Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Friday, December 21, 2012

This Is The Junk Science We Are Paying For!

The more Americans get educated, the dumber they seem to get. The following article clearlyshows that we have lost our cotton pickin' minds by funding research that any 6 year old could tell you the answer.Maybe it is time to end 50% of all research. Even then weprobably will get studies on the negative effects of rain hitting a windshield.

Conservative Tom

BREAKING NEWS: Study Confirms Natural Disasters Make People Unhappy

An assertion of fact in whose contradiction no one would for a moment believe is not worth making.
December 15, 2012 - 7:00 am
Portentousness is the means by which cliché, the banal and the obvious are turned into technicality or wisdom, or both. An editorial in a recent edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association titled “Mental Health Effects of Hurricane Sandy: Characteristics, Potential Aftermath, and Response” illustrates this very well. One expects a medical journal to contain information that is not common knowledge or available to everyone on the most minimal reflection; it is therefore tempting, though a logical error, for authors to suppose that if what they have written is published in such a medical journal, it ipso facto contains such information.
The editorial in question makes statements such as “The mental health effects of any given disaster are related to the intensity of exposure to the event. Sustaining personal injury and experiencing the injury or death of a loved one in the disaster are particularly potent predictors of psychological impairment.” In other words those who suffer more suffer more. The editorial continues, “Research has also indicated that disaster-related displacement, relocation, and loss of property and personal finances are risk factors for mental health problems…”
I don’t suppose this will come as any great surprise, let alone shock, to readers. I will overlook the rather strange locution “loss of personal finances” – one continues to have personal finances even in bankruptcy. But how vital is research that tells us that people who are displaced and lose their possessions are likely to be unhappy for a long time? Until such research was done, did anyone for a moment doubt that losing your home, becoming a refugee, having your wife or child killed in front of you. etc., was a potent cause of misery? Have we so lost our common humanity that we need “research” to tell us this, or that such misery may be long-lasting?
The editorial continues, “the mental health effects of disaster are not limited to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and may include general distress, anxiety, and other psychiatric disorders.” As this is written, it implies that general distress and anxiety are in themselves psychiatric disorders, that the person who is (say) distressed at the loss of his home is in some way psychiatrically disturbed. This is indeed odd; I would put it rather the other way round, that the person who is not in the least distressed at the loss of his home is likely to be psychiatrically disturbed. An undistressed murderer is a much more chilling individual to meet than one who is distressed.
Perhaps what the authors meant (one certainly hopes that what they meant) was the following: “the psychological effects of disaster are not limited to PTSD and other psychiatric disorders, but include general distress and anxiety.” But this is not what they wrote; and one suspects that their imprecision of language is a reflection of their imprecision of thought.
Let us continue briefly on this via dolorosa of cliché. The authors tells us: “Notably, the mental effects after a disaster vary across the exposed population.” But an assertion of fact in whose contradiction no one would for a moment believe is not worth making. When you have nothing to say, say nothing. It is hardly surprising that the authors’ prescriptions should make Ellen Wheeler Wilcox seem hard-edged and cynical by comparison: promoting a sense of safety, calming anxiety, increasing collective efficacy, encouraging social support, and instilling hope.
Actually, another editorial in the same edition of the Journal provides us with a clue as to its subtext, as literary theorists would call it. The other editorial is about the forthcoming reduction in federal funding for medical research. The author quotes Winston Churchill’s favourite Chinese ideogaph, that for crisis, which he maintained contained simultaneously the notion of disaster and opportunity. For the entrepreneurs of psychopathology, disasters are an opportunity, none better in fact.

Late Senator Inouye--Last Friend of Israel?

In a previous posting (America's Decline Defined), we posited that the US problems come from a lack of support  of Israel by our Presidents and State Department. In the following article, we will learn more about the issue.  The Late Senator Inouye, even though he spent 9 terms in the Senate, was a supporter of Israel and had he not been there, the decline of the US might have been even more steep.

