Chief Justice John "Benedict Arnold" Roberts

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: John "Benedict Arnold" Roberts?

Thursday, June 28th, 2012, will go down as a day of jaw-dropping betrayal worthy of Benedict Arnold as Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts now becomes the Liberal who saved ObamaCare.

Yes, the man who I supported for Chief Justice, the man who was thought to be a Conservative, the man who Obama attacked during his confirmation hearing, that man became the Liberal who provided the swing liberal vote in a 5-to-4 decision that upheld the so-called Constitutionality of almost all of Obama's boldest action to further enslave Americans.

Yes, that government program called ObamaCare, which forces enrollment and will penalize Americans if they are not enrolled, has passed the so-called scrutiny of the Supreme Court. Although today, it seems less like scrutiny and more like old fashion liberal politics.

But why?

Well, just as many over the years have studied the actions, the motivations, the reasoning, behind what the traitor Benedict Arnold did back more than 200 years ago, now many will spend years speculating about Roberts’ motivations when he betrayed the American people.

And yes, why did he decide to join the Liberals on the Supreme Court Justices in what is the most important Supreme Court decision in years?

Only he knows.

His actions prove opinion polls correct!

In poll after poll, an overwhelming majority of the public sees the Supreme Court and the justices there as being purely partisan. And poll after poll shows the high court as a party to the liberal agenda that is slowly dismantling the freedoms granted to Americans.

One of the most important passages in Roberts’ majority decision was the Chief Justice’s assertion that "We do not consider whether the act embodied sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenge provisions."

In short, if you want a national referendum on the health-care law, then the proper arena is the 2012 campaign—and not the inner sanctums of the Supreme Court.

Mitt Romney’s campaign website declares, “As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito.”

I can only hope that he removes John "Benedict Arnold" Roberts from his list. After all, Roberts went in one direction and Scalia, Thomas and Alito went in the opposite on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

And maybe now, well Obama might want to rethink his next choice for Supreme Court Justice.

In 2005, Obama, who is supposedly a former constitutional law professor, declared in a Senate address that he was opposing Roberts’ nomination to the Supreme Court because “I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and overarching political philosophy … than to the assuring words he provided me in our meeting.”

Maybe now, Obama feels that he misjudged the traitor who saved his legislative legacy.

With four of the current Supreme Court Justices now over the age of 70, it is very likely that whoever is elected president this November will get the opportunity to put his ideological stamp on the Supreme Court.

Robert's decision has a profound impact on curtailing the fundamental freedom of the American people. I hope he sleeps well at night, but I doubt that he will because of his actions today.

John "Benedict Arnold" Roberts has enabled our highest court to be political left of the rest of the country.

His supposed reasoning was that the government has a right to tax. His reasoning is flawed because the case before them was specifically regarding the mandate portion of ObamaCare to enroll in a government program - even if it is against the will of the people.

It has nothing to do with taxing, and has everything to do with government penalty and force.

It has nothing to do with taxes, and has everything to do with servitude - a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one's course of action or way of life.

So will Chief Justice John Roberts be remembered in history the same as Benedict Arnold? It's very possible considering the traitor, John "Benedict Arnold" Roberts, has subsequently told Americans "No Liberty For You!"

That's just the way I see it!

Story by Tom Correa

Great Insight! Two Very Good ObamaCare Editorials!

In over 400 posts, I have only posted one other opinion editorial by someone other than myself. Today I'm posting two Opinion Editorials.

I'm posting these Opinion Editorial here - completely unedited - because I believe the Charles Krauthammer and George Will are both very knowledgeable individuals who have shown great wisdom and foresight.

Charles Krauthammer

He writes a weekly political column that runs on Fridays in The Washington Post. He is also a Fox News commentator, appearing nightly on “Special Report with Bret Baier,” and a panelist on “Inside Washington.”

As a result of the Supreme Court upholding ObamaCare, Charles Krauthammer wrote this today:


Why Roberts did it
by Charles Krauthammer

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against ObamaCare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce.

Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do?

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held.

Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states.

The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines.

It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with ObamaCare. Hence his straining in his ObamaCare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion.

Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in.

By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.)

Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.

ObamaCare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress.

That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

George F. Will

He is a Conservative pundit who writes a twice-weekly column on politics and domestic affairs. He began his column with The Post in 1974, and he received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1977. He is also an ABC News commentator and regular panelist on "This Week."

As a result of the Supreme Court upholding ObamaCare, George Will wrote this today:


Conservatives’ consolation prize
by George F. Will

Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause.

The health-care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government.

Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional rationale for the mandate — Congress’s rationale — that was pregnant with rampant statism.

The case challenged the court to fashion a judicially administrable principle that limits Congress’s power to act on the mere pretense of regulating interstate commerce. At least Roberts got the court to embrace emphatic language rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale for penalizing the inactivity of not buying insurance:

“The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. . . . The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. . . . Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”

If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power — the power to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior for whatever Congress deems a public benefit.

Instead, the court rejected the Obama administration’s Commerce Clause doctrine. The court remains clearly committed to this previous holding: “Under our written Constitution . . . the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.”

The court held that the mandate is constitutional only because Congress could have identified its enforcement penalty as a tax. The court thereby guaranteed that the argument ignited by the mandate will continue as the principal fault line in our polity.

The mandate’s opponents favor a federal government as James Madison fashioned it, one limited by the constitutional enumeration of its powers.

The mandate’s supporters favor government as Woodrow Wilson construed it, with limits as elastic as liberalism’s agenda, and powers acquiring derivative constitutionality by being necessary to, or efficient for, implementing government’s ambitions.

How I see it

While I see Chief Justice John Roberts as nothing less than a Benedict Arnold because of his now joining the Liberal bloc of Supreme Court Justice, I hope you my readers have found both of these editorials as insightful as I did.

Both editorials make some really good points.

For me, as far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is that today's Supreme Court's decision only gives me one more reason to vote for Mitt Romney for President - after all, he has said that he will repeal ObamaCare if he's elected.

And yes, a clear Republican majority in Congress is needed to eliminate this mandate that fines American if one does not obey the government and join ObamaCare.

Right now, Republicans only control the House of Representatives  - and that's only half of Congress. We need to put people in the Senate who will work on behalf of the American people and not for the liberal ideology that wants our government to be the master and us the slaves.

What Obama done since becoming President goes against the very foundation of our ideals as a nation. Our system of government, as a Republic, was engineered to work for the people - on behalf of the people - not for use by despots and tyrants.

The Constitution of the United States was never designed as a document to be used by the government as a way to Lord over us. It was designed and engineered to keep the government in line.

The Constitution is supposed to keep the government in check. It is a shame that the Supreme Courts has sided with those who see the government as an instrument of oppression.

That's really how I see it.

Until later, here is a little something that was passed on to me. For all practical purposes, I think it's probably standard issue to most Democrat politicians. Of course, ultra-left liberal politicians have the deluxe model.

Modern American vernacular has made it, "blowing smoke up your ass!" And yes, now we know where the term came from.

Believe it or not, it was really used in medicine once upon a time. And yes, I think the device might have made a comeback in recent years - they call it the Obama Administration!

Have a great day!

Story by Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - Zimmerman Passed Lie Detector Tests, Boston Angry At Obama, Kenny Chesney Look-a-like, and Much More

FIRST SHOT!

