RANDOM SHOTS - Americans Want To Know, Racoons Attack, Liberal Love Fest For Obama, and More!

FIRST SHOT!

Americans Want To Know!

My readers are asking me all sorts of questions. Most questions are important to what's going on today, especially with the economy in the trouble it is in.

Sure I get a question asking me if Wyatt Earp was really arrested in Illinois for being a pimp, or if Wild Bill Hickok was really known as Duck Bill?

Sure I get the questions about why I hate Communism or Terrorists so much? Believe it or not, I've had some who've written me asking me why I believe in America so much?

Yes, I get a lot of e-mail from all over the place. And yes, though it is great, it is bothering in that there seems to be one common theme running through most e-mails.

There seems to be an overwhelming distrust in the Obama White House, the Democrat Party, and the Liberal Media. It seems that all seem to being working in concert with each other - against the good of the nation.

It seems that people can't believe what is coming out of the President's mouth - especially when he comes up with things like his latest argument that American businesses didn't take smart, dedicated, hard working people - but instead American businesses were built because of the government.

Like many of you, I can't believe that he said that the credit for America's promise goes to the Federal Government and its bureaucracy. One political pundit said, the President should learn how to be American.

I can't help but wonder if that it the basic problem today. And yes, Americans want to know why he is so anti-business, anti-success, anti-achievement, anti-American?

Why is it that Obama campaign is after Romney to release his records for everything, while Obama refuses to. It's true, most want to know why has Obama has sealed all of these records?

* His kindergarten records
* His attendance to a private school, Punahou school records
* His Occidental College records
* His Columbia University records
* His Columbia thesis
* His Harvard Law School records
* His Harvard Law Review articles
* His Scholarly articles from the University of Chicago
* His Passport
* His medical records
* His files from when he was an Illinois state senator
* His Illinois State Bar Association records

Let's be honest, the man is a mystery and people still voted for him.

And unfortunately for Obama supporters who don't want any more information to surface than has to, Americans really want to know about Obama this time around because many think it's been a giant hoax!

But it's not only Obama that people ask about! Americans want to know why they are labeled "racist," or worse "white supremacist," whenever they disagree with Obama or members of his administration?

Yes, they have a lot of questions that no one seems to be answering.

Such as, why do we support the United Nations since it is corrupt and not working in our best interest? Why sign the UN Small Arms Treaty since it goes against our Constitution and subsequently the rights of citizens of this country?

And yes, people are asking other things, like why are we still paying out Foreign Aid to countries that are rich, unfriendly to us, or so corrupt that the money never gets to where it should go but instead in lining the pockets of dictators and sheiks?

Americans want to know why people say, "you're singing to the choir"- when even the choir is entitled to a song now and then?

Americans want to know why our country is in the pickle that we're in, yet politicians give themselves raises and corruption seems to be at an all time high?

They want to know when Federal Agencies stopped working for Americans and started working against Americans through more regulation and fines and in some cases arrests and seizure of assets?

They want to know why the EPA is over-reaching its authority and hampering the economy? They want to know why the IRS has involvement in Health Care penalties? They want to know why?

Why is the IRS investigating members of the Tea Party? Who's idea was that? Is it Federal Government intimidation?

They want to know where are all of the so-called "Green Jobs" after so many taxpayer dollars has been poured into that technology? Why are so-called "Green Companies" taking taxpayer money and not producing cheaper alternative energy or methods to produce energy?

Why is it that America is not using our own natural resources like our own oil? And yes, they want to know why the the Keystone XL Pipeline was not approved? Why not, when it could have produced thousands of jobs and made America less dependant on Middle-East oil?

Americans want to know why can't the federal government find where most of the almost $800 Billion in Stimulus money went to? Why did the White House leak some of America's most vital Military Secrets, yet won't release the Fast and Furious documentation?

They want to know why the Fast and Furious documentation is now covered by Executive Privilege? They want to know what the Obama White House is hiding?

There is one big question on the minds of many out there - why did ObamaCare have to encompass all Americans when it really just needed to address those needing health care?

I guess we will never know many of the answers to these questions. It seems that we can't get straight answers from the Obama White House, Democrats in charge of one half of Congress, or the Lliberal Media.

SECOND SHOT!

Raccoons Attack Washington State Woman

The attack landed a 28-year-old jogger in the hospital!

I've never heard of such a thing. I had no idea that raccoons would do this.

A woman from Lakewood, Washington, was chased and mauled by several raccoons near Fort Steilacoom Park, south of Seattle, on Monday, July 16th.

The attack left her with about 100 scratches, punctures and bite wounds! Imagine that!

Around 1:30 p.m. on Monday, Michaela Lee, age 28, was jogging with her dog near her home at the edge of the park when her dog got loose and started chasing some raccoons. It turns out that the raccoons included a mama raccoon and her babies, said Lt. Chris Lawler with Lakewood Police.

Her dog chased the raccoons up a tree. When Lee went to fetch her dog, more raccoons came out of the brush and began chasing her. Lee took off running with at least five raccoons chasing after her.

"I felt like they were hunting me, 'taking me down' pack mentality. There were five of them," said Lee.

She made it about 75 feet to a neighbor's yard where she was knocked down to the ground and actually mauled by the vicious raccoons.

A witness said he saw three really big raccoons attacking Lee while she was on the ground and he yelled for help.

Lee's dog, Madison, also helped scare off the raccoons. The attack lasted about 15 to 20 seconds before she was able to get away.

Lee was transported by ambulance to a hospital. She ended up with about 100 wounds, consisting of scratches, scrapes and puncture wounds. About 16 to 18 were puncture or bite wounds.

"It's kind of surreal," said Lee. "The kind of thing you'd see in a movie."

Lee is worried about the next person who might get attacked.

"We have elderly neighbors who walk their dogs through here. People bring their little kids. What would they do?" asked Ms Lee.

While Michaela Lee is not afraid of heading back into the woods, she does say she will be better prepared for the raccoons.

"I'll have some bear mace with me," she said.

Lakewood Police said there has not been any other reported problems with raccoons in the park or in the city. An Animal Control spokesman said he believes this was a case of a mother raccoon trying to protect her young and not an unprovoked attack.

Animal Control adds it is rare for raccoons to carry rabies and they are more of a threat to dogs with canine distemper than anything else. Thank goodness for that!

THIRD SHOT!

Chocolate Bull Welcomes Rodeo Fans at Calgary's Airport

A bull coming in at 880-pounds is not a bad size bull, especially when it's all chocolate. 

Arrive at Canada’s Calgary International Airport, and yes, you will see an 880-pound, near life-size bull made entirely of chocolate.

Created by Calgary-based Chocolaterie Bernard Callebaut, the bull is a tribute to the 100th anniversary of the Calgary Stampede, an annual 10-day rodeo and entertainment extravaganza that runs this year through July 15.

About 400,000 Rodeo fans converge in Calgary each year for the Stampede and Tourism Calgary president/CEO Randy Williams estimates that close to 10% of those folks are from the United States.

To help welcome the Calgary Stampede bound rodeo fans, Calgary International Airport gets gussied up with hay bales, fences and painted windows and schedules contests, sidewalk sales and entertainment.

The 880 pound chocolate bull is new this year, but should be kicking around for years to come. "We are hoping to shellac it and keep it for future stampede decorations," said Jody Moseley, director of corporate communications and marketing for the Calgary Airport Authority. "It’s beautiful, chocolate art."

For me, Calgary is one of those places on my list of where I'd love to visit. From the people who I've met from that area, I'm sure the people are great and the place is just a whole lot of fun waiting there.

As for the chocolate bull? Well, the news story is legit. But there's no tasting allowed, and the story says - that's no bull!

FOURTH SHOT!

File Under Not Funny: Democrats Advise Obama To Raise Taxes In 2013

This from the yesterday, and honestly, I think this again shows how out of touch the Democrats truly are.

Senate Democrats appear willing to use your paycheck to play political hardball on taxes unless Republicans agree to President Obama's plan to raise taxes on America's top earners.

A top Senate Democrat warned Monday that, if Republicans don't relent, her caucus is willing to let all the Bush-era tax rates expire at the end of the year - in effect threatening to let the country fall off what many in Washington call the "fiscal cliff."