Conservative Tom

A second thank you to a great American and great friend of the Jews – Senator Daniel Inouye

Share This Post
By Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought”
“Israel Hayom”, December 20, 2012
The late Senator Daniel Inouye, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and President Pro Tempore (third in the line of succession to the presidency) was the most effective architect-ever of mutually beneficial US-Israel strategic cooperation. He was a tenacious defender of the US Constitution and the role of the legislature as a co-determining, co-equal branch of government; a humble American patriot and a realist who rejected wishful-thinking in the interest of advancing US national security.
In 1990, while most foreign policy and national security mavens were under the spell of the “Peace Dividends” mirage – following the dismantling of the USSR – Senator Inouye, then the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense alarmed Capitol Hill about the smothering Iraqi and Iranian “sandstorms,” threatening US economic and national security interests.
Thus, while lowering the US military profile in the post-Cold War Europe, Senator Inouye initiated a series of amendments, leveraging Israel’s unique capabilities, enhancing the win-win US-Israel cooperation in the face of mutual challenges in the Middle East and beyond (e.g., counter- terrorism, missile defense, military intelligence, battle tactics, industrial research and development).
Inouye initiated a significant transfer of US military systems from pacified Europe to Israel, due to Israel’s geographic location, which is most critical to vital US economic and national security interests. This enhanced the US-Israel posture of deterrence in the Middle East, reassuring pro-US Arab allies such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and deterring anti-US rogue regimes such as Libya, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Inouye was, also, responsible for expanding pre-positioned ammunition and medical supplies, in Israel, for American use during Middle East emergencies.
Inouye’s amendments were signed into law, in defiance of President Bush and Secretary Baker, who were on the verge of cutting off their noses to spite their faces, by holding the win-win bilateral cooperation initiatives hostage to their opposition to Israel’s settlements policy.
For example, Bush and Baker opposed Inouye’s amendment to upgrade the facilities of the Israeli ports of Haifa and Ashdod in the crucial eastern flank of the Mediterranean, for the benefit of the Sixth Fleet. During one of the exchanges with the Secretary of the Navy, Senator Inouye stated: “Under the US Constitution, Congress possesses the oversight authority, and as the Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee I’ve concluded that the Sixth Fleet would benefit from the upgrade.” The port of Haifa was upgraded and became the most favorite port for Sixth Fleet repairs, maintenance, training and recreation.
Upon learning that Secretary Baker did not implement an amendment, which stipulated an expansion of US-Israel counter-terrorism cooperation, Inouye sent a letter threatening to “fence” part of the counter-terrorism budget. Implementation was underway by the following day!
AIPAC officials were concerned about the Bush/Baker opposition to the Inouye amendments. They suggested that “the legislative pipe may not bear such a huge traffic.” Inouye quipped back: “I am the Chairman and I know that the pipe can bear such traffic.”
Inouye was aware – more than most legislators and observers of Congress – that the US Constitution provides Congress with the power to both directly shape foreign and national security policy, and to constrain presidential actions. (Unfortunately the current Congress has lost sight of this Constitutional power and Obama runs wild)
In 2001, Inouye briefed Dr Uzi Landau, then Israel’s Minister for Homeland Security, on Israel’s unique contributions to the national security of the US, Inouye: “The scope of intelligence received by the US, from Israel, exceeds the scope of intelligence received from all NATO countries combined.” He then contended that the Soviet military hardware (e.g., the P-12 Soviet radar, the Mig-21 and Mig-23 Soviet fighter aircrafts) – captured by Israel and transferred to the US – tilted the global balance of power in favor of the USA and amounted to a mega-billion dollar bonus to the US defense industries.
Jointly with Senator Bob Kasten (WI-R) – who co-led each of the above amendments and in defiance of Bush/Baker – Inouye introduced the 1992 legislation to extend $10BN loan guarantees to Israel, and the 1987 legislation to allow Israel to refinance its exceptionally high-interest loans, which saved Israel some $2BN over 20 years.
In 1993, Inouye expressed his concern about the potentially devastating consequences of the Oslo Accord. He participated in the White House ceremony because “I could not disappoint my good friend, Prime Minister Rabin.” Once again, Inouye demonstrated his ability to vanquish wishful-thinking, in defiance of political and social pressure.
During our last personal meeting, at his office, Inouye asked: “Are you aware of Daniel Inouye-like legislators, who will carry the torch when I am gone?!” In the words of Bruce Springsteen, “When they built you, brother Daniel, they turned dust into gold; when they built you, brother Daniel, they broke the mold!”
Shabbat Shalom and have a pleasant weekend,

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Radical Muslims ARE Our Enemy

We have seen the enemy and it is the Muslims. One can only look at the news around the world where every major battle involves Islam and its believers. We cannot wait any longer, we must turn the screw on them before they attack us again.
Yes, we said again. Remember the attack against the World Trade Center in 1993 and again in 2001, the Cole, the embassys in Africa and Benghazi this year. They are coming for us and the ONLY time we have responded in 9/11. Are we stupid or are we just a paper tiger. We believe both.

