by The Herald-Mail, Porter declined to comment on his case. He is scheduled for a preliminary hearing Dec. 19, court records said.

Porter’s criminal record includes a 1992 conviction for distribution of cocaine before a U.S. magistrate in West Virginia, according to the statement of probable cause filed by state police. Porter was sentenced to six months’ incarceration and three years’ probation in the case, the document said.

A person wishing to remain anonymous contacted state police in early November, telling them that Porter “has been getting crazier and crazier over the past several years,” the charging document said. The person told police that Porter had 10 to 15 “machine gun-style firearms,” six handguns and up to 10,000 rounds of ammunition, the document said.

The person told police that Porter was a doomsday prepper who had a bunker under his driveway, as well as surveillance cameras around his property, the charging document said.

The Theology of Marxism

Via Billy

 Range target

In the Holy Scriptures, Jesus Christ speaks in John 14:6  and says “I am the way; the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” That’s a pretty straight forward statement. He is saying that no man ever gets to God, except through Him. Down through the centuries people, not willing to come to Christ, have continued to try other ways. There is a reluctance in men, because of their sin, to accept the truth. They always want to do it “their way.” And often to do it “their way” they will invent new ideologies (which they claim are not religious, but really are) which ultimately destroy the lives of millions.

Marxism is one such ideology. Most na├»ve folks today think that because the Berlin Wall was torn down that communism is dead. I hate to disappoint you, but it ain’t so Marxist ideology (theology) is alive and well on many college campuses in this country and lots of other places and it has a pretty good toe hold in Washington. But, then, that is nothing new.

I read an interesting and penetrating article recently on written by Christopher C. M. Warren and published on Friday, June 8, 2012 called Karl Marx and the Communist Religion of Hate.. In part Mr. Warren stated: “The thesis of this short paper is that Karl Marx, the founder of communism, was a man of profound religious beliefs who formed what basically amounts to an ‘anti-Christian religion’. Why he became anti-Christian is the central mystery of his life. Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founders of Communism, grew up in wealthy families far removed from a life of poverty and is one of the contradictions to be found in the lives of communist leaders.

Their successors—Lenin, Trotsky and the others who led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russian in 1917—became multi-millionaires…As one historical commentator notes: ‘Running left-wing movements has always been the prerogative of spoiled rich kids. This pattern goes all the way back to the days when an over-indulged and affluent young man named Karl Marx combined with another over-indulged youth from a wealthy family named Friedrich Engels to create the Communist ideology.” There is some doubt as to who actually created the Communist ideology and if you look at the people who hired Marx to write The Communist Manifesto you have to conclude the ideas were not totally his but he shared their worldview.

Church Cancels ‘Charlie Brown’ Over Atheist Outrage

Via Don


Good Grief!

A Little Rock church has cancelled a student matinee performance of “Merry Christmas Charlie Brown” after critics complained the show was too religious and therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“It is not our desire to put hard-working, sacrificial teachers and cast members in harm’s way,” said Happy Caldwell, pastor of Agape Church, in a statement to Fox News. “While we regret the loss of students who will not get this particular opportunity right now, we have taken the school matinees off the table.”

The cancellation came as the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers told television station KATV they had received legal advice on pursuing a possible lawsuit against the Little Rock School District.

“We’re not waging a war,” said LeeWood Thomas, a spokesman for the group. “We’re basically calling a foul against the separation of church and state.”

A spokesperson for the school district told Fox News they had absolutely nothing to do with the cancellation of the performance. They said they had consulted with their legal team and determined the field trip was appropriate.

Students at Terry Elementary School had been planning to attend a school-day field trip to watch a stage version of the holiday classic — hosted by the church. The event was strictly voluntary and teachers sent home letters explaining the purpose of the trip.

However, a parent objected to the field trip and contacted the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers, a self-described community of atheists, agnostics and humanists.

More @ Fox

Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out

Via midnightrider

Liberty: What is it worth to you?


When you see the guy next to you in line and you know he comes from some place other than America, what do you think his elders taught him about Liberty?  Seriously, consider it.  Now consider the lady in the same line who votes D or Establishment R.  Forget what she may have been taught by her elders right here in America.  She is an advocate of theft at the end of a muzzle.

You understand, yes?

Both of these people are as far removed from the Liberty our Founders and Framers envisioned as Stalin, only Stalin had the balls to go to work.

Here's a lesson I have learned in life: When a bully wants your lunch money he'll shake you down by himself as long as he can get away with it.  When you look like you may be a handful, he'll bring a few buddies.  The only way to stop it is to beat the snot out of him and his friends with enough witnesses that not one other person misses the lesson that fucking with you will not be free.

The guy in line who isn't from here - he expects "Government" to service him.  The Lady in line will never take her hand out of your pocket until you force her to do so.  Blacking both of her eyes won't get you very far, even if she were smart enough to understand the beating.  It's the bullies who do the work who need a bloody nose.

Now consider this: Are you willing to dish out bloody noses to thugs who are willing (and authorized under Color of Law) to kill you in return?  

Prager University: Do High Taxes Raise More Money? The Laffer Curve

Via Cousin Colby

Costas: Guns Wouldn't Have Stopped 'Dark Knight Rises' Massacre


Last night, Bob Costas offered a mealy-mouthed apology to anyone who misunderstood his now-infamous NFL-halftime anti-gun rant and then launched into yet another illogical and nonsensical assault against gun-ownership. The most outrageous and bizarre point he makes, though, involves his being thankful that no one in that Aurora movie theatre was armed and able to defend themselves against a madman earlier this year.

According to Costas, because he only had 90 seconds with which to make his halftime point, we all misunderstood, because he didn't have the time necessary to make the overall point he wanted to make.

I look at it in the exact opposite way. Knowing he had only 90 seconds means that Costas was forced to be very careful, precise, and selective in what he had to say -- and what he had to say was not only insulting to those of us who believe football should be a politics-free zone, but also to the memory of a murdered young woman.

Yes, Costas was quoting someone else -- columnist Jason Whitlock -- when he said, “If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kassandra Perkins would both be alive today.” But he prefaced that quote by telling his captive me audience that this was something with which he agreed.

    You want some actual perspective on this? Well, a bit of it comes from the Kansas City writer Jason Whitlock, with whom I do not always agree, but today said it so well that we may as well just quote or paraphrase from the end of his article.

So Costas was obviously endorsing and wholeheartedly agreeing with Whitlock's absurd belief that Belcher and Kassandra Perkins would be alive were it not for a gun. This of course lays the responsibility for a murder on the gun, not the murderer. Last night, though, Costas backtracked on that, agreeing that there are other ways to commit murder besides a firearm. 

Well, duh.

The most bizarre part the Costas' interview, though, was when he seemed to advocate stripping athletes of their Second Amendment rights:

    Give me one example of an athlete–I know it’s happened in society–but give me one example of a professional athlete who by virtue of his having a gun, took a dangerous situation and turned it around for the better. I can’t think of a single one. But sadly, I can think of dozens where by virtue of having a gun, a professional athlete wound up in a tragic situation.

The stupidity of this thinking must be a genetic thing.

More @ Breitbart

Democrats may cancel Christmas

Via Peter

Secession: Then and now


As to Secession being Rebellion, it is distinctly possible by state papers that Washington considered it no such thing –that Massachusetts, now loudest against it, has itself
asserted its right to secede, again and again."
--Charles Dickens

For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company?
--Walter Williams