That cliff is approaching at the start of 2013, when the Bush tax cuts are set to expire and billions of dollars in automatic spending cuts - spawned by last summer's debt-ceiling debate - are set to take effect. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are hoping to shift around those spending cuts to spare key areas like defense, and to temporarily extend the Bush tax rates for at least some Americans. Some have warned a failure to do so could send the nation back into recession.

But Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., indicated Democrats are willing to let the deadline pass in order to better their negotiating position.

In the remarks, Murray explained that if all the tax cuts expire, then that will diminish the GOP argument that the Democratic plan is tantamount to a tax hike -- because come 2013, any change to the tax code would be a tax cut.

"We will have a new fiscal and political reality," Murray said. "If the Bush tax cuts expire, every proposal will be a tax cut proposal and the pledge (to not raise taxes) will no longer keep Republicans boxed in and unable to compromise."

The political strategy underscores how heated the debate over the Bush tax cuts has become, and how risky it is for the American people.

President Obama is pushing for an extension of the rates only for American households making less than $250,000, and a tax hike for those earning more than that.

Obama's Democrat allies in Congress only want to pass that partial, one-year extension. Republicans only want to pass an extension that continues those rates for everyone. Each side is accusing the other of threatening to trigger tax hikes in 2013.

Not surprisingly, Murray, who openly made the threats in her speech Monday, also pre-emptively argued that Republicans would be to blame if that happens.

She suggested that if Republicans don't negotiate to her party's liking on the automatic spending cuts - known in Washington as the "sequestration" - set to take effect at the start of next year, her party would let those cuts happen, too.

"So anyone who tells you sequestration is going to simply disappear because both sides want to avoid it is either fooling themselves, or trying to fool you. It is going to have to be replaced, and that replacement is going to have to be balanced," Murray said.

Republicans claim Democrats are the ones standing in the way of relief for millions of Americans. In the Republicans' weekly radio address, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, accused Obama of pushing a tax hike that will hurt employment.

"Raising taxes on employers and the middle class, growing government at the expense of free enterprise, piling on new regulations that increase the cost of doing business -- these burdens make it harder, not easier, to create jobs in America," he said.

Portman also said, "Today, instead of lifting the burden on job creators, the President is once again calling for a massive tax increase on nearly 1 million small businesses that employ tens of millions of Americans. I guess he still thinks the private sector is doing just fine. Well, the private sector is not fine. And raising taxes on job creators during a jobs shortage makes about as much sense as cutting off the water supply during a drought."

Americans are having a hard time making ends meet these days, higher taxes from Democrats is the last thing we need.

FIFTH SHOT!

Farmer says Arkansas drought turns cattle ranch into 'desert'

In Arkansas severe drought has turned pasture into "desert," threatening the future of the cattle ranching industry there.

Drought now covers more than half of the lower 48 states, but few have it as rough as Arkansas. There the entire state is listed as suffering from lower than average precipitation.

"It's just devastating," cattle rancher Karen Haralson told NBC News. Having never seen her land this barren, she compares her ranch to "a desert."

Haralson has had to sell 100 of her 250 cows and ranchers across drought-hit areas are all doing about the same. It's a sorry trend that could raise beef prices next year, when fewer cows will be around to sell. But worse, it just might be the end for some ranches.

Forecasters say four to six inches of rain are needed to end the drought in Arkansas. Some rain is likely over the next few days, but there's nothing that significant on the horizon.

Indeed, drought conditions have only expanded and intensified in recent weeks, according to the weekly Drought Monitor compiled by the National Weather Service.

The service's Seasonal Drought Outlook for July-September offered little reason for hope. Arkansas was among the states were drought conditions were expected to persist.

For Karen Haralson and other ranchers, it is a dire situation with no help to be found. Yes, there is a real possibility of that many there will go bust.

"If no significant rain comes," she said, "I'll have to go out of business."

I know that these folks are as resilient as the land itself, but the Federal Government - the Obama Administration - just might want to help these hard hit folks by declaring hard hit states "disaster areas". 

At least then, that may help them hold off bankruptcy - or worse foreclosure! 

SIXTH SHOT!

George W. Bush Institute launches book on Economic Growth

A report out of Dallas, Texas, today, said the George W. Bush Institute is launching its first book.

The book features experts weighing in on ways to jump start the economy. And yes, it is a prescription to push the U.S. toward 4% Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth.

The former president writes the foreword for "The 4 Percent Solution: Unleashing the Economic Growth America Needs," which will be released Tuesday.

President Bush is set to give brief remarks at an event Tuesday evening in Dallas featuring several of those who contributed to the book.

James K. Glassman, executive director of the Bush Institute, said that the book - which includes entries by five Nobel Prize winners - is part of "The 4 Percent Growth Project" launched last year with a goal to "change the conversation in America so that it focuses on the goal of sustainable, strong growth."

"We think that the way to solve the economic problems that America faces can be summed up in 4 percent growth. Right now we're growing about at 2 percent. We've grown an average of about 3 percent since the end of World War II," said Glassman, who wrote the book's introduction.

Economic growth is one of the Bush Institute's focal points, along with education, global health and freedom.

The institute and the presidential library will be housed at the George W. Bush Presidential Center, which is under construction on the campus of Southern Methodist University.

Now before someone out there starts writing me how it's ALL his fault that our economy is in the trouble it is in today, let's look at some real facts.

There were two recessions during Bush's eight years in office, the first was a mild downturn that began in March 2001, just after he took office, and lasted eight months.

The second began in December 2007, one year after Nancy Pelosi's Congress took over and started their huge spending spree that put us in this hole we're in.

It ended in June of 2009, months after he left office. It has since become known as the Great Recession, the longest and deepest since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

"While the causes of the 2008 crisis will be debated by scholars for decades to come, we can all agree that excessive risk-taking by financial institutions, irresponsible decisions by lenders and borrowers, and market-distorting government policies all played a role," Bush said in the book's foreword. "The question now is which policies we should adopt to fix the problems, speed the recovery, and lay the foundation for another long, steady expansion."

Glassman said ideas in the book for stimulating the economy include broad tax reform that would keep taxes low - extending the Bush-era tax cuts put into place over 10 years ago, broadening the tax base by getting rid of special exemptions and loopholes, taxing consumption rather than income and lowering corporate taxes.

Glassman said the book also touches on immigration policy and its effect on the economy, advocating for a policy that would help "attract the smartest people from around the world."

Glassman also said that the hope is that the idea of focusing on growth will become part of the conversation this election season.

"Certainly Republicans and Democrats can disagree on how to get growth," Glassman said. "Some people say, 'Well, the best way to get growth is through government spending.' We disagree with that, but that certainly is a position to take. We say cut government spending, reform taxes, change immigration policy and so on."

Since leaving office, Bush largely has avoided the political scene, instead focusing on the work of his institute, traveling to Africa to promote a partnership to fight cervical and breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa, and holding events to honor the nation's troops, including joining them on bike rides across rugged Texas terrain.

I will always feel that President Bush was treated with malice starting with the outcome of the contested election results. For the next eight years, the man was demonized and treated with such disrespect the likes that I have never seen before.

I supported George W. Bush, not because he was a Republican and a moderate, but because I could agree with his policies about 95% of the time. I really wish I could, but I'm sorry to say that I can't say the same for Barack Hussein Obama's policies.

To visit the George W. Bush President Center, http://www.georgewbushcenter.com

LAST SHOT!

MSNBC Liberal Love Fest For Obama

Ultra-Liberal Chris Matthews says Obama is "the Perfect American"

That's right! Imagine that!

MSNBC’s ultra-liberal Democrat mouthpiece Chris Matthews apparently has no shame when he starts gushing over President Obama.

While the president has been known to send a “thrill” up Matthews’ leg, the host of MSNBC's "Hardball" took it to another level on Tuesday when he actually had the nerve to call Obama "the perfect American."

Not taking into consideration that Obama has attempted to create a Socialist State in America, or that he doesn't know even the most fundamental of facts regarding our country - such as the number of states or how American Capitalism works - Matthews love fest started hot and heavy.
"Based upon the rhetoric, you’d think the president was a radical lefty and not the center-left politician he actually is based on the record, but then do people care on the right about reality?” Matthews asked.
He posed that question to his two extremely liberal guests, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson. Then Matthews went on this unbelievable rant, professing his love for the “perfect” Obama who has “never done anything wrong”:

“I want to start with Congressman Ellison. You’ve been victim yourself of some of this crapola, but this crazy yahoo talk, do you think the people who push this stuff, this malarkey over and over again the guy’s somehow — this guy’s done everything right. He’s raised his family right. He’s fought his way all the way to the top of the Harvard Law Review, in a blind test becomes head of the Review, the top editor there.”

