Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Yes, Mary, It is Discretionary Spending

Hi. I'm a US Senator from NOLA. I guarantee that I can redefine anything to make you sound dumb and me sound superior, at least until some scary person who knows how to read calls me on my double-speak. (

 Mary Landrieu, a US Senator from the socialist outpost of New Orleans, recently made an interesting statement. She stated that our federal government's spending problem is with mandatory spending, not discretionary. She further stated that she would fight to keep that mandatory spending to keep on its current track rather than to reform it.
"I am not going to keep cutting the discretionary budget, which by the way is not out of control, despite what you hear on Fox News. It's mandatory spending that is rising rapidly. Because the greatest generation that gave us the greatest nation the world has ever heard is dying and they need hospice care, they need Social Security, they need hospitals. And if they want to cut them go right ahead -- I'm going to be a little more gentle," (From Fox News )
According to the socialist definition of "mandatory spending", this is true. By their ideology, "mandatory spending" has increased six times faster than "discretionary spending".

Discretionary Spending, by their definition, is spending that requires an annual appropriations bill in order to spend it. They define mandatory spending as any spending that is automatic based  upon previous legislation.

This confuses things for many people. She is correct, within her definitions. But, like most things, you need to pin people down to define their terms.

For your average American, "mandatory spending", when done by the federal government, would be those things mandated by our contract with that government. That contract is called the US Constitution. So, "mandatory spending" would be spending that is specifically mentioned in that supreme law of the land.

By Landrieu's socialist fascist communist oligarch tyrannical liberal progressive terminology, "mandatory spending" includes things such as food stamps, housing subsidies, green energy subsidies, and other so-called "entitlement" programs. Just like the misnomer "entitlement", this is a false narrative. Food stamps are not an entitlement. They are a handout that makes people dependent upon the government instead of independent individuals.

Landrieu specifically mentions senior citizens entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. Yes, those individuals are entitled to those payments. The reason behind their entitlement, for the majority of recipients, is that they paid into those systems. Had they invested in series-I US Savings Bonds, they would be getting that loaned money back plus interest. In effect, that is what their payroll deductions into Social Security and Medicare were -- loans to the US Government.

So, Ms. Landrieu, let's twist this one around its one-point and look at the truth. Where did all of their money go? Well, it went into the general fund. While bouncing around the general fund during the 40+ years they worked, you and your predecessors used the money for government spending. Much of that was on discretionary spending. Now you owe those people their money plus interest. So, now it is mandatory, yes. However, had there been a balanced budget amendment 40 years ago, much of this shortage would not exist today.

In addition, no legislation supersedes the authority of the US Constitution.

You see, by Ms. Landrieu's socialist progressive liberal slang term "discretionary spending", military spending is discretionary with the exceptions of VA Disability, DoD Civilian benefits and DoD pensions (including civilians). Those she would call "mandatory". By her definition, military appropriations must be budgeted at least every 24 months. By legislation, the current cycle is annual instead of biannual.

Using a more logical and reasonable (and correct) definition of "mandatory spending", we have to look only at the US Constitution to find those parameters.

Article 1 Section 8 grants (and limits through the enumerated powers) congress its authority. It specifically states that taxes, excises, and duties are to be levied to pay public debts, maintain national defense, and perform its enumerated powers and duties.

Food Stamps are not enumerated nor implied anywhere in the document. Even the term "general welfare" does not refer to food stamps, social security, or housing subsidies. It refers to insuring the opportunity for prosperity. However, corporate bailouts and other poor fiscal policies enacted by the Senate, the Executive Branch, and shoved down our throats through the PPACA have done nothing to increase prosperity. In fact, we never recovered from the last (double-dip) recession. Now we have found that the last quarter of 2012 showed a GDP shrinkage. Instead of a positive GDP, we have a negative 0.1% GDP for the quarter. That is another recession. So, Ms. Landrieu and her fellow socialists have done the exact opposite of "provide for the general welfare".

Article 1 Section 8 also mandates that congress apportion funds for postal roads, post offices, naval forces, and ground forces. The military forces must be apportioned and budgeted at least every two years if not more often.

Those are "mandatory spending".

The debts to those who paid into Social Security and Medicare are "mandatory spending".

Food stamps are not. Housing subsidies are not. Congressional salaries are not. Grants to study shrimp on a treadmill are not.

Stop misleading people. We see through your false rhetoric.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Caligula Obamas Illegally Appointed His Donkeys

Caligula was a first in Roman History. He pushed for reforms to include full democracy over the republican form of government Rome had at the time. He mocked the representative Senate by appointing his own horse as Consul and Priest, giving his horse sway over the Senate. He was the first emperor to be assassinated by his own bodyguards, the Praetorian Guard.

Obama did much the same with some of his appointments. Those appointments were propagandized as "recess appointments". However, a Federal Appeals Court reviewed the appointments and deemed that they were not done during a constitutional recess. Therefore, the appointments were null and void.

In addition to the appointments being null and void, the court's decision was that all policies, executive actions, and bureaucratic regulations generated by these appointees were also null and void.

The appointments were mostly members of the socialist construct called the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Others included Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, another socialist construct.

Though the appointments were deemed unconstitutional and not, in fact, recess appointments, none of the appointees were removed from office as they should have been. They should have left those jobs immediately. Obama could have appointed them, again, and let them go through the confirmation process. That would have been the correct and constitutional thing to do.

This decision does have bipartisan implications. Executives on both sides of the political spectrum have made similar appointments. Most have been less blatant and timed closer to actual recesses. It will have implications on any future elected presidents.

The decision is somewhat "old n ews", having occurred on Friday, January 25, 2013. However, the lack of action after four days is news. A statement to the press by James Carney is not an action. It was a declaration of "we don't like getting caught with our knickers down and our other hand in the cookie jar". It was a declaration of inaction. Jay Carney came just short of pulling out the original US Constitution and urinating on it. 

However, Obama won't let his donkeys be out of a job. He is sticking to these appointments for one reason. It's now apparently clear that Obama has no respect for the US Constitution. It is something many have suspected for years. It isn't just that he has a false interpretation of that supreme law of the land as something ambiguous and subject to moral relevance. No, this is proof that they do not recognize the US Constitution's supreme authority.

Obama isn't Lincoln. He is Nero, Caligula, and Tiberius rolled into one.

Monday, January 28, 2013

Take Your Local Politicians To Task On Vouchers

This may be a news flash for a few people. Your local public schools are supported primarily through local and state taxes, not federal taxes, unless you live on a Native American reservation or a military installation. If this should happen to not be the case, there is a serious problem with your local school board and your understanding of the Tenth Amendment.

What this means is that you are paying for those schools. If you are not, then you are leeching on those who are.

Some areas pay for public education through property taxes. Others through a state level income tax. Some even have a sales tax. Usually, there is some combination of these. In the case of San Antonio, TX, it is primarily property taxes and local sales taxes that pay for municipal programs such as the local independent school districts and some infrastructure functions.

In November, Mayor Fidel Junior Julian Castro and his socialist tyrant cronies managed to eek out a scant majority by referendum to increase the city's sales tax. The tax increase was allegedly earmarked to provide for full-time preschool babysitters in public schools. A study had shown that attendance was low for these programs. Interest was low in many neighborhoods. So, he wanted a tax increase propagandized to provide for babysitters and facilities in the local schools that would provide the full-time services that parents weren't using anyway. The median pay and benefits packages for these new babysitters is $70k a year.

Castro got his wish. He raised taxes "for the kids". Now it is time for him to put our money where his socialism-spewing mouth is. If this money is "for the kids", then it is time to set up a voucher program. If parents choose to enroll their preschooler in a private daycare program that offers head-start education equal to or above that which is provided in the public schools (not hard to do) or parents choose to home-school their kids instead of making them wards of "the village", then parents should get vouchers. Those vouchers should be equal to the estimated per-student cost of the program in the public schools.

Now, should this be enacted, Castro will start crying. He will complain that too many people are taking the vouchers and the city cannot afford the public school programs. Well, if the schools are not providing the services that the customers (parents) are paying for (through taxes), then they should be allowed to fire those substandard programs.

Now for a twist of irony. Castro and his communist cronies are now campaigning for a streetcar system in San Antonio. This will allegedly bolster the failing local, public mass-transit system, VIA. By and large, every proposal for "light rail" or streetcars has come with a misleading price-tag. The construction of these systems cost more than the systems could make in a decade. In order to break even, the fares would need to be so high that those who would benefit from the public transportation would not be able to afford them. If they set rates at what your average person would be willing to pay, they do not stand to make any revenue that could support the salaries of operators or maintenance crews. In fact, they wouldn't take in enough revenue to cover the construction costs.