George Zimmerman Passed Two Lie Detector Tests After Being Attacked And Shooting Trayvon Martin

George Zimmerman passed a pair of lie detector tests in February just a day after killing unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

The test results are part of the latest round of evidence made public by the office of Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey, who charged Zimmerman in April with second degree murder.

Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty and said he was acting in self defense when he shot and killed the teen. Zimmerman submitted to a type of test called a computer voice stress analysis. They look for changes in his speech as he answered simple yes or no questions.

Here's what answered:

Did you confront the guy you shot? (No.)

And were you afraid for your life when you shot the guy? (Yes.)

While the video of one of the tests was released last week by Zimmerman’s attorney, the documents showing the results were only made public on Tuesday.

They show the person who performed the test determined Zimmerman “told substantially the complete truth” when he was questioned on Feb. 27, the day after the killing.

But the lead investigator in the case says murder Zimmerman could have defused the confrontation with the unarmed teenager if he would have identified himself as a neighborhood watch leader.

Sanford detective Chris Serino's written report says in a written report released Tuesday that Zimmerman verbally confronted Martin but didn't identify himself before the physical fight ensued and he shot and killed the 17-year-old.

Another investigator wrote that on the night of the shooting, two lie detector tests given to Zimmerman found he wasn't lying about what happened. The results of such tests are usually not admissible in court.

The 28-year-old Zimmerman maintains that Martin attacked him and was pounding his head against the concrete sidewalk before he fatally shot him. He has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder.

Like most of you, I really believe that proof of Zimmerman passing the lie detector tests won't matter to the black community in general or the liberal news media like ABC, CBC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, HLN, or papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

They have made their minds and have already tried and convicted George Zimmerman. They don't want to hear anything that might get in the way of their thinking.

They don't want to muddle their thinking with facts.

SECOND SHOT!

Mom billed to clean the street where son was killed by Illegal Alien driving drunk

A report out of Greenville, South Carolina, is pretty disturbing. It's about a grieving mother who had to go to court to tell a South Carolina Court that she was slapped with several bills, including one to clean the street, after her son was killed by a drunken driver last year - on that street!

Imagine this for a moment. Your son is killed by a drunk driver, but you get the bills pertaining to what to place there.

Loretta Robinson spoke on June 19th about the emotional and financial toll her son Justin Walker's death had on her since the driver Anna Gonzales - who is an Illegal Alien - has pleaded guilty in the case.

Mrs Robinson told the judge that she has been understandably unable to work due to the emotional impact of her son's death. She also told the court that since she hasn't been able to work, that she can't pay the bills she keeps receiving from the accident even though her son was not at fault.

Yes, she is getting bills even though her son was not at fault - including the cost of towing away the very vehicle driven by Anna Gonzales when she killed her son.

"I had to pay to have the vehicle towed," she said according to WYFF. "I had to pay for the vehicle removed and to clean up the street from Justin's blood on the ground."

And to beat that, Mrs Robinson said that she has also gotten a bill of $50 to clean up the street where it happened. She told the court that the $50 bill to clean the street stung the most.

"First of all, having to open the mail and look at the charge to the deceased, Justin Darryl Walker - the deceased! It's just a hard thing to deal with in the context of your child," she said according to WYFF.

Mrs Robinson says she doesn't expect to get any money from Anna Gonzales. The state's victim assistance fund has provided some money, but it primarily covers funeral, medical and counseling expenses.

Anna Gonzales, who is an Illegal Alien and who subsequently did not have a South Carolina driver's license, was sentenced to 17 years in prison.

But friends, someone needs to talk to the city of Greenville.

They need to assess their duties to the public. They need to find out who in their city keeps billing Mrs Robinson, and explain to that person that Mrs Robinson should not be held responsible for the cost involved in the wrongful death of her son.

I can't help but wonder what those folks in city hall in Greenville are thinking about? How can they look themselves in the mirror? Have they no idea of right and wrong? Do they think the only duty to their citizens is to collect funds? What is wrong with those folks?

This is absolutely shameful!

THIRD SHOT!

Boston Red Soaks Fans Not Happy With Obama

It's just a fact these days that American Taxpayers will fly President Barack Obama in Air Force One to just about anywhere in the country where he can raise money for HIMSELF.

While there, he'll praise your local politicians, visit your favorite diner, sample your local fare, kiss your baby, and he'll take your donations for him with a smile.

If you want a picture with the President, he will charge you at least $2000. Some pictures with Obama go for more, but if you're a wealthy liberal you won't care - after all, it will look great on your Obama Shrine in your living room.

For a while, I thought the President wasn't above doing anything for a vote or a dollar. He or his White House has leaked our closes military secrets, given blanket amnesty to illegal aliens, and allowed gays to serve in our military even though it goes against what our military commanders have advised.

But it seems that Obama does have his limits. He apparently isn't going to pretend to like your baseball team! At least, not unless your team is the Chicago White Sox.

That was the message from White House press secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday as he tried to squelch "some really silly reporting" about how the crowd at a Boston Obama re-election campaign fundraiser the night before booed and jeered Obama after he had the nerve to rub salt in their wound and thanked the Red Sox fans for trading player Kevin Youkilis to the White Sox.

The response? Here's how the White House's official transcript put it: "Booo!"

"I'm just saying: He's going to have to change the color of his socks," Obama added, getting what sounded like laughter and boos from the rowdy but friendly crowd.

"I didn't think I'd get any 'boos' out of here, but I guess I shouldn't have - I should not have brought up baseball. I understand. My mistake," said the president.

The Boston audience again booed and jeered Obama!

Then Obama tried to smooth things over by saying, "My mistake. You've got to know your crowd!"

And right after that, some one in the audience - who may or may not be working for the Obama administration - yelled out "we still love you!"

That was all Obama needed to launch his standard stump speech of why they should re-elect him - even though he's only hurt the nation since entering office.

Obama's press secretary tried to convince reporters that the crowd was yelling something other than "Boo!" - but not even the liberal media would swallow that one.

Mitt Romney's campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in an email to reporters early Tuesday. .

"In baseball, an error is a misplay or fumble, as when a player drops a pop fly or lets a ground ball go through his legs. Last night in Boston, President Obama went to the heart of Red Sox nation and committed an error by taunting fans over the Kevin Youkilis trade to the Chicago White Sox."

"The Red Sox have suffered many setbacks over the years - the Babe Ruth trade, the ball through Buckner's legs, the Bucky Dent home run," she said.

"Maybe the President should have congratulated the team for winning the World Series in 2004 and 2007. Instead, he chose to mock them for trading away one of its favorite players at a time when the team is struggling," Saul said. "Score that an error."

Some Obama supporters, who are not baseball fans, said he was just being himself that night. Others described Obama's appearance in Boston as proof of how smug and conceited he really is.

FOURTH SHOT!

Boston Taxpayers Angry Over Their Having To Pay For Obama Fundraiser 

President Barack Obama’s fund-raising and politicking trip to Boston may cost the city of Boston as much as $200,000 - and now critics are fuming.

Pete Sepp, vice president of the conservative-leaning National Taxpayers Union, told the Boston Herald, "Given that many municipalities are facing budget crunches of their own, squeezing them even further for political events can grate on a lot of residents' nerves."