“Everything he’s done is clean as a whistle. He’s never not only broken any law, he’s never done anything wrong. He’s the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American. And all they do is trash the guy. And it’s impossible for me to believe they would have said the same thing about a Walter Mondale or a Jimmy Carter or a Bill Clinton. There’s an ethnic piece to this. It’s very hard to nail it down because they always cover it in ideology. But I’ve never heard anybody in this country call its opponent regularly anti-American or non-American.”

Is Matthews really that blind to what Obama has done? Is it all simply because he really can't see what Obama is doing? Is Matthews just a puppet Democrat who used to work for the Democrat politicians? Why does he act as though he is just bought and paid for by the Democrat Party?

The guy has no problems with showing his unfettered support for Obama, or calling those who don't support Obama "racists."

Matthew's whole, "There’s an ethnic piece to this" is his insinuation that we who oppose Obama's policies are "racist". He isn't even clever about it!

Of course, I opposed Bill Clinton's policies - especially his assault weapons ban - so that must have made me a "racist" then as well? 

No, because these days it's all about race because Obama is half black. Back in Clinton days, I would have been labeled by the liberal media as being part of the whole "vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that Hilary and guys like Matthews talked so much about.

In today's America, it seems that a guy or gal can't simply be a citizen who disagrees with the liberal point of view without being accused of being something horrible like a racist.

And yes, it's getting old.

So much for having no bias! But really, where is his impartiality? Where is objectivity from Matthews?

And really, where is MSNBC stand on these sorts of rants? Why haven't they reeled in their pro-Obama excuse squad? Why can't a major entity like MSNBC show some impartiality when it comes to there reporting or even in the commentary?

Forget journalistic professional standards. The station has proven itself to violate any and all journalistic professional standards ass they routinely attack Conservatives of any shape and form - while advocating Liberal ideology.

If they are truly a Liberal Only Love Fest Network, then they should have the cojones to declare themself as such and quit masquerading as a News Network when they're obviously not.

Story by Tom Correa

Obama Attacks American Business With Stupid Remarks

My readers write and ask why I have little to no respect for President Obama?

Well, it's not disrespect. It is frustration in that I have a real hard time believing that President Obama is as stupid as he appears.

And yes, I've thought about the possibility that he is not in fact stupid and simply just doesn't get it. Maybe he is just ignorant?

Maybe he's just ignorant and lacks the knowledge or awareness as to what has made America great?

Maybe he's just uneducated or has no awareness of what America is all about - especially when it comes to understanding how America works, or what our ideals are?

It was reported on July 15, 2012, Obama tells Business Owners, "You didn't build that! "

Yes, in a speech to supporters, Obama said that business owners owe their success to government - saying "if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that."

Now really, just how stupid does that sound to anyone out there? Very stupid!

OK, again, if he's not stupid - then he just doesn't get it.

He doesn't understand how things and businesses are made, put together, the long hours, the sacrifice, the drive to work for yourself, the goal of self-reliance, the American Dream that say that anyone with smarts, energy, ambition, and know how can be their own Boss and maybe not slave away his or her life working for others.

No, Barack Hussein Obama doesn't understand any of that. This is my frustration with this president. And yes, it is hard to keep the jokes and quips from coming because he just asks for it!

It's as if some one some where forgot to teach him the very basics about America.

It's as if he skipped the part about individuals wanting to throw off the yoke of oppression and make their own way. It's as if no one ever bothered educating him about this land we call America and why it is the place that attracts people from all over the world.

It's as if he just can't grasp the whole concept of individual struggle to prevail. Obama doesn't grasp the whole idea that people come here to be free. Free for so many reasons, and among them free to work for themselves and build a better future for their families.

Maybe his statement says a lot more about Obama than he wants us to know? Maybe it goes to the heart of a man who has been given everything in his life?

From attending the most expensive private schools in Hawaii, to getting a free ride to multiple universities, he has been given everything. He simply doesn't understand what it takes to make a business work, make jobs, and work tirelessly to get ahead.

Obama’s comment Friday during a campaign stop in Roanoke, Virginia, came just days after he urged Congress to extend the Bush tax cuts - but only to families earning less than $250,000 annually.

Part of Obama's argument is that top earners have an obligation to pay more to trim the deficit that an out of control government has built.

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back," Obama said.

Then he showed his utter ignorance by saying "If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

And he went on, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,"

He then said. "The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Amazing, isn't it? He doesn't understand, or maybe he's just too stupid to grasp the concept, that hard work does matter!

In one outburst of horseshit rhetoric, the President of the United States just tried to rewrite the history of America, western industrialization, and the achievements of great men and women who fought the odds to make a difference.

Sorry Mr President, but these people who started businesses were indeed smarter. They truly did work harder. They really did persevere when the odds were against them. Many did not make it, but of those who have - they have given us American Industrialization that has changed the world.

It wasn't some committee in a back room in Washington, like say some agency in charge of production of an item in say the former Communist Soviet Union. In that country, the government controlled everything and subsequently ran their nation into ruin.

Government, more than not, is a hindrance - more than it is an asset. And yes, it's fortunate for us that people persevere in their pursuit of their dream even though government throws road-blocks in their way!

The day after Obama put his foot in his mouth, business leaders came out of the woodwork to educate the president about the relationship between government and business.

The president argues that successful business owners got help from others along the way and suggesting they should pay more in taxes in return, he noted how government often provides the infrastructure needed for success. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," Obama said. "Somebody else made that happen."

David Chavern, chief operating officer of the Chamber of Commerce, accused Obama of slighting the remarkable achievements of extraordinary individuals.

"We should applaud the risk-takers and the dreamers who are willing to stand out from the crowd," Chavern said in a Chamber blog. "Rather than denigrate what these people have done, we need to encourage more people to be like them."

The National Federation of Independent Business said the president's "unfortunate remarks over the weekend show an utter lack of understanding and appreciation for the people who take a huge personal risk and work endless hours to start a business and create jobs."

"I'm sure every small-business owner who took a second mortgage on their home, maxed out their credit cards or borrowed money from their own retirement savings to start their business disagrees strongly with President Obama's claim. They know that hard work does matter," the group also said.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told Fox News on Monday that the remarks "reflect just how unqualified he is to lead us to a real economic recovery."

"They are also insulting to the hardworking entrepreneurs, small-business owners, and job creators who are the backbone of our economy," she said in an e-mail.

Obama just does not understand who built this nation. It was commerce and business, certainly not government bureaucrats who spend taxpayer dollars as if there's no tomorrow.

"If you got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen," is an ignorant asinine statement. And honesty, I'd expect that from a some uneducated street punk in Chicago - not the president of the United States.

Story by Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - About Slavery, Teachers Union Bosses Make Big Bucks, Border Patrol Closes Stations, and Much More!

FIRST SHOT!

Teachers Unions Give Big To Liberal Political Causes

So what does the American Ireland Fund, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network have in common?

Well, all have received some of the more than $330 million that America's two largest Teachers Unions spent in the past five years on outside liberal causes, political campaigns, and lobbying.

The contributions-totaling more than $200 million from the National Education Association and more than $130 million from the American Federation of Teachers - were disclosed in annual reports that Unions are required to file with the Labor Department.

These reports detail their spending on political activities and advocacy work, as well as separate political-action-committee filings.

Some of the spending that the two Teachers Unions identified to the Labor Department as "political and lobbying" activities from fiscal 2007 through fiscal 2011 went to election consultants, voter mobilization and advertising.

Included are millions of dollars that went to liberal Political Action Committees (PACs) that donate almost exclusively to Democrat candidates and committees.

They also give millions of dollars to dozens of other organizations that promote a range of issues including Abortion Rights groups, minority civil rights groups, and liberal think tanks producing pro-Union policies.

Some of the contributions provide indirect political benefit to the Unions, by fostering allies among liberal groups. This has helped give teachers widespread political clout on Capitol Hill and in statehouses.