How many Americans are going to have to be killed before the Administration(s) of this country get the message and decide to take off the gloves and to call Radical Muslims what they are--the scourge of the world! It is a pestilence not unlike rabies, the Black Plague, the Nazi Regime, Tojo, or the Kaiser.  

All of these "diseases" have been contained and some destroyed except radical Muslims. To think that the "Great Satan" is not targeted for extinction, is foolhardy. It is time for this one to end.

However, do not expect this from your current occupant of the White House. He is either unschooled in the ways of radical Islam or a believer. It would not take much information to make us believe the latter.  All we have to do is look at the latest tragedy in Benghazi to see how he played word smith with the attack for weeks.  He had to be dragged into admitting that it was a terrorist attack. Anyone with such disregard for American human life has to be a "believer."

We, the citizens of this country, must force our "leaders" to take steps to stomp out radical Islam anywhere we find it whether it is in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, France or even the US. Will they, we doubt it. We are too weak of mind and spirit.

One knows how future generations will think about our lackadaisical attitude toward the greatest threat this country faces today. They will blame us for not acting. The women will curse us behind their burkas as the men pay their homage to the Mosque. We will have become dimis, second class citizens.

Conservative Tom

CBS' Lara Logan warns that Muslim jihadis are coming for us

Journalist says that Obama administration is lying to the public about jihadist threat
Lara Logan, correspondent for CBS' "60 Minutes," had a dire warning to offer about 1,100 influential people from government, politics, media and the legal and corporate arenas. Logan's ominous message was arrived at from her years of covering U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. Logan had arrived in Chicago shortly after her Sept. 30 report, "The Longest War," which examines the Afghanistan conflict.
Lara Logan maintains that the U.S. government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war.
Lara Logan maintains that the U.S. government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war.
LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - Eleven years later after 9/11, Logan was on hand to say that "they" still hate us, now more than ever. The Taliban and al-Qaida have not been vanquished - and they're coming back.

"I chose this subject because, one, I can't stand, that there is a major lie being propagated . . ." Logan declared in her native South African accent. Quite contrary to what the White House says, America's military might has tamed the Taliban.

"There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years," Logan said. She says this is because of "Taliban apologists," who claim "they are just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban," she added sarcastically. "It's such nonsense!"

Logan told of plowing through reams of documents, and interviewing John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and a Taliban commander trained by al-Qaida. The Taliban and al-Qaida are alive and well, teaming up and recruiting new terrorists to do us deadly harm, she reports.

Logan maintains that the U.S. government is downplaying the strength of our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as a rationale of getting us out of the longest war. Logan says that the U.S. public has been lulled into believing that the perils are in the past: "You're not listening to what the people who are fighting you say about this fight. In your arrogance, you think you write the script."

Logan even called for retribution for the recent terrorist killings of Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other officials. The event is a harbinger of our vulnerability, Logan says. She says that she hopes that America will "exact revenge and let the world know that the United States will not be attacked on its own soil. That its ambassadors will not be murdered, and that the United States will not stand by and do nothing about it."

© 2012, Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.

Guns Are NOT The Problem

The more we see the Dictator and his Vice Dictator talk about the need to limit guns in light of the Sandy Hook killings, we want to scream at them and say "Connecticut already has the strongest gun control in the country outside of New York and Chicago."  Gun control really translates to getting the guns away from the law abiding citizens so that the scum bags can kill you, steal from you, rape you without worrying that you might shoot them!

All you have to look at is the gun killings that go in in Washington D. C. and Chicago to see that gun laws don't work. The bad guys will always have access to them.

Don't believe the press, the President or his minions, they all want to take away your rights while at the same time maintaining their armed guards. Why should they have armed guards if we the citizens can't?  

This is a dangerous time for our country and the killings in Connecticut could be the turning point where guns are no longer available for the average citizen.