David Tuerck, a government ethics watchdog with Suffolk University, told the paper, "It's an atrocious waste of taxpayer money. There is no taxpayer interest in any of this. It’s all about getting him re-elected, and the campaign should pay for everything."

City officials refused to provide an accounting of what the president’s visit cost Boston, but some estimated that security in the form of Boston police officers could run from $150,000 to $200,000.

Obama was in town for a fundraiser where he racked inn more than $3 Million.

So if he's racking in Millions upon Millions of Dollars all over the country for his re-election campaign, why isn't he personally paying for his own fundraisers? This is all more political bullshit that the taxpayers have to pay for.

Whether it's San Francisco, Chicago, Orange County California, and other places all over the country, in this case Boston, Obama is running around the country raising money for himself. Since this is not duties pertaining to his office, why are taxpayers paying the freight when we shouldn't be?

This is the equivalent of any other Millionaire running the country trying to promote himself. We don't subsidize them, so why subsidize Obama or any other politician making personal trips?

There is no need to get screwed by politicians. We shouldn't! Especially these days! Especially when many cities out there are facing huge budget troubles! Especially when its in your face blatant - as if to say you'll take it and be happy about it!

FIFTH SHOT!

Boston Taxpayers Screwed Over By Their Police Department As Well!

And talking about abuse and a huge waste of taxpayer money, how about Boston taxpayers getting screwed over by their own Police department?

On June 1st, it was reported that Boston City Officials started an investigation over the Boston Police Overtime System.

The reason is that Boston city leaders are starting to worry that their current overtime system for police officers could be "breaking the bank," reported CBS Boston.

One example, in 2011, a total of 128 officers made more money than both the Mayor and the Police Commissioner who are paid approximately $175,000. In fact, 41 officers made more than $200,000 last year.

And they say crime doesn't pay?

"I think that when they (the public) see outrageous salaries, there are questions and I think it’s really important to answer those questions," said Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis.

"Basically the officers have figured out a way to manipulate the contract to generate substantial increased revenue for hours that aren’t worked," said Sam Tyler, who is a municipal watchdog.

What are some of the ways police officers have figured out how to play the system?

"For example," CBS Boston explained in their report s, “an officer called in for a court case gets a four hour minimum, even if he is only needed for a fraction of that. Ditto when working a paid detail. It is all perfectly legal and spelled out in the union contract.”

So if an officer works one minute over four hours, he gets paid for eight.

“When you see this type of practice and you have 2,100 police officers in Boston, that all adds up to a lot of extra dollars that the taxpayers are paying,” Tyler said.

And in regards to the system “breaking the bank,” the city of Boston paid out $32 million in overtime last year.

“The budget is full of choices and when we don’t use it in one area we could use it in another area,” Murphy said.

Boston is also starting to rethink its existing policy of buying back unused vacation and sick time.

“City Council President Murphy wants to limit the length of time someone can carry that, so the city doesn’t get stuck with a large bill when the person leaves,” CBS Boston reports.

All in all, it appears abuse and fraud may be going on at the Boston Police Department. And yes, when the Police are shady - who can you trust?

SIXTH SHOT!

Fan Look-A-Like gets kicked out of Kenny Chesney concert for looking too much like Chesney

A report out of Nashville, Tenessee, about a Nashville fan who was thrown out of a Kenny Chesney concert for looking too much like the country star might sound crazy - but it really happened.

Tennessee teacher Nathan Blankenship was booted out of Kenny Chesney's Nashville-area show on Saturday, according to ABC affiliate WKRN-TV. The reason? He apparently looked a little too much like the country-music star.

Blankenship spent $200 to buy his ticket to the Chesney/Tim McGraw "Brothers of the Sun" show.

Blankenship told WKRN that he'd been to several Chesney concerts in recent years - and when he attends, people naturally want his picture, since he resembles the singer and dresses like him in cowboy hat and sleeveless T-shirt.

"Here or there somebody asked to take a picture to make their friends or family think they were with Kenny or whatever, that's fine," he said. "I don't mind.... I can't help the way I look."

Fox 17 reports Nathan Blankenship was escorted out of Chesney's "Brothers of the Sun" concert last weekend at L-P Field after some fans requested to take pictures with him because they thought he was the country star.

Blankenship claims he was told by a security guard he had to leave. Why? Well, because "higher-ups" at the concert thought he was causing too much "confusion" because he looked like Kenny Chesney.

Just as Blankenship reported, he was approached by a security officer who asked to see his ticket. "I just thought he was going to lead me back to my seat," he said.

Instead, the security guard grabbed his arm and escorted him out. "He just said that (I was) purposely trying to impersonate a celebrity, so we're kicking you out."

WKRN reported that a "high-ranking" venue executive told Nashville's News 2 Sunday that local police were also alerted about Blankenship before the show, and, the network noted, "country music stars saw him in crowds at previous concerts and thought he was a disruption."

But Chesney's label, Messina Group, sees it differently and is working to patch things up. The VP of marketing for Messina, Kate McMahon, said that no one was aware of the fact that Blankenship was shown the door. "We never want our fans to leave disappointed and we are reaching out to him to make this situation right," she said.

Blankenship issued a statement to Nashville's News 2 Monday night, indicating that the company has offered to refund his ticket cost and send him CDs.

He added, "I am not now, nor have I ever been a Kenny Chesney impersonator and contrary to several reports, I do not sign autographs, pretend to be him for financial gain, or follow him around from concert to concert....

I have never wanted to be famous and after all this attention from the press, I am glad I chose to be a teacher. I am sure that when school starts back in August and the students ask about my summer break, I will have quite a story to tell."

Blankenship received an official apology from Chesney's record label and the promoter of the event Monday night. And yes, to make everything better, Fox 17 reports that Blankenship will be refunded for his $200 ticket and they will be sending him a gift basket with merchandise.

So, you take a look at these pictures and ask yourself if he really looks like Chesney. Some say yes, and others are blind as bats. Which is which? On the right is Kenny Chesney, and on the left is Nathan Blankenship. At least, I think so?

SEVENTH SHOT!

New York Junior high students accused of trashing 9/11 memorial

According to WNYW/FOX News, Junior high students from New York were thrown out of the 9/11 memorial at the site of the former World Trade Center for throwing trash onto the site.

Some New York students are being investigated for throwing trash into the Sept. 11 memorial pools and potentially committing other crimes on the Ground Zero site.
The students were on a field trip from Junior High 292 in Brooklyn when they were accused of throwing garbage into the 9/11 memorial reflecting pools.

The students were kicked out of the site after they reportedly threw everything from baseballs to plastic soda bottles.

NYPD also said one student was caught trying to bring ammunition through the metal detector.

The incident upset everyone from volunteer firefighters to people who lost loved ones in the terrorist attack almost 11 years ago, including Anthoula Kastinatides.

"These kids just need to be educated about what happened at the site, and if I had been at the site and I had seen that, I guarantee you I would have pulled them aside and explained to them why it was there and who my brother John was," said Kastinatides, whose brother died in the attack.

I blame teachers and parents for not educating those kids on the significance of what took place there: Teachers because they should have briefed the kids about where they were going, and parents because they should have known about their kids making a trip there - and maybe talk to them about why that is now hallowed ground.