Million dollar donations have made Teachers Unions nearly indispensable to the Democrat Party. The Democrats in Washington reward the Teachers Unions by making laws making it mandatory for teachers to belong to the Unions.

And in the end, the Democrats in Washington fill their pockets with Union money, the Teachers Union Presidents make five times what their members make, and the teacher who is in the Union gets a notice in the mail that her Union Dues are going up because of "expenses".

It's all a ripoff for the teachers, even the ones who are for it taking place but see it as a necessary way of life!

SECOND SHOT!

Average Teacher $44,000 a year, while top Teacher Union Bosses make nearly $500,000 a year! Why the disparity?

Randi Weingarten, who is the president of the American Federation of Teachers, and Dennis Van Roekel, who is president of the National Education Association's, both earn nearly $500,000 each.

While teachers across the country face pay freezes and possible layoffs, but heads of the two biggest Teachers Unions had their pay jump 20% last year - to nearly half a Million Dollars each.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten's pay jumped to $407,323 between 2010 and 2011. Factor in stipends and other paid expenses and Weingarten took in $493,859 for 2011.

The National Education Association, Dennis Van Roekel, got a raise to $362,644. Factor in stipends and other paid expenses and Van Roekel $460,060 for 2011.

In the Obama age of liberal greed, the big salaries of these two Union presidents has drawn criticism from many teachers and their advocates in the U.S. - where the average nationwide salary for teachers is a only $44,000 a year.

Contrast that with the nearly 600 staffers at the NEA (National Education Association) and AFT (American Federation of Teachers) who are raking in hug six-figure salaries and teachers around the country appear very justified to be unhappy with the situation.

Association of American Educators Executive Director Gary Beckner says, "In terms of salaries, union executives rake in nearly 10 times the average household income and far more than any teacher. Are teachers or anyone in the private sector experiencing those increases in times of financial hardship?"

The answer is no! But then again, that doesn't seem to bother the Unions who have seen their membership drop - yet their Union salaries go up!

"The Union bigwigs are well-insulated from the paycheck-to-paycheck lives of most school-teachers," said Tracie Happel, a elementary school teacher in Lacrosse, Wisconsin, who has spoken out in the past against the practices of the Teachers Unions.

"It’s always about the Union. It's never about the teachers or students," Happel said. "When you’re a teacher, you know you will not always be able to have the money for renovations on a house or go away on vacation, but it’s a tough pill to swallow when you can't do those things when the people who are supposed to represent us get paid more and more every year."

Happel added that while she is safe for now, many of her colleagues in worse situations. "They are finding it hard to pay their bills. They are having trouble with basic monthly bills."

"Last year, I and the other two AFT officers, as well as all management took a voluntary pay freeze," Weingarten, president of AFT said in a statement.

"We did so because no one knows better than we do the economic distress our members are experiencing. Unlike in the corporate sector, all of my salary, benefits and expenses are fully disclosed," Weingarten said.

But who is she trying to full? She knows as well as anyone that the Union boards vote their own pay-raises! The whole idea of taking a so-called "all management took a voluntary pay freeze" is laughable when you consider that Weingarten's pay alone jumped to $407,323 between 2010 and 2011. Factor in stipends and other paid expenses and Weingarten took in $493,859 for 2011.

Where do you see those sorts of raises in the private sector? Nowhere but the corrupt!

John Ellsworth, a teacher in the Michigan's Grand Ledge Public Schools, told the Mackinac Center, a Michigan-based think tank, that teachers deserve the best advocates Union dues can buy.

He said in an email, "Public education is vital for the preservation and growth of our nation and its economy. Leaders of the national Teachers' Union try to rally people behind this truth. I wish we had people serving in government who recognized the importance of public education, but instead children and teachers need their own advocates since politicians abandon public education so readily."

"Children and teachers"? Since when do the Teacher Union fat cats represent the children? And besides, if they are really being altruistic and working on behalf of the teachers unselfishly - then why take so much money?

That's just Bullshit! And yes, not everyone agrees with teachers like John Ellsworth of the Michigan's Grand Ledge Public Schools.

Tony Amorose, a History Teacher with the Dearborn School District in Michigan, said no one begrudges Union officials fair salaries. But, as he said, the steep increases are out of step with what the rank and file see.

After 21 years of teaching, he earns $74,000 a year. He said he gets by just fine, but worries about the pay younger and less experienced teachers get.

"It would be nice if the unions held the line a bit in a show of solidarity," said Amorose, who is now campaigning for state office to change the greed he sees going on. "I don’t mind paying dues, but I don’t see them going down with my compensation. They keep going up. I find it a bit frustrating that they would give themselves such significant salary and compensation increases."

Michael Van Beek, Mackinac's director of education policy said the problem isn't necessarily high pay for Union leaders, it's the way they get it.

"These compensation levels are not based on market demand," Van Beek said. "This pay largely relies upon monopolistic collective bargaining privileges these unions enjoy, which forces school employees to financially support them. This is why transparency of these Unions is so important."

The same sort of promised transparency that, like that which the Obama administration promised, are just a lot of empty words.

The significant raises of the two Union leaders salaries came at a time when the saw memberships dwindling.

"They [the unions] want us to be seen as laborers and not professionals," said Kristi LaCroix, an English Teacher from Kenosha, Wisconsin, who added that the Unions did not want to use Gov. Scott Walker’s controversial reform plan because it gave teachers the choice to be represented by a union which would give them the ability to avoid paying mandatory dues.

"They want us to be seen as laborers and not professionals. I get nothing for my dues except them going to keeping ineffective teachers employed and treated like a servant.”

Teachers like Kristi LaCroix give everyone hope. She sees what is taking place, is speaking up, and isn't afraid of the retaliation of the Unions.

Good for her!

THIRD SHOT!

Border Patrol Stations Closing

The Obama administration is moving to shut down nine Border Patrol stations across four states.

That's right! Close them down!

Sure this has had a sort of political backlash from local law enforcement, members of Congress, and Border Patrol agents themselves, but the Obama administration doesn't care about such things.

And honestly, I know the report said that "Critics of the move warn the closures will undercut efforts to intercept drug and human traffickers in well-traveled corridors north of the U.S.-Mexico border. Though the affected stations are scattered throughout northern and central Texas, and three other states, the coverage areas still see plenty of illegal immigrant activity. One soon-to-be-shuttered station in Amarillo, Texas, is right in the middle of the I-40 corridor; another in Riverside, California outside of Los Angeles."

But are these essential stations, and are these agents needed somewhere else?

Well, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection says it's closing the stations in order to reassign agents to high-priority areas closer to the border.

"These deactivations are consistent with the strategic goal of securing America's borders, and our objective of increasing and sustaining the certainty of arrest of those trying to enter our country illegally," CBP spokesman Bill Brooks said in a statement. "By redeploying and reallocating resources at or near the border, CBP will maximize the effectiveness of its enforcement mandate and align our investments with our mission."

But wait! At least one Border Patrol supervisor in Texas has called on local officers to "voice your concerns" to elected officials, warning that the "deactivation" will remove agents from the Texas Panhandle, among other places.

Several members of Congress have asked Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher to reconsider the plan. And local officials are getting worried about what will happen once the Border Patrol leaves town, since they rely on those federal officials to assist in making immigration arrests.

To me, I can't help but think that that is what this is all about: having less federal officials to assist in making immigration arrests. And yes, I really believe that it can have an impact on law enforcement officers attempting to enforce immigration laws.

The feds might not be able to control State laws or their law enforcement programs, but if it conflicts with Obama's immigration policy - especially before the November election when he needs every illegal vote he can get - then I can't help but wonder if the Obama White House is doing this to purposely hamper immigration arrests.

"It could impact us tremendously since we've only got two agents up here now for 26 counties," said Potter County Sheriff Brian Thomas to Fox News.

Potter County, in the Texas Panhandle, would be affected by the planned closure of the Amarillo station.

Thomas said that while his area is far from the border, it's still a major "corridor" for illegal immigrants - and he said his office depends on Border Patrol to respond to their calls.

"I can't hold a carload of people out there on I-40 for eight hours while somebody comes from El Paso," he said. "I mean, that's just crazy."

Border Patrol's resident agent in charge in Amarillo expressed similar worries, in a recent memo to local law enforcement alerting them to the planned closure. The official, Robert Green, warned that the "entire complement" of two agents would be reassigned from Amarillo to somewhere closer to the border.

