Patriot posts

[ghwk]

Actually he's just another POS from Texas, that's about all.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by lonestar

Read this on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/editions/15626/

Thank you SO much for posting this.

I never thought a sitting president would have it in him to neglect to mention God in an official speech.

My opinion of Obama just went up due to this. I know what I'm thankful for

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by lonestar

Read this on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/editions/15626/

"Yet again, President Obama's Thanksgiving message eschewed any direct reference to thanking God,

Thank god!!

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

Obama just dont like using the word god very much.
no big deal but it sorta maybe gives one a lil insight into his thinking which is he dont like using the word god . fine with me.
i dont like using the word President when saying the words barrack obummer i mean Obama just saying .
try not to rage ok if you people are ok he dont say god you should be ok i dont use the word president when describing ohdumber i mean obummer obama.

[DenverBrit]

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

^

As in "trying to read and write above a third-grade level."

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

hey i dont mind if obama doesn't say god in his speeches, and i dont mind if i dont use the word president and obama in the same sentence .
its not a big deal for me if that obama guy dont want to use the word god or terrorist either .

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

oh lone its no big deal if obama has a hard time saying the G word or the T word i be a hypocrite if i got on him for not using those words.
i got a problem using the P word as in President .
when i talk about him.
now if only the others here can refrain from raging because i cant use the P word when i talk about that ohudumber guy i mean ohbummer ohscummer i mean ohblunder obama yeah thats it ohdumber i mean obama. there got it right im sorry have a hard time spelling that word ohscummer .

[lonestar]

Alexander's Column – November 29, 2012
American Patriots and Guns
All Patriots Are Obligated to Be Armed and Ready

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." --Joseph Story

On the most recent "Black Friday," the day after Thanksgiving, which has become the biggest commercial sales day of the year, despite the continuing economic decline, there were record sales in one notable product category: Guns.

According to Stephen Fischer, director of the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, "NICS experienced its highest number of transactions processed since system inception [in 1998], with 154,873, which is nearly 20 percent over the 129,166 processed on Black Friday 2011." This year's total checks will undoubtedly beat last year's record of 16.4 million.

In fact, the top 10 record gun sales days have occurred since Barack Obama's election in 2008, and gun ownership has skyrocketed over the last four years. According to a worldwide survey conducted the year before Obama's election, though the United States had only 5% of the world's population, Americans owned 50% of the world's guns. Of course, unlike virtually every other nation, Americans are ensured the incontrovertible right to arm themselves.

The current estimate of legally and privately held guns in the U.S. is more than 250 million (the average gun-owning household having three guns).

With that as a backdrop, I was asked this week if Patriots have an obligation to arm themselves -- to be gun owners, and be proficient at the use of arms. I thought at first the question was rhetorical, but after some consideration, I realize that there are millions of grassroots Patriots who are NOT among the 60 million plus Patriots who are already law-abiding gun owners.

Apparently, the question needs to be addressed, as the answer may not be as obvious to some folks as it should be. By way of responding to this question, let me first briefly reiterate the historical and enduring case for gun ownership, which is as relevant today and tomorrow as it was at the dawn of our national founding.

There are two foundational tenets of Essential Liberty that all American Patriots must understand and embrace in order to sustain Liberty and extend it to the next generation.

First, it is "self-evident" that Liberty is an "unalienable right," innately assured as "endowed by our Creator." In other words, it is not awarded by men or government; it is the birthright of all people.

Second, as history records countless examples of men using the power of government to arbitrarily revoke Liberty and invoke tyranny, our Founders understood that, in the words of John Adams, "liberty must at all hazards be supported." Adams continued, "We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood."

Thus, all American Patriots today, those imbued with the spirit of Liberty that has motivated Patriots since 1776, must be prepared to defend both individual and corporate Liberty, to defend the Rule of Law over the rule of men.

Of the ability to defend Liberty, James Madison wrote, "The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition." (Federalist No. 46)

To ensure that advantage, our Founders enumerated a constitutional prohibition on government interference with that barrier, the Second Amendment, affirming, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

In his exhaustive "Commentaries on the Constitution," Madison's Supreme Court Justice, Joseph Story, wrote, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

In other words, gun ownership is not about "the tradition of hunting" as Barack Obama claimed recently, unless he was referring to hunting those who infringe on the inalienable rights of man. Of course, Liberty is the antithesis of statism, which is why Obama and his socialist Democrat cadres are endeavoring to undermine the Second Amendment.