Years after the 9/11 attack, survivors and family members were irate that the city of New York had nothing but an empty construction site for them to pay their respects.

In 2005, the entire design was scrapped and a new design was put into action all to meet anti-Terror standards.

In September of last year, Mayor Bloomberg said he wants people to stop calling that 16 acre spot "Ground Zero" and instead call it as it is now known officially - The World Trade Center and the September 11th Memorial and Museum.

One World Trade Center, more simply known as 1 WTC, was originally known as The Freedom Tower. It is the tallest building in New York City and is promised to be completed next year in 2013.

The tower will eventually rise 1,776 feet. It will become America’s tallest building. The 9/11 Memorial Museum, which is a separate structure, houses artifacts from 9/11. The exhibit includes photographs, video tapes and a fire truck ruined the day the towers fell.  It is scheduled to open in September 2012.

The "Reflecting Absence" memorial pools there with its trees dotting the giant footprints of the two towers give a visitor a place to come and honor those who died there on 9/11.  Their names, the 3,000 victims, are engraved around the edges of the pools.

It is a memorial. It is hallowed ground. It is a place as sacred to America as the Battlefield at Gettysburg and Arlington Cemetery.

And yes, the young students from Junior High 292 in Brooklyn should have been told this things and more. Along with the information, they should have been taught to have some respect for that place where America was attacked.
  
LAST SHOT!

Wild Turkeys Terrorize Neighborhood In New Jersey And Attack Residents

Wild turkeys in a Hainesport, New Jersey, neighborhood have become overly aggressive, leading the township to take drastic measures.

The turkeys are indeed taking over the area and becoming more aggressive because of a decreased fear of humans.

The boldness in the animals has caused trouble for many, including a woman that was attacked recently.

"I think he was trying to eat me," Karen Harris said. "In my peripheral vision I seen the turkey coming towards me. And I looked at the turkey, and he kind of picked up speed. So I was like, wait a minute, he's chasing me!"

As she ran up the sidewalk trying to escape the bird, she tripped and fell. She then threw a rubber traffic cone at the turkey to deter it, but that didn't slow him down either. Karen finally found refuge from the wild bird by running inside a building.

Before, Karen would have never thought twice about picking up a broom to shoo the animals away from the middle school where she works. That's not the case now, however.

"I think he was getting me back for all the times when I chased him with sticks and brooms," Harris joked. "They kind of own this area. I have a lot of respect for wild turkeys now."

And yes, Karen Harris isn't alone. In recent weeks, township officials said they've gotten countless calls from residents complaining about aggressive turkeys with many of the attacks happening across the street from the school where Karen works.

So what are the steps taken by the local government to fix the problem?

Well, state wildlife officials planned on trapping the turkeys and move them out of the area. But they use food to bait the birds and the traps aren't working because turkeys have too many other food sources.

So now the township wants to impose hefty fines on anyone who feeds the turkeys. That;s right, instead of feeding the birds and getting them dependant on their feeding them - and then lure them into traps by using that same food - nope, instead they want to fine residents. 

Just image this silliness for a minute, they have a wild turkey problem and they can't trap the turkeys because the birds have an abundance of food around the area. So what do they do?

Well, instead of figuring a way to trap them with the food that they are eating for people, or shooting the birds and giving them to a homeless shelter to cook up for the folks there - no, instead they want to fine the residents there.

Imagine How Many Homeless This Would Feed?

It makes no sense at all to fine residents. But it's true, officials in South Jersey are prepared to fine residents $2,000 for feeding the wild turkeys.

That's two thousand dollars! Is this insane or what!

This is just more proof that some of the folks working in local government just don't have a clue how to do things without adversely effecting their constituents. It seems that there's always someone in the government who thinks the only solution to problems is to penalize their own people.

And no, I really don't know what kind of Kool-Aid some government workers are drinking. It just seems that they all drink the same brand - one that turns their minds to mush - where the only thing they really know how to do is screw the public.

PARTING SHOTS!

I want to wish a belated Happy Birthday to ...

My good friend, Jerry Combs, who turned 74 years old on June 11th. He lives up in these parts over in Railroad Flat. He is a great guy who I have nothing but respect for.  

My cousin Kenneth Nascimento, in Hawaii, who turned 51 years old on June 14th. He is a great guy who takes care of his family and his business with the same dedication. And yes, I admire that!

My buddy J.T. Atnip, who turned 28 years old - along with his great sister Courtney Atnip, who turned 23 years old on the same day June 25th.  According to their mom and dad, Christie and Tony, the reason they were born on the same day 5 years apart is that they're both products of the beer and fun the two had on Lumber Jack Day in West Point!

And so it goes in the mountains!

And by the way, Hello Les!


Story by Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - Gun Sales Up Thanks To Obama, Bad Choice Awards, Air Force Religion Policy Questioned, and More!

FIRST SHOT!

Gun Sales Up Thanks To Obama!

In March of this year, it was reported that sales of handguns and ammunition are booming across the country, and retailers say it’s all about the November election. The latest numbers confirm that report.

Gun shop owners around the nation say sales have been brisk ever since President Obama was elected, but now sales have spiked upward in recent months because American citizens are worried what Obama will try to do if he's re-elected.

Lately, with Obama's immigration edict, everyone has just had a lesson in how Obama can by-pass Congress when in comes to making laws.

Presidential Executive Order pertaining to Illegal immigrants is a big red flag. Many believe Obama will do the same thing when it comes to trying to outlaw firearms in America.

As a result of what Obama says and does, gun sales are through the roof. 

Sales are so intense that some guns are now going at prices never seen before. And the waiting list is getting longer. 

Manufacturers are having so much trouble keeping up with the demand that one, Sturm, Ruger & Co., can’t keep up with demand.

In fact, the Southport, Connecticut, based company has had to suspend new orders after taking orders for more than 1 Million guns in the first three months of the year.

Along with Ruger, Smith & Wesson sales are way up as well. But it's not only big name manufacturers. Smaller gun manufacturers of AR-15 spin off are hard at work. And yes, though Obama is the main reason - the scare from Democrats in office is the other.

Right here in California, there are Democrats right now in the state legislature wanting to tighten gun laws. Many are encouraged by the Obama administrations handling of Fast and Furious.

Believe it or not, last year there were Democrats in Washington saying that Fast and Furious was orchestrated precisely to "prove" the need to clamp down on gun sellers and purchasers. And yes, they still believe it!

As scary as our politicians are, they are great the for sales of guns. In fact, gunmaker stocks are soaring these days.

"Sales usually increase this time of year with tax returns, but this year has been higher than most," Mike Weeks, owner of Georgia Gun Store in Gainesville told Fox News. “People are scared their gun rights are going to be curtailed after the election."

Weeks said his sales are up around 30 percent, and that he now sells ammo by the case.

"Usually people come in to buy three or four boxes for target practice. Now they are coming in asking what kind of deals they could get on a case,” he said.

Industry experts and gun shop owners alike say the factor driving gun sales is the Nov. 6 election. There was a similar spike before President Obama was elected to his first term, and many gun buyers are saying they fear Obama’s re-election could mean more regulations on firearms.

Obama famously told fundraisers in 2008 that many Americans “cling to guns or religion,” and gun enthusiasts believe he is not fully behind the Second Amendment.