He said "there is no active plan" right now for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to fill the void on assisting local officials with stops.

Empathizing with local officials, he wrote: "As a former deputy I found myself on the other end of the radio hoping to contact USBP to assist me with a vehicle full of undocumented foreign nationals on the side of the road."

And in an unusual plea, he urged the recipients of his memo to contact elected officials about the change. "I would encourage you, if you have found USBP assistance valuable in the past, to contact your political representatives and voice your concerns," Green wrote.

The letter was first posted online by the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Thomas confirmed to Fox News that he received it. Bob Dane, communications director with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, also said he's confirmed the letter's authenticity with ICE.

CBP later acknowledged the memo, but said in its statement that Green was expressing his "personal opinion."

Lawmakers have started to get involved. Republican Rep. Mac Thornberry, who represents Amarillo, joined two other Texas lawmakers whose districts would be affected in asking the Border Patrol chief to "reconsider the proposal."

A letter sent Tuesday to Fisher warned the plan would "leave our area vulnerable." They noted that the Amarillo and Lubbock stations alone, two of those affected, accounted for 638 apprehensions of illegal immigrants just this year.

FAIR also blasted the Obama administration for the plans.

"It's part of the systematic dismantling of both border and interior enforcement," Dane told Fox News. "It complements the non-enforcement policy of this administration."

He warned that local officials in those areas will have a hard time summoning far-away Border Patrol agents to assist, and said the tone of Green's memo was a "not-so-subtle shout-out" that the agency feels "outmanned, outgunned ... by their own government."

Opponents of the plan say the changes are part of a pattern for the Obama White House.

The administration recently announced it would stop deporting young illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have not committed a serious crime. And after the Supreme Court upheld one plank of Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement law last month, federal officials said ICE would be selective in responding to calls about immigration status - prioritizing cases that meet certain criteria, like whether the suspect is wanted for a felony.

Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, who signed the Thornberry letter, also voiced concern about the latest announcement on station closings in a written statement.

"The Department of Homeland Security hasn't demonstrated that sending additional resources to the border will be a more efficient use of resources than maintaining a presence further north," Neugebauer said.

"I'd like to see numbers that reassure me that this strategy change won't ultimately result in fewer arrests."

FOURTH SHOT!

UN Arms Treaty! 

Last year when I wrote about this, I was called all sorts of things including a liar!

Well, for you folks that wrote me saying there is no such thing as a United Nations small arms treaty, listen up!

A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations - with Iran playing a key role - could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments - and, critics warn, eventually make the Second Amendment of our Constitution null and void!

This week!

This week, we Americans will find out what sort of government we have in Washington. This week, Secretary of State Clinton will either sign it or not - and only then will we find out our future.

Talks in New York at the UN are going on throughout July on the final wording of the so-called Arms Trade Treaty, which supporters such as Amnesty International.

Critics, including the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre, warn the UN Treaty would mark a major step toward the eventual erosion of the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment gun-ownership rights.

Americans "just don’t want the UN to be acting as a global nanny with a global permission slip stating whether they can own a gun or not," LaPierre said.

"It cheapens our rights as American citizens, and weakens our sovereignty," he warned in an exclusive interview with Fox News from the halls of the UN negotiating chambers.

While the treaty’s details are still under discussion, the document could straitjacket U.S. foreign policy to the point where Washington could be restricted from helping arm friends such as Taiwan and Israel, said Greg Suchan, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs from 2000 to 2007.

Suchan also highlighted ongoing concern that the treaty may end up giving foreigners access to U.S. gun-ownership records.

On that score, LaPierre, who serves as NRA executive vice president, warns that the “UN’s refusal” to remove civilian firearms and ammunition from the scope of the treaty amounts to a declaration that only governments should be gun owners.

But he revealed he was set Wednesday to tell the UN gathering that 58 U.S. senators had signed a letter saying that they would refuse to ratify any treaty that includes controls over civilian guns or ammunition.

Ratification by two-thirds of the Senate is necessary before an international treaty negotiated by the executive branch can become U.S. law. But the treaty could still go into effect elsewhere once 65 countries ratify it. Such a development could change the pattern of world arms transfers and reduce the U.S. share, which stands at about 40 percent of up to $60 billion in global deals.

The Bush administration opposed a 2006 UN General Assembly resolution launching the treaty process, but President Obama decided the U.S. would take part on condition the final agreement be reached by consensus -- thereby giving any of the 193 participating states an effective veto.

The safeguard is insufficient for opponents of the U.S. participation, not least because UN talks invariably involve compromise.

“The administration swears they have a whole bunch of red lines, and they will block consensus if anyone crosses them,” said Suchan, now a government relations consultant as senior associate with the Commonwealth Consulting Corporation in Arlington, Va.

“But the dynamics of international negotiations are that once you get 90 percent of what you seek, you say, ‘Maybe there is a way we can finesse the final 10 percent.’”

A clause permitting arms transfers solely between UN member states would allow UN member China to object to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, a non-UN member that China considers to be a renegade province.

This would be a huge problem for the U.S. at a time when Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented arms buildup.

Another fear is that Arab or other states critical of Israel may use any treaty language on human rights standards to argue against U.S. arms transfers to the Israeli government – much in the same way they currently use the UN Human Rights Council to repeatedly condemn Israel.

Suchan said U.S. arms trade law is seen as the global “gold standard” for regulating arms transfers, but doubted many countries would be willing to raise the bar that high. Instead, the treaty that emerges is expected to set a lower global standard – which Suchan said would have the effect of reducing Washington’s ability to press for voluntary arms embargoes against rogue states.

“We might want to urge a country to not sell arms to a state whose government is particularly odious,” Suchan explained.

“But that government could then ask whether the sale is prohibited under the Arms Trade Treaty – and if it is not, they would argue they are meeting the international standard.”

U.S. gun lobby concern focuses on the emphasis the treaty places on governmental – as opposed to individual – rights to guns, LaPierre explained.

“They’re trying to impose a UN policy that gives guns to the governments – but the UN doesn’t in turn make moral judgments as to whether these governments are good or bad,” he said.

“If you’re the government, you get the guns, if you’re a civilian, you don’t. But this will just end up helping evil governments and tyrants.”

For LaPierre, the emphasis he sees at the UN on governmental rights reflects what he believes is a wider international tradition that contrasts with the historical American emphasis on individual rights.

“The UN view is that governments – not individual citizens – ought to protect people,” he said, signaling that this principle permeates the draft that negotiators are currently working with.

LaPierre says the treaty that is likely to emerge will have the effect of squeezing individual gun owners in the United States and elsewhere by imposing on them an onerous collection of regulations.

“If they get this through, then what comes along is the institutionalizing of the whole gun control-ban movement within the bureaucracy of UN – with a permanent funding mechanism that we [in America] will be mainly paying for,” he said.

“The world’s worst human rights abusers will end up voting for this, while the Obama administration has not drawn a line in the sand like the previous administration did.

Instead, it is trying to be a part of this train wreck because they think they can somehow finesse it. But, to me, there is no finessing the individual freedoms of American citizens.”

I agree!

LAST SHOT!

Historically Accurate - Democrats and Slavery

The picture below was sent to me. As horrible as it and it's caption is, it is historically accurate. It is historically correct.

It is a fact of history that Democrats protected the institution of slavery to the point of Civil War.

In 1860, Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed "anti-slavery" Republican Party .

After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights.

Republicans started "The Freeman's Bureau."  It was established by Congress on 3rd March, 1865. The bureau was designed to protect the interests of former slaves.

This included helping them to find new employment and to improve educational and health facilities. In the year that followed the bureau spent $17,000,000 establishing 4,000 schools, 100 hospitals and providing homes and food for former slaves. Democrats fought against the Freeman's Bureau and instead worked to derail black Civil Rights.

There were even former Confederate Soldiers, all Democrats, who returned home to start the Klu Klux Klan to terrorize blacks and Republicans in the South. Terrorism plagued the South, and the targets were former slaves, blacks who fought for the Union, and Republicans - many were murdered.


The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control.
Determined to re-capture the South, Democrats "redeemed" state after state - sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence.

By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any Civil Rights legislation.

Under Democrat control, the South remained segregated until the 1960s when Republicans finally got their way and put through Civil Rights Acts.