Read this on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/alexander/15685/

[lonestar]

Brief · December 3, 2012
The Foundation

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." --Joseph Story

Re: The Left

"[C]olumnist Jason Whitlock of Fox Sports ... blamed the Second Amendment to the United State Constitution for the murder/suicide of Jovan Belcher, linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs. Calling for the NFL to have cancelled the Chiefs' Sunday game, Whitlock wrote: 'I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We've come to accept our insanity. We'd prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it. How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn't protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons? Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.' Whitlock never lays responsibility for Jovan Belcher's murder of his 22-year-old girlfriend and his suicide at the feet of Jovan Belcher. In fact, he describes Belcher as 'A 25-year-old kid,' which is simply asinine -- at age 25, you are no longer a 'kid.' You are a man, with real responsibilities -- Belcher had a three-month-old child. ... If Belcher wanted to kill his girlfriend and then himself, he didn't need a gun to do it. And no matter how much Whitlock propounds that 'Handguns do not enhance our safety,' Kasandra Perkins would have had a much better shot at life if she'd been the one with the handgun." --Breitbart's Ben Shapiro

Editor's Note: Not only is Whitlock dead wrong, as was NBC's Bob Costas in quoting him during Sunday Night Football, but, as Mark Alexander argued Thursday, all Patriots are obligated to be armed and ready.

Read this on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/editions/15728/

[lonestar]

Digest · November 30, 2012

Gambling With the Nation's Future

"No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable." --James Madison

Democrats' fiscal offer

Good news, America: Those who believe that our nation has "barbarians at the gates" are dead wrong. The bad news: The barbarians are already well inside the gates, running the federal government. The Barbarian-in-Chief himself recently served up this point by lamenting, "I cannot just impose my will on Congress ... even though sometimes I wish I could." Tyrants like to impose their will on legislative branches. Thank goodness this president would never really do that.

Within that context, we consider the fiscal cliff and related debt ceiling. A little history: The cliff looms not just because of expiring tax cuts, but because of a deal to raise the debt ceiling in 2011, in which certain cuts would happen automatically if Congress couldn't hammer out better details. Naturally, Congress displayed its usual inability to come up with even puny cuts, so here we are.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner offered House Republicans the first post-election White House deal: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over 10 years (higher rates on the wealthy will generate only $80 billion annually, if that), $180 billion in new spending and vague promises to cut entitlement spending (growth) at an indeterminate future date, all while giving the president the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, perhaps permanently. Sounds to us like he might be trying to "impose his will on Congress."

Obama, of course, is promising the same thing Democrats always do: Higher taxes now and mythical spending cuts later. Picture Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown and you get the idea.

Read this on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/editions/15705/

[lonestar]

Alexander's Column – December 6, 2012
The Fiscal Bluff
The !@#$%^&* Caucus's 'Grecian Formula' for Economic Collapse

"The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife." --Thomas Jefferson (1821)

Have you heard about this "fiscal cliff" thing -- I mean have you heard ENOUGH about it?

Well, for 16 months I have dutifully avoided devoting any time and bandwidth to the tax increases and budget cuts scheduled for January 2, 2013, if Barack Hussein Obama fails to sign pre-emptive legislation. However, now that the dust has settled on Obama's landslide 50.9 percent re-election and the status-quo reseating of Republican House and Democrat Senate majorities, it's time to put Obama's Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) "deal" into proper Patriot perspective.

In August of 2011, Obama signed this agreement into law in order to get a debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion. That in turn allowed him to borrow more money from the Red Chinese to fund his runaway socialist entitlement programs and bloated "stimulus spending" boondoggles -- and, moreover, it allowed him to avoid default and another downgrade of U.S. credit.

In return for more spending ability, Obama agreed to caps on discretionary spending growth to "save" $950 billion over 10 years. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refer to those caps as "cuts." He also agreed to establish a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (a.k.a. "super committee") to implement another $1.5 trillion in "savings." If, however, the super committee didn't come to an agreement by November of 2011, Obama's suggested sequestration trigger -- automatic cuts to the budget of $1.2 trillion over the next decade -- would commence on January 2, 2013. (To view mandatory versus discretionary spending, click here.)

Republicans passed the BCA hoping to slow down Obama's "Grecian Formula" economic plan -- his second-term strategy to break the back of free enterprise, crushing it under the weight of mounting taxes, regulations and debt, and ultimately, "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" into a collectivist state under the irrevocable dominance of his Socialist Democrat Party.

In his first term, Obama made significant progress toward that transformation. Much of his massive deficit spending was allocated for increased government employment. When Obama took office, federal, state and local government jobs were 33 percent of all employment. Government jobs now constitute 39 percent of all employment, and Obama wants to grow that number to more than 50 percent with additional "stimulus spending," irrevocably socializing the American economy.

Free enterprise, one of the foundational pillars of Liberty, is the nemesis of Obama's transformational plan, as implicit in his "you didn't build that" condemnation of entrepreneurship and his ridiculous assertion that "The private sector is doing fine," but we need more spending to create "public sector" jobs.