“It’s definitely the election year," Jason Hanson, a former CIA officer and personal security specialist, told Fox News. "People feel that Obama will serve second term and with it their gun rights with taken away, so they are stocking up.

“They’re also worried that the economy is not getting any better and that they need to protect themselves,” Hanson added.

In 2009, gun sales had shot up after Obama took office and firearm enthusiasts rushed to stores, fearing he would tighten gun control. Sales have continued to grow throughout his administration.

This year’s uptick comes on top of a record 2011, when nearly 11 million firearms were sold in the U.S., according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry.

The group notes the $4 billion firearms business has bucked the weak economy, with robust sales since 2008.

One of the best indicators of firearms sales is the FBI's National Instant Background Check System, which federally licensed firearm retailers use to conduct the mandatory background check on purchasers of new and used firearms.

Statistics through December showed an unprecedented 19th straight month of background check increases when tabulated year over year.

"Black Friday," Nov. 25, 2011, saw a record for the most background checks in a single day of 129,166 guns sold.

Another strong indicator comes from Wall Street. Smith& Wesson shares are up a whopping 125 percent over the past year, while Sturm, Ruger’s are up about 112 percent. Even Taser, which makes non-lethal weapons, has seen its sales surge.

“It’s been a strong cycle. Sales of tactical rifles have been extremely strong,” Bret Jordan, a stock analyst specializing in the firearms market, told FoxNews.com, “Personal handguns have had a steady rise since 2008. The kind of stuff that fits in the waistband for when someone tries to steal your gas can.”

“There’s a lot of speculation that the Second Amendment will be affected by the next presidential term. There was one investors call and an executive was asked what he thought would happen if Obama was elected a second term and he said, ‘No one in the gun industry will tell you they like Obama, but everyone will vote for him,’” he said implying that a second Obama term would be good for continued business.

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said he is skeptical of claims that firearms sales are way up. But he said the gun industry does work to promote that perception.

"There's no doubt [National Rifle Association President] Wayne LaPierre is out there every day saying that President Obama has a secret plan to take away your guns," Horwitz said. "They want to gin up sales."

And now, in the middle of June, the FBI has just released it's report that says that with more guns in the hands of American citizens - violent crime has gone down 4% from last year.

SECOND SHOT!

Gun Sales Up - Violent Crime Down

Per the FBI's own website, http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-annual-crime-statistics-for-2011

Preliminary crime statistics for 2011 released today by the FBI show a 4 percent decrease in violent crime–a continuation of a long-term downward trend nationwide.

The report highlights that all four violent crime categories–murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault–declined in the country’s four major geographical regions and in all city population groups.

The report also noted that violent crime decreased both in urban and rural counties.

The continuing decrease in violent crime comes at a time when firearms ownership has increased across America, a fact that utterly contradicts the mantra of anti-gun groups that that more guns equals more crime. “Every gun owner should be armed with this information,” said NSSF President and CEO Steve Sanetti.

According to the FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report released today, the nation experienced a 4.0 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes and a 0.8 percent decline in the number of property crimes in 2011 when compared with data from 2010.

The report is based on information the FBI gathered from 14,009 law enforcement agencies that submitted six to 12 comparable months of data for both 2010 and 2011.

Violent Crime

In 2011, all four of the violent crime offense categories—murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault—declined nationwide when compared with data from 2010.

Murder and non-negligent manslaughter declined 1.9 percent, while forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault each declined 4.0 percent.

Violent crime declined in all city groups. Cities with populations of 50,000 to 99,999 saw the largest decrease (5.2 percent) in violent crime. Violent crime decreased 6.6 percent in metropolitan counties and 4.7 percent in non-metropolitan counties.

Within city groups, murder and non-negligent manslaughter offenses increased the most (18.3 percent) in cities with populations under 10,000.

Cities with populations of 50,000 to 99,999 showed the largest decrease of murder and non-negligent manslaughter offenses (14.4 percent).

All city groupings experienced a decline in forcible rapes except in cities with 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants, which had the increase in forcible rapes (0.5 percent).

Forcible rape offenses declined 6.8 percent in metropolitan counties and 9.0 percent in non-metropolitan counties.

Robbery offenses decreased in all city groupings, with the greatest decrease (5.3 percent) in cities with 50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants.

Robberies decreased 7.5 percent in metropolitan counties and 3.6 percent in non-metropolitan counties.

Aggravated assaults decreased in all city groups. Cities with 50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants experienced the largest decrease at 5.3 percent.

Aggravated assaults declined in both county groups, with a decrease of 6.3 percent in metropolitan counties and 4.2 percent in non-metropolitan counties.

Violent crime decreased in all four regions (4.9 percent in the Midwest, 4.7 percent in the West, 4.5 percent in the South, and 0.8 percent in the Northeast).

Property Crime

Nationally, the property crime offense categories of larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft decreased in 2011 when compared with 2010 data.

Motor vehicle theft dropped 3.3 percent, and larceny-theft decreased 0.9 percent. However, burglary offenses increased 0.3 percent.

Property crime increased 0.3 percent in cities with 250,000 to 499,999 inhabitants and increased 0.1 percent in cities with 10,000 to 24,999 in population.

Decreases in property crime were reported in all other city groupings. Property crime decreased 1.4 percent in metropolitan counties but increased 2.6 percent in non-metropolitan counties.

Burglary offenses increased 1.2 percent in cities with 50,000 to 99,999 persons, which is the largest increase reported within city groupings. Burglaries increased 1.0 percent in non-metropolitan counties.

Larceny-theft offenses decreased in all city groupings except those with populations of 250,000 to 499,999, which had an increase of 0.2 percent, and those with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, which showed virtually no change.

Larceny-thefts increased 4.1 percent in non-metropolitan counties.

Motor vehicle thefts declined in all population groupings. Cities with 100,000 to 249,999 inhabitants experienced the largest decline at 4.3 percent. Metropolitan counties reported a 6.1 percent decrease in motor vehicle thefts.

Three of the nation’s regions had decreases in property crime in 2011 when compared with data from 2010. These offenses declined 1.3 percent in the South, 0.8 percent in the West, and 0.4 percent in the Midwest. However, property crimes increased 0.2 percent in the Northeast.

Arson

Even arson offenses, which are not included in property crime totals, decreased 5.0 percent nationwide. Arsons declined in all four regions in 2011, with the Northeast experiencing the largest decrease (12.3 percent).

That ain't bad. It's just a shame we don't hear about this anywhere on the liberal controlled news stations.

THIRD SHOT!

Phoenix Youth shoots Armed Intruder while watching Three Younger Siblings

A 14-year-old Phoenix boy shot an intruder who broke into his home while brandishing a gun as the teenager watched his three younger siblings, police said.

The teen and his brothers and sisters were at home alone at their residence at 55th Avenue and Baseline when a woman rang the doorbell Friday. The teen didn't open the door because he didn't recognize her, Police Officer James Holmes said Saturday.

Soon after, the teen heard a bang on the door, rushed his siblings upstairs and got a handgun from his parent's bedroom. When he got to the top of the stairs, he saw a man breaking through the front door and point a gun at him.

The boy shot the 37-year-old man, who is in critical condition but expected to survive and be booked into jail.

Holmes said the suspect did not get a shot off. He declined to release his name until he is booked into jail.

The woman who rang the home's doorbell got away.