The Civil Rights Acts were fought over and filibustered and voted against by Democrats in what was then a Congress controlled by the Democratic Party.

It is a fact that 18 Democratic Senators led by Richard Russell (Democrat -GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."

The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (Democrat -SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat -W.Va.) who was a top official and recruiter for the Klu Klux Klan and obstructionist to the groundbreaking 1964 Civil Rights Act - completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation.

Bryd never apologized for his role or membership in the Klan.

President Lyndon Johnson could not rally his own party to vote for it.

Fact is that Republicans fought for it, Democrats fought against it!

Today, in an effort to rewrite history and pull a hoax on the American people, Democrats take every opportunity call Republicans "Racists" and "Bigots" - yet as the picture's caption says, "Democrats Have Fought To Keep It!"

Some truths are hard to face. But, history does not lie.

The Democrat party can try to paint their party as the great Civil Rights advocate of black Americans - but that is a lie. History says it is.

Story by Tom Correa

Why should the Gov of Maine Apologizes for calling the IRS the "'New Gestapo"?

So the Governor of Maine is now apologizing for calling the IRS the "'New Gestapo."

Why do that, when it's might be true?

It was reported today, that Maine Governor Paul LePage had created a problem when he compared the Federal Internal Revenue Service to the Nazi Gestapo.

On Friday, he issued a formal apology for his "insensitivity to the word" after a face-to-face meeting with representatives of several Jewish groups that had complained.

LePage hopes his apology, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its airing on his weekly radio address, will bring to an end the week long furor over his remark.

It started when he described the Internal Revenue Service as the "new Gestapo" while criticizing President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

LePage said it was "never my intent to insult or to be hurtful to anyone, but rather express what can happen by overreaching government."

"The acts of the Holocaust were nothing short of horrific. Millions of innocent people were murdered and I apologize for my insensitivity to the word and the offense some took to my comparison of the IRS and the Gestapo," the governor said in his radio address.

LePage met with representatives from two Jewish groups today, Friday, July 13, 2012, following comments he has made comparing the Internal Revenue Service to the Gestapo, Adolf Hitler’s secret police force in Nazi Germany.

LePage is known for blunt rhetoric, previously telling the Portland branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to "kiss my butt," calling protesters "idiots," referring to state government middle managers as "corrupt" and even saying he'd tell Obama to "go to hell."

His formal apology for the Gestapo remarks represents the first time he's done so.

The governor's original radio address last weekend in which he attacked the Supreme Court's ruling on "ObamaCare" didn't include the reference to Gestapo, but the governor added in the final version.

The Republican governor said the Supreme Court's decision "made America less free" and gave Americans no choice but to buy health insurance or "pay the new Gestapo - the IRS."

On Friday, he had a meeting with representatives from the Anti-Defamation League of New England and the Jewish Community Alliance of Southern Maine to clear the air.

"People took offense to it, and he is recognizing that. He's owning up to it and he's saying I'm sorry," said his spokeswoman, Adrienne Bennett.

So OK, maybe I just don't get it, but I don't see where's the problem?

OK, so Adolf Hitler's Gestapo was indeed the Secret Police in Nazi Germany.and they assisting the Nazi SS in rounding up Jews. But frankly, that was only one horrible part of what they did.

Initially they assumed the duties of a state police force, sort of like say a Federal law enforcement agency here. They were in charge of very routine things including immigration and deportations like say ICE is here.

The difference though is drastic. The Nazi Gestapo operated without any legal restrictions. They were authorized to make arrests without any legal restraints. They were authorized to use torture and even execute those arrested without trial.

And no, the Gestapo did not discriminate. Jew or not did not matter. They terrorized their citizens with on the spot searches and seizures, spies, surveillances, informers, and as a result of many arrests, of not only Jews, simply disappeared to the many concentration camps - or were just killed and thrown in a ditch somewhere.

They were Nazi Germany's internal security police as organized under the Nazi regime. They were notoriously known for their terrorist methods directed against those suspected of treason or questionable loyalty.

Today, the term "Gestapo" is used to describe a law enforcement organization that employs terrorist methods to control a populace. The term relates to the "characteristics" of the German security police organized under the Nazi regime.

The "characteristic" of terrorist police methods or operations is defined as "Gestapo tactics."

So why does the Governor of Maine have to apologize for calling the IRS the "'New Gestapo?"

Facts: 1) When ObamaCare goes into effect, the law enforcement part of the IRS will be enforcing the penalties that the government expects to collect from those not following the ObamaCare Mandate. 2) There will be over 2,000 new federal laws that will be enforced by the IRS when ObamaCare goes into effect. 3) The IRS will be able to do exactly what they can do today - except even more so.

President Barack Obama increased the budget for the Internal Revenue Service by 9.4 percent in 2011 to hire more than 5,000 new employees, most of whom would be ObamaCare penalty enforcers.

Under ObamaCare, the IRS will have more authority over the American people. They will be able to penalize, terrorize, confiscate, and arrest citizens for not complying to the more than 2,000 new laws that a compliant Supreme Court just said is OK.

And yes, if you don't think the IRS terrorizes, then you've never gotten a letter from the IRS calling for an audit - or saying that you owe the government money and may lose your home if you do not comply.

They have the authority to place levies, place liens on property, empty your bank accounts, seize and impound your property and other assets, auction off your equipment, award penalties and compound them as they see fit with compounded interest, make arrests, imprison, and destroy your family!

IRS SWAT Team

Yes, this is the IRS right now. Yes, this is America's Gestapo! And please don't think they stay completely within the rules, from all that I read about their actions, IRS abuses of American taxpayers through intimidation, force, and coercion are reported nationwide.

And yes, all across America, farmers are losing family farms, truckers are losing their rigs, and all sort of other small businesses are closing due to the IRS power and authority and terror right now.

That's right! It's happening right now! Working Americans are being attacked right now.

In fact homeowners across the nation are being evicted from their family homes because of unpaid federal and state taxes. In some cases, the amount that is owed is only a few hundred dollars.

So instead of reigning in the IRS, no, now through provisions in ObamaCare - the IRS will have even more power and authority.

Ironic as it is, the arrests made by the Nazi Gestapo did result in trials - but compliant Nazi judges guaranteed that defendants would be convicted.

If our sensitivities are such that we want to parse our words and not call a spade a spade, then I can't help but wonder what else we may want to be in denial over.

Friends, by way of more unbridled power and authority, the fact is that the IRS is America's "Gestapo" because it uses "Gestapo tactics" - whether some want to say it or not!

Story by Tom Correa

RANDOM SHOTS - Mr Obama "Leave Brad Pitt's Mom Alone," ObamaCare Rising Cost, Chicago War Zone, and Much More!

FIRST SHOT!

Mr President, Call Your Dogs! Tell Them To Leave Brad Pitt's Mom Alone!

President Obama should be very proud of his supporters. You know the ones. They're always talking about care and compassion - yet demonstrate none of the above!

It is a completely unsatisfactory situation. Jane Pitt simply wrote a Letter to the Editor to voice her support for Obama's opponent Mitt Romney, and now Obama's supporters want to kill her for what she said!

This goes way beyond being your normal liberal Political Bullies.

They are threatening her life for something she said in favor of Mitt Romney.

As incredible as it sounds, it's true! Brad Pitt’s mom, Jane Pitt, has been getting death threats for writing a pro-Romney Letter to the Editor.

Last week, Brad Pitt’s mother Jane Pitt got her name in the news after writing a response letter-to-the-editor of her local newspaper, Missouri’s Springfield News Leader, in which she advocated support for Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

The liberal news reported her letter as an "anti-Obama" letter instead of what it actuality was a "pro-Romney" letter.

She referred to Mitt Romney as a "a family man with high morals, business experience, who is against abortion, and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality."

Mrs Pitt's letter went on to say, "Any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name is casting a vote for Romney's opponent, Barack Hussein Obama – a man who sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for years, did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer, and is a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage."

She ended her letter by saying, "I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility."

However, it seems the backlash surrounding Jane Pitt’s opinion has become so vehement that she has reportedly been "scared into silence."

Imagine that for a moment. You have the mom of an extremely liberal movie star and Obama super-supporter - scared into silence. There is something definitely wrong with that picture!

A note to the Obama Supporters who are threatening Brad Pitt's mom: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie give a lot of money to your guy Obama. You might want to lighten up so Brad can justify his next check to Obama2012.