The CATO institute has a great study on the costs versus benefits.

If there is a streetcar conspiracy, it is of politicians and contractors seeking to spend taxpayer dollars building frivolous and obsolete streetcar lines in today’s cities. (The Great Streetcar Conspiracy by Randal O’Toole, CATO Institute, )

Metro-Atlanta, GA looked at expanding streetcars in and around that city. When faced with the price-tag, they attempted to increase taxes to cover the costs. The T-SPLOST referendum was shot-down overwhelmingly. It was a waste of money that the citizens did not want nor did they want to pay for. The benefits do not outweigh the costs.

The proposal does not have much support in San Antonio. Even the relatively left-wing biased MySA printed another of O'Toole's studies. They support O'Toole's proposal of using the funds to fix other infrastructure such as the city streets, first.

So, where will Castro get his funding from for his proposed future fiscal fiasco in San Antonio?  Well, he got away with raising local sales taxes to support his doomed-to-fail pre-K program. Residents fell for that fleecing. He will either propose raising taxes, again, or he will propose redistributing the increased revenue from the pre-K sales tax increase.

While your vote at the polls is your main means of holding politicians accountable, it is not your only means. Write your city councilmen. Write your county and state representatives. It's time to demand that those taxes you pay for education are used to educate your children as you think best. It is time for vouchers or tax rebates and a school choice program. Don't let them use those "targeted revenues" for other pork projects. If not used for your kids, tell them to give it back so that you can use it for your kids' education.

It isn't "the city's money". It isn't "the state's money". It isn't "the school district's money". It is YOUR money. You are paying for services. If you aren't getting them, demand a refund!

Sunday, January 27, 2013

The Village Failed -- Time for the Family.

January 27, 2013 marks the first day of "School Choice Week".  The school choice movement should serve as a lesson that the indoctrination programs the left attempted to instill into our school systems is failing.

First, let's look at a brief history lesson on the formation of the public school system in the US. It was formed with the backing of socialist-minded industrialists and union bosses who wanted a labor force that could read basic directions, do basic, simple calculations, and perform basic shop-class tasks. These made for better skilled workers and unskilled workers.

Those who went beyond the curricula usually took college prep classes in high school and went on to college. College was paid for by parents who saved and by students who worked and saved. Many still had to borrow from private lenders or do well enough to earn scholarships. They didn't have "free college money" coming from the government. They were not duped into believing they were entitled to a college education. They were raised knowing they had to earn it, if they wanted it, though effort, saving, working, studying, passing tests, and sacrificing "party time".

Then came "the village".

On August 27, 1996 Hillary Clinton stood before the Democratic National Convention and gave a keynote speech. Within that address, she quipped one of her most famous quotes, "It takes a village to raise a child".

She claims that the saying comes from an old African proverb. While that may be true, she perverted the meaning, bending it to a socialist banner. The modern message she meant to instill was that it takes a modern tribal collective, not a family, to raise a child. She meant that it is the government's job to raise your kids. She also meant that it is the responsibility of those who earn, succeed, and prosper to pay for the raising of children. It was a speech meant to justify increased revenue collection and federal spending on education.

The experiment, however is a proven failure. Most historic tribal collectives are made up of relatives. In essence, they are each an extended family. Her rhetoric ignored this simple fact. The main fulcrum of success is the nuclear family, not the government. The government's attempt to replace the nuclear family has failed.

Since her speech, federal spending on education has increased exponentially. However, public school achievements have fallen. As students have failed to meet the standards, those standards were re-evaluated and reduced. As the standards were reduced, the performance of the students have fallen to meet them. The vicious cycle has continued.

This has been intentional. The worse kids perform in public school, the better argument for increased revenue to support them becomes. People fall into the easy trap of "it's for the kids".

This same segment of society that lauds "the village" as the pinnacle for raising children also rewards being a single-parent household over dual parentage of children. A single mother gets educational grants, food subsidies, housing subsidies, and tax breaks that two-parent households do not get.

This same segment of society also financially supports abortion clinics so people do not have to take responsibility for their own actions. There have been several bills submitted by pro-life conservatives to prohibit federal funding of abortions, but none have yet passed. In 2011, however, a resolution was passed to stop the federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Since that resolution passed, socialist representatives have fought to resume that spending. Currently, they remain at an impasse regarding the federal funding of abortions with conservatives pushing to remove the section of the PPACA that provides for it.  In the past 4 years, there have been 224 bills regarding the federal funding of abortions. If they choose to abort their children, "the village" pays for that, in part (from tax revenue), per the PPACA in its current form. If they choose to raise the child themselves, without the other parent, "the village" rewards them for their courage.

These foster the false ideal that the government is your parent. The government should give you your moral code, instilling what it values. "Family Values" no longer matter. It gives that false sense of security, making children falsely believe that "the village" will chase away the monsters under the bed. In fact, it is "the village"
that put them there in the first place.

There are studies being conducted on incarcerated criminals. The majority of them come from single-parent homes. The majority of those single parents were mothers. They lacked a positive male role model, a father.

The TV show "How I Met Your Mother" includes the character Barney Stinson. Barney is a notorious womanizer. Among his favorite demographic are women with "daddy issues". As funny as the show can be, this element of today's society is too true. Girls who grow up without a positive male role model end up seeking some person or group that will give them a foundation of security and personal courage. No school can give a girl the self-reliance and secure feeling that a father can.

It's proven that kids need that "kiss to make the boo-boo feel better" that mothers provide. But they also need that "shake it off and get back on the bike" perseverance that fathers bring.

What has the village provided our kids while attempting to replace the family?

It has given us indoctrination into socialist ideology. Ayn Rand warned of this in her collection of essays entitled "Return to the Primative". Now we have convicted domestic terrorists giving keynote speeches to teachers' unions. Are the types of teachers who idolize people such as Bill Ayers the type of person you want teaching your kids? Probably not.

We have so-called educators like Robert Pimental and Terrence Lee Smith molesting and sexually assaulting our kids. While Pimental may not get away with his crimes, we have female teachers raping 12-14 year old male students, then marrying them (with parental permission, to top it off) when they reach 17 in order to spare the rapists from prosecution. Are these the types of people we want raising our kids? Probably not.

But these are the types of people who make up "the village" that Hillary Clinton and the socialists will have you believe are better at raising your kids than a two-parent nuclear family.

The head of a council of school principals thinks that parents are too stupid to raise their kids. This is honestly what socialist demagogues in the education system believe. What is worse, is that it is what they want your kids to believe.

However, not all teachers think this way. In fact, I'd be willing to bet half of the teachers in public schools do not. Bolstering that bet is the fact that teachers' union membership in right to work states is falling, not rising. If the unions and their socialist ideals were so awesome, you'd think that more teachers would flock to the unions in right to work states.

Other lights at the end of this dismal view of public sector education are the noted successes of charter schools. In local areas that have charter schools, the overall performance rankings of students is markedly higher than their public school counterparts. One of the main reasons is that the charter schools teach instead of indoctrinate. Instead of spending hours upon hours making each student believe he or she is a special snowflake who needs a trophy just for showing up and not eating paste, they reward making the grade. They reward being competitive and achievement. There are no trophies for participation. They keep score.

Homeschooling is on the rise as well. The performance of home-schooled children is so well known that public sector educators fear this trend. They attempt to demonize homeschooling. They attempt to ostracize kids who are home-schooled to the point of not allowing them to participate in any of the extracurricular activities that their tax-paying parents have already paid for.

There are so many options available. The socialists want to remove these options by opposing "school choice". They claim that school choice legislation will take money out of your kid's school and deprive him of his "rights". That isn't true. School choice legislation gives you, that parents, the right to choose what you feel is best for your child. If your local school isn't providing the education you desire, you get a form of rebate or tax credit so you can send your child where he will get that education you desire. While these credits or rebates may not be enough to cover an expensive private school tuition in its entirety, it does give your child an edge to compete for admission. From there, you have some funding to put towards that tuition.

School choice also enables charter schools in your area to openly compete for your child's attendance. They get grants of tax dollars for results, not for promises of results in the future.

Should you choose to home-school, school choice legislation gives you tax breaks, rebates, credits, and access to educational materials to better provide that education to your kids yourself. They also usually include some form of mandate for the local school to allow your children access to facilities and extracurricular activities.

It's clear that "the village" is failing to raise your kids. It's time to let them know that we do know better. It's time for parents to take back the responsibility and raise their own kids. It's time for teachers to do what we pay them to do -- educate and support our values, not replace them. It's time to let them know we are watching. It's time to let them know that we can and will fire them. Those are our kids. It is our choice, not "the village's".