Conservative Tom

It’s Always ‘Too Soon’

December 20, 2012 by  
It’s Always ‘Too Soon’
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama announced that Vice President Joe Biden will lead a team that will offer "concrete proposals" to curb gun violence.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter when the “right” time to delve into so-called “gun control” has arrived. Once the smoke clears, we all step back into the rhetorical ring for another round of debate about what liberals call “gun violence” and conservatives call either “crime” or the lyrics to a rap album.
Of course, the actual debate takes a moment to get under way. First, the media have to descend on the bereaved and gorge themselves on misery like buzzards feasting on roadkill. In the Newtown, Conn., nightmare, ABC News editorial producer Nadine Shubailat began stalking victims’ families and friends on Twitter, begging for face time, until outraged respondents buried her Twitter feed in an avalanche of spam. Meanwhile, the Democrats had to take a moment to adhere to Rahm Emanuel’s famous adage: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Barack Obama’s creepy little pet, David Axelrod, even tried hyping Obama’s gun-control speech (which was ostensibly supposed to comfort the Nation) to direct people to donate to Obama’s 2012Presidential campaign. Nothing says “we care” like exploiting dead children to grub for cash for an electoral effort that ended six weeks ago.
Among the citizenry, emotions run high, often obfuscating reason. Some proffer laughable conspiracy theories, my favorite involving both the Aurora theater shooter and the Newtown murderer being stooges for a secret gun-lobby conspiracy trying to create an artificial spike in prices. Others try to resurrect the ridiculous talking point about the 2nd Amendment referring only to flintlock muskets and blunderbusses. They blissfully ignore that abortion is now Constitutionally protected.
And we must not forget magazine capacity. Anti-2nd Amendment zealots suggest that no one needs high-capacity magazines. But Connecticut already bars the sale thereof. In fact, Connecticut is a liberal’s paradise regarding gun laws. Capacity makes no real difference. A determined shooter with even moderate training can cycle through 10- or even 5-round magazines in rapid succession. When the shooter is spurred on by the voices in his head and the victims are 5- and 6-year-olds, he doesn’t even have to be all that proficient. Hell, terrorist Timothy McVeigh was highly proficient with firearms — as an Army veteran, he was probably better with an M4 than Adam Lanza ever hoped to be — and he didn’t need a firearm at all. In China, some hopped-up lunatic went after a couple dozen schoolchildren with a knife about 18 hours before Lanza proceeded with his grisly plan. The Chinese, who have gun control to quail the hearts of even the Brady Campaign, have seen a number of such attacks in just the past few years.
Still others took advantage of the situation to press an assault against the National Rifle Association. Twitter was set ablaze by concerned liberals issuing death threats to not only the group’s members, but their children as well.
Liberals are so opposed to violence that they’re positively homicidal over it.
Gun control is really people control. And people can be controlled a lot more simply than an ill-advised frontal assault on the Bill of Rights. When I first offered my curriculum vitae to Bob Livingston, I remarked that gun control requires nothing more than common sense: You don’t allow criminals, illegal aliens or the guy down the street with a tinfoil hat access to firearms. Imposing draconian measures on the only part of the populace likely to abide by them merely tilts the field in favor of the criminal element. For those who remain unconvinced, take a look at Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. (I suggest you do so from inside a tank.)
So-called “assault rifles,” high-capacity magazines, the NRA and one or two really intricate conspiracy theories might qualify as meaningful debate among liberal audiences who are as receptive to dissent as a Third World dictator, but they aren’t really the topics we ought to be discussing in the wake of Sandy Hook or any significant tragedy. From Newtown to Oklahoma City to China, the problem is on full display; and that problem isn’t guns.
Gun-grabbers claim they want to have a meaningful discussion about societal violence. I’m fine with that. Let me know when they’re ready to start.
–Ben Crystal

The Way To Hell Is Paved With Govt Good Intentions

Government good intentions run a muck!   That is how we describe the upcoming regulation morass that all businesses are going to be exposed. Read the following post by Rick Moran and we guarantee that you will be trembling in your boots!

Whether it is posting nutrition information on vending machines or requiring an electric car to emit some noise, are we not getting a bit crazy? Is this not the end of our country as a rational, sensible nation? Time to end it all!

But before we can do that we need to elect "leaders" in Washington--you know those guys who will do what is in the best interests of the nation rather than a fringe group! We don't have any now and we doubt that we ever will!