According to news reported on July 10th, Mrs. Pitt has not only been the victim of extremely vulgar and hate-filled attacks - but shamefully she has also received Death Threats which have left her frightened for her safety.

"So apparently Brad Pitt’s mom is a c***," tweeted one, while another wrote that "Brad Pitt's genetics have been brought into question."

Some media outlets too had their way with her words as well, complete with headlines and references stating that she is "homophobic" and "hates Obama and gay people."

But Mrs. Pitt has at least one high-profile supporter on her daughter-in-law's side of the family - Angelina Jolie's dad Jon Voight!

Jon Voight has been around Hollywood longer than most. He has won one Oscar out of four Academy Award nominations, and three Golden Globe Awards out of nine nominations.

"Good for her," Voight told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column, adding that he agrees with the points-of-view expressed by Jane.

In 2010, Jon Voight ruffled a few liberal feathers when he published an open letter to President Obama in the Washington Times. His open letter read:

"President Obama:

You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone’s enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm’s way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.

You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.

You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.

With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,
Jon Voight"

Besides Jon Voight, Brad Pitt's brother Doug also defended his mother this week during an appearance on the "Today Show" when he said:

"I think moms and dads and kids agree to disagree all over the world. So why would our family be any different? There can be healthy discussion when people disagree with you. The bad thing is when it turns to venom and negativity, and we don’t have that in our family. It’s open discussion. We can learn from each other and, if anything, it solidifies your point. Or maybe you learn something."

Brad Pitt, an avid supporter of President Obama, has not issued a comment regarding this matter.

For me, I can say without hesitation that if my mother was getting death threats because she voiced her support for one candidate over another, then I'd definitely have something to say - whether I was an super supporter of the one my mom didn't like or not!  .

This is a bad situation, and a horrible trend if this continues. Big shots threatening a lady?

She is no threat to Barack Hussein Obama. Leave her alone!

Can you imagine voicing your opinion in a simple letter to the editor and then having people actually wanting to kill you for what you said - all because they either didn't agree with her, or because she openly criticized Obama?

President Obama should contact Mrs Pitt and immediately apologize to her for what his jerkweed supporters are doing! Then, he should call off his dogs and tell them to leave the lady alone!

SECOND SHOT!

Estimated Cost of "ObamaCare" Is Now $2.6 Trillion

Nearly $1.7 Trillion More Than Obama Promised

Reported on July 11, 2012, latest estimates show President Obama’s health care law - also known as “Obamacare” - will cost around $2.6 Trillion over the next 10 years instead of his initial promise that it would only cost Americans $900 Billion.

The Senate Budget Committee released the following chart today depicting the rising costs of ObamaCare. Notice that the cost estimates have increased with each and every estimate:

The Senate Budget Committee also provided this explanation:

"President Obama promised a joint session of Congress in 2009 to spend $900 billion over ten years on his health care law: 'Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years’ [Obama said].

Adding up all the different spending provisions in the health care law, however, (including closing the Medicare ‘donut hole,’ implementation costs, and other spending) total gross spending over the FY 2010–19 period is about $1.4 trillion, based on CBO estimates," the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff explains.

"And most of the major spending provisions in the law do not even take effect until 2014. Congressional Democrats delayed these provisions in order to show only six years of spending under the plan in the original 10-year budget window (from FY2010-19) used by CBO at the time the law was enacted.

Therefore, the original estimate concealed the fact that most of the law’s spending only doesn’t even begin until four years into the 10-year window. A Senate Budget Committee analysis (based on CBO estimates and growth rates) finds that that total spending under the law will amount to at least $2.6 trillion over a true 10-year period (from FY2014–23) - not $900 billion, as President Obama originally promised.”

According to The Weekly Standard, the chart was published today to coincide with the House vote to repeal ObamaCare. House Republicans with the help of five Democrats voted in favor of repeal the law 244-185.

As the chart explains, "Estimates of the gross outlays under the President’s health care law in nominal dollars using CBO estimates of major coverage provisions, as well as Senate Budget Committee Republican projections based on CBO estimates of the remaining costs."

The Democrats who passed this into law in 2010 when they controlled Congress have the nerve to want to take back control of Congress this year to do more harm to America.

Again. more and more, we find another reason to kick the Democrats out of Congress! And yes, we have to hold whoever is left accountable to fix what the Democrats have screwed up!

THIRD SHOT!

Heatwave Hits U.S. Cattle And Grain Production Hard This Year!

A report yesterday said that Australian beef and grain exporters could take a bigger market share because of the United States heatwave.

The prolonged heat is the worst in nearly 25 years and has already killed more than 70 people.

Michael Hayes, from the US National Drought Mitigation Centre, says livestock numbers are being reduced.

"Producers have worked really hard to keep their cattle cool. I've had scattered reports of cattle losses in some parts," he said.

"I know the heat and the dry conditions have really hurt hay production and forage production and so we're going to see impacts to this heat and dryness continuing long after the temperatures are reduced."

Many grain farmers in the Midwest United States say they're going through the worst drought in more than two decades. Mike Phillips farms corn, soybeans and alfalfa at Montezuma in the state of Iowa.

He says the dry, hot weather is taking its toll on farmers.

"Inside, you know, we're feeling the emotions from it because we just don't know what we can do," he said.

"We're not sure if we can go out and buy that piece of equipment we want or buy some fertiliser for next year or some of those kind of things. We put a lot of money out there, and trying to get a return on it, we could lose a significant amount of money this year."

American agriculture producers, our ranchers and farmers, run some of the most productive ranches and farms in the world. But like everywhere, they decide when to buy or plant, finish or fertilize, harvest and sell.

They watch prices for what they produce and try to sell at the best time. They choose what types of machinery they need, can afford, and actually purchase - sometimes all three don't meet each other.

Producers aware of new technology are always learning new methods. In this case, I'm sure they are doing all that they can do because things are so bad.

My heart goes out to them. I can only pray for some relief to their troubles.

FOURTH SHOT!

Chicago Murder Rate Climbs - More War Zone Than City!

The former Obama White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is now the mayor of Chicago

As mayor, Rahm Emanuel is the top city official of a War Zone called the City of Chicago.
Since coming into office 13 months ago, Chicago has had a soaring murder rate. As crime overall has dropped in the cities across the nation, Chicago seems to be bucking the trend as it already has had 275 murders this year.

If it keeps it up that pace, it will certainly break the single-year homicide record of 970.

To combat the escalating murder rate, Emanuel's moved more than 1,000 police officers from behind desks to the streets and beefed up patrols on weekends, when much of the violence supposedly takes place.

However, a look at the headlines of the Chicago Tribune - "Clerk hurt when masked men armed with knife rob store," "8 hurt in series of city shootings" and "Man acquitted of murder last year gunned down" - make a pretty compelling statement - Chicago is a violent place.

It's no different than San Francisco, Los Angeles, or New York in that fact that violence is taking place. It's just the amount. It is staggering!

In fact, if we use the Department of Defense statistics on the number of casualties in Afghanistan. Then compare those stats to that of the casualty rate in Chicago - it's plain to see that Afghanistan is a lot safer!

For me, I think it goes to the heart of a place where the citizens are prohibited from owning a firearm for protection, there's corruption in the police department, there is a huge shortage of parental guidance in the right way.

But for him, well Emanuel puts the blame for the city's violence on gangs.

So now for plan B, "the city has adjusted its strategy to focus on gang violence," he told CBS News. His plan includes certain liquor stores and communities where gangs congregate have been closed, and abandoned buildings have been boarded up or torn down.

He's also talking directly to gang members.

This came when questioned about the death of 7 year old girl Heaven Sutton, who "was caught in the crossfire" of rival gang members as she sold candy in front of her home in June. Emanuel commented, "It's not about crime, it's about values."

When he was pressed to clarify the comment, he responded, "We've got two gang-bangers, one standing next to a kid. Get away from that kid. Take your stuff away to the alley. Don't touch the children of the city of Chicago. Don't get near them. And it is about values. ... And I don't buy this case where people say they don't have values. They do have values. They have the wrong values. Don't come near the kids—don't touch them."

I love that sort of talk. I know he can't do to much about it, but I love it.

And yes, he is probably right. The biggest problem for kids today, especially urban city kids, is the lack of good role models, good ethics, morality, and "good" values.

