Nidal Malik Hassan - The Fort Hood Murderer

I've been trying to keep up with the U.S. Army's feeble attempts to try "Major" Nidal Malik Hasan for his actions in Nov 2009 - more than THREE YEARS AGO! The apparent foot-dragging in prosecuting this case makes me wonder exactly what is going on behind the scenes.

Are the delays perhaps the results of actions taken (or not taken) in response to directions from the White House or the DOJ? The trial has been delayed twice because Hasan has a beard - which is in violation of Army regulations! If he is still IN the Army, which he is - retaining his rank, and pay (?) of Major, Hasan should be given two choices: (1) he must shave it off, or (2) have MPs remove it from his cowardly, traitorous face. The defense claims that he has the beard for "religious reasons", yet those reasons did not exist for the 13+ years he was in the Army prior to massacring those people at Fort Hood, TX.? Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture?

The most recent information I have been able to locate on Hasan's trial, comes from the August 17, 2012 edition of the Killeen (TX) Daily Herald - "A federal judge ordered that evidence against the accused Fort Hood shooter obtained through classified intelligence gathering methods will be allowed in trial.
Lawyers for Maj. Nidal Hasan challenged the constitutionality of using the evidence, stating it constituted an illegal search or seizure and prevented Hasan from confronting his accusers.
Federal Judge Walter Smith denied the request Wednesday after reviewing the evidence and classified information outside of the court.
Smith made the ruling the same day a high military court ordered a halt to all proceedings at Fort Hood until it decides if the judge in Hasan’s court-martial can have him forcibly shaved.
With the high court’s ruling, Hasan’s court-martial has little chance of beginning Monday.
Authorities obtained the unspecified evidence from electronic surveillance that falls under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Though investigators found evidence that may be used against Hasan, the structure of FISA rules appears to indicate that authorities were targeting someone outside the country.
It leads to the possibility that the evidence could be communications between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaida cleric who was slain last year in Yemen. Hasan sent a series of emails to Awlaki in the months leading up to the Nov. 5, 2009, mass shooting on post. It led agents from the Joint Terrorism Task Force to monitor Hasan’s communications, though the 41-year-old Army psychiatrist was never taken in for questioning.
In Smith’s ruling, he states that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder provided a sworn declaration that disclosure of FISA materials would create a danger to national security. Smith also refused to allow the defense and prosecution to argue the matter.
The ruling marks the end of the federal case, which was transferred to the Waco court because of jurisdictional issues in July."

WHAT?? The crime was committed upon a federal military reservation, against government personnel, by a military officer. Why does the federal government lose jurisdiction based upon FISA information? The purpose of the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act", is to gather intelligence on foreign soil. It is not the fault of the intelligence community that Hasan chose to communicate with someone who was under that surveillance. (File his blunder under "collateral damage", and give him 3 punches on his T.S. Card!) A Military Courts Martial is a type of "federal court". Does the ruling mean that the military no longer has jurisdiction over Hasan? Do the top powers in the administration not wish to see the name of their beloved Islam besmirched? Is this a "Protect Islam at the cost of justice" move from - or directed by -  the White House? In this administration (which has all the transparency of Mount McKinley), nothing should surprise us. Any action that may result in the subversion or nullification of our Constitution by the Obama administration - and it's associated Communists - is totally unsurprising to anyone who is paying the least bit of attention to the goings-on in Washington D.C.

 

A Prime Example of Deficient Thought...

On September 13, at the behest of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the New York City Board of Health banned the sale of soda and other sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces. Did it also cancel the First Amendment - the parts referring to freedom of speech and expression?

Does Bloomberg's idiotic "law" stop purchasers of sweetened drinks from buying more than one at a time? Or from bringing their own 40-ounce container, ordering two sweetened drinks, and pouring the contents of the 16-ounce containers into their personal 40-ounce vessel? Or - for those customers dining in - does it prohibit the business from increasing their price somewhat, and offering "Free Refills"? In fact, if there are any entrepreneurs left in NYC, they would probably stock 40-ounce insulated plastic mugs and offer them for sale to their customers, just so they could put two 16-ounce drinks in those containers.