Friday, January 25, 2013

A Hand Is Reaching To Steal Your Gun

Photo Courtesy Of The U.S. Army (Combatives training) [Public domain]
 Better defensive handgun and concealed carry courses teach and train people how to handle a situation when an assailant attempts to forcibly take your firearm from your holster (or hand). The US Army and US Marine Corps teach techniques to counter such attempts as well. It is something every responsible gun owner should know and practice.

No rational person wants to be disarmed by a violent threat. Worse, none wants to see their firearm used by those assailants against the very people we wish to defend and protect with them. Simple rules to follow include keeping a concealed pistol hidden until the assailant is beyond hand-to-hand distance (5 yards, minimum) and remove it from its holster quickly, preferably while concealed behind cover. Don't let an assailant get within 5 yards of you in the first place. If they get within that distance, use hand-to-hand techniques until you can gain separation. If an assailant grasps your weapon, grapple that hand against your body so they cannot take your weapon from its holster.

A text document cannot teach these techniques. A video can only familiarize you with them. Take a class taught by a qualified and credible instructor.

But you need to be alarmed. There is a hand reaching to snag your weapons from you, by force.

The union thug, Joey Biden, is on his campaign against the Second Amendment. He recently made a statement to the effect that the tyrants socialists liberals progressives gun-grabbers "don't want to take 'bad guns' away from good people but to take all guns away from bad people".

The sentiment and rhetoric brief well. However, in practice, they don't mean anything. The federal government already does not enforce the laws already in place in regards to criminals. They use them to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding individuals. If they really wanted to do what he claims, Fast and Furious would have been conducted much differently. The weapons would have been tagged, tracked, and rigged. Instead, the weapons were given to hardened criminal organizations to be used against our own US Border Patrol and Mexican civilians.

Criminals care about laws. They do. They like to know what possible penalties they face when they get caught. They like to know any loopholes they can use to avoid prosecution. They like to know how well those laws are enforced. They intend to break the laws. They just look for ways to do so with the least chance of doing jail time for their crimes. They do not care about obeying the laws.

The proposed laws do not stop the criminals from committing crimes and using violence (guns, hammers, knives, etc.) in doing so. They do not take any "guns from bad people". All they do is infringe upon the rights of good people, leaving them ill-equipped to defend themselves.

Biden also made a comment that "no sporting or hunting use of firearms requires a 50-round magazine". That may be true. However, your standard magazine for an AR-15 is 30-rounds, not 50. Also, the Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. So his comment is irrelevant.

The simple reason why a homeowner would require a 30-round magazine for his AR-15 is that the threats have that capability. Criminals will still acquire and use 30-round magazines. They will just get them the same places they get their illegal Tek-9 "machine pistols". The other potential threats (police, national guard, and active military forces being used for tyrannic purposes to violate the US Constitution) have them. The tyrants have forces at their disposal that are so armed. The free individuals have the right to proportionate defenses equal to the most common weapon employed by your average Soldier. If Biden bothered to actually read Federalist 46, he'd understand this fact.

While Joey is flapping his, incorrect as usual, gums to distract you, that hand is inching towards your holster.

Dianne Hitler Stalin Lenin, Marx Pol Pot Amin Milosevic Mussolini Feinstein presented her plan. Her plan includes a multitude of unconstitutional, irrational, and severe infringements on our Second Amendment rights. Political Correspondent Jamie Dupree has an exhaustive list of the most important details. The hearings and debates are scheduled to begin in the Senate next week.

Among those details are stipulations that classify a weapon as an assault weapon if it meets at least one of a long list of cosmetic features including heat shielding hand-guards. She also lists any weapon that takes a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds as an "assault weapon".

Due to ex post facto, her proposal is to ban the manufacture, sale, transfer, importation, and purchase of weapons that meet her criteria for assault weapons. In addition, she lists, by name, manufacturers and models that will be outright prohibited. Basically, she proposes to render companies that are currently legal as illicit, putting them out of  business through hostile legislation. Then again, she's a devout socialist and opposes free enterprise.

Here is a partial list (from Jamie Dupree's article):

 All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS;  

All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF;  

All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

If a citizen already owns one of these, he can continue to own it. However, he cannot use it. He cannot bring it to a range. And he cannot sell it, except to a government run buy-back program. He cannot will it to a decedent or spouse.

Then there is that whole "buy-back" idea. It doesn't work. In Iraq, the government there instituted a buy-back program and an amnesty program. The number of weapons these programs wasted money on removing from the population was less than 10% of what the population retained. The laws there restricted ownership to one firearm per adult male in each household. Even confiscations of the surplus did nothing to reduce the numbers in circulation. The buy-backs were propagated as "successful". Yet violence exponentially increased shortly afterward.

One independent study did a statistical analysis of gun buy-back programs. In order to save one human life, >65,000 firearms will have to be bought-back. No program has ever come close to that number. That means that no program has succeeded in saving a single human life. The only purpose for them is to get idiots to complicit in a voluntary illegal confiscation of personal property and violation of individual rights.

Next, let's do a little free-market supply and demand analysis of a buy-back program.

If you legally purchased and own one of the rifles in that list, the government will offer to purchase it from you.

So, you cannot buy a replacement. Nobody can. That makes decreases the supply, dramatically. It also drastically changes the slope of that curve. It increases the fair market value of one of those weapons.

To understand this, take the case of one of Walter Payton's rookie cards. In the 1970s, a pack of football cards cost about $0.25. That garnered a certain number of cards plus a piece of pink, bubblegum-flavored linoleum.  If there were 10 cards in a pack, each card would be worth $0.2 (with a $.05 piece of pink floor tile).

In 1985, the Chicago Bears won the Super Bowl. Payton's rookie card's value skyrocketed. Payton broke and set records during his career. That increased the value to collectors. Payton died. The value jumped more. The rookie cards are several decades old. Many did not survive the years, being mistreated or falling victim to fires, floods, and sibling battles. So, there are fewer available. No more are being made. That card, in mint condition, which could have been bought for $.02 in 1976, is worth $1819.00 today. That is an increase in value of 9095000%.

With Feinstein's proposed ban in place, the value of one of the enumerated rifles will increase in value similar to that rookie card. A conservative increase in relative market price is easily 10,000% (100 times the pre-ban value). So, an AR-15 that is purchased at MSRP today, around $1,000.00, is worth $100,000.00 the day after the ban is enacted. Next comes the lost capital gains, plus the risk and the surrender of your individual rights. Everything has a price, right? So, what is your multiplier for those? What value will you place on those?

Personally, I'd say a multiplier of at least 10x. So, the government would have to offer me a million dollars for each so-called assault weapon I may possible own and may be bargained with to relinquish in a buy-back program. Does anybody believe that our bankrupt federal government can afford to pay 65,000 citizens a million dollars each for their firearms in order to save one human life?

If you believe that, let me remind you that they are willing and lie to cover up the incident in Benghazi that stole the lives of 4 US Citizens. They could care less about that single life. They don't. They'll just find a way to get that corpse to vote for them in the next election.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Distraction Alert! Women In Combat!

As one of his last acts as the SecDef., Leon Panetta issued an executive level decree that women would no longer be excluded from combat.

This has some panties in a twist.

The full guidance has not yet been made available. As with many large changes in force structure, this will require time for staffing, policy writing, and implementation. From my experience, this could take 90 days to two years to put into effect. The repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, which required legislation, took over a year to implement, for example.

The decree brings about questions of constitutionality. The stark reality is that the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and all other major changes to force structure regarding ground and naval forces must first be passed, as legislation, though congress. Article 1 sections 8 and 9 of the US Constitution fully address this fact.

This will leave it up to the US Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of Panetta's decree should it ever be challenged. Just because of the subject of its constitutionality, I think it should be. But that is because it is a matter of executive overreach, not because of the subject itself.

In reality, women have been in combat roles since the War For Independence. Consider the tale of Mary Ludwig Hays, also known as "Molly Pitcher". As an Army spouse, Mary joined in and supported her husband, John, on the battlefield. She filled the role of "combat support", a role female soldiers routinely fill in the modern Army. When her husband was mortally wounded in the Battle of Monmouth, she took up his duties at the cannon. She knew the drills and fought alongside the men. Later, once retired, congress voted on giving her a Soldier's pension instead of just widow's benefits, due to her filling the role of a Soldier.

Army doctrine mandates that every Soldier must be able to fill the basic roles of an infantryman should the situation arise. Marine Corps doctrine states that every Marine is first an Infantryman, then whatever other specialty. Given the doctrine of both of these military ground forces, it logically follows that females are already trained to fill combat roles.