Conservative Tom

The Coming Regulatory Black Hole

Thousands of new proposed regulations, delayed by the election, will be issued over the next few months.
December 14, 2012 - 12:00 am
Forget the fiscal cliff. Sooner or later — probably later — Speaker Boehner and the president are going to come to an agreement that will raise taxes on the wealthy with a solemn, cross-our-hearts-and-hope-to-die promise from the Democrats to cut an unspecified amount from the budget at an unspecified later date.
Just when the Democrats are going to screw over the GOP and refuse to make any significant budget cuts or engage in negotiations that would reform entitlements will also be unspecified.
But there is another looming crisis for the taxpayer and businesses large and small. It is the flood of new regulations that will be issued in the coming months. Delayed by the White House before the election because their implementation would have adversely affected business and cost jobs, thousands of new rules will be issued that will cost American business an estimated $100 billion. This is on top of the already gargantuan regulatory burden that theCompetitive Enterprise Institute estimates at $1.8 trillion — $215 billion this year alone.
Just how many new regulations will business have to deal with? We don’t know because the administration has failed to issue a report, required by law, that would set out Obama’s regulatory agenda. The Heritage Foundation’s Diane Katz explains:
Congress mandated a regulatory agenda from each agency in 1980 under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The statute calls for release every April and October of a description of all rules likely to have a “significant economic impact” on a substantial number of small entities. A series of subsequent executive orders extended agenda requirements to all regulations under development or review by some 60 departments, agencies, and commissions.
Of course, the Obama administration is no stranger to flouting the law when it comes to deadlines. Senator Coburnpointed out that the administration has failed to meet dozens of deadlines when it comes to Obamacare alone. It also missed a budget deadline last summer, failing to send Congress a mid-session review. Most recently, the president was late with his report to Congress on the impact on departments and agencies of going over the fiscal cliff.
What is it with these people? They’re like college kids putting a major paper off until the last minute and then pulling an all-nighter to write it. But in the case of the regulatory agenda that is required by law to be submitted to Congress twice a year, the Obama administration fell asleep in the middle of the night and woke up a year later. Their last regulatory agenda report was in the fall of 2011.
The dog must have eaten the Spring 2012 report, and the Fall 2012 agenda must have been lost in the campus mail.
Senator Rob Portman was forced to send a scolding letter to the president, reminding him he’s not following the law:
“For nearly three decades, presidents of both parties have published their plans for new regulations twice a year,” Portman wrote to Obama today. “Now, with the spring plans still missing, the Fall 2012 Regulatory Agenda is also overdue. In light of this apparent trend, I am writing to inquire whether your Administration has chosen to abandon this tradition of transparency altogether.”
Now that the election is over, it is obvious why the administration has refused to update Congress on its regulatory plans. There are as many as 4100 rules in the pipeline ranging from the annoying to the tortuous. And the White House bottled them up for “review” until the president was safely re-elected because many of them are so onerous that they would have cost jobs.
One example is the inexplicable new regulations, courtesy of Obamacare, governing vending machines and restaurants, ordering them to display nutritional information. These regulations were expanded to include grocery stores and virtually all food service chains. The estimated cost: $1.1 billion with 1.4 million additional paperwork burden hours. These regulations have been “under review” for months but were delayed by the White House.
Another example comes from the American Action Forum:
[A] proposed rule requiring “Sound for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles” has a statutory deadline of July 5, 2012, but the regulation remains at the White House. There is no indication how much ‘artificial vehicle sound’ devices will cost automobile manufacturers. The public won’t know until the administration publishes the proposal.
Typically, a new regulation remains at the White House under review for 90 days. Some of the regs that will be published in the next couple of months have been tied up by the administration for a year or more. The reason is obvious, as the National Association of Manufacturers showed in a report on new EPA regulations in the pipeline:
The report, issued in late November, said compliance costs for six major EPA regulations — including rules limiting air and water pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants — could total up to $111 billion by government estimates and up to $138 billion by industry estimates. Construction costs could total $500 billion, it said.
Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the manufacturing group, warned of a “devastating ripple effect” that could be felt throughout the U.S. economy if federal rules are not relaxed or delayed. Some manufacturers are likely to “close their doors for good” because of EPA rules, Timmons said.
One would imagine a lot of those lost jobs would have been in Ohio — something the Obama campaign just couldn’t countenance. Better to have those Ohio voters lose their jobs once the president was safe and sound back in the White House than lose them before the election and blame Obama for their suffering.
You have no doubt heard the term “unfettered capitalism” bandied about by the left over the last several years. This refers to the left’s idea that American businessmen are a bunch of robber barons who practice a kind of predatory capitalism not seen since the gilded age. Unrestrained by government, businesses cheat consumers, steal from grandma, rape the land, poison our water, pollute our air, deny opportunities to minorities because they’re racist pigs, and gleefully place workers in danger of their lives to make an extra buck.
It’s a cute bedtime story, but anyone who uses the term “unfettered capitalism” to describe how American business operates in the 21st century is an ignoramus. The Federal Register, published every week day and containing all proposed rules and regulations — most of which govern business activities — was 81,000 pages in 2011 alone. Many of those rules were never adopted, but the scope of business activity regulated by as many as 60 federal agencies and departments is breathtaking. According to the Heritage Foundation, as of 2008 there were 145,000 pages of regulations — the overwhelming majority of which affect American business.
Add to that state and local rules and one wonders how anyone could be so stupid as to charge that the problem with America is “unfettered capitalism.”
Surely there are many of those regulations that are needed and necessary. Businesses are run by human beings, and there are some shady characters who think nothing of dumping toxic waste, forcing employees to work in unsafe conditions, or of surreptitiously polluting air and water. Some regulations are burdensome but, as the Heritage article points out, many regulations actually increase competitiveness, protect property rights, and keep us safe from terrorists.
But few of these regulations that the Obama administration has sat on for months, waiting for the campaign to end, meet the “necessary” criteria. In fact, the reason that President Obama restrained his eager-beaver agencies was because of their detrimental effect on the economy.
This is not a regulatory cliff we’re approaching. It is a regulatory black hole where jobs and profit are sucked over the event horizon and there is no hope of escape.
Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor, Blog editor at The American Thinker, and a frequent contributor to; his own blog is Right Wing Nut House.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