Why doesn't Bloomputz completely ban the sale of cigarettes, if he's so worried about the health of everybody? Because New York State imposes an excise tax on cigarettes at the rate of $4.35 per package of twenty cigarettes. New York City imposes a local excise tax at the rate of $1.50 per package of twenty cigarettes, bringing the combined tax rate in New York City to $5.85! That extrapolates toNYC taxes of $15.00 per carton of ten packages, and that's why cigarettes aren't banned in NYC! Bloomschwantz is only concerned about HEALTH ISSUES when they don't effect his tax base, so he's not really concerned about the health of the people. (Because of those outrageous taxes, NY also has a problem with "black market cigarettes". These are brought into NY from outside the state by illicit entrepreneurs, and being sold to the smoking public from the trunks of cars, and the back-end of trucks - which means NY gains no tax from those items)

Humans are the sentient, creative beings on this planet. If they are faced with an obstacle to their enjoyment of life, it doesn't take them long to find a way around that obstacle. Some of these ways are in compliance with existing laws, and their creators are lauded as "genius" and "entrepreneurs". Others devise creative ways to circumvent those laws, and are known as "outlaws", and organized groups of outlaws are called "gangs". When 535 of these outlaws are assembled in Washington, D.C., plotting to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, we refer to them as Congress.

The only true impediment to achieving one's goals in life, are those stumbling blocks we accept as "insurmountable obstacles" and then give them our permission to stop our progress. Humans, like water, tend to search for the path of least resistance. The successful ones find it.

I Wish I Had Said That!!

Today's report from TheLastResistance.com informs us that House Speaker Boehner has finally grown a pair.

"For all the complaints we conservatives have about Speaker John Boehner, there can be no denying that we felt a certain camaraderie with him, a certain pride that he is on our side, at least in party affiliation, when we learned that he told Senate Majority Leader Harry Read to “Go f*** yourself”–twice–after Harry Reid likened him to a dictator.

“John Boehner seems to care more about keeping his speakership than about keeping the nation on firm financial footing,” said Reid, adding that the House was “being operated with a dictatorship of the speaker.”

Politico reported that Boehner muttered his awesome rebuke the next day, when Boehner saw Reid at the White House.

“Reid, taken aback, said, ‘What are you talking about?’ And Boehner repeated it. Boehner’s office has confirmed the validity of these claims, but offered no further comment on the matter.”

Boehner, although indelicate about it, said what millions of Americans would like to tell Harry Reid... and Diane Feinstein... and several other members of Congress.

The nation is NOT "on firm financial footing", nor has it been for some time. Every dollar that is printed today is essentially an I.O.U. from our government. There is no precious metal behind it, so it devalues the dollar that was printed the day before! Our dollars are backed only by money we have BORROWED from foreign governments. In what parallel universe do the members of Congress live? Theirs is an existence based upon the rarefied atmosphere of being supported by the labors of others, and uncontrolled "spending like drunken sailors". Sadly, they are not generally held accountable by "their constituency" once they assume the office to which they were elected. Elected to protect the interests of not only those citizens, but - as a collective body - to protect the interests of the citizens of the United States of America.

Recall elections are one way of getting our government back on track. Although they take place at the state level, the procedures themselves are not terribly complicated. A petition, which in most states must show some form of malfeasance or misconduct while in office (indifference to the citizens expressed desires, may or may not qualify - but certainly SHOULD) must be identified by the petitioners (in 11 states there is no such requirement). Generally, to be considered for action, a petition must bear "X"-number of signatures (the minimum number of signatures and the time limit to qualify a recall vary among the states. In addition, the handling of recalls once they qualify differs. In some states, a recall triggers a simultaneous special election, where the vote on the recall, as well as the vote on the replacement if the recall succeeds, are on the same ballot). The petition is then sent to the state's election board/committee/supervisor for action as required by law. Recall elections are not as rare as one may think. (In 2011, there were at least 150 recall elections in the United States. Of these, 75 officials were recalled, and nine officials resigned under threat of recall - a success rate of greater than 50%. Recalls were held in 17 states in 73 different jurisdictions.)