True, there are many stories of females failing to rise to those occasions. One is Jessica Lynch, who was captured, tortured, and raped by the Iraqi army during Operation Iraqi Freedom. She failed to adequately fire upon the enemy. Her rifle failed to operate properly because she failed to properly maintain it. However, her failures were not the only factors that led to her capture. Her NCOs should have done their jobs preparing her and inspecting her equipment. Her commander failed to properly read a map. But her plight still will be used to argue against females in combat roles.

There are males who fail to meet the mental and physical toughness required by combat arms Soldiers, too. There are some females who do meet those requirements. So, the bottom line on this issue is that those capable should be allowed to serve in that capacity, if they so wish. In making it possible, the services just need to eliminate the physical fitness test standards that differentiate between male and female. There should be one table, with the age scales, devoid of separate columns for male and female. The US Army has already eliminated the gender differences in some of the tested events. Females will rise to the requirements.

In addition, most combat arms occupational specialties have minimum physical requirements. EOD has certain physical requirements to enter the job. Some women have already proven themselves capable as this specialty already allows females. Infantrymen, regardless of gender, would still be required to meet standards of lifting a minimum weight from the ground to overhead in order to be eligible.

I have seen females who can shoot better than the average male Soldier. I have seen females who can run faster. I knew one female Captain (O-3) who could do more push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, etc. than your average male infantryman. I knew another who was a hand-to-hand combat expert. I watched her spar with several males of equal ranking in Army Combatives, and watched her beat them.

So, other than the constitutionality of Panetta's decree, who cares?

It's a distraction. It's a smoke screen. It is designed to get those with their panties in a twist to talk about the issue. However, since Iraq revealed that women could fill roles in combat, the attempt has largely failed. The idea was to trick conservatives to make statements that would resurrect the false "War On Women" narrative. It failed.

The distraction is meant to take our eyes off a few issues.

First is the Benghazi investigation, or lack thereof.

Second is the dismal and destructive fiscal and economic policies from the executive branch and the socialists in congress. On this subject, we won a law that will suspend congressional pay if congress fails to do its job in passing a budget. However, it should have mandated that budget be balanced. That same bill gave the federal government permission to borrow from loan sharks to meet its bills until May. Taxpayers got screwed even with a compromise that appears "fair". It isn't fair to those of us stuck paying the bills.

The third and most important issue it distracts from is the attempt to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

First, they want to ban "assault weapons". The problem is that they cannot even agree on the definition of an "assault weapon" outside of "it looks intimidating". Under that description, everything other than a Super-Soaker looks intimidating.

Next they want to ban "high capacity magazines". The current meme is that such magazines are any that can hold more than 10 rounds. That is false. A "high capacity magazine" is one that can hold more rounds than the stock/standard magazine that comes with the firearm. In regards to an SKS, a high-capacity magazine is any removable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds. That rifle has an internal magazine with a 5-round capacity. In regards to an AR-15, it would be a magazine with more than a 30-round capacity. The 20-round options are not standard but are reduced-capacity optional magazines.

Lautenberg, famous for the much-abused "Lautenberg Amendment", has introduced one bill that would outlaw any weapon or magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds. I hope he's familiarized himself with the term "Ex Post Facto". His "Lautenberg Amendment" has been largely abused. It allegedly bans anybody found guilty of domestic violence from owning a firearm. However, it has been used to illegally confiscate firearms from anybody accused, even falsely, of such. Imagine a hen-pecked husband is bashed with a rolling pin. Then his abusive spouse bangs her own head into a mirror and calls the cops. Poor Billy has his guns confiscated. Abusive Abby smiles as her victim is left defenseless. I've seen this happen multiple times. It isn't as far-fetched as some may claim.
Congress will start voting on these infringements upon the Second Amendment as early as today. In reality, many of them have very little chance of passing. But they do have a chance.

Ignore the distracting smoke-screens. Keep focused on things that really matter. Keep your focus on demanding fiscal responsibility. Keep your focus on our constitutionally protected rights that are derived from the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Keep your focus on executive over-reach. Keep your focus on demanding accountability, competence, and justice from our elected officials and their appointed minions.

Be a Soldier. Maintain your battlefield awareness. Scan. Focus. Act. Do not get distracted. Do not get complacent. Demand that your leaders lead or get the heck out of office so somebody willing to do the job can get it done.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

The Difference It Makes, Mrs. Clinton

Clinton At Flag Ceremony For Ambassador Rooney, Jan. 9, 2013

Many on both sides of the aisle are deflated over today's testimony in the Benghazi investigation. Some on the left were expecting full vindication with blame stuck on the penny-pinching right. Conservatives were expecting a grueling cross-examination designed to drag Clinton to confess to criminal negligence. Others were hoping she'd just walk in, ticked-off and tie the albatross to Obama's neck.

None of the above happened.

Barbara Boxer asked Clinton about financing, budgetary shortfalls, and the actual costs of private, usually local, security companies.

Let's recall Clinton's ire coming out of allegations of impropriety from the Blackwater corporation. Blackwater provided security services for various government contractors and non-military US government personnel operating in hostile areas. Somewhere in the debacle, Clinton convinced the powers-that-be to hire local and non-US security personnel to guard and secure our facilities. These include our military installations in Kuwait and other government offices in countries such as Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Qatar, etc. However, law and defense policy dictate that the US Marines have the Embassy missions as well as the spearhead for any NEO (Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations) missions.

This is something even Hollywood gets somewhat correct. Refer to movies such as "Borne Identity" and "Rules of Engagement". The plot of ROE concerns a Marine Corps (Mr. Obama, that's "corps", not "corpse") Officer put on trial for ordering his unit to fire on terrorists that were attacking an embassy during an NEO mission. That attack started as a protest over some issue or other. Sound familiar to anyone?

When it comes to the financing of security forces, the bottom line answer is that those funds should have been DoD funds for the US Marines, not State Dept. funds for private bodyguards. At that, the issue is clear and is moot. It's a tap dance.

Of course, it's part of the left's agenda to weaken our military and cut defense spending. The main reason behind doing so is that defense spending is mandated by the one document the left hates:  The US Constitution. Paying for programs such as TANF and EBT cards that keep people oppressed and enslaved are not. So, their foundational ideal is that anything mandated by the Constitution is bad and any government spending that is not are "social justice".

So, the socialists bolstered up to protect Mrs. Clinton. They attempted to put forth the meme that it was all funding and failure of underlings to follow policy and protocol.

During the hearing, a rather emotional Clinton uttered a statement that was just ludicrous. She posed the question, "At this point, what does it matter if the attack was the result of a protest over a video or a planned terrorist attack?".

Clinton is not that stupid. She is trying to obfuscate reality. She is attempting to cover her own backside while maintaining party loyalty. She knows. The simple truth is that if she admitted that it was a terrorist attack that she'd have to answer hard questions on why appropriate protective measures were not taken. It would be admitting fault, either hers or Obama's.

I used to work in intelligence. I had a role in counter-terrorism. In 2009 I was still privy to certain information. Back then, the writing on the wall was clear and legible. Al-Qaeda was still a threat. They were not defeated. They had relocated and adapted. The capture of killing of Usama bin Laden would serve as just a morale boosting symbol. Anybody who understood their organizational structure also knew that removing one leader would not defeat the organization.

Since I retired in 2011, I have not been privy to any classified information. However, anybody willing to plot data points and look at the patterns could see the same things using just "Open Source Intelligence". Open Source is simply just reading news stories and filling in the blanks. This does not mean limiting yourself to just US news sources. You have to read others such as Al-Jazeera, BBC, The Daily Mail, and others. But the information is out there. It just takes a few minutes of work to read it and put it together. The answer should be clear to anybody, especially now in hindsight:  Al-Qaeda was rebuilding and reorganizing. Another attack was imminent.

That attack happened. Looking at the news reports and published debriefings from those who survived, it is obvious that an Al-Qaeda affiliate had this attack planned. The video served as the perfect excuse. They organized the protest. It was organized before the excuse presented itself. It could have been that video. It could have been a blog written by Pam Geller. It could have been the attempted extradition of an Al-Qaeda linked imam from the UK to the US. So many excuses were available. They picked one and had that protest serve as a diversion while they attacked and assassinated our ambassador.

Why this matters is simple. The indicators were obvious to intelligence analysts. They were ignored by the powers that be. When the attack happened, they were caught with their pants down. So, they had to blame somebody. They blamed a video, then the intelligence community. The problem with being in the intelligence community is that you cannot publicly say "I told you so". You can say it in private. But publicly, you cannot admit to knowledge as it leads to attempts to compromise sources and collection capabilities. Once compromised, those become useless, lost, wasted, and in some cases, dead.