Holmes hailed the teen's actions and his parents for teaching the kids to never open the door to strangers.

"The police and indeed our community does not ever want to see a situation where a teenager of that age has to take a weapon to protect his family ... but this young man did exactly what he should have done," he said. "I'm not sure he gave full thought about what he had to do. He just acted."

Holmes said that the gun the teen grabbed was his father's, but did not know whether the boy had been trained to use it.

He said the family, whose names were not released, is declining to speak to reporters about the ordeal, saying that they "are all pretty traumatized."

"The dad was pretty much out of his mind with distress, officers couldn't even talk to him," Holmes said. "It's going to take them a while to recover mentally."

He said police don't yet know what the bad guy's intentions were  - and that will be one of the first questions they ask the jerkweed when he is well enough to talk.

"This was mid-block in a neighborhood, at 4:30 in the afternoon in summertime and children are there," he said. "They just took a heck of a gamble for this particular house, and we've got to try to figure out why."

Holmes added that the family is lucky that the teen acted so swiftly and effectively.

"As ugly as this is, and as much as this family is going through, we don't have injured children on our hands," he said.

It's gratifying to see that more and more people are teaching their kids gun use and gun safety. One less bad guy in this world means nothing compared to losing our children. Officer Holmes is right on the money!

NEXT SHOT!

Two Teens who assault girl who turned out to be Martial Arts Expert

Out of Vancouver, Washington, another Bad Choice Award goes to two teenagers who got more than they bargained for when a Washington state woman they attempted to assault turned out to be an expert in martial arts.

And yes, she kicked their asses!

KATU reports that Priscilla Dang was jogging in her Vancouver neighborhood last Friday when she was approached by two teenagers on their bikes.

One pulled in front of her as the other groped her from behind.

Unknowing to the two young fools, Miss Dang had studied Kung Fu for 18 years at a Martial Arts School owned by her family. She used the training to kick the crap out both of the punks!

"I grabbed him and said, 'You need to apologize, and he did,'" said Miss Dang.

Then things escalated when the second teen started swearing at her. Not a good idea!

Miss Dang said that something snapped inside her and that is when her Kung Fu background really kicked in as she punched him twice in the face.

"He started coming in for a few, and I was lucky enough to dodge his shots. I came up for another one and I got him good, and I think that upset him," she told the news station.

That is when the second teen pulled out a knife, said Miss Dang, and her instincts kicked in telling her to back off and play it safe.

Personally, I wish that she had pulled a gun when he pulled his knife. She could have watched him shit himself!

Two people witnessed the confrontation taking place and called 911. Miss Dang was not hurt and thinks she taught the teenagers a lesson.

"I think they knew they messed with the wrong girl," she said.

The suspects were 16 and 18 years old. The 18-year-old was arrested while the younger suspect was turned over to his parents. I'm will to bet that the 18 year old will have a heck of a time explaining to the guys in cell block how a girl kicked his ass!

FOURTH SHOT!

Megan Crafton, Cheer Leading Coach, for having Oral Sex with Indiana High School Basketball Player

That's right! The 3rd Bad Choice Award today goes to Megan Crafton! 

She's not the head cheerleader or Sandra Fluke. She is Megan Crafton, an assistant cheer leading coach in Indiana, and she has been arrested for having oral sex with a 17-year-old high school student in her car.

So, you say it wasn't like that when you were in school - well me neither!

The high school cheer leading coach pleaded not guilty to charges stemming from a sexual encounter with an Indiana high school basketball player.

But why plead not guilty? Megan Crafton, age 22, an assistant cheer leading coach in Shelbyville, Indiana, admitted to police that she performed oral sex on the 17-year-old boy in her car in a supermarket parking lot in January.

But her lawyer claimed after her court appearance Thursday that Crafton didn't break the law. She's charged with child seduction, a felony, but in Indiana the age of consent is 16 so her lawyer says its basically OK .

Authorities counter that they went after her because she works for Shelbyville High School and it's illegal for adults to have sex with anyone younger than 18 that they supervise or oversee.

Crafton's lawyer asserted that the law doesn't apply in this case!

Why? Well he says its because "as a part-time member of the cheer leading staff," Megan Crafton doesn't have authority over the teen aged boy.

Now I don't know where that lawyer went to school, but a coach is a coach is a coach if you know what I mean. She was a coach and subsequently an authority.

Shelbyville High School officials tipped off police about rumors circulating in the halls that Meg Crafton was involved with a student, Fox News said.

Police questioned Meg Crafton about the "hanky-panky" in February, but only charged her this month. She turned herself in on June 15.

The charges carry a potential jail term of three years. Her trial is scheduled for September 24th. In the mean while, I read somewhere that the whole Shelbyville High School basketball team has lost their motivation to play well!

ANOTHER SHOT!


Is the U.S. Air Force hostile towards religion, especially Christianity?

Dozens of House lawmakers accused the U.S. Air Force this week of being "hostile towards religion," citing a string of recent incidents they claim show the military is taking separation of church and state too far.

"Censorship is not required for compliance with the Constitution," they wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

The letter from 66 Republican members of Congress referenced a series of cases where they claim the Air Force "succumbed" to demands from outside groups.

Among the incidents:

1) A decision to remove a Latin reference to "God" from a logo/motto for the Rapid Capabilities Office

2) A decision to stop requiring staff to check for Bibles in Air Force Inn rooms

3) The removal of a document from a distance-learning course for Squadron Officer School that suggested chapel attendance is a sign of strong leadership

4) The suspension of an ethics course because the material included Bible passages

"Mr. Secretary, the combination of events mentioned above raises concerns that the Air Force is developing a culture that is hostile towards religion," the lawmakers wrote. They urged Panetta to investigate all the incidents and issue "clear Department of Defense policy guidance."

The letter was drafted by Reps. Diane Black, R-Tenn.; Randy Forbes, R-Va.; and Todd Akin, R-Mo.

'Censorship is not required for compliance with the Constitution'
- GOP lawmakers in letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

The incidents were not all as clear-cut as the lawmakers made them sound.

In the case of the Squadron Officer School course, the training document in question contained the following paragraph: "If you attend chapel regularly, both officers and Airmen are likely to follow this example. If you are morally lax in your personal life, a general moral indifference within the command can be expected."

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained to the Air Force in March that the line "creates the inescapable impression that regular church attendance is a requirement for commissioned Air Force officers in order to demonstrate positive morals to subordinates." The group said the document violates the constitutional prohibition on religious tests for U.S. office holders.

The Air Force subsequently scrapped the document.

In the case of the Rapid Capabilities Office, the reference to God was removed following a complaint from an atheist group. The original logo, according to Fox News Radio, said in Latin: "Doing God's Work with Other People's Money."

It was changed to say, "Doing Miracles with Other People's Money."

In the case of the Air Force Inn rooms, the Air Force moved to nix a question from its checklist asking whether a Bible was provided, according to the Air Force Times, though it did not order Bibles to be removed.

The Republican lawmakers, though, said the change in attitude can all be traced back to a September 2011 memo from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz that said chaplains, "not commanders," are expected to notify airmen of the Chaplain Corps programs.

The lawmakers said this suggested "that the mere mention of these programs is impermissible." All the subsequent incidents, they said, "go beyond the requirements of the Constitution."