A Democratic Republic, such as ours, is by definition to be responsive to the expressed desires of  the people. To do otherwise is the hallmark of a Dictatorial Tyranny. There is an old Russian proverb which says, "A man is judged by his deeds, not his words." Although true for some perhaps, it is not a universal truth or Democratic Republics would all be lead by honest men, interested primarily in the success of their Republic. The reality is that honest, dedicated, patriotic men (and women) are a rare find in today's world, and those who possess those unusual character traits are soon either rendered ineffectual by - or expelled from - any ruling body. Just my thoughts...

You DO Have This Right - TODAY Anyway...

The following is a post I made in a forum in which I participate. It is in response to the knee-jerk reactions of those we have elected to "serve" us...

 "I see that several of you folks have much more faith in the morons and sheeple that are "leading" our country than do I. The current administration is overflowing with left-wing socialist-"progressives", Marxists, Communists and others that would see our Republic crippled, if not destroyed. The picture we now have is one of reducing the size - and budget - of our military, and simultaneously crying out to essentially disarm the citizens so they cannot defend either themselves, their families or their country. To weaken our military is to encourage those who wish us harm to increase their endeavors. Attempting to eliminate the relatively ineffective personal weapons of private citizens is almost a guarantee that those who wish us ill shall take actions against us. Our armed populous would probably create the world's largest defensive force, even if they were relatively under-armed (as compared to military arms). Unarmed, Americans would soon become the world's largest collection of slaves."

That's my take on National defense issues. As for personal defense, study after study has shown that in areas where more people are issued concealed firearm permits, the incidence of firearm involved crimes goes down significantly. Utah is an "open carry" state - which means that anyone not prohibited by law from possessing firearms may carry a handgun on their person so long as that handgun is, and remains, in plain sight at all times. However, even the vast majority of people who possess handguns and live in Open Carry states do not carry. That comment is based upon my anecdotal experience here in Utah: I returned to Utah about 2.5 years ago, and have a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit (last year there were over 77,000 CFPs issued by the Utah BCI - that number is projected to increase by 50%-100% this year). I OC primarily in the summer, and conceal my every day carry handgun, mainly when the ambient air temp is below 60º. In those 30 months, and with the singular exception of Impact Guns where many customers (and ALL employees) are openly armed, I have seen only 2 other people OC'ing in Weber County (population 231,834) that works out to only about .00013% of the population (somebody please check my decimal point - I'm not real comfortable with it). The question now is WHY?

Why, when Utahan's have every legal right - in both the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Utah State Constitution - affirming our RKBA (Right to Keep and Bear Arms), and to openly carry our handguns in public, does only one person in (roughly) every 79,000 people choose to Openly Carry? My "stat" is, without a doubt horribly skewed, but I can only relate those acts which I have personally witnessed. (I could find no official stats on the number of handguns, or even total firearms, in Weber County.) Why on Earth are we not more obviously armed in public? There are numerous reasons, among which I believe are:
1. Most people do not wish to call undue attention to themselves in public. An openly displayed, holstered handgun will get people's attention, simply because it is not a common practice.
2. Most people do not want to increase their chances of unnecessary contact with law enforcement officers (LEOs). Not all LEOs are well-informed about OC laws. And, even among those who are informed, some do not believe we should have that right, and will hassle OCers if only for the sake of making them feel uncomfortable.
3. Most people do not wish to make other members of the public feel uncomfortable. (Granted, we are not responsible for the "feelings" of others, but that does not change the fact that seeing a handgun on the belt of someone other than LEOs or armed security personnel will make many people very uncomfortable.)
4. Those people who are not truly firearms "enthusiasts", yet own one or more firearms, may not even be aware that the law allows us to OC. (As a side note, Utah has no legal limit on the length of a knife blade, but I have seen nobody OCing a sword or machete. In this case I believe it is because very few people know about the absence of a length law. And, the preceding reasons would apply to the lack of large knives being openly displayed as well.)
5. Recent mass shootings have - understandably - made the public hyper-sensitive to the presence of firearms in public places.