America's Decline Defined

Some of you might have been wondering where Conservative Tom has gone. It is not that we have physically moved, however, emotionally we are in  a different place. After the election, which we had correctly called a day before (unfortunately), we went into a funk, a depressed state from which we have now recovered. We were so low as we felt this election was the most pivotal since 1864. In this election we, as Americans, determined the direction of our country for the next 100 years and friends, it is not a positive direction. However, we now understand the "plan" and have accepted it.

The decline of America comes from two different yet inter-related forces. The first is the change in the character of the electorate and the second is the way in which the leaders of the United States have treated Israel.

This election said loudly that those who are getting something from the government will cast their vote for someone who will give them stuff. It said that when you give cell phones, child care, welfare, food and health care to name a few, people will vote for you forever.  Rush Limbaugh had it right when he said it was a "Santa Claus election."  People will not vote for someone who wants them to be responsible for their own lives.

Additionally, the constant media support for the President, the polls which were totally inaccurate, the gridlock in Washington, all of which were contributors to Romney's loss. Even Mother Nature got in the act in in the name of Hurricane Sandy. (See our November 5 "Our Forecast For the 2012 Election" posting regarding these events and their effect on the election.)

Since 1950, this country has been on a downward slope. From that time we have not won a war (unless you think Granada or the first Iraqi adventure was a war); at that time having a item "Made in America" was the definition of a superior product; in 1950 we could out-manufacture, out- produce and out-invent any country in the world and our education system was the standard to which everyone strove.

From those days, our  morals have decayed to a point where just about anything (save marrying a horse--but that could be coming) is accepted as normal; patriotism that was inspirational and heartfelt is now false (remember Obama's flag pin); more marriages end in divorce than survive; our country's debt is astronomical and getting worse; Congress and the country are so divided that nothing can get done and being a public servant (i.e. Congressman/woman, Senator) has become a lifelong job rather than a short term public service after which you went home to live under the laws you passed.

 We had no welfare in 1950, the borders were secure and immigrants were required to have  a sponsor guarantee that they would not become a burden on society. Regulations were few and it was relatively easy to start a business. It did not take two salaries to provide a reasonable standard of living. Social Security was funded by those working and not encumbered by immigrants obtaining benefits without paying into the system or those who are able to work obtaining disability benefits because their unemployment ran out. These are just a few of the many changes we have seen.