So, admitting the attack was a terrorist attack would be admitting that the intelligence  was ignored. It would admitting negligence, complacency, arrogance, or worse, being complicit. If Clinton admitted the terrorist attack and gave it credence, she would be hanging her party and their chosen messiah out on the line and pointing out the emperor's non-existent magical clothing. She would be a pariah to her own party. It would mean throwing away all she worked for from bolstering Billy-Bubba's political career to her own legacy.

Meanwhile, the conservatives fear the finger-pointing over the budget cuts and lack of spending for those private security firms. They have no backbone. They fear retribution from the Clintons, the Heinzs, The Obamas, and the Kennedys. They want to protect their own political clout. What they fail to realize is that, should it all come out eventually, that their lack of candor and personal courage will lead to their facing hard primaries as incumbents come re-election time.

Still to come, however, is Clinton's testimony in front of the House of Representatives. Granted, Boehner doesn't have the backbone to challenge Clinton. However, people such as Daryl Issa and Paul Ryan may have the gumption to ask those hard questions.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Boehner & Co. Want To Give In To Loan Sharks

In a closed party meeting, select GOP Representatives conjured up a bill that presents a form of compromise in order to avoid the "Debt Ceiling Crisis".

From what has been published, so far, the bill proposes a few aspects that should make both sides of the aisle happy. Even Obama has stated he'd sign the bill.

The bill will increase the debt limit enough to avoid the government reaching its limit before March, when sequestration will take place if a final deal isn't met. Basically, it will allow the government to borrow enough money to run until the end of March.

Along with that comes a mandate that a budget be passed and certain spending cuts be made. No specific cuts are made. The bill just states that enough will need to be cut in order to come closer to balancing the budget. Should these not happen, congressmen will not get paid until it does, according to information published about the bill. Obama is on board with it.

That should scare anybody who has ever had to balance their checkbook.

This should scare anybody who has had a Soldier, friend, relative or themselves taken a "payday loan" or visited a "loan shark".

It boils down to "I cannot pay my bills. Please lend me $5k more so I can afford a debt consolidation loan and I will pay it all back,at 33% interest, in 90 days".

We hit the federal credit limit already. We are broke. We started the calender year broke. We just finished the first quarter of the fiscal year, and the federal government is broke.

Like a mob bookie, Obama just told congress to go get a loan from his favorite loan shark and he will approve it.

This goes hand in hand with the fact that Obama has complete morons actually believing that the debt ceiling has anything to do with repaying debts or bills it owes. It doesn't. It has to do with borrowing money. It has to do with creating more bills it cannot pay. Obama wants more bills that we cannot afford. He does not want prosperity.

Meanwhile, these representatives are actually willing to go meet that loan shark and request a loan, though a smaller one.

We the people need to tell them "NO!"

Congress needs to come up with a balanced budget. That budget needs to do the following things, in these priorities:

1. It needs to provide for the defense of this nation. That is the number one reason the federal government is allowed to collect taxes and revenue.

2. It needs to set up a payment plan for the debt it already owes. This is the second mandate the constitution gives in regards for allowing congress the authority to collect taxes and revenues.

3. It needs to set up a reasonable budget to run the three branches adequately. If that means that the executive branch needs to cut bureaucrats, that is a good thing.

4. They need to forget about asking for a single cent's raise in credit limit until they can be responsible enough to live within the means it currently has.

So, members of the GOP are selling out to avoid this so-called crisis. Tell them to grow a backbone. Call their offices. Write them emails. Let your voice be heard. Tell them "NO!".

There is no crisis. We hit a debt ceiling when Clinton was president. The prosperity that many attribute to his administration came from the GOP majority in the House, led by Newt Gingrich, telling Clinton to pass their budget and cut spending. They stood with a backbone. After vetoing the bill three times, Clinton eventually conceded. What was the outcome? Well, there was a budget surplus when George W. Bush was inaugurated. That was because Clinton was forced to enact and execute fiscal conservative policies.

Our country won't fall apart if we refuse to raise the credit limit. The government won't shut down if we refuse to raise that credit limit. What will happen is that Obama and the socialists will realize they don't have a minor nuisance to contend with but the will of the people.

Monday, January 21, 2013

More Important Than Obama's Coronation: MLK

Yesterday, in a small ceremony, Obama was officially and legally sworn-in for his second term as emperor president. The ceremony was behind closed doors with only a select group of witnesses allowed to attend.

Most presidents whose January 20th inaugurations fell on a Sunday postponed the ceremony one day. The exceptions started with "progressive" (read: socialist) Woodrow Wilson, who broke that long-standing tradition. Yesterday, Obama did the same. Since the tradition began, only socialist-leaning presidents have broken from it.

In order to appear not to have broken with that tradition, Obama scheduled his multimillion dollar waste of taxpayer money extravaganza to Monday, January 21, 2013. The ceremony will not be the official one. Like a married couple who eloped six months ago and is just now getting around to having a reception for friends and family, this one is just a dog and pony show to please a certain demographic.

It is also fitting that Obama moved his celebration and fake coronation to the observance of Martin Luther King Day. While some may find it fitting because Obama is the country's first black president, that is not what makes this fitting. What makes it fitting is that it falls in line with every other propagandized event Obama has conducted since 2007.

Remember, Obama officially kicked off his last campaign on May 5th, 2012. Many saw the significance of that being Cinco de Mayo. It was done, in part, to feign solidarity with Hispanic and Latino voters. However, it was also symbolic of Obama's anti-American ideology. Obama is a devout socialist, folks. May 5th is the birthday of Karl Marx. It is a socialist holiday. Obama's decision to take Marx's newspaper title, "Forward", as his campaign slogan just solidified this.

So, Obama wants to make himself look more like MLK. This is because Obama capitalized on the good works MLK did and the legacy we built upon. He is a product of the merits of true individualism and natural rights regardless of race, creed, or color.

The problem is that Obama is a champion of everything MLK stood against.

MLK did not seek to incite class warfare, blaming those who earned for what others failed to earn. MLK was about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.  MLK wanted each child to be born with the opportunity to work hard and achieve their dreams. Obama wants most children to be born able only to reach a glass ceiling because, well, "that's fair".

MLK did not support enslaving people to a government handout. He did not want it to be more profitable to have 4 kids with 3 different Mothers/Fathers not being married to any of them. He did not want votes bought with free cell phones. MLK stood more for opportunities to achieve, not for reasons to sit idle and collect "entitlements".  

MLK did not support collectivism. He opposed it. In MLK's time, people were lumped into collectives based upon skin color. Certain water fountains, seats, and even schools were segregated for use by collectives of certain skin tones or ethnic ancestry. Today, Obama wants to segregate people based upon where they were born (native born versus naturalized). He wants to segregate people by occupation (bankers versus plumbers). He wants to segregate people based upon income levels, pigeon-holing them into classes and pitting them against each other (middle class versus upper-class). In fact, one thing Obama seems to want people to ignore is that the US Constitution forbids classes. Many of his useful idiots still segregate people based upon race ("if you didn't vote for Obama it's because you're a racist").

Compare MLK's "I Have A Dream" speech to Obama's rhetoric. He uses some of MLK's key phrases. However, he twists them into divisive phrases. MLK never called out to "punish" those who worked hard to achieve and succeed. He just wanted it so people such as Herman Cain and Christopher Gardner could have the same opportunities for success as Bernie Marcus.

If Obama truly wanted to be more like MLK, he would be a Republican. He would be a TEA Party darling. He would support the repeal of the 16th Amendment instead of seeking the repeal of the 2nd and 22nd Amendments. He would champion The Fair Tax or a flat tax so that everybody really did "pay their fair share". He would truly support equal rights of opportunity regardless of sex, race, and circumstances of birth. He would support school choice. He would support the US Constitution as the supreme law for all. He does not.

Obama's having the celebration of his inauguration on MLK day is nothing less than a perversion of every good thing that great man stood for.

Friday, January 18, 2013

AMF: The Talkmaster's Last Show

Neal and Donna Boortz in the famous "Boortz Bus" from Millenium Luxury Coaches

After 42 years on the air, January 18, 2013 was Neal Boortz's last radio show. Though his contract will have him fill-in as a guest host from time to time, the show will no longer hold his by-line. Over 10,500 shows since his humble beginnings, Neal ends his career in a style that can only be described as "Boortz".

Neal started the show claiming he was going to do the show without notes. He also stated he didn't want to transmit Obama's name for one show, asking his engineer and producer to "bleep" it should it escape his lips, or anybody else's.