The problem is that they worship the gangster and drugs and money and killing. Life in general to them, but especially women and children, is cheap and has no value to them. They see crime and violence as power.

They use violence to get what they want - when they want. Punks like these haven't changed in 40 years, they are just getting more and more brazen because they know jails and cops and courts and possible prison mean nothing to them.

They can afford lawyers who have no scruples in taking their cases. They use technicalities to assist them. They get off because the system there is weak, and they know it.

So yes, while I agree with the mayor that these jerkweeds have the wrong values, I have to ask. How do you stop the violence in a city where a life has no worth?

FIFTH SHOT!

Poland's Communist "Monopoly-style" Board Game Goes Global

The box with the Monopoly-style look is not what you think it is.

Well, ever wonder what it was like to stand in single file and wait in line for hours - just for toilet paper?

How about to buy bread or meat or butter? That's if they have any.

Communism is like that. Everyone stands in line after line after line while the fat cat government bureaucrats go to the head or in the back door and help themselves tot the best breads, and cheeses, and meat, and butter.

Oops! What do you mean that that is not what you thought Communism was all about? What do you mean "they" can't do that? The "they" you might be agree at makes the rules, and subsequently "they" can do anything they want! Including helping themselves to the best, while you comrade wait in line only to find the shelves are bare when you get there. 

This was Communist-era Poland. And now, well now you can experience the "boredom" thanks to a foreign-language version of a hit Polish history-in-a-box board game.

You get to experience the "rationing" that accompany's Socialist and Communist states.

The new multilingual, Monopoly-style "Kolejka" or "Queue" was unveiled with fanfare - and fun - recently by the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), a state office set up to document recent history and prosecute Nazi and Communist-era crimes.

"Kolejka has been called 'the world's most boring game', but ask anyone who has 'queued' in any Communist country in the '70s and '80s and they'll tell you there's nothing more boring," joked IPN historian Tomasz Ginter.

"Waiting in line for six hours was normal for everyday food - like, for example, meats - but if you were so unwise as to need furniture, it was a matter of weeks!" he said.

While Monopoly has taught the rules of capitalism to generations of players, Kolejka shows them how to survive in a "planned economy" where shortages were chronic, meat a rarity, oranges exotic and queuing up for hours, even days, was all too common.

For you who have never heard of a "planned economy," imagine this for a moment - an economic system in which decisions regarding everything is planned by a Central Authority, usually by a government agency.

And yes, all your needs are "rationed".

The liberal left who love the idea of Communism but have never lived under such a horrible system won't tell you about the health care where patients didn't receive treatment, or the re-use of needles because of the lack of funds, or the families who had to take meals from home to their relation in the hospital.

No, instead liberal left professors in American Universities want you to talk about the "theory" of how a planned economy is great. The justification of the Central Planners is that they will tell you what you will eat, what you will wear, and what you will drive. They will manage your life - like it or not!

Communism in the Soviet Union and it's satallite states like Poland used the concept of the Centralized Government.

They required a comprehensive plan for production. Then they required all of the power to allocate who works where in the workforce. They took over production and overseeing of the distribution of wealth.

In such economies, Big Brother government has all of the authority and the people have none. The government plans things and the government controls all.

It is ripe with corruption from the government who runs it, greed from those who want and are willing to take, and non-productivity because the workers are no better than slaves for the government. The result is starvation, and a cruel society that understands that it's everyone for them self.

And yes, like Communism itself, the game Kolejka has a Black Market.

The game's makers say they wanted to give players the sense of tedium and absurdity that accompanied the now-simple task of shopping before the Iron Curtain fell in 1989 - days when staple foods, gasoline, cigarettes, laundry soap, bath needs, even shoes were "rationed."

But wait, shelves were crammed full of pots of mustard and bottles of vinegar produced by local communist factories.

To win in Kolejka, you must buy everything on a shopping list.

"But I can't buy because there's nothing in the bloody shop, is there?" said English teacher Barbara Stachowiak-Kowalska, 52, laughing and pounding the table as she tried out the game at the IPN presentation.

"You feel the frustration!"

All 20,000 copies of the Polish version have been scooped up since the game came out a year-and-a-half ago.

Another 25,000 have been printed for the multilingual version, in Japanese, English, Spanish, German and Russian as well as Polish. The new edition comes with a booklet to explain the historical context, telling of a time when residents had to devise shopping "strategies" to cope.

These "strategies" included paying "standers" to queue (or stand in line) on your behalf, or borrowing young children or disabled relatives - mothers with youngsters and the handicapped were allowed to jump queues - to reduce the wait.

"You feel the frustration. I got to the front of the queue, I was really excited - and there was nothing to buy!" said Stachowiak-Kowalska.

True to life, the game allows players to buy on the Black Market where shoppers could obtain coveted goods if they paid at least twice the "official" government set prices.  It is a common but illegal practice under Communism.

If you're still not convinced, given the supermarkets and western-style shopping malls that abound in today's Poland, Kolejka's inventors include photographs of the era. The pictures include people lined up outside empty stores, others who hit the jackpot and head home with rolls of toilet paper strung happily around their neck.

The IPN, which is in charge of Communist-era Secret Police archives, hit on the idea of historical board games as a way to make history lessons more fun.

"Children don't always understand, say, an exhibit on a serious topic, which is why we brain-stormed and came up with a way to educate not only adults but also the younger crowd," IPN President Lukasz Kaminski told AFP.

But foreigners pose another challenge.

"I wasn't around at the time, but I imagine it was exactly this complicated," said Antoine Danzon, 37, a French resident of Warsaw as he tried out Kolejka at a weekly game night in a local bar.

"It's complicated, like the PRL," he said, using Poland's old Communist name, the People's Republic of Poland, before giving up and moving to a simpler game.

To me, it sounds like something that should be made mandatory in American colleges and universities before anyone can graduate. It should be played in the usually mandatory Political Science course that every student is supposed to take.

Maybe it will give them a more accurate depiction of how great that Communism that the Poly Sci teacher has been pushing all semester. Maybe the stupid that don't understand why Capitalism is so great - will learn something!

SIXTH SHOT!

The United States Army is pulling out of NASCAR

The U.S. Army will not return to Stewart-Haas Racing next season.
The announcement came from Stewart-Haas Racing, which said the Army would no longer be the primary sponsor in 2013 of the No. 39 Chevrolet driven by Ryan Newman "due to a reallocation of its marketing budget that will not include a presence in NASCAR."

John Myers, a civilian marketing official with the Army, said the sponsorship had begun four years ago. But given the service's reduced advertising budget, it was judged less effective than other options in reaching potential recruits ages 18 to 24.

The cost and number of races covered had already declined in recent years, Myers told POLITICO. In 2011, for example, the Army spent a total of $11.3 million with 15 races; in 2012, $8.4 million with just 12, he said.

The action comes just days before the House is to take up the annual Pentagon spending bill to which the Appropriations Committee has already attached language intended to bar such sponsorships.

But wait, in anticipation of a floor fight, NASCAR has mounted a public relations counter-offensive!

They've recently hired politically-connected Purple Strategies. The House Armed Services Committee — upset by what it sees as the Appropriations panel meddling in its domain — has positioned itself to try to strike the language on a procedural

Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) admits he has bigger worries as the threat of automatic defense cuts in January. The multi-million dollar contracts invite bipartisan ridicule at a time when Congress is under pressure to find savings.

Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) led the fight in the Appropriations panel, adding some South Georgia moxie to help Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), who had previously lost on the issue last year.

"It’s not something that I’m going to the mat on," McKeon told POLITICO a recent interview. And the Army’s decision further isolates the Army National Guard, which has had its own high-profile sponsorship with Dale Earnhardt Jr.

"The U.S. Army has been in our sport for more than a decade and has enjoyed great success as a NASCAR team sponsor during that time," said Steve Phelps, NASCAR’s chief marketing officer. "The Army made a budget decision that won’t allow it to return to NASCAR in 2013. However, NASCAR continues to be a powerful and critical part of the marketing mix for other branches of the U.S. armed forces and more Fortune 500 companies than any other sport."

Since the Army is now getting out of NASCAR, I can't help but wonder if some Army and Air Force sponsors will pull their ads in return.

With the coming budget cuts, this might not be just a joke in the future.

Story by Tom Correa