Though the super committee arrived at no agreement on budget cuts to stave off sequestration in January, the Republican House recently passed an extension of the Bush tax cuts, again. (It's the potential expiration of those cuts that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned would constitute a "massive fiscal cliff.")

However, Obama is holding the Bush tax breaks extension hostage, calling his class warfare "tax the rich" rhetoric "a balanced, responsible approach to deficit reduction" and using it as a smoke screen to obfuscate his real agenda -- avoiding the third rail of American politics, "entitlement reforms," and any substantive spending reductions.

Read more of this on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/alexander/15780/

[lonestar]

Digest · December 7, 2012
Government Economy Security Culture
Unemployment and the Fiscal Bluff

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." --Patrick Henry

Gaming the numbers

November's jobs numbers are out and, though they're "better than expected," they're far short of a real recovery. The U.S. economy added 146,000 jobs in November, and headline unemployment dropped to 7.7 percent, the lowest rate since December 2008. But that number is deceptive.

The rate dropped because some 542,000 people left the workforce. If labor participation remained the same as it was in January 2009, headline unemployment would be 10.7 percent. The U-6 rate, which includes the underemployed and those who have given up looking for work, is 14.4 percent. Notably, the unemployment for blacks, who gave Barack Obama 96 percent of the vote, is 13.2 percent. Additionally, September and October numbers were revised down by a total of 49,000 jobs -- awfully convenient now that the election is over!

At least one person thinks that unemployment is a huge boon for the economy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says that unemployment insurance benefits -- which by the way cost $520 billion over the last five years -- "probably are one of the most important stimuli for the economy." So if more people become unemployed, the economy will grow even faster. Problem solved.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics did note one bright spot: "[O]ur analysis suggests that Hurricane Sandy did not substantively impact the national employment and unemployment estimates for November." That's good news, but Hurricane Barack and the fiscal bluff certainly are depressing the recovery, such as it is. Some 23 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, and millions more who are working haven't received pay increases in years to keep up with inflation. The economy is in a holding pattern while politicos in Washington preen and pontificate about the cliff.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that under "current law," i.e., if (when) we go over the cliff, the federal budget will still increase by 55 percent over the next 10 years, while tax collection will soar to an all-time high of 21.4 percent of GDP. CBO estimates, however, assume no economic change from higher taxes, which is unrealistic. In other words, higher rates won't necessarily bring in the projected revenue because businesses and consumers will change their behavior to avoid taxes. Government spending is also a tax in the sense that every dollar spent by the government must first be taken out of the economy.

A final fiscal cliff note: Barack Obama is demanding a return of the top tax rates to those in effect during the supposed nirvana of the Clinton years, and he's likely to get all the rates of Clinton's era. In fact, that's what former DNC chief Howard Dean said is necessary. "[T]he truth is everybody needs to pay more taxes, not just the rich," Dean admitted. "[W]e're not going to get out of this deficit problem unless we raise taxes across the board, to go back to what Bill Clinton had and his taxes." They're coming for the middle class, too, and some of them aren't afraid to say so.

To get spending to Clinton levels, however, the federal budget would have to be cut by an astounding 37 percent. According to Breitbart, "Adjusted for inflation, Clinton spent $2.24 trillion in 1993; that level stayed relatively stagnant, rising to $2.41 trillion in 2001." Obama is now spending nearly twice that. So instead of the $1.2 trillion in baseline "cuts" over 10 years outlined in the sequester, Congress would need to make real cuts of that much this year alone.

As we all know, there's a greater chance that pigs will fly.

http://patriotpost.us/editions/15804/

[lonestar]

Brief · December 10, 2012
The Foundation

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington
For the Record

"The more you drill down into the November jobs report, the worse it looks. ... 1. The two-tenths drop in the unemployment rate was because people gave up looking for work. The labor force participation rate fell to 63.6% from 63.8% in October. If it had just held steady since then, the unemployment rate would be back over 8%. Indeed, if the LFP rate was just where it was in November 2011, the unemployment rate would be 8.3%. Some 542,000 Americans left the labor force just last month. 2. If labor force participation was at its January 2009 level, the unemployment rate would be a whopping 10.7%. ... 3. In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 4 cents to $23.63. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.7%. Unfortunately, inflation -- as measured by the consumer price index -- has risen by 2.2% over the past year, meaning average hourly earnings have fallen by 0.5% in real terms. 4. The number of long-term unemployed remains at sky-high 40.1%, the same as in August. 5. Since the beginning of this year, employment growth has averaged 151,000 per month, about the same as the average monthly job gain of 153,000 in 2011. At that pace, the U.S. would not return to pre-Great Recession employment levels until after 2025.... Bottom line: The November jobs report showed job creation far too slow to get the labor market back to pre-recession levels or boost wages. Faster, please." --American Enterprise Institute's James Pethokoukis

Read this on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/editions/15824/

[DenverBrit]

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

[IMG][/IMG]

oh you are so cute. I'll bet you are so proud of yourself.

Typical liberal puke when they have no way to rebut something, they call names.

If you do not like what is posted. do not open the thread.

If anything your post was spam.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by lonestar

oh you are so cute. I'll bet you are so proud of yourself.

Typical liberal puke when they have no way to rebut something, they call names.

If you do not like what is posted. do not open the thread.

If anything your post was spam.

I certainly didn't call you names like: a spam driven, bigoted simpleton with the IQ of a walnut.

You on the other hand, can't help yourself.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

I certainly didn't call you names like: a spam driven, bigoted simpleton with the IQ of a walnut.

You on the other hand, can't help yourself.

As I said when all liberals have nothing valid to say they change the subject and call names like you have by implication and in this case outright.

But I had guessed you were different, had more class.

My bad.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

I certainly didn't call you names like: a spam driven, bigoted simpleton with the IQ of a walnut.

You on the other hand, can't help yourself.

This is the same guy who got his jollies harassing teenagers at Broncos Country. He would pick a fight with a cow turd if he could.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by lonestar

As I said when all liberals have nothing valid to say they change the subject and call names like you have by implication and in this case outright.

But I had guessed you were different, had more class.

My bad.

Like I said, I didn't call you names, but you sure did.

Typical liberal puke when they have no way to rebut something, they call names.

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by lonestar

blah blah blah...Read this on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/editions/15705/

The debt limit isn't for future spending, it's for the actual paying of the spending that Congress has already approved and done. Which makes that entire post moderately retarded.

[ghwk]

He's just an angry old man. Picture a muppet sitting in the balcony, but not as funny.

[lonestar]

Chronicle · December 12, 2012
The Foundation

"The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man." --James Madison

Editorial Exegesis


"Michigan has passed a modest labor reform, and the result has been threats and violence from Democratic elected officials and their union henchmen. ... To hear the Democrats tell the tale, you would think that Governor Rick Snyder and Michigan's Republican-controlled legislature had abolished unions. In fact, the legislation merely prohibits unions from forcing workers to pay dues to them as a condition of employment, which is why such measures are called 'right-to-work laws.' The law imposes no limitation on unions' ability to organize, to engage in collective bargaining, or to strike. It merely forbids them to take money out of the pockets of workers who do not wish to join them. In response, Democratic legislator Douglas Geiss declared on the floor of the state house: 'There will be blood. There will be repercussions.' And indeed there were: Knife-wielding partisans brought down a tent on representatives from the conservative group Americans for Prosperity -- women and children among them -- and roughed up bystanders. Fox News contributor Steven Crowder was beaten by the same mob, punched repeatedly in the face. Michigan is the 24th state to enact a right-to-work law, and the most heavily unionized state to do so. ... Right-to-work laws do not necessarily hobble unions; rather, they force unions to compete for resources and prove their value to their workers. Some unions provide obvious value: In places in which private-sector unions already are strongly established, right-to-work laws have in fact had little effect on union membership. The critical difference is that workers have a choice. This is a principle that should be codified in law in every state, and at the federal level as well. ... The shrieking in Michigan isn't about working men's wages, but campaign coffers. That is why there is blood." --National Review



Upright

"First, this conservative success in Michigan is ... largely the result of liberal overreach. If the Dems and organized labor hadn't been so greedy in the election ... this probably wouldn't have happened, or at least not so fast. When the left goes too far it creates a counter-reaction from the right. That's what the 2010 midterms were about (but, alas, not the 2012 election). ... Second, and perhaps more important, facts will always drive public policy -- eventually. The plight of certain states will naturally lead to homegrown reforms. ... The fight in Washington may be bogged down, but the fights on the ground in the various states are going better than we might of hoped. Except of course in California, where you people are doomed." --columnist Jonah Goldberg

Get enlightened on the Web at http://patriotpost.us/editions/15864/

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Like I said, I didn't call you names, but you sure did.

Actually I thought liberal puke would be a badge of honor for you..

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by ghwk

He's just an angry old man. Picture a muppet sitting in the balcony, but not as funny.

ahahahahahaha Angry not a chance I have seen the ebb and flow of liberalism for decades..

I know it will reverse just like it did when carter fubared the economy back in the late 70's it is a matter of time before everyone figures it out and votes conservative the next time around..

I worked hard for many years and am quite happy with my life.. Retired making good money off of secure investments. Two houses paid for, cars all paid for, just completely remodeled this house (except for the converted garage, which is next to be done to make it my fitness room), ZERO DEBT as I stopped using charge cards a decade ago. Pool, hot Spa, sauna, Gourmet kitchen, have my 3D home theater to watch movies when I want, living the good life..

How about you?