"The changes lend credence to the notion that the Air Force will remove any reference to God or faith that an outside organization brings to its attention," they wrote.

LAST SHOT!

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison to Buy 98% of a Hawaiian Island

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison has reached a deal to buy 98 percent of the island of Lanai from its current owner, Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie said Wednesday, June 20, 2012.

The land's owner, Castle & Cooke Inc., has filed a transfer application with the state's public utilities commission, Abercrombie said.

The sale price for the property - the vast majority of the island's 141 square miles - was not immediately clear. The Maui News previously reported the asking price was between $500 Million and $600 Million, but some think it went for much much more.

Representatives for Castle & Cooke, owned by self-made billionaire David Murdock, did not immediately return a call seeking comment from The Associated Press.

Governor Abercrombie said Ellison has had a longstanding interest in the island.

"We look forward to welcoming Mr. Ellison in the near future," Abercrombie said. "His passion for nature, particularly the ocean is well known specifically in the realm of America's Cup sailing."

Governor Abercrombie and Maui County Mayor Alan Arakawa met with Castle & Cook last week to go over the prospective deal between the company and billionaire Ellison  whose software company is based in Redwood City, California.

Murdock bought out fellow Castle & Cooke shareholders for nearly $700 million in 2000 and took the company private.

Lanai is Hawaii's smallest publicly accessible inhabited island, with some 3,200 residents. It is known as the "pineapple island" even though Murdock has closed its pineapple operations to make way for luxury resort and home development.

The island boasts unspoiled charm with 30 miles of paved roads, 400 miles of unpaved roads and no traffic lights. Other people own the 2 percent of the land that Ellison isn't buying.

According to the Hawaii Tourism Authority, more than 26,000 people visited the island from January to April of this year, a 6 percent decline from the same period last year.

Hawaii doesn't need more billionaires buying land. It needs billionaires wanting to invest money, maybe start a software company there, and make good paying jobs more available for locals who don't want to leave Hawaii and relocate to the mainland for more opportunities.

I'm just talking from experience!

Story by Tom Correa

One Reason Young Dogs Die Suddenly

Dear Readers,

Many of you are writing and asking about my dog Jake who died recently.

I didn't write a single article about losing Jake, instead I wrote about losing him in a RANDOM SHOTS blog. Like a few other things that I've wrote on here, it was more for me than for you my readers.

I can't tell you how much losing him meant to me. I was in absolute shock for days, and honestly I really think I still may be in a sort of state of disbelief that it actually took place.

Maybe it was because it was too simple, too sudden, too easy, too oh well Jake's dead. I can't tell you how much it means to me that my readers are writing and asking why, what happened, and what have I found out?

Like you, I can really only guess. My wife and I don't have a lot of money. We live on my retirement. Contrary to what some might think, this blog does not bring in a dime yet. I run advertisements for things that I like or admire, like say the Wounded Warriors Program or the different Cattle Breeds or the American Quarter Horse Association, but they are not paying a dime for those ads. It's just my choice to put them on here for free.

Bottom line, we don't have a lot of money to be spending on things we simply can't afford -- a trait that I would wish our state and federal government officials would learn -- so subsequently, I didn't want to spend money on a Vet to come out here on a ranch visit or take Jake in for an autopsy called a necropsy to find out why he died.

It is about the worst thing that can happen to any dog owner. And honestly, I would not wish it on anyone!

When I came home and was told that Jake was dead, especially when he was source an athlete, completely healthy dog, is something I never thought would happen.

After seeing him, I immediately went out to start digging him a grave. The whole time, I was in complete shock. And yes, I have seen men die and not shed a tear - but I cried like a baby that day.

What could have done it? A heart attack? A stroke? He was so young, only a little over 4 years old, how could this happen?

Since then, like I said before, I've gotten a lot of e-mail from you my readers suggesting all sorts of things from choking to snake bites to just exhaustion, and more.

Since then, I've talked to many people about it. I've asked a number of folks who I know know animals - and they can only wonder as much as I do. And yes, I've talked to my Vet about it.

Some of you have sent me articles on dogs dying suddenly, and all I can only say is thank you for your concern. Your concern has meant a lot to me.

I did get a few articles relating to "stomach torsion" that comes about from "bloat". This wasn't the first time that I heard of torsion in dogs. Years ago, an old friend who was a professional dog trainer told me about torsion. I didn't really understand it. I really didn't know how bad it could be.


Since Jake's death, I've read a lot about it lately. Come to find out, this is a serious issue in the dog world. So serious that its the second leading cause of death for large dogs. And yes, Jake was a large dog at over 70 pounds.

In one article send to me, it talked about torsion as a result of "bloat" being basically a condition where a lot of gas or fluid gets trapped in the dogs stomach. This really isn't all that different from what might happen to you and I when we drank too much on a full stomach.

But in dogs, especially large dogs in particular, this is a serious problem. The reason is that their stomach isn't as well set in the body cavity as ours is. Up until reading that article, I really didn't know that a dogs stomach is kind of just hanging loose - and when it becomes over-engorged with fluid or gas -  it can twist around.

It's called torsion

For you horse type folks who are reading this right now, yes, this is very similar to the kind of torsion that takes place in severe cases of colic when various parts of the horse's gastrointestinal tract twist. And as you already know, when colic goes from a slight case of colic to the twisting of either the horse's small intestine or part of the colon - then the result is blockage of the blood supply. That means that it is a painful condition causing rapid deterioration and requiring emergency surgery if you can afford it. Either way, it is a real medical emergency.

When torsion occurs in dogs, like in horses, the result is a medical emergency. The blood supply to many vital organs gets cut off when this happens, and the dog goes into shock.

Death will result if surgery is not performed. A symptom that this is happening is that the dog will be throwing up clear liquid or attempting to throw up. Next to Jake, there was evidence that he had thrown up just before dying.

According to the article sent to me, "one tragic aspect of this condition is that onset can happen rapidly, and so you may become aware of it when its too late."

Since becoming educated on this issue could mean the difference between death and several extra years of life for your dog, and since we can't be with our dogs 24 hours a day 7 days a week, there are a few things that we can do to reduce the risk of it happening?  .

It appears that almost everything we have to do to help our dogs has to do with how we feed our dogs. Here are a few things we can do:

•Break up your dogs feedings. The less food a dog takes in when it eats the lower the risk. A dog that eats just once a day has a higher risk than a dog that has its meals split into two or three portions a day.

•Watch out for dry food. Dogs that eat all dry food have a higher risk. Consider feeding canned food, or mixing dry and canned together. When you do this substitute a can of moist dog food for a cup of dry food. This helps because dry food tends to expand when liquefied in the stomach adding stress to the stomach.

Many years ago, that friend who was a professional dog trainer and had her own kennel. She used to feed all of the dogs in her care wet food. She would fill their feed pans with dry food and add water. She would then allow the dry food to soak up the water before feeding them.

•Feed using raised bowls. There is a bit of controversy about this one, but feeding using raised bowls may help reduce the risk. This is because some dogs gulp down air when they eat, and its believed by some that bowls raised off the floor cut down on the amount of air gulped in. This in turn cuts the risk of bloat happening. Raised pet bowls are available for sale on the Internet.

In Jake's case, my wife had him set up with raised bowls but he was a slow eater.