I'm sure there are even more personal "reasons" not to OC, but none of them comes immediately to mind. There are however, innumerable incidents where a legally armed citizen has intervened, in potentially deadly situations for many others, and successfully neutralized the attacker. You haven't heard of any? That's not the least bit surprising. The left-leaning media does not report anything that doesn't support their agenda of disarming the law-abiding citizens of this country. There are also many mass-murder tragedies that could have been minimized, had there been just one armed defender present. One of the best examples of that is provided by a Texas State Representative, who wishes she hadn't left her gun in her car. She provides an excellent defense of our 2nd Amendment rights - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Mass murders occur in AREAS DESIGNATED AS GUN FREE ZONES, and it isn't because they don't read the signs - it's because that's where they are least likely to encounter armed resistance! The honest, law-abiding citizen is infinitely more likely to read and heed. "Gun Free Zones" should be renamed as - Abundant Victim Zones. There has never been a mass shooting at a gun store, gun show, shooting range or an NRA Convention... yet nobody wonders WHY? Because there are people there who can and will shoot back!! Just my thoughts on the subject.

We Definitely Have A "Gun Problem" In This Country!

And, the problem is that not everybody in the country owns guns! I have had enough time to calm down after yesterday's murder of 20 children and 8 adults at Newtown, Connecticut... and plenty of time to recover from the Aurora, Colorado shootings, and Tennessee State and Columbine. Despite the fact that they were all conducted by young men, there is one other common condition that they all share - there were no armed staff members!

In almost all things, I tend toward believing Friar William of Ockham - a 14th century English logician - who said, "When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

The overly-simplistic theory of the left is essentially, "If we pass more laws eliminating private ownership of firearms there will be fewer murders." However, the flaw in that kind of logic is that laws are written for, and adhered to, only by the law abiding. In this country, crimes are defined by law. A criminal is a person whose general behavior is composed primarily of ignoring and/or breaking laws. New York City, has one of - if not THE - toughest gun-control law in the country - The Sullivan Act - a "law" which has been in effect for over 100 years. Yet between 2003 and 2011 there were 4,161 homicides in NYC, of which 69% had firearms listed as the weapon of choice. I say ""weapon of choice", because anybody with sufficient dedicated intent to take the life of another person will find the means to do so. If a gun is not available, weapon of choice #2 is a knife (23%), with "other" (poison, golf club, baseball bat, large rock, suffocation, garrotte, etc.) coming in a distant 3rd with a combined total of 8%.

"Gun Free Zones" - such as schools - are not "gun free" once a gun is introduced from outside that zone. At that point, the zone should be renamed the Victim Abundant Zone..., because the "rule followers" (that's us) are all unarmed. The premise that "eliminating private ownership of firearms" will result in "fewer murders" sounds (at least superficially) theoretically reasonable. If 69% of all murders are committed with the use of firearms, then we should reasonably expect to see a 69% reduction in murders. Right? However, the part of that statistic that is fallacious is the assumption that guns are committing those murders. Guns are inanimate objects - they possess neither will nor motivation. Guns are tools. The true statistic is that 100% of all murders are committed by murderers! Their choice of tool with which to commit murder is irrelevant.

In China yesterday, December 14th, 2012, "... a knife-wielding man slashed 29 children, two teachers and a security guard Thursday in the second such school attack in China in two days. Initially officials had reported that 28 children had been hurt but they later realized they had miscounted.
Experts called it a copycat rampage triggered by similar incidents Wednesday and last month. They said the wave of school attacks falls amid poor care for the mentally unstable and growing feelings of social injustice in the fast-changing country.
Thursday's attack at the Zhongxin Kindergarten left five students hospitalized in critical condition in the eastern city of Taixing, said Zhu Guiming, an official with the municipal propaganda department. Two teachers and the security guard were also hurt.

We cannot legislate sanity, or even a sense of morality. The knee-jerk reaction to violence is to create more laws - laws to be ignored - while the more logical reaction would be to create fewer victims. If protecting our children in school is the only goal, then arm and train at least 50% of the school staff in student protection, situational awareness, use of deadly force, marksmanship, and threat recognition and elimination. If protecting the public at large is the goal, then recognize our Constitution's Second Amendment as being the law of the land, and deprive no law abiding citizen of the right to keep and bear arms - within his/her property or publicly. There has never been a murder at an NRA Convention or at a Gun Show. Nobody attacks a "Gun Friendly Zone"... think about that.

Over 65 Million guns in the U.S.A. killed nobody today!

The Obama Administration's Good News-Bad News Plan...

Excerpts from today's WND article, Obama's Next Targets: Walmart & Best Buy?(with my added emphasis):

"A far-left think tank founded with input from President Obama is pushing a plan for private retail stores such as Walmart to create a “new wage floor” that hikes workers’ wages by at least 27 percent to $12.25 per hour."

"The scheme is outlined in a new study published by Demos, a longtime partner of the disgraced ACORN activist group."

"According to Demos’ own website, while Obama was a state senator in 1999, he served on the working group that founded Demos."

"Last month, Demos released a 15-page research paper titled “Retail’s Hidden Potential: How Raising Wages Would Benefit Workers, the Industry and the Overall Economy.” "

"The study provides a chart listing the country’s biggest retailers, including Walmart, Target, Kroger, Home Depot, Walgreens, Lowe’s, Best Buy, Safeway and Macy’s.
The plan urges the enactment of a “new wage floor” for the lowest-paid private retail workers equivalent to $25,000 per year – or $12.25 per hour – for a full-time, year-round retail worker at the nation’s largest retail companies, identified as those employing at least 1,000 workers.
The think tank posits the pay hike would create 100,000 or more new jobs, thus stimulating the economy. It surmises the pay increase would cost consumers “just cents more per shopping trip on average.”The study, however, does not mention that the template for the “new wage floor” is a failed Demos plan urging a “living wage.”

Now let's look at this seemingly "altruistic", but highly impractical scheme, from a more practical standpoint.

1. This plan has been tried before in the 1990s, and was an abysmal failure for the businesses involved.
2. Does nobody in the Obama administration understand that the cost of living is directly tied to the minimum wage? The retailers are not going to "take one for the team"! As their operating expenses go up (such as the mandatory Obamacare costs, and this harebrained scheme), they will pass those costs along to the consumer!
3. The plan (as explained today) would apply to "full-time, year-round retail workers". And who would be surprised when Walmart, Target, Kroger, Home Depot, Walgreens, Lowe’s, Best Buy, Safeway and Macy’s suddenly has upper-level management (who are already making more than the proposed minimum wage) as their only "full-time, year-round workers"? The floor personnel, shipping and receiving, stockers, etc., would be immediately converted - and employed as - "part-time, seasonal workers" in order to obviate that unnecessary payroll expense.
4. The "100,000 or more new jobs" they claim it would create would be 100,000 new part-time, seasonal jobs to take up the slack created by these retail giants converting their original staff to part-time, seasonal! 
5. Every product and service we pay for would be increased by approximately the same percentage as the minimum wage hike. A can of Pork & Beans that was $1.69 the day before, is now $2.15, and that's not counting any increase for Obamacare. And that increase would be seen in every item we buy, or service we use!

Such a plan is nothing more than another dangerous psychological "warm & fuzzy" for those earning minimum wage. Any benefit they might see from an "increase" would be immediately offset by the increase in their cost of living, and (and this is most-likely the real driving force behind the wage "increase") moving them into a higher tax bracket! The more they make, the bigger cut the government gets!

This is just one more example of the liberal left's "Voodoo Economics", and "Smoke and mirrors" math, guiding us blithely down the path toward the fiscal cliff. We pay more, while Congress and the Obama Administration steals more from us... all the while disguising that theft as a "wage hike" for those on the bottom rung of the earnings ladder.

Details of the above referenced article may be found at: 
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/obamas-next-targets-walmart-best-buy/

 

I May Have A Tendency To Oversimplify Politics...

but here's how I see the reasons behind our country's great loss in the recent Presidential Election.

1. There was insufficient differentiation between the Republican and Democrat platforms. So little differentiation, that Romney's platform was widely seen as ObamaLite. Although not unusual for politicians, neither candidate was particularly forthcoming about their "plans" for the country. Obama couldn't run on his record, because he didn't have a single positive achievement to emphasize. So, he made the usual empty promises to those who choose not to work, and those who are feeding from the national teat, and Romney failed to form aggressive responses to verbal challenges by Obama.
2. The Republican masses had a miserable turnout of less than 40%, while Democrats were at almost 48%. Were the registered Republicans too lazy to vote, were they insufficiently motivated to vote, or did they assume "the fix is in" and just not give a rat's ass? 
3. The poor Republican turnout may have been compounded by voter fraud, and other behind-the-scenes active Democrat shenanigans (like [as reported] going door-to-door, and illegally hand-carrying the votes of others to the polling stations)? The default vote in electronic machines was set to "Obama", and there were many instances reported where votes for Romney were registered as votes for Obama.
4. Romney failed to garner enough of the available "Independent" votes, and then there was Gary Johnson, in the (unintentional?) role of "spoiler". Had Johnson encouraged his loyal followers to give their votes to Romney, it may have given Romney the majority popular vote.
5. The "popular vote", which is the voice of the people, is easily cancelled out by the Constitutionally-directed Electoral College vote - which undoubtedly would have gone to Obama anyway (re: "the fix is in", above).
6. The Republican platform for 2012 would have satisfied America's "Mugwumps" (the old joke that a "mugwump" is a person sitting on the political fence, with his mug on one side and his wump on the other). The most accurate description I can use for the Republican party's platform this election is "tepid".
7. There have been many suggestions (probably from Democrats) that the Republicans need to adopt the principles of the Democrats. In my opinion, that would then provide us with TWO totally unprincipled political parties.

There has been little-to-no questioning of the lack of legality - and ethics - in the voting process this election cycle by the lamestream media. I am quickly losing my faith in the intelligence of my countrymen, and have lost all faith in the voting process, and what little respect I had for the media (a few decades ago) has long since been dead.

As long as 538 people have the legal authority to override the voice of the people, then the people's voice means absolutely NOTHING!

Now The U.N. Wants To Own - and TAX - The Internet!

Next month, the 12th World Conference on International Telecommunications, or WCIT-12, will be held in Dubai. At the meeting, the 193 member countries of the U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union, or ITU, will consider renegotiating a fairly obscure treaty known as the International Telecommunications Regulations, or ITRs.

The 24-year-old agreement delineates much of the ITU’s rule-making authority over telecommunications. The hope of several countries is that they can expand the ITU’s jurisdiction to the Internet, replacing the current governing system with one that is controlled by a U.N. bureaucracy.

The member nations will also consider an "Internet Tax" designed to collect money from more affluent nations and redistribute it to poorer nations to improve their Internet infrastructure.

The U.N. has no investment of time, money or labor in the Internet, what makes them think that they are entitled to control and tax it? (Except that it is another fine example of the workings of the socialist mind.) Redistribute? The U.N. isn't entitled to benefit from our tax dollars... we are! We don't need any help in digging a deeper hole for our national debt... we have Obama! Redistribute my ass.

 

Is THIS What Really Happened? If So, Shame On Us!

The following are excerpts, that pretty-much express my own analysis of "WTF happened?" in the election, from PoliticalOutcast.com. I have, in the recent past, mentioned Gary Johnson's role as spoiler in the election, as I have the stupidity of  lazy-ass "straight party ticket" voters, the Obamabots, and the "anybody-but-Obama" crowd (of which I was a member). The only "enthusiasm" I had for either candidate was, "Well, he's NOT Obama". Here's the PoliticalOutcast.com analysis, with added highlighting:

"The race was almost split 50/50. Obama got less than one percent of the votes more than Mitt Romney. Of interest, libertarian Gary Johnson got right at one percent. Gary who? Right. How did a guy with almost no presence during the primaries get one percent of the votes? The only other Libertarian to get this much traction was Ed Clark in 1980 with 1.1 percent. But this wasn’t so much a victory for the Libertarian Party as it was a loss for the GOP. How did Gary Johnson get so many votes? Ron Paul. Sorry, but that’s just the truth.
Most disillusioned Ron Paul supporters chose either to not vote, to vote for Gary Johnson, or to write in Ron Paul even though such a vote would be largely symbolic."

"Most of the people, if not all, who voted for Mitt Romney would have voted for whomever the GOP nominated. No matter what. Anyone but Obama, remember? These people voted pragmatically… er, not so pragmatically now that all is said and done. So most of the people, if not all, who voted for Romney would have voted for the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man if he had been on the ballot with an “R” next to his name. So they really don’t matter in the end. Despite all of the media drivel about electability, any Republican candidate would have gained at least the number of votes that Romney did. But I believe a few of the primary candidates could have gained more. The Republican Party was trying to get some extra votes from the middle, so they chose a big-government-lite candidate with largely liberal social policies that could appeal to “moderate” voters. Wrong plan of action. Moderate voters swung to Obama anyway. All the Republican Party did by putting all its eggs into the middle-of-the-road candidate was jettison the swing voters they should have been appealing to instead: the conservative idealists. Consider it this way: liberal idealists love Obama. And moderate voters like him too. So Obama is the perfect candidate for the Democratic party. He consolidates the base while reaching beyond it. Conservative idealists (the ones who vote on principle alone—damn-the-torpedoes type people) hated Romney. Tea Party conservatives also disliked Romney. But the hold-your-nose-and-vote Republicans weren’t numerous enough to result in a Romney victory. They needed just one extra percent."

"Let’s think about this. What if Ron Paul had been nominated? The 'hold-your-nose-and-vote' Republicans would still have voted for him. And if they wouldn’t, they have no place whatsoever to criticize idealists who wouldn’t vote for Romney. If the GOP machine had gotten behind him like they did Romney, there’s no indication that Paul would have fared any different than Romney. At least as well, as I said. But on top of the hold-your-nosers, Ron Paul had a rabid base of extremely motivated supporters (at least a million, actually… just ask Gary Johnson) who certainly would have voted for him though they refused to support Romney. He also attracted many moderate voters who liked his states-rights stance on illegal drugs and homosexual marriage. Colorado just voted to legalize marijuana, by the way… and it went to Obama this election… again.  So, bottom line: if Ron Paul had been nominated, in all likelihood we would have a Republican President-elect right now. But he’s not electable… And Romney is? Hello!? Any of the candidates would have done at least as well as he did, and I think any of them would have actually done better. Romney wasn’t the voters’ first choice. He was the GOP establishment’s first choice. Let’s not kid ourselves on that one. And this is the same group that gave us McCain. Remember that guy? He was “electable” too. When will we ever learn?"