Somehow, people still do not recognize the name Neal Boortz. The man has gone camping with US Supreme Court Justices, gone golfing with billionaires, sang with Charlie Daniels, hung out with Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy, and gone hot air ballooning with  US Presidents ("Hey! It's Me, Jimmy!"). His final show should prove to be radio history.

Plans Change

Neal discussed what his plans were for his last shows. His second to last show was supposed to be done from College Station, TX, where his radio career began while he was a college student at Texas A&M. Evidently, the syndication company had difficultly making that deal happen. So Neal is in Atlanta, GA. A few years ago, Neal had moved to Naples, Florida and built a remote station in his home. One of his greatest reasons for moving to Florida was the fact that Florida has no state-level income tax, unlike Georgia.

Those who have listened to Neal over the past several years are accustomed to his rants concerning tax law. Neal has even co-authored two books explaining and advocating the Fair Tax. He puts his money where his mouth is. He moved to a right-to-work state  that also had no state-level income tax.

How To Truly Enjoy An NFL Football Game

Belinda attempted to convince Neal to attend the next Atlanta Falcons game. Neal countered that he has a huge HD television, surround sound, a lavatory 5 feet away, and he can "scratch whatever itches". To top it off, he can do so without fighting traffic or dealing with security guards groping him on the way into the stadium.

Belinda countered by offering up the mob mentality, jumping up and down with the crowd and "hugging complete strangers when they score".

Neal responded with sarcastic deadpan "Oh Golly! Get me a ticket, quick".

"Can you work your magic in a 2-minute warning?" ~ @WSBbelinda

"2-minutes is about it, yeah" ~ @Talkmaster #Boortz

So, what happened  to "Tiffany"? 

Almost a year ago, a caller "Tiffany" called to confront Neal. During the on-air call, Neal somehow broke though Tiffany's frustration to the core of her real issue. Many listeners recall the incident as Neal, Belinda, and the rest of the team reached out to help Tiffany get a leg-up. Since then, listeners have requested updates on a regular basis.

On the night before the final show, Belinda set into the task of getting in touch with Tiffany. Evidently, the task was  not as easy as anticipated. Her phone number had changed. It seemed  as though this woman had disappeared.

Belinda worked her magic and found her.

They called Tiffany. Tiffany has become much more conservative. She has started her own business. Her political views have  turned around. Her financial situation has turned a good corner. Unfortunately, they got her on the air less than a minute before a hard break. Listeners should press Herman Cain to check-in regularly with Tiffany, having her on his show.


Neal is a twitter addict. He apologizes for not being able to respond to the 600 messages a minute he averages while on the air. @Talkmaster

Once he retires, it will be the most consistent means of interacting with him. Neal stated that he will continue to blog on "Nealz Nuze" as well as write for Townhall Magazine.


Neal's first show in Atlanta was at WRNG. They show used to get their morning traffic reports from the Atlanta public transportation bus drivers. The reports were coordinated by a traffic reporter he affectionately nicknamed "Bus-breath". Beverly "Bus-breath" recalled when she brought her mother to work one day. Neal evidently told Beverly's mother that she and Neal used to "blank" back in the 70s.

Hey Neal! "Who Stole My Porn!"  Gonna miss you. #AMF #Boortz @Talkmaster

Neal reminisced about two blondes that worked in the news department. One of them was working on a story about rampant pornography. Somebody had snagged her notes for her story. Neal recalled how she ran around the office screaming "Who Stole My Pornography!".

"Hey, Emily Eggert, How Do You Like Me Now?"

While at Pensacola High School, Neal asked out Emily to a football game. He was an "uber-geek" in High School. Somehow, Emily said "Yes". After the game, Neal couldn't find the car. After searching for the car for over 30 minutes, some idiots pulled up in a car. They asked Emily to go to a party with them. She ditched Neal to go to the party, leaving him standing there looking like a "dork".

A "dork" is a whale penis. I'm wondering what sort of woman would walk away from a man who appeared to be sporting something that large.

On a piece of art in the radio station hallway is attributed to "Emily James". Well, that is her married name. She and her husband live in Neal's current town of residence. Neal golf's with Emily's husband. "She's stalking me!". Evidently, Emily did quite well, marrying the house-boy from her college sorority who later became quite successful in the banking industry.

Neal Gets Home Depot Founder To Join Twitter

Neal reminisces with his old friend Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot. Bernie called into the show. Neal and Bernie are old golfing buddies. Neal makes the case for capitalism. Bernie and his partner got employees to re-invest in the company. The company is worth over $30 Billion. Bernie and his partner's business model made millionaires out of many of those "minimum wage" laborers from the early days. That is capitalism at its finest.

Bernie called in to say "farewell and good luck". However, he also stated, on air, that he will now create his own Twitter account just to follow Neal. It appears that Neal is trying to infect many more with Twitter Addiction.

Of note, Neal was the reason I started on Twitter. I had grown tired of hearing him talk about cool things he was "tweeting". So, just to have access to one link that Neal published over Twitter, I set up my account and profile. Damn You, Mr. Boortz!

Neal piped in how he is now free of paying Medicare taxes, among other payroll taxes. This is in segue to plugging his last blog entry that will serve as his program notes. The entry is over 6,000 words long, telling a summarized version of the story he tells in his latest book, Maybe I Should Just Shut Up And Go Away. The book was published as an e-book. However, demand is increasing for print copies, especially signed ones.

I plan to read and review the book in the near future. I'm currently reading, for pleasure, a novel by one of Neal's other friends, Vince Flynn. Vince write the Mitch Rapp series, which tops Ian Flemming's Bond Series and Lundlum's Borne Series from the Cold War Era. If you liked the TV show 24, I highly recommend Vince's novels.

A listener called in sad that she won't be hearing Neal on the air anymore. Neal consoles her by reminding listeners that he plans to do daily commentaries. Herman Cain currently publishes his "They Think We Are Stupid" commentaries at the beginning of Neal's show every day. Once Herman takes over the show, on January 21, their roles will switch. Neal will provide his rants in 2 minute daily commentary segments. It will be interesting to hear how Neal try to keep his rants to under 2 minutes.

The same listener inquired about Neal's initial retirement plans. Neal discussed his plans to go camping in various places to include hiking into and out of the Grand Canyon. That led Neal to relay tales of camping at sites with a "lovely black man" who everybody found nice and engaging. What most people fail to realize is that fellow camper is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas! Now that is a great way to get away from it all with comfortable anonymity!

Blaire Is Still Endowed!

Blaire, 27, gets nice and embarrassed by Neal over her large womanly attributes that she has been blessed with since she was 13. Royal and Neal were playing Simon Says at a Braves game several years ago. The Jumbo-tron spotlighted Blaire as she jumped up and down, raised her arms, and all other movements. Blaire ended up winning the competition. She called into the show to endure one final moment of flattery from the Talkmaster.

 "If they take Clark [Howard] hostage, they will pay US to take him back!" ~ @Talkmaster

Neal Boortz and Clark Howard have had a little friendly head-bumping over the years. Clark hosts a show on avoiding scams and saving money on the same station as Neal. The two have co-hosted several charity events over the years and supported the charitable efforts of the other. One time, Clark hosted a charity event at his house. He had set up parking some distance from the house in order to protect his lawn, etc. Neal drove his car right up to the front door.

Neal often jibes Clark about being cheap. On Thursday January 17, 2013, Belinda was complaining that the printer in the station was low on ink/toner. She took out the cartridge to shake it "like Clark says". On the air, Neal yelled at Belinda to "Just put a new one in! I don't care what Clark Howard says. Shaking it makes it spotty. Just put in a new one already!"

Well, Clark is on vacation in Dubai. Not wanting to miss Neal's last show, he is listening via internet streaming. Neal gave an on-air nod to his co-worker. Of course, Neal could not resist another on-air poke at Clark. "If those Al-Qaeda idiots decide to abduct Clark, I hate it for them. They will be wanting to pay us to take him back!"

Jamie Dupree's Last Spot With Neal

For the past eleven years, Jamie Dupree has been part of Neal's Friday "Information Overload Hour". This Friday is Jamie's last spot.

It has always been entertaining to hear Jamie attempt to remain unbiased as Neal is the exact opposite. Jamie is a political news correspondent who has become one of the most trusted reporters because he avoids voicing his political opinions with his analysis.

Jamie is a true professional who does his job without sinking into the bias that infects most mainstream news outlets these days. His professionalism extends so deep into his personality that he refuses to admit the bias, even when blatant. However, today, Jamie did take a swipe at Rachel Maddow's over-the-top, extreme left-wing bias.