Would Romney have been able to change the direction? Probably not much. He might have been able to reduce the speed of the decline however, the downward trend cannot be changed in any four or even eight year Presidency when it  has been ongoing for sixty years.

Obama will only speed the decline. We suspect that by 2016, we will have significant cap and trade legislation,  gun ownership restrictions if not being totally outlawed as well as significant changes in a number of other areas. 

In the next four years any successful, growing sector of the economy will be attacked and punished.  The life insurance and property casualty business, oil and gas, technology and fast food will be savaged.  This Administration will attack successful people, companies and industries in order to continue to feed the insatiable desire of the "takers."

If you study history, there are similar declines in great countries like Greece and Rome. It most often occurs when the taxpayers realize they can take money from the treasury. This all started in the 1930s with Social Security the other programs that were created after the Great Depression. However, the most significant event after 1950 was the Great Society programs of President Lyndon B. Johnson. From that time, there has been a steadily increasing decline in the country as more and more individuals transitioned from independence to government DE-pendence.

Other than draining the public treasury, what has caused this decline?  We believe there are two other reasons. First of all, democracies (ours is a constitutionally limited republic) only last for a period of time. Greece lasted just over 200 years and so did Rome. The United States has been around for 223 years since the Constitution was ratified and 236 years from the time of the Revolution.  So our time as a nation has run.

The second reason is that our decline closely coincides with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.  Since its creation, this Jewish state has been attacked by surrounding Arab States in 1948, 1956, 1967 and in 1973 in full-out wars as well as skirmishes in Lebanon, the first and second Intifada, and Gaza to name a couple. 

The one constant element in all of these events was that the United States forced Israel to freeze their troops in place and later to make concessions for "peace."  The cease fire lines became the new borders from which Israel was forced to retreat.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the US State Department has consistently been on the side of the Arabs as they were concerned  we would lose our supply of oil. Additionally, most US Presidents have spoken glowingly in terms of "our best ally" or "the only democracy in the Middle East", however when it came time for negotiations the pressure was always on Israel to acquiesce to the Administration demands so that an agreement might be reached.

Even today, President Obama has told the world that "Israel has the right of self-defense" against the rockets fired from Gaza, however, he has not told his UN Ambassador go to the Security Council to condemn Hamas for raining missiles down onto civilians in Israel.  

We also remember both President George W. Bush as well as President Obama have insisted that discussions on a two state solution start with Israel's return to the 1967 lines "with modifications."  A friend does not demand that their friend put themselves in mortal danger as a precondition to a negotiation especially when the friend "won" the war.

In all of the wars that Israel has fought, it was American insistence that they stop their armies in place and start a cease fire. The unintended message that has been sent by the US is that the Americans will not let the Israelis totally defeat their attackers. 

The only way that Israel will be able to live in peace is  to totally decimate their enemies. A total win will leave no doubt in the mind of any resident of the Middle East who the victor was and what happens when you attack Israel. Ending hostilities prematurely only results in further attacks as soon as the perpetrators rearm. Recent attacks by Hamas are a great example.

Israel was created to be a homeland for the Jews after the Holocaust.  Had the Nazi Regime had not tried to wipe out all Jews, the country might never had come into being. Therefore, there was and continues to be a reason for this country to exist.  

So, why is Israel the reason for the US's decline?  In the Bible Genesis 12:3, G-d tells Avram (later to be known as Abraham)  that he will be the leader of a great people. He says (according to the King James Version):  "And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

Is American throttling of Israel, the cause of our decline? We think so. Any regime that condemns or persecutes the Jews,  is no longer. Egyptian Pharaohs  Spanish Monarchs, Roman Legions and Nazi Storm Troopers are all good examples. Are we next in line? We would hope not, however, it is not a coincidence that the timing of our decline is so closely tied to our treatment of Israel.

By its actions, the United States has cursed Israel and we are now being cursed. We will continue to be cursed until we change the ways we approach Israel.

So if we are correct, what should our leaders do?  They should completely re-think their approach to Israel. No longer should it be treated as the "little brother" to whom we can give instructions and expect them to comply.  We should support them 100%.

In addition to taking a different tack toward Israel, our leaders should announce a day of fasting and forgiveness  like the King of Nineveh did in the time of Jonah. They should all don sack cloth and put ashes on their head as a way of telling G-d that we have sinned and  from this day forward we will totally support Israel.  Will this occur? