Rasmussen Releases 2012 Poll: Paul vs. Obama

I've highlighted to parts I find most telling. From here:

Pit maverick Republican Congressman Ron Paul against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 election match-up, and the race is – virtually dead even.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

Ask the Political Class, though, and it’s a blowout. While 58% of Mainstream voters favor Paul, 95% of the Political Class vote for Obama.

But Republican voters also have decidedly mixed feelings about Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the party establishment.

Obama earns 79% support from Democrats, but Paul gets just 66% of GOP votes. Voters not affiliated with either major party give Paul a 47% to 28% edge over the president.

Paul, a anti-big government libertarian who engenders unusually strong feelings among his supporters, was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But he continues to have a solid following, especially in the growing Tea Party movement.

Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters now consider themselves a part of the Tea Party movement, an eight-point increase from a month ago. Another 10% say they are not a part of the movement but have close friends or family members who are.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of all voters have a favorable opinion of Paul, while 30% view him unfavorably. This includes 10% with a very favorable opinion and 12% with a very unfavorable one. But nearly one-out-of-three voters (32%) are not sure what they think of Paul.

Perhaps tellingly, just 42% of Republican voters have a favorable view of him, including eight percent (8%) with a very favorable opinion. By comparison, 42% of unaffiliated voters regard him favorably, with 15% very favorable toward him.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of GOP voters think Paul shares the values of most Republican voters throughout the nation, but 25% disagree. Forty-nine percent (49%) are not sure.

Similarly, 27% of Republicans see Paul as a divisive force in the party, while 30% view him as a new direction for the GOP. Forty-two percent (42%) aren’t sure.

Among all voters, 19% say Paul shares the values of most Republican voters, and 27% disagree. Fifty-four percent (54%) are undecided.

Twenty-one percent (21%) of voters nationwide regard Paul as a divisive force in the GOP. Thirty-four percent (34%) say he is representative of a new direction for the party. Forty-five percent (45%) are not sure.

But it’s important to note than 75% of Republicans voters believe Republicans in Congress have lost touch with GOP voters throughout the nation over the past several years.

Police Brutality as UMD Students Celebrate Basketball Win

The attack starts around the 8:15 mark. The Washington Post's description of what occurred:

The video shows McKenna on the sidewalk as he skips and throws his arms in the air. He stops about five feet from an officer on horseback, the video shows. In the video, McKenna’s arms appear to be in front of him, but he does not appear to touch the officer or the horse. His hands, the video shows, are empty.

Two county police riot officers move toward McKenna, who backs up, the video shows. The officers rush in and strike McKenna with their batons, the video shows; McKenna is slammed against a wall and he crumples to the ground.

As McKenna is falling, a third county police riot officer strikes his legs and torso with his baton. The video shows the officers striking an unresisting McKenna about the head, torso, and legs.

US Massacre of Afghan Civilians

The video below is graphic. It is a video which displays the murder of Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh and several other Afghan civilians by the fire of a US Apache helicopter in Afghanistan.

As a Canadian, I continue to be astonished in regard to the un-wavering support my government provides the US as it continues to display complete disregard for human life.

Please not the nonchalant attitude of the soldiers. Very disturbing.

Southern Avenger: Slaves to 'Settled' History

Carl Sagan: A Pale Blue Dot

Who Is Peter Schiff?

Massive Fraud in Gold and Silver Markets Beginning to Come to Light

Top U.S. Catholic Church Leader: “Social Justice” Is Marxism

From Christopher Manion @ LewRockwell.com:

On Wednesday night, Cardinal Francis George, the Catholic Archbishop of Chicago, bestowed a “racial justice” award on a Chicago priest who celebrates Louis Farrakhan and foments hate against white business owners.

Cardinal George is the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which lobbied strenuously for Obamacare (sans abortion funding) and is now heading a massive drive for amnesty for illegal aliens and reunion in the U.S. for their extended families. All this has been done in the name of “Social Justice,” until now a useful but elusive term, hijacked by the Catholic Left to confer a Christian character upon its political agenda . But Wednesday night Cardinal George — who is an avid advocate of “Social Justice” — admitted that it is Marxist:

“The temptation can be to work for justice apart from love, but then justice becomes itself a formula for oppression. Justice without love is destructive, as Marxist societies, founded on equality and social justice alone, teach the world.”

Cardinal George has a doctorate in philosophy. He realizes that envy and hate are the engines of Marxism, hence his emphasis on love. What he does not admit is that a government cannot love. As Saint Augustine explained on the first page of The City Of God, it is the city of man that is “ruled by the lust of rule” — the libido dominandi the lust for power at the center of the glorification of the state.. By definition, the city of man rejects love.

So finally, by the authority of the senior Catholic bishop in the United States, we know that the kind of government and programs sought by the Catholic Left in the name of “Social Justice” are by the Cardinal’s authoritative definition Marxist. We should be grateful for his candor.

Southern Avenger: Just Kidding Conservatism

With a Republican president we might...

From Justin Raimondo's article Ron Paul vs. the Naysayers on AntiWar.com:

Youth naturally looks for a way to explain the way the world works, and the best of them seek ways to make it work better. To any young person looking for a comprehensive worldview these days, the intellectual landscape is nearly completely barren.

On the right we have the desiccated ideologues of neoconservatism, whose concerns are so far removed from those of any ordinary youth that their leading spokesman has no trouble writing off nearly everyone on the right under thirty, aside from those directly in Rupert Murdoch’s employ or somehow or other on the neocon payroll.

On the left – well, there isn’t really a "left" anymore, at least not one I find recognizable. Gone are the New Lefties who used to "solidarize" with the struggles of the Third World against colonialism: likewise, the Old Lefties who used to quote Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky are nearly vanished. In their place we have a "progressive" movement determined to force poor people to pay for health insurance they can’t afford. As Fafblog put it:

"As disappointed as we might be in Barack Obama – in his little failings, in his petty slights, in his odd betrayals, in his unseemly habit of dancing naked through the streets of Oslo smeared with the blood and entrails of Afghan children – we also know that the alternative would be far worse. Why, with a Republican president, we might be at war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and possibly Iran, or facing some hideously draconian corporatist scheme to compel poor people to buy private insurance they can’t afford, with a government that not only excuses the torture regimes of the past but dramatically expands them while giving itself license to murder anyone it likes anywhere on the planet. With Barack Obama, on the other hand, we have all that plus a man who can sparkle wittily on late night television. Now, I think that has to be worth at least a couple thousand dead Muslims, don’t you?"

Authoritarian Unions

I'm constantly hearing France being referred to as having a rich history of unionization. You know what's not rich? When unions threaten violence to get their way. From rawstory.com:

"Workers at a French car accessories plant north of Paris threatened Friday to blow up their factory unless they were given better layoff compensation.

Employees at the Sodimatex plant placed petrol bombs near a large gas tank and were threatening to set them on fire."

Yea, pay me for not working or else! Of course this the home of people who try to get their way by kidnapping executives.

Why aren't these people being arrested for terrorism?

Gee. Wish I lived in France.

Marijuana Controversy In Nova Scotia

Yesterday afternoon, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court ordered the Community Services Department to pay for Sally Campbell’s medical marijuana. Sally Campbell suffers a number of ailments and had a certificate from Health Canada permitting her to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes. Being on welfare though, Ms. Campbell cannot afford to purchase marijuana.

Ms. Campbell's case began in 2005 when the Community Services Department denied her initial request that it designate her pot as a special need and increase her monthly allowance to cover the cost of it. Despite recommendations from her family practitioner and a specialist, Ms. Campbell was forced to take her case to the Nova Scotia Supreme Court.

Headlines in Canada speak nothing to the headache caused to this woman over the past few years fighting this struggle, but only to the headache that will be suffered by Premier Dexter and the provincial government by the precedent this ruling may set. CBC.ca wrote "Medical pot decision worries N.S. premier", and the GlobeandMail wrote "N.S. medicinal pot ruling called a prescription for health care headache". The only neutral headline I could find was in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, "Court says N.S. must pay for patient’s marijuana".

There are several problems in this situation, but I'm going to begin with what's right in this situation, only because for some, I doubt its obvious.

The comments sections of the above mentioned articles are full of people deriding Ms. Campbell for being what one might consider a "welfare queen". There apparently seems to be a lot of people who feel Ms. Campbell is in the wrong and are appalled she is receiving medicinal marijuana for free.

Ms. Campbell is in the right. Anyone else in her situation would no doubt do the same thing. We're all entitled to take advantage of the opportunities put forward. She's in the right to expect that in a country that boasts health care for everyone, she need not be left out, no matter the cost that must be assumed by the province, no matter the headache caused to our esteemed NDP Premier.

Now, the wrong in this situation.

Medicine should be left between the patient and the doctor. If our government wishes to tax us and then provide health care, fine, but do not get involved with treatment. Treatment is not business of government bureaucrats. An individual's doctor has full responsibility in regard to recommending treatment, and in our system, the government has full responsibility in regard to providing the recommended treatment.

If the government doesn't feel it can trust the doctors, get out of the health care business.

At no time should Ms. Campbell have been subjected to a hearing of ignorant government bureaucrats when, as per CBC.ca, "The board said it didn't believe the benefits of medical marijuana have been scientifically proven." It is further disturbing that after this ruling, as per the Chronicle Herald, each applicant for medicinal marijuana coverage will be required to "appear before a special-needs hearing and prove that the marijuana improves their quality of life, works better than other medications and is essential to their health and well-being." That's right, if you're suffering from a painful disease and your doctor feels you require marijuana, you have to be submitted to the embarrassment of sitting in front of a group of bureaucratic leeches to justify the payment of your medicine. This is socialized health care at its finest.

And that brings us to whats really wrong with this situation. Socialized health care is rationed health care. Who rations it? The people that worry about paying the bills with the tax dollars they've taken from you. You see, our government and premier is more concerned about the cost this ruling will inflict on the government to perform its job than it is about the fact that its health care system didn't function well enough in the first place to provide Ms. Campbell her appropriate treatment 5 years ago. Ms. Campbell shouldn't be asking for an increase in her welfare checks to pay for pot, it should be covered by the Department of Health.

The following excerpt from the Globe and Mail puts on display our Premier's lack of concern for the well being of his sick constituents:

"An order to cover one may extend to other drugs as well," Dexter said Thursday. "The potential for the province to become liable for all manners of therapies, treatments outside of what coverage is normally provided is potentially there in this decision."

Dexter said the province must be protected from having to pay big bills as a result of the court decision, but he has no objections regarding the specific case.

"I'm concerned with the public policy question of how we fund the drugs that we have," he said.

Yes. God forbid the province be subject to paying big bills for providing the health care its promised to provide.

This could be much more simple. End socialized medicine and legalize pot. The government wouldn't have its troublesome health care bills to bitch about, and there would be such a high supply of marijuana around it'd be as cheap as water. If Ms. Campbell didn't have friends and family that would help her access her needed medicinal marijuana, I'd grow a plant just for her.

Revolution Tattoo

Peter Foster in the National Post follows up with "Multiplication fables"

Definitely have to start reading more National Post. We have a national news publication which quotes Henry Hazlitt and attacks Keynes? I never knew.

One must read this follow up to Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam's Full Comment.

Here's an excerpt:

One name that didn’t crop up in the critique was that of the father of stimulus, John Maynard Keynes, who manufactured the theory that is still embraced by the activist wing of the economics profession: that is, those who promote programs that fly in the face of economics.

What is truly astonishing about the resurrection of Keynesianism from the policy crypt is that this grab-bag of dodgy concepts — from “the multiplier” (spend yourself rich!) to the “paradox of thrift” (saving is bad for the economy!) — were long ago demolished both in theory and practice. Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and James Buchanan, among others, had put the intellectual boots to Keynesianism before 1970s stagflation confirmed its long-term unworkability. In Canada, it took until the mid 1990s for Liberal Finance Minister Paul Martin to slay the debt beast unleashed by the Trudeau administration’s embrace of Lord Keynes.

One of the most devastating critiques of Keynes — which requires no grasp of abstruse econometrics — came from the great economic journalist, Henry Hazlitt. In his 1959 book, The Failure of the “New Economics,” Hazlitt poured scorn on Keynes’ anti-business sentiment and fantasy that government investment was equivalent to that by the private sector.

And then Hazlitt's quote:

“So there you have it,” wrote Hazlitt. “The people who have earned money are too shortsighted, hysterical, rapacious and idiotic to be trusted to invest it themselves. The money must be seized from them by politicians, who will invest it with almost perfect foresight and complete disinterestedness (as illustrated, for example, by the economic planners of Soviet Russia). For people who are risking their own money will of course risk it foolishly and recklessly, whereas politicians and bureaucrats who are risking other people’s money will do so only with the greatest care and after long and profound study. Naturally the businessmen who have earned money have shown that they have no foresight; but the politicians who haven’t earned the money will exhibit almost perfect foresight. The businessmen who are seeking to make cheaper and better than their competitors the goods that consumers wish, and whose success depends upon the degree to which they satisfy consumers, will of course have no concern for ‘the general social advantage’; but the politicians who keep themselves in power by conciliating pressure groups will of course have only concern for ‘the general social advantage.’”

Niels Veldhuis and Charles Lammam From the National Post on "Harpernomics"

I should start reading the National Post more. This Full Comment completely destroys the theory that $47.2 billion Harper's government borrowed on our behalf will do (and has done) anything to boost our economy.

Here's an excerpt:

A vast body of academic research casts serious doubt on the ability of government stimulus spending to boost economic activity. Worse still, our government’s estimates of the impact of the Economic Action Plan on employment and economic growth are based on discredited assumptions that have no empirical basis.

Let’s first review some recent and important independent academic studies on the effects of government stimulus.

Last October, internationally renowned fiscal policy expert and Harvard University professor Alberto Alesina and his colleague Silvia Ardagna conducted a comprehensive analysis of stimulus initiatives in Canada and 20 other industrialized countries from 1970 to 2007. Their study “Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending” identified 91 instances where governments tried to stimulate the economy and found that unsuccessful stimulus initiatives relied on government spending. Alesina noted that “a one percentage point higher increase in the current [government] spending to GDP ratio is associated with a 0.75 percentage point lower growth.” In plain English, increased government spending reduces, not increases, economic growth.

Professor Alesina’s study also found that successful stimulus initiatives — those that increase economic growth — focus on tax cuts. However, only 13% of the federal government’s $47.2-billion Economic Action Plan was dedicated to tax relief.

In another 2009 study published in the prestigious American Economic Review, Stanford University professor John Taylor reviewed the evidence over the past decade on fiscal stimulus and concluded “there is little reliable empirical evidence that government spending is a way to end a recession or accelerate a recovery.”

A 2008 study, “What are the Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks?” by University of London professor Andrew Mountford and University of Chicago professor Harald Uhlig, assessed and compared the economic impact of various cases of deficit-financed spending, deficit-financed tax cuts and tax-financed spending from 1955 to 2000. They found that spending related measures are the weakest ways to stimulate the economy and that both deficit-financed and tax-financed spending have the effect of discouraging private investment.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF), which Prime Minister Harper has cited as an authority, recently surveyed fiscal stimulus initiatives in advanced and emerging economies and concluded that the average effect of discretionary fiscal policy “does not provide strong evidence of countercyclical effects.” Simply put, the IMF concluded that fiscal stimulus is generally not an effective way to combat recessions.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s Office and Department of Finance are not aware, or worse still, chose to ignore these and dozens of other reputable studies that contradict their rhetoric.

Ron Paul @ Boise State

Ron Paul attracts a full house @ Boise State (and every other university he visits).

Bitter Laugh

Naomi Wolf: A Liberal I Can Respect

There's a fantastic interview with Naomi Wolf on Alternet. Here's an excerpt:

JS: Well, more generally, you talk about the possibility of concentration camps and martial law.

NW: I think we have gone very far down that road. I met Muslim immigrants in Brooklyn who were swept up in 9-11 raids, held in abusive conditions, beaten, denied rights. That’s how things started in Germany. Guantanamo was modeled after what Stalin developed for the Gulag. Why are we engaged in psychological denial that it’s not a concentration camp? In terms of martial law, my god. Since the book came out they deployed a brigade in the U.S. and suspended the Posse Comitatus Act. There is no question that it’s something to take seriously. People have a histrionic view of what martial law will look like.

I’m not worried that tomorrow there will be a battalion outside your Greenwich Village apartment. I’m worried about things like the McCain Liberman bill that would define enemy belligerents so loosely it would include Americans, which is just like Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini. If Obama tries people with military tribunals, setting that precedent, that is what a military state does. That is what martial law looks like. From a constitutional point of view Bush passing through the Patriot Act is no worse than Obama renewing it.

Best Of Peter Schiff's Town Hall Meetings

Lew Rockwell on the Suicide Bombers in Moscow

From LewRockwell.com:

We are hearing much about the bombings in the Moscow subways, where suicide bombers murdered dozens of people. These are called “Islamic terrorists,” but while the people of Chechnya are Muslim, that is not the source of their response. They want their freedom from colonial domination. Russia conquered this people in the 18th century. They have been oppressed by tsars and commissars. Stalin murdered them by the trainload, ethnically cleansing them because the communists could not control them. The Chechens want self-determination, and that is their right. It was not, of course, called terrorism when the post-communist Russians destroyed the entire capital of Grozny, and murdered many thousands of civilians, with non-suicide bombers. The Chechens are wrong to respond in a governmental fashion. But Russians have been wrong for more than two centuries to occupy and murder these people, who have never accepted the foreign slave collar. Stop the governmental and private terrorism. Russia out of Chechnya!

Chris Martenson - Crash Course

Chris Martenson put this series of videos together to connect the coming collapse of our monetary system, peak oil, and our environmental challenges. It is very educational, very interesting, and is a MUST watch for anyone that wishes to understand better the turmoil we are living through now and will live through in the near future. So if you have a rainy afternoon and wish to kill a couple of hours, I recommend clicking this link and educate yourself.

Here's Part 1:



The risk of not understanding the coming lowering the standard of living we will all suffer through due to these three variables is large. Not only for our own preparation, but because in times of crisis, our governments will use the crisis to push through policies we would otherwise reject.

Organic Eating, Monsanto Hating, Raw Milk Drinking, Back-Yard Chicken Wanting Idahoan In Love With Ron Paul

This is a letter to the editor from Jen Pitino in the Idaho Press-Tribune:

I have a crush, though it is not your typical love affair, it is all swooning without any romantic designs. Despite not actually being in a relationship with the object of my affection, I have given him more time, energy and adoration than most of my past, real-life boyfriends. I am in love with Ron Paul.

Being in love with Ron Paul often feels like dating the high school rebel. It is difficult to neatly explain to my friends who can’t understand the attraction and demand to know “why am I with him?” There is no single reason, rather it is the sum total of his traits that make him irresistible.

My heart swells at his honesty and boldness. He has consistently spoken out against America ’s seemingly endless wars in the Middle East and was one of only six House Republican votes against the Iraqi war. The American people, he stoutly argues, were misled into a preemptive strike in Iraq based on false reports of WMDs. The results ever since have been devastating in the cost of human lives, the weakening of our national defense and the tremendous drain on our already compromised economy.

Tirelessly he warns Americans of the growing destruction of our Constitution through the false promises of homeland security. The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act and the FISA Amendments Act are all direct attacks on constitutionally protected rights of privacy, habeas corpus and search and seizure. Ron Paul has fervently fought against all of these legislative attacks on our individual freedoms.

I like that he stands up to bullies. He strongly opposes the fundamentally undemocratic World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund. He criticizes both of these secretive bureaucratic bodies that are intolerant to public opposition and act to the detriment of human rights, global justice and the environment, but to the advantage of transnational corporations. Ron Paul insists, “For the United States to give up any bit of its sovereignty to these unelected and unaccountable organizations is economic suicide.” He has described the WTO as a “meddling middleman” causing “serious harm to our economy and our sovereignty.”

Like any great date, he is a good listener. When nine out of 10 Americans who were contacting their legislators opposed the bailout bills, many congressmen weren’t such good listeners. Take Idaho, for example. Two out of the four Republicans in the Idaho congressional delegation (Larry Craig and Mike Simpson) voted against the will of Idahoans and for the banker bailout in 2008. Ron Paul listened and consistently voted against all of the bailout bills.

Furthermore, he isn’t a quitter. Twenty-six years ago, Ron Paul was a lone voice calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve. Today he has 318 co-sponsors for H.R. 1207, which would conduct that audit of the Fed. With the recent announcement of the 27th bank failure this year, Americans are rightfully questioning the wisdom of a system which has placed them on the hook for an estimated $5 trillion in banker bailouts. Serious scrutiny of the Federal Reserve is long overdue, and Ron Paul has never given up on this goal of transparency and accountability.

It makes me giddy that he and I share the same quirky passions. Unlike my friends whose eyes glaze over when I babble on about eating local organic foods or complain about agribusiness genetically modifying our food sources, Ron Paul understands me. Like me, he opposes the Monsanto-backed Food Safety Enhancement Act that puts the integrity of organic food production at risk. He introduced legislation to kill the federal NAIS program which would make it onerous, if not near impossible, for individuals to keep a few farm animals — like my dream of having backyard chickens. He also shares my belief that individuals, not a heavy-handed nanny-style government, should decide for themselves whether to drink raw milk. As a result, he sponsored H.R. 778 to remove the ban on allowing the interstate sale of raw milk.

Lastly, Ron Paul is no cheater. Other congressional members tell you that they are working hard to trim back government pork and wasteful spending, but do they really mean it? Ron Paul actually delivers on his promise to do all he can to save the taxpayers money. Last year, Ron Paul returned $100,000 to the Treasury from his allotted Congressional office budget by running his office in a prudent manner. He also refuses to accept the overly generous congressional pension benefit. He argues that the pension benefit is so lucrative compared to the private sector plans that it encourages careerism in congressional politicians.

In a nutshell, I am in love with Ron Paul because he allowed me to trust again. Too many times I had been two-timed and lied to by other D.C. politicians. A girl can only take so much disappointment. Ron Paul showed me that a Congressman can say what he means and mean what he says.

Ron Paul is the best faux-boyfriend that I’ve ever had.

Heated Discussion In Regard to Israel on MSNBC

The Southern Avenger - Nullify Obamacare

Victoria Police Kicking Unarmed Civilians

Sheriff Richard Mack On How A Constitutional Sheriff Would Have Handled Rosa Parks

Southern Avenger: Why "The Hurt Locker" Hurts

Quote - Khalil Gibran

“Yesterday we obeyed kings and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to truth, follow only beauty, and obey only love.” — Khalil Gibran (1883–1931)

Interesting Video Of Obama

While its obvious government has a monopoly over violence, its interesting to hear the president, or any democrat, say these words out loud.

Best Ron Paul Video since 2008

Southern Avenger - Gunning Down The Constitution

Southern Avenger - Extremism In The Defense Of Liberty

Jordan Page - Liberty

Schiff Won His Debate

Stimulus Explained

Found here.

Temprature Data In US Corrupted?

It pains me to link to Fox News, but they had an interesting article in regard to the location of thermometers in the United States which are used to obtain information in regard to climate changes:

The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) uses this massive network of sensors to determine daily highs and lows at the 1,219 weather stations in its Historical Climatology Network (HCN). The network has existed since 1892, but only in the last decade has it come under intense scrutiny to determine whether the figures it measures can be trusted.

For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government's own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed:

• A sensor in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.

• A sensor in Hanksville, Utah, sits directly atop a gravestone, which is not only macabre but also soaks up the sun's heat and radiates it back to the thermometer at night.

• A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station right next to an air conditioner exhaust, a cell phone tower and a barbecue grill.

• A sensor in Tahoe City, Calif., sits near a paved tennis court and is right next to a "burn barrel" that incinerates garbage.

• A sensor in Hopkinsville, Ky., is sheltered from the wind by an adjoining house and sits above an asphalt driveway.

• Dozens of sensors are located at airports and sewage treatment plants, which produce "heat islands" from their sprawling seas of asphalt and heavy emissions.

"So far we've surveyed 1,062 of them," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who began the tracking effort in 2007. "We found that 90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."

Any comment?

Southern Avenger: Ron Paul's Conservative Foreign Policy

Listen

Is Dawkins Dumb on Evolution?

I'm not a creationist. Though I'm not I'm an evolutionist either; I don't know enough about genetics. It seems like a better theory than that of Mary giving a virgin birth, but that just makes it a better theory, not the truth. Thankfully, living my daily life, I do not need to make decisions about these things to be happy and productive. That I at least think about them is enough for me.

In the following video, Dawkins is asked a very intelligent question, he gets stumped, stops the recording, starts it back up and provides a response that does not answer the question.



I'm going to ask a question for anyone to answer for me: If evolution is a process that is always occurring, would we not be able to see it happen right now? Would we not see the information increase in the genome somewhere? At some level? If it happened before, why could it not happen right now? What would have triggered it before that might not be triggering it right now? Have we seen this and Dawkins just didn't know about it? Is it the wrong question?

Dawkins' eventual response was very unsatisfactory.

Matt Stone & Trey Parker On Making Fun Of Liberals

From an interview with The Huffington Post:

They have certainly mocked conservative groups and people on their show, but they tend to skewer liberals more often. Why? "Ripping on Republicans is not that fun for us only because everyone else does it," Matt explained. "It's so much more fun for us to rip on liberals only because nobody else does it, and not because we think liberals are worse than Republicans but, just because..."

"..it's like fresh snow. I mean how're you gonna rip on Sarah Palin in a new way?" Trey pointed out.

"I think sometimes we do gravitate towards things other people haven't done and a lot of times that makes us gravitate away from ripping on Republicans cause it's just done very well by a ton of people. It's hard to compete with Jon Stewart, etc -- those guys are brilliant."

There Will Be A Revolution

Pomplamoose - I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing

Ron Paul on Assassinations

Fox News Spins Overtime Re: Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll

Teapartiers Display Diversity In Face of Olbermann

Is Darwin Wrong?

Is Charles Darwin wrong?

Its not really something I've thought much about since I was 16, at a time when I gave such topics more attention than I do today.

The answer is simple though. Of course Charles Darwin is wrong. The man died in 1882. Do we really think that the end-all, be-all theory of where we came from and how we developed over thousands of years would end with Darwin? It would be amazing if he wasn't proven wrong many times over in the future as knowledge in regard to the genetics of all life grows by leaps and bounds and the context from which we look at our development evolves as well.

This is not to say Darwin doesn't deserve a ton of credit for the foot work he put into toward developing the foundation of genetics research and our understanding of how life develops. He not only deserves credit for the footwork he put into his research, but he was also able to provide a society whose core beliefs are simply supported by stories handed down from one generation to another with a rational and scientific alternative explanation to the questions of where we came. He gave science a voice within our society in answering some of our most basic, in depth, and important questions about life, and the significance of that cannot be overstated.

At what point does old science simply become today's religion though? People that lived 3000 years ago based their theories of we came from (their religion) on what they knew at the time. At that point people had big questions and a very limited amount of knowledge to answer those questions. Religion became as scientific as it could get. Much in the same way, Darwin's knowledge of genetics during his day was extremely narrow compared to a geneticist of today. Darwin explained our origins as best he could with the limited amount of knowledge he had. And now, just like religious zealots of yesterday cling to the science of days before, Darwin zealots cling to their own religion.

Science is the quest for truth and to discover that truth it is always healthy to remain skeptical of the current dogma which prevails in any field, especially those we know the least about. A new book has recently been published, written by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini and Jerry Fodor entitled What Darwin Got Wrong. It has been attacked viciously by pro-Darwin nuts who have been scared by their own ignorance of a slight chance that with a rejection of Darwin comes an onslaught of Creationism. They're wrong. Questioning Darwin is healthy if our own knowledge of our origins will ever progress.

You can read an interview of Jerry Fodor at Salon.com. What he says about Darwin and why Darwin is wrong seems very logical and I would think deserves serious consideration for any of us searching for the truth.

The Southern Avenger: Ron Paul's People

The Strong European Economy

US To Engage In War With Iran, No Matter What

Them Texans

The Absurdity Of The Epic Beard Man

***WARNING: VIOLENCE AND OBSCENE LANGUAGE IN THE FOLLOWING VIDEOS***

These are neither political nor economical videos. Just something I discovered this morning that I have found very interesting. A man who has been given the title "Epic Beard Man" gets in a fight with a younger black individual on the bus in Oakland, California. Epic Beard Man doesn't have it all quite together, but in the first 24 hours after this video was uploaded onto YouTube on Feb. 16th, it received 1 million views and in the past several days has spawned various remakes and multiple meme's (Epic Beard Man, Amber Lamps, Bring M&Ms, Thomas Bruso). You can find an indepth analysis of this phenomenon at KnowYourMeme.com.

I don't really have much commentary on what happened in this video beside my instinctual human interest in watching two individuals fight. Is it civilized? No. But its provokes interest the same way a car crash does.

Again, the video is gruesome and has a lot of strong language:



Here's an interview with Epic Beard Man after the fact; the man is obviously not quite all there:

Ron Paul @ CPAC

I apologize for the drunken lady at the beginning...

What The Paulites Have Done For The Republican Party

2 years ago, this guy would've gotten a standing ovation for bashing GOPride (A group of Republican homosexuals).

Thankfully, the audience were full of Paulites and members of Young Americans For Liberty who properly understand individual liberty and booed the douche-bag off-stage.



Just so you know, Jeff Frazee, the man called out toward the end of this nonsense, is the founder of Young Americans For Liberty. Young Americans for Liberty is a student-run organization, with over 183 active and forming chapters in American colleges and high schools and over 15,000 members. They focus on educating their peers about various topics including libertarian values and emphasizing the role of the Constitution in the American government.

Southern Avenger: 911 Truths

Biggest Douche in the Galaxy: Professor Phil Jones

Professor Phil Jones is the scientist at the center of the "climate-gate" scandal. Whether it is really a scandal or not, I'm not here to argue. But apparently this guy is the fella who has collated all of the data that provides support for the "hockey-stick" graph climate change activists cling to as evidence we need a global regime to rule over our CO2 emissions.

You can read a fantastic article about this douche-bag at the dailymail.co.uk.

Apparently this data has been "lost" or "misplaced" or "not organized". Apparently, the professor's record keeping is "not as good as it should be" and he has trouble "keeping track" of the data. The guy who's job it is to keep all of the data that supports the graph through which fuels most of the climate change activists around the world isn't even organized enough to confidently provide this data to the world to be independently scrutinized and investigated.

But don't you worry little climate change ikeman's, Jones has "denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made." I guess his word will be good enough.

Of course Jones goes on to admit to the following eye-opening revelations:

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

I think this provides more support to my theory about what is going on with our climate: we really just have no clue what is happening. Hypothesis are made to fit agendas; poor evidence is used to fit these hypothesis; false claims about the climate are being made all over the place; key evidence can't be provided to the public; other swings in temperature can be somehow linked 100% to other natural phenomenon, but this particular recent swing has be 100% the cause of CO2; noone can say the medieval warming period didn't exist, but they do anyway without, once again, credible evidence.

I found this the other day. Its a guide for man-made climate change skeptics.

Foreign Demand for Treasury Securities Falls

Foreign demand for US Treasuries fell by largest amount on record in December. Read about it here:

The government said Tuesday that foreign demand for U.S. Treasury securities fell by the largest amount on record in December with China reducing its holdings by $34.2 billion.

The reductions in holdings, if they continue, could force the government to make higher interest payments at a time that it is running record federal deficits.

The Treasury Department reported that foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities fell by $53 billion in December, surpassing the previous record of a $44.5 billion drop in April 2009.

The big drop in China's holdings meant that it lost the top spot in terms of foreign ownership of U.S. Treasuries, dropping to second place behind Japan.

Japan also reduced its holdings of U.S. Treasuries, cutting them by $11.5 billion to $768.8 billion in December, but that amount was still more than China's December total of $755.4 billion.

Southern Avenger: Terrorism, Liberal and Conservative

Southern Avenger: Slandering Secession

Ron Paul on Rachel Maddow

How to Fix Health Care: Lasik Surgery For The Medical Debate

The Southern Avenger: Sarah Palin's Bad Tea

Maddow: Is The Tea Party Movement Trying To Get Rid Of Ron Paul?

"Come home, Danny. There won’t be protests at the airport."

John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail had an interesting piece on the lack of populism in Canada while asking the question, will Canada have its own Tea Party Movement?

My answer is a big NO. My own perception is that, while I'm sure historically there have been significant instances of Canadians protesting their government, its not something that is ingrained within our culture. It is a characteristic that will always mark a difference between us and our neighbors south of the border; anyone paying attention could easily acknowledged this. Our government was founded on the principles of "peace, order and good government"; the United States government was founded on the perception that there is no such thing as a good government. This is a perception that has strong roots in American culture and every once in awhile shows its head.

We are currently living through one of those moments; hopefully it will not end up with more people like the torture-supporting Scott Brown being elected. The largest problem with the teabaggers is there perception on foreign policy and their ignorance in regard to civil liberties; they could just as easily usher in full on fascism as Obama and his banker buddies.

Here's an excerpt of Ibbitson's piece:

Canada and the United States are remarkably similar countries — so similar, that no one else on earth can tell the two of us apart, unless this Austrian or that Sri Lankan has an ear so well attuned to English that she can distinguish Newfoundland from Missouri accents.

Yet politically, we are solitudes. Americans are perpetually in full-throated reaction to the status quo. Their grassroots abhorrence of the war in Iraq, the mismanagement of Katrina and the other follies of the Bush administration helped get Barack Obama elected President of the United States.

Now it would seem that an equally large, though very different, assembly of Americans is rallying in reaction to Mr. Obama’s statist interventions in the economy, his hopes to reform health care, his government’s projected deficits.

This is no confection whipped up by Fox News. Massachusetts elected a Republican senator last month in reaction to the excesses of Obamanation.

The Misesian Vision

Quote - Hayek

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

F A Hayek
The Fatal Conceit

'Climategate': Cooking Data in UK Since 1990?

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History

The EU Says Jump, Sweden Says No. . .well, okay, I guess.

The fascist European Union issued a "directive" entitled the "Data Retention Directive" in 2006 requiring telecoms to store information about their customers' emails and telephone calls. Apparently the United States government isn't the only government in the west with a complete disrespect for an individual right to privacy.

The Swedish government has yet to pass legislation to enforce the EU's directive (I really hate that word).

Now this is where it gets really funny. In April of 2009, the EU decided to file suit against Sweden IN ITS OWN COURT (the European Court of Justice) for not passing legislation supporting the "directive". I wonder how the EU would punish a government that attempts to pass this type of legislation and fails (which is possible, because most of these countries are still kind of democracies even though they have essentially handed their sovereignty over to the EU).

The assumption of impartiality in the courts was funny enough, but there's a bit of a kicker. The obvious outcome of such a suit filed by the EU in its own court is that the court will demand Sweden's democratic government to pass legislation supporting the directive. It took the court a complete 9 MONTHS to publish their obvious decision.

Even when attempting to execute their fascist agenda, governments can't even do that effectively and efficiently.

The sad and depressing part is Sweden's response to the EU. The Swedish government conceded they would pass legislation supporting this "directive" on April 1st. I guess the Swedish people don't have a choice per a court in Luxembourg.

You can read about this in The Local: Sweden's News In English.

Prepare For The Worst

This is a 1 hour video of Ron Paul speaking at a Mises Institute conference The Failure of the Keynesian State in Houston, Texas last month. I've watched speeches from various Mises conferences like this over the past few years; the crowd in this one has to be the largest yet.

Southern Avenger - Denmark Vesey Was a Terrorist

The Student Movement to End the War On Drugs

India Nuts-Up and Defies IPCC. BRAVO!

The following is from the Telegraph.co.uk:

The Indian government's move is a significant snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.

The body and its chairman have faced growing criticism ever since as questions have been raised on the credibility of their work and the rigour with which climate change claims are assessed.
In India the false claims have heightened tensions between Dr Pachauri and the government, which had earlier questioned his glacial melting claims. In Autumn, its environment minister Mr Jairam Ramesh said while glacial melting in the Himalayas was a real concern, there was evidence that some were actually advancing in the face of global warming.

Dr Pachauri had dismissed challenges like these as based on “voodoo science”, but last night Mr Ramesh effectively marginalised the IPC chairman even further.

He announced the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor the effects of climate change on the world’s ‘third ice cap’, and an ‘Indian IPCC’ to use ‘climate science’ to assess the impact of global warming throughout the country.

“There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses … they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.

My favourite line is definitely when the Indian environment minister Mr Jairam Ramesh said, "There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism."

Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration

The Sovereign Debt Crisis

Quote - Jay Leno

"Here is a historical fact. It was on this day in 1690, the first paper money was printed up in the colony of Massachusetts. The pilgrims realized that when they ran out of money, they could just print more. Thus, the federal government was born."

Jay Leno, February 3rd, 2010.

Of course, he forgot to mention the reason Massachusetts decided to print their own currency. Was it for "liquidity"? No. Was it to allow the money supply increase as the economy grew? No...somehow before central banking, economies grew without paper money.

It was for war. It was the first time in western civilization a government dropped a commodity standard and moved to paper currency and it was done to fund war. Just like it was done during the war of 1812, the Civil War, World War I, and then for good during the 1930s, after which the West has been in a perpetual war with the brown people of the world (Japan, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, activities in Central and South America, Cuba, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan), all financed by paper money. After the 1930s, the US dollar was still linked to gold for the purpose of major transactions between central banks, but even this link was destroyed in 1971 by President Nixon. Why? War. The United States was unable to pay its debts for Vietnam in gold, flipped the bird to the world (specifically the French) and has continued on till now printing dollars as if they're gold.

Massachusetts used the paper money to pay off militias to come up to the Maritimes and rob us.

If you're pro-paper currency, you're pro-war. The easiest way to abolish needless war is to abolish the printing press and fiat currency.

Who are the terrorists?

Hamas, or the majority of Israeli's next door seething for Palestinian blood?

Why You've Never Heard of The Depression of 1920

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine Is A Tool

Glenn Greenwald tears her apart for saying the Constitution of the United States only applies to American citizens:

Over the weekend, Sen. Susan Collins released a five-minute video in which she sounded as though she were possessed by the angriest, most unhinged version of Dick Cheney. Collins recklessly accused the Obama administration of putting us all in serious danger by failing to wage War against the Terrorists. Most of what she said was just standard right-wing boilerplate, but there was one claim in particular that deserves serious attention, as it has become one of the most pervasive myths in our political discourse: namely, that the U.S. Constitution protects only American citizens, and not any dreaded foreigners. Focusing on the DOJ's decision to charge the alleged attempted Christmas Day bomber with crimes, Mirandize him and provide him with counsel, Collins railed: "Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking" (h/t). This notion that the protections of the Bill of Rights specifically and the Constitution generally apply only to the Government's treatment of American citizens is blatantly, undeniably false -- for multiple reasons -- yet this myth is growing, as a result of being centrally featured in "War on Terror" propaganda.

If Man-Made Global Warming Were A True Threat, Why All Of The Lies?

Here are the latest lies from the IPCC, as reported in the London Times. Apparently the IPCC reported in 2007 that even a slight change in rainfall would wipe out "swathes" of rain forests. This claim was of course backed by...nothing. Oh, and three weeks ago the IPCC claimed that man-made climate change would cause the Himalayan glaciers to melt by 2035, which was again, backed by...nothing. Finally, the IPCC recently also claimed man-made climate change was causing an increase in natural disasters, and this was backed by...absolutely nothing. At what point does the IPCC become irrelevant?

Here's a snippet of the story from the London Times:

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

Danny Williams Flys to US for Heart Surgery

One can only imagine the reasons Mr. Williams did not obtain his heart surgery in a health care system ranked far higher than that of the US, his own.

From The Globe and Mail:

Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams is scheduled for heart surgery in the United States, a move that throws into question his province's and his nation's health-care system.

A source confirmed to The Globe and Mail late Monday that Mr. Williams has left St. John's for an undisclosed destination in the U.S. to have heart surgery later in the week.

The 59-year-old Conservative left Monday morning, spokeswoman Elizabeth Matthews said, without disclosing his location. While some of his critics were tight-lipped Monday night, the online public questioned his exodus – why the care he needed was not available in Canada, or whether he preferred treatment in the U.S.

His departure for a U.S. hospital is being met with both sympathy and anger as few details have emerged.

Gov. Johnson addresses Republican Liberty Caucus in New Hampshire.

The Japanese Want the US Out

Read about it here in the DailyMail.co.uk. Here's a excerpt:

Thousands of protesters from across Japan marched today in Tokyo to protest against U.S. military presence on Okinawa, while a Cabinet minister said she would fight to get rid of a marine base Washington considers crucial.

Some 47,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Japan, with more than half on the southern island of Okinawa.

Residents have complained for years about noise, pollution and crime around the bases.

A Tale Of Two Speeches

Southern Avenger: Welfare Is A Distraction

Despite Rejecting Government Help, Ford Pulls In $2.7 Billion In Profit Last Year

Read about it here.

DEARBORN, Mich. — Ford, the only U.S. automaker to avoid bankruptcy court, clawed its way to a $2.7 billion profit in 2009 and expects to stay in the black in 2010. It was the automaker's first annual profit in four years.

Ford's full-year revenue of $118.3 billion fell nearly 20 percent from 2008, but the Dearborn-based automaker benefited from cost-cutting, a $696 million profit in its credit arm and popular cars and trucks like the Ford Fusion midsize sedan and Ford Escape small SUV. It gained market share in North and South America and Europe, despite the worst U.S. sales climate in 30 years.

Me Want iPad

Medina on State Sovereignty

Debra Medina was Ron Paul's Texas field director during the 2008 presidential campaign and is currently running for governor in Texas. After the last debate, her poll numbers among republican primary voters jumped from 4% to 12%. She's running against incumbent Governor Rick Perry and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Employer In UK Told She Cannot Discriminate Against Unreliable Workers

From the article at the DailyMail.co.uk:

So recruitment agency boss Nicole Mamo was especially careful to ensure her advert for hospital workers did not offend on grounds of race, age or sexual orientation.

However, she hadn't reckoned on discriminating against a wholly different section of the community - the completely useless.

When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.

Is this where we're heading?

Keynes vs. Hayek

Inflation

Crash Course: Chapter 10 - Inflation by Chris Martenson - The funniest home videos are here

Quote - Frank Zappa

"The illusion of freedom in America will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."

Frank Zappa, 1977

Quote - St. Augustine

“Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a vast scale? What are criminal gangs but petty kingdoms?

A gang is a group of men under the command of a leader, bound by a compact of association, in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy wins so many recruits from the ranks of the demoralized that it acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues peoples, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of `kingdom,’ which is conferred on it in the eyes of the world, not by the renouncing of aggression but by the attainment of impunity.

For it was a witty and a truthful rejoinder which was given by a captured pirate to Alexander the Great. The king asked the fellow, `What is your idea, in infesting the sea?’ And the pirate answered, with uninhibited insolence, `The same as yours, in infesting the earth! But because I do it with a tiny craft, I’m called a pirate; because you have a mighty navy, you’re called an emperor.”

St. Augustine, The City of God

William Grigg in reference to this quote and a recent comment by Bill Clinton on LewRockwell.com:

Displaying uncharacteristic concision — and most likely without conscious intent — Bill Clinton offered a splendid summary of Augustine’s insight, updated for contemporary affairs.

During an interview published in the December 2009 issue of Foreign Policy magazine (which, like Foreign Affairs, is a journal written by and for the Power Elite, in which they extol their own supposed wisdom and goodness), Clinton helpfully defines terrorism as “killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority and go beyond national borders.”

By reverse-engineering this definition we learn that “killing and robbery and coercion” carried out with “state authority” isn’t terrorism; it’s public policy. We can also infer that the “war on terror” is not meant to bring an end to such violence, but rather intended to bring it within the compass of proper “authority.” That matter, in turn, is defined to suit the interests of whatever robber band happens to be dominant in global affairs.

The consistently insightful Chris Floyd, who brought this quote to my attention, adds another key element to the equation:

“Only those states which by their cheerful acceptance of America’s benevolent guidance and abiding friendship have proven themselves worthy can legitimately exercise their authority to kill, rob and coerce. All others must forbear – or else be branded `rogue states,’ purveyors of `state terror,’ which in turn makes them eligible for `the path of action.’”

"According to a George Mason University Study, George W. Bush presided over the largest dollar increase in regulatory spending in decades"

@ 2:02: "According to a George Mason University Study, George W. Bush presided over the largest dollar increase in regulatory spending in decardes".

Rex Murphy on Climate Change

Southern Avenger: Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party Saga