Together with Neal, Jamie has attempted to "pull back the curtain" of daily business in DC by reporting objectively. The segments started with the attacks on September 11, 2001 and continued. The Jamie Dupree segments have some of the most listened to and sought after radio segments for political junkies on all sides of the aisle.

Sean Hannity Calls Boortz!

Boortz has been on panels on Sean's TV show many times. In fact, when Bob Beckel had his faux pas on Sean's show, Boortz was  the dude twirling the football. Both of them quickly jumped to Bob's defense after the incident.

After Boortz's "Happy Ending Gala" in Atlanta, the two closed a bar together after some mishaps involving hotel room reservations.

Their friendship goes back decades. Neal affectionately tells the tale of how he "chased Sean out of Atlanta" back when Sean was first gaining popularity. They had moved Neal's show to the time slot to compete with Sean's show. In fact, about six years ago, Sean tried to steal Neal's research analyst, Cristina, from him.

Of other note, Neal and Rush Limbaugh both started at the same station, which they both refer to as the "Ex-Wife". For years, newer listeners thought that Neal and Rush had both been married to the same woman.

Put Up This Poster, Now!

Neal's big break at WRNG came after another host committed suicide. Greeting Neal was a poster on the wall.

"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him" ~  Viscount John Morley of Blackburn

Neal segues into his hiring debacle moving to WSB from WRNG. While Neal was stuck off the air for 6 months due to contractual agreements, Royal Marshal was preparing to be his engineer. Royal was told all sorts of misleading things about Neal, to include allegations of racism. After a couple of weeks on the air, Royal confronted Neal, off-air, about one of his comments. Neal told him to go on the air and say it.

After the on-air conversation, Neal told Royal to feel free to open his microphone and and jump in whenever he felt the need to. Royal did so and didn't look back.

Two years ago today (January 18, 2013) was Royal's last show with Neal before his untimely death. The world is a much worse place without Royal.

After 42 years, The Queen Finally Calls Onto the Show

"Something that Neal does every day that many people don't know is that he makes other people better." ~ Donna Boortz

Neal has often, irking her ire, spoken of his wife, Donna, on the air. He refers to her as "The Queen" not because she rules his life like a tyrant. The nickname has always been because he adores her. He is the king of his castle. She has long been his voice of reason, his rock, his queen.

After 42 years, Donna finally called into the show to appear on the air. She provided the perfect final caller to his final show. She takes Neal's hand, leads him from the microphone, and into the sunset. Well, not really the sunset. They are headed to Disney World.

"I'm a radio talk show host, not a disk jockey. I do not spin records. I spin callers and listeners"

Neal gives a final soliloquies to his listeners and callers from the past 42 years. He honestly believes that his success would not have been possible had listeners not called in to provide entertaining conversations. After 42 years, Neal's final show ends with tears and his trademark unfettered honesty.

My remarks to Neal:

In the early 1990s, I took leave to visit my father. He had recently moved to Atlanta, Georgia from Chicago. He had some arrogant, rude guy on his radio. Coming from Germany, I wanted to hear the music that was currently popular in the US. He refused to change the station. That was Christmas, 1993, just 9 months after Neal started with WSB in Atlanta.

But this talk show host was better than any I had been shackled to listening to before. This guy was saying things I wished that I could. As a Soldier, I had to keep most of my political thoughts locked in my head. Yet here was this guy saying them on the radio like he was reciting my inner thoughts. However, many of his statements were stated with a lot less vulgarity and a lot more humor than I could muster at that young age.

During the last 15 or so years of my 24 year military career, I caught Neal's show whenever possible. Many times it wasn't. During my last tour to Iraq, I had the ability to listen via streaming. I managed to catch at least part of most of the shows since. I had gone from being a "dumb infantryman" and joined the intelligence community. Neal provided much needed insight into the cultural and political landscape "back home" that helped me paint a much more accurate picture of the battlefield.

When I retired from the military, I retained my routine as an early riser. However, I no longer awoke to head in for duty. I now woke up well before the Arizona sunrise to listen to Neal's show.

As stated earlier, Neal is who lead me to twitter. I have long desired to write for a living. Had Neal not lead me to Twitter, I may never have been introduced to Andrew Breaitbart. I may never have met Kurt Schlichter. I may never have exchanged phone numbers with Brandon Darby. I may never have opened up my blog and began to type my thoughts on issues I see as key to our great Republic.

Donna said that you make people better, Neal. That is true. The ripples you sent out into the universe have touched so many that you may never comprehend. Your work is done, Neal. Though there may be some dark days ahead for our country, be proud. You have not failed. Just as when Andrew died, there are more voices out there to pick up that torch.

She is right, as usual.

Like your Queen, mine has supported me in my folly. She has supported my desire to write, report, and entertain through written word. She has supported my political activism, as well. Such spouses are truly treasures to be appreciated and adored.

Neal, you have mentioned me on the air more than once. You have referred to several of my tweets. You have worked links I have sent you into your programs. I had friends and family call, email, and text me within minutes of your saying "Hi Paul in San Antonio! Thanks!" after I signed your petition and began promoting it. I am but one of your many listeners and not any stand-out special snowflake. However, this illustrates Donna's point that you have a knack for prompting people to become better. 

Thank you for prompting me to seek the truth. Thank you for inspiring me to question things and to write about my findings. Thank you for the years of thought-provoking entertainment.

May the gods bless and keep you and Donna as you enjoy all you have justly earned. Adios My Friend.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Human Trafficker In Arizona Is ICE Cold

In late August, 2012, the investigation and questions concerning the ATF's debacle known as Operation Fast and Furious was still ongoing. Katie Pavlich's book had been on the shelves for months. Representative Darryl Issa was still jockeying to get at least in camera access to communiques involving Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and Janet Napolitano. Those communication records are still sealed under "executive privilege" that amounts to Obama pleading the Fifth Amendment on behalf of his corrupt lackey, Holder.

From what we know about Operation Fast and Furious, we can see it was doomed to fail in its publicized mission from the start. No means of tacking the weapons was used. No artistic tampering by armorers was conducted to insure the weapons would fail after some limited use. Both of these tactics are ones that have been employed, successfully, in the past in order to track illicit weapons to criminals and terrorists. This makes it more than obvious that the program was designed with other intentions in mind.

Those intentions led to the murder of Brian Terry, over 300 innocent Mexican civilians, and wounding (if not killing) a number of US Border Patrol agents, Arizona State Police, and county deputy sheriffs in Arizona.

On August 31, 2012, Stella Peterson and her son, Anthony, were arrested for human trafficking. Stella admitted to knowing that her son, a 30 year old man, used her home to harbor illegal immigrants.

Human Trafficking in Naco, Douglas, Palominas, and other border towns is not uncommon among people prone to other criminal activities, such as identity theft. What makes this case one of note is that Stella Peterson is an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent. ICE is subordinate to the Department of Homeland Security just like the US Border Patrol.

This spawned a corruption investigation. It was rather high profile in local and state level news. However, it received barely a blip on Fox news and no mention on any other mainstream media news outlet. Obviously, somebody decided this story of corruption was to be buried just as Fast and Furious received little to no mainstream media attention.

The Naco-Douglas area corridor is known for the traffic of sex slaves. These young girls, some as young as 10 years old, are drugged and brought across the border to be sold into prostitution. Many times, families are forced to trade their daughters in payment to a coyote to help another family member cross the dangerous "devil's highway" over the Coronado Mountains and through Arizona.

Having lived not far from there, I have witnessed many incidents of human trafficking. I have seen, first-hand, a "rape tree". While working on Fort Huachuca, I routinely came across cached parcels of drugs, clothing, water, food, weapons, and restraint devices that coyotes stashed  in our training areas. Our policy was to record the coordinates and report these to the USBP. The USBP would tag, track, and watch these in order to apprehend coyotes, mules, and sex-slavers.

At least once a week we received a warning from the USBP to sequester our students. Our students carried their M-4s that were loaded with only blanks. Should armed coyotes spot the "armed" students, the propensity they would have shot real bullets was rather high.

One morning, on the way home for breakfast, a friend and I watched Cochise County Sheriffs and Sierra Vista Police assist the USBP in apprehending over 40 illegal aliens in one group. They were corralled near the entrance of  the local golf course. I later found out that 17 of the illegals originated in Yemen. They had Korans on them. Written into the margins in the Korans as well as hidden in the bindings were instructions to infiltrate and facilitate a future terrorist attack on our country. 