•Watch out for diarrhea. If a dog has chronic diarrhea, it may increase the risk. Make sure to get diarrhea treated.

•Never exercise right after feeding. Let the dogs stomach "settle" for an hour or two before going out for exercise.

•Avoid feeding immediately after exercise. After a long walk, a dog probably wants to drink lots of water. Doing that and then eating can be a fatal recipe.

I don't know if this is why Jake died. I can only wonder. But before he died, I had no idea what a serious problem torsion is in dogs, especially big dogs.

I was shocked to learn that this more often happens to dogs in their prime. And yes, Jake was in his prime. He was only a little over 4 years old.

Although dogs of any age can get it, I found out that most victims of torsion are aged between 4 and 7 years of age. I also found out that males have a higher risk than female dogs do.

All in all, again I want to say that I don't know why my boy Jake died. It could have been an aneurysm. I know that dog have aneurysms, just like people do. And yes, It could have been a stroke, or it could have been a heart attack. I do know he wasn't snake bit - because I've seen snake bit dogs before and he had no sign of being bit.

Last year, I lost my horse Murphy when he twisted his guts because he had coliced. I don't know if I lost my dog for the same reason. And yes, like you, I know real well that we can't prevent every bad event from happening to our animals - but after reading a little, I really believe that we can at least take a few small responsible steps to help them beat the risk of torsion.

Besides, I really believe that most of the readers of this blog are good folks who like me will feel a little better knowing that we did the right thing to our animals.

And by the way, thanks again for the emails.

Tom Correa

MSNBC Host Ridicules Ann Romney's MS Therapy

One writer put it better than I can when he said, "In what could possibly be this campaign season’s most sickening example of a gross liberal media pundit exuding ignorant garbage, Lawrence O’Donnell, host of MSNBC’s The Last Word, ridiculed Ann Romney’s method of using the equestrian sport of dressage as a type of therapy for her case of the degenerative disease, Multiple Sclerosis."

Every time I start to think that liberals can't get any lower, they surpass themselves and slip deeper and deeper into the gutter. This time, MSNBC Host Lawrence O’Donnell decided to ridicule Ann Romney's choice MS therapy.

There is no logic when it comes to the liberal media's love for Obama, but why make their bias so obvious, so blatant, and so classless as to stoop to new lows in attacking the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his family.

On MSNBC's The Last Word Monday, host Lawrence O'Donnell decided to ridicule Ann Romney by mocking her use of therapeutic riding. She uses therapeutic horseback riding, just like millions of other Americans do, to combat physical, mental, and emotional disabilities. In her case, she used horseback riding to combat her MS (Multiple Sclerosis).

The MSNBC host made no mention that earlier this month, on a three-day campaign stop in Florida, Ann Romney visited a Therapeutic Horse Riding Facility where she told patients that she was unable to walk at one point because her Multiple Sclerosis symptoms were so severe.

"But," Ann Romney said on her visit to the facility, "the excitement of getting on a horse helped" her build her strength and caused her symptoms to ease.

I understand what a liberal dunce like Lawrence O'Donnell is doing. He's trying to paint the Romney's as rich country club types completely out of touch with everyday Americans.

All he has succeeded in doing is show his ignorance and sheer stupidity by knocking down - someone with MS who uses a form of therapeutic riding.

I used to volunteer at a facility that put on therapeutic riding for handicapped children. Granted, it wasn't dressage - but it was therapeutic horseback riding and those kids loved it.

As for the sport of dressage, while O'Donnell tried to make it sound like it was only a sport for the wealthy in America - I can tell you that I've seen first hand a few make-shift dressage arenas where blue-collar folks try their hand at that very hard, very disciplined sport.

And yes, whether he likes it or not, it is a very common technique for helping various types of disabilities, and is one of the few that tends to work for many problems that lack effective treatment.

Therapeutic Riding is a major event and is an absolutely fundamental component of the Special Olympics. But then again, maybe O'Donnell only wealthy kids participate in the Special Olympics. Heck, maybe the idiot thinks that the Therapeutic riding at the Special Olympics is as big a joke as he apparently thinks it is.

I read where in Maryland, over 100 riders participated in the Special Olympics Therapeutic Riding event earlier in June.

As one person said, "Dressage is not for rich people." It is for everyone who wants to move to another level of horsemanship. It is a sport, but it is also used to address illnesses or conditions where other treatments may have failed.

Someone, anyone, should tell O'Donnell to hold his ridicule of the Special Olympics for their therapeutic riding program.

Most of the Special Olympians come from lower income families. Most participants are just honest people who enjoy a very popular sport. And yes, horses make a big difference in their recovery.

Therapeutic Riding, or Therapeutic Horseback Riding, is also known as Equine-assisted Activity or Equine Adaptive Riding.  It is used to teach riding skills to people with disabilities. Therapeutic riding is beneficial for children and adults who present with any of a wide range of cognitive, physical, and emotional conditions.

Most Therapeutic Riding Facilities are non-profit organizations. Most use certified instructors, licensed therapists, volunteers and specially-trained horses. Most offer high-quality horseback riding programs geared to help heal children and adults with a wide range of physical, mental, and emotional challenges.

Horses have been used as a treatment for rehabilitating a range of physical, mental, and emotional disabilities.

Professional Association of Therapeutic Horsemanship International (PATH), which was formerly the North American Riding for the Handicapped Association (NARHA), is a non-profit organization based in Denver, Colorado that promotes the benefits of therapeutic horseback riding and other equine-assisted activities and therapies for people with physical, emotional and learning disabilities.

PATH certified instructors use the horse as an instructional tool to teach riding skills and reach individualized goals and objectives. Conditions served include: cerebral palsy, spina bifida, neuromuscular disorders, post-traumatic brain injury, autism, ADHD, and cognitive disorders.

Riders see an overall improvement in their quality of life. They experience improved self-confidence, strength, balance, coordination, attention span, the use of language, and even social skills.

For me, after working so much traveling around the country working, when my back was getting worse and my head needed a rest, I bought a horse. I remembered that great saying by Sir Winston Churchill, "there is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man."

My horse Murphy saved my life in many ways. And no, I'm not the only one who has found that sort of relief. therapeutic horseback riding is used to help our wounded troops, our wounded warriors coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan improve their balance, coordination, and hone other valuable physical skills.

And yes, it helps with the symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It calms, it reassures, it motivates and gives hope. It is better than most medications.

I read where one person on the web asked "shouldn't an MSNBC anchor either know of the medical and psychological benefits of therapeutic riding or have someone on his staff investigate it before mocking a presidential candidate's wife for claiming it helped her overcome her serious illness?"

Well, we would think so wouldn't we! But he didn't. Instead he attacked a lady who has done him no personal harm, all to appease his liberal masters.

To ridicule Ann Romney or anyone with MS, for any reason, is classless enough, but then to do it to someone who is making an effort to get well by doing a form of therapy  - and go out of your way to attack and ridicule her all because of the type of therapy she picked - well, Lawrence O'Donnell can be proud that he is about as classless as they come!

Lawrence O'Donnell is about as worthless an individual as I've seen in my life. Like most liberals, he apparently doesn't care how he prostitutes himself - all so he can support Obama and the Democrat Party.

It seems that he sells himself pretty cheap!

Story by Tom Correa