"Don’t blame the Paulbots or the independents for four more years of Obama’s national train-wreck. Blame the GOP establishment power brokers. Their stubborn unwillingness to listen to their constituency and their blatant disregard for the traditional federal constitutionalism that once made the GOP “grand” has cost us yet another election cycle, perhaps the most critical to date. We can’t afford to place our trust in them anymore. Let them know loud and clear: “Give us candidates who fully support our values, not your agenda! And back these candidates with your full endorsement. We won’t be fooled again. We won’t accept another Romney, and if you give us one, we will not vote for him.” Do we have the courage to do this? We didn’t have that courage this election. We thought too much was at stake. Too much was at stake. And we lost it because of fear. If we don’t gain the courage necessary to stand on conviction, this country is most assuredly doomed."

And now, we must suffer the consequences of:

1. A choice between poor nominees for elected national office.

2. The Electoral College concept - where roughly 540 people can override and cancel out the will of the people, as expressed via the popular vote.

3. The "deal" struck between the two major political parties, several decades ago, wherein they agreed that whichever party got the majority of a state's electoral votes, gets ALL that state's electoral votes.

4. Being stupid enough to re-elect a record-proven, America-hating, Socialist-"progressive" Marxist as our nation's chief executive.

5. Being too lazy to go to the polls and vote.

6. Being energized enough to vote, but too ignorant to realize that voting for a 3rd party candidate at this point in time fails to cancel out a vote for the one you did not want as President. Understand that there is no 3rd party candidate that can be elected to the office of POTUS.

7. Allowing 18 year olds to vote - the majority of whom lack the life experience to vote with anything other than their emotions.

The Average American Voter

How long before the U.S. actually becomes the Greece of North America? We're already close...

 

God save us from our own stupidity!

Government Waste, Fraud and Abuse.

Our government has been wasteful for decades! "Members of Congress have the only job in the country whose occupants can set their own salary without regard to performance, profit, or economic climate," said Tom Schatz, president of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste in a press release. "Clearly, members must think that money grows on trees."

IT ALL STARTS WITH CONGRESS
Simply because Congress controls the purse strings for the government budget.  Members of Congress are on track to receive a pay raise in 2013, unless they vote against it when they return from August recess.  The maximum pay boost lawmakers are eligible for in 2013 is 1.1 percent, or about $1,900 for most.  The 1989 Ethics Reform Act created the current formula, which is based on changes in private sector wages as measured by the Employment Cost Index, and automatically takes effect unless Congress votes against it, or it’s more than the pay raise given to federal workers. Many congressional watchdogs expect the Congress to vote against a pay raise for 2013, as they have (surprisingly) done since 2009.

Government cuts must start at the top

REDUCE THE SIZE AND COST OF GOVERNMENT 
We could save money in government by reducing the size of the House and Senate by 50%, cutting their pay in half, reducing their staff by half, restricting those who "serve" to two terms, placing them into the Social Security system, postpone any lifetime benefits until those elected officials reach retirement age, and reduce retirement payments to 20% of their last full-year Congressional salary.

FLAT TAX MAKES SENSE AND IS FAIR
We could also go to an across-the-board FLAT TAX rate for workers and corporations. Since our taxes are now (and have been for several years) calculated by computers, reduce the size of the IRS by 90%. The numbers of those computers could be reduced to two, and established in locations like Utah, for the west-central and western US, and Arkansas for the east-central and eastern US. The computers would each be maintained by crews of 12 technicians and one supervising engineer, and operationally monitored by teams of 6 operators.

REALITY STRIKES AGAIN
However, to be politically realistic, because those who would be most affected by the cuts are those who MAKE the laws regarding said appropriations, it will never happen... UNLESS such possibilities are put forward as a public referendum.  Perhaps we need a movement to remove that right from Congress and place all Congressional compensation packages before the public referendum!