My neighbors included several ICE, USBP, and Homeland Security agents. Casual conversations granted me much insight into how they operate and the real level of danger, often hidden from the public, that smugglers, kidnappers, sex slavers, and human traffickers presented. I even was allowed to assist one of my neighbors, an ICE agent, capture a sex slavery facilitator who was another neighbor of ours.

In March of 2010, Robert Krentz, a rancher near Douglas, AZ, was assassinated by a Mexican cartel known for smuggling drugs, sex slaves, and illicit weapons.

The predators and merchants of human misery don't stop at the border. That is just their entry point. From that point, they continue to Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, and Canada. They move drugs. They facilitate invading terrorists. They bring in unregistered, illegal guns for use by organized criminals in the US. They herd people as though they are cattle. Those people are marked for sex-slavery or indentured work in sweatshops.

 The summer of 2011, Sierra Vista, Arizona, Police responded to what was thought a routine domestic violence call. A neighbor had heard screams and shouts along with breaking furniture. That neighbor called the police to respond. Upon arriving, they knocked on the door. An SUV backed through the garage closed garage door. It hit one officer. A man stuck out the barrel of an AK-47 and shot at the other. This lead to a chase and manhunt. the two armed men were last seen heading into Garden Canyon. From there, the tracks disappeared across the border. Later, ICE, DEA, ATF, and USBP agents conducted a joint raid on the house. They found drugs, smuggled weapons, and teen-aged Mexican girls tied up in the basement.

The trafficking is not singular in direction, either. US citizens are coerced, duped, or outright abducted and smuggled through Mexico to become sex-slaved in other countries.

Then we have a woman who works for one of the key federal agencies responsible for combating these atrocities found, initially, to be complacent in these acts. Further corruption investigations indicated she may have been complicit in them. She may have directly supported her son and his fellow criminals in these activities.

The actions taken by ICE were to place her on paid administrative leave until the investigation was complete. That means she gets a paycheck without having to do a second's work. I guess crime does pay with taxpayers stuck with the bill.

That is where the reported information ends. There is no closure. Furthermore, some individuals with access to further information have strongly implied further corruption. To date, no trial has taken place. Allegedly, Stella Peterson may have admitted  to other acts, to include facilitating sex-slavery. Other allegations are that the Assistant US Attorney at the time, under Eric Holder, dropped all charges then transferred to another region. 

If Stella and Anthony Peterson were found not-guilty, why was it not publicized? If they were tried and found guilty, why was it not publicized? If they plead down charges with a guilty plea for lesser crimes, why was it not publicized. If authorities dropped charges, why? Did Stella get immunity for turning evidence against "bigger fish"? In any case, why is she still on paid administrative leave? She should have been fired. She betrayed the public trust and should not be allowed to work in a position of public trust ever again. That includes working for any law enforcement activity. I'm not sure if I would trust her to operate a cash register for fear she would embezzle.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

23 Gun-Grabbing Executive Orders

Surrounded by children being used as brainwashed political pawns in a disgusting display, Obama took the stage to issue his 23 latest imperial decrees. Moments before, those poor, misguided, abused, and programmed children were chanting "Barack Hussein Obama" in a scene reminiscent of Hitler's use of kids chanting his name and "Sieg Heil" just before he announced he would disarm and imprison all Jews. 

"Weapons designed for use in a war have no place in a movie theater. Ronald Reagan supported a ban on the manufacture of military-style assault weapons" (paraphrasing) Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

Reagan made his remarks in regards to opposing lifting the ban on the production and sale of machine guns and anti-tank rocket launchers to private citizens.

"Municipalities have had to cut budgets. There aren't enough police. We need to put more police on the streets." (paraphrasing) Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

Due to your messed up fiscal and economic policies, municipalities are going bankrupt. Unions with their ridiculous pension plans that do not require those public servants to invest, partially, in their own retirement funds are among the largest contributing factors. The people are taxed enough already. You cannot get blood from a stone.

Which do you want, Barry, police who work without pay or prosperous municipalities? Right now, you cannot afford both. Police "without pay" are average, armed citizens watching their own property as well as their neighbor's. That requires you not infringing on the Second Amendment.

"If America worked harder to keep guns out of hands of criminals who use them for harm." (Paraphrasing) Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

Criminals are just like you, Barry. Just as you don't care about the US Constitution, they do not care about the law.

"This will be difficult. Pundits will warn of a tyrannic assault on liberty. Not just because its true, but because they want to block common sense reform. The only way we'll change is if we get them to change their rhetoric to say 'this time we need to do things to protect our kids'. It will only happen if people rise up and demand it, especially in districts that support [the Second Amendment]. We need to examine out hearts [not our heads,where reason, logic, and common sense reside]. The American people, parents, teachers, hunters, and Americans stand up and say 'Enough!', then change will come. That is what it will take to revoke and repeal the Second Amendment" (Paraphrasing) Barack Hussein Obama Jr.

His self-contradicting rhetoric violates every law of logic imaginable while invoking a strong desire to regurgitate. 

The price-tag for Obama's 23 imperial decrees is, at least, a half billion dollars. For those who need to see the zeros, that's $500,000,000.00+ dollars. Add that to the deficit spending he already demands along with his demands that congress increase his credit limit.

Mr. Obama, I have a question for you. Your salary is only $400,000.00 a year. You are $499,600,000.00 short. How are you going to pay for this? (Wait, this proposes that Obama set an example and give up his salary just like he expects other individual citizens to do.)

The 23 executive orders issued mostly expand the information available in background check databases, to include violations of HIPAA laws. That's right, the provided information will include medical records and health histories. While a condition that causes severe diminished mental capacity should limit weapon ownership, it should require a judge to issue a order that removes those rights from the afflicted individuals.

A healthcare professional should not be the judge and law enforcement official who decides who should or should not be allowed to keep their gods-given and constitutionally protected rights.

Let's role-play this one out:
"How severe is the pain in your knee, sir? 1 is a mild annoyance, 10 is you are willing to shoot yourself to stop it."

"In that case, it's a 7."

"Is this a prior injury from, say, your time in Iraq?"

"Yes, it's a prior injury that is acting up."

"So, you were in Iraq?"


"Do you own a gun?"

"That's none of your business."

"Client is an injured war vet with a combative and non-compliant attitude who should have his guns illegally seized by the tyrants' goons."

"Doctor is a liberal douche-canoe who I am  now firing as I call my lawyer to file suit against the violations of HIPAA law, the 4th Amendment, the Privacy Act of 1974, and malpractice."

Obama's rhetoric is a call for the people to rise up and force their Senators, Congressmen, and Governors to support the repeal of the Second Amendment, or a change to it. However, it is just rhetoric. He acknowledged that legislation must originate in Congress. Then he points his fingers at those Senators and Representatives who support the Second Amendment, its true purpose and meaning, and its long-standing historic tradition. He honestly believes that enough people will rise up and say "Enough! Please take away all the guns, including mine!"

Barry then demands universal background checks. The irony here is that most lawfully purchased weapons are done by people who have favorable background checks. Even those who purchase a weapon through a private, person to person transaction (not one from a gun dealer) involve two personnel who already own guns that required those initial background checks. These checks do nothing to hinder black market sales. They do nothing in regards to weapons that are stolen to be used in later crimes.

Having passed even more in-depth background checks, they don't bother me. They are a just a time-wasting annoyance. They are not a deterrent or a hindrance.

It isn't going to happen.

The irony here is that there is a larger call to allow school workers to have concealed carry permits and special situational training so they can better respond to sick monsters like Adam Lanza. Thousands of teachers have requested such training.

More districts and municipalities are requesting armed guards at schools.

Those "gun free zone" signs on so many school doors and fences are just invitations for predators. They know that nobody is armed and able to protect the kids.

So, here's the new deal. The next time we have a school shooting, start placing blame where blame should be blamed.

Blame the shooter. That's the monster who wants to prey upon children.

Blame the idiots who created the cornucopia for the predators -- the idiots who created  the "gun free zones".

Blame the teachers and administrators who were not armed. They intentionally failed to provide for the safety and security of the children. They were willing enablers who assisted the shooters.

Remember, folks, all it takes for evil to exist is for otherwise good people to sit back and do nothing. If we do not have individuals in the schools responsible enough to arm and train themselves to be able to provide reasonable protections and proactive, life-saving responses to an armed predator; then those who failed to do so should be held accountable for their breach of trust.

The socialists who run our schools believe they own our kids from the second they arrive at school until they arrive home. They feel they can tag them with RFID chips like our kids like they are pets or cattle. Well, they are not yours. They are ours. We entrust you with their lives while in your schools. Do the responsible thing and protect them like they are your own.

You want to do something for the kids? So do I. I demand that you protect them instead of disarming those who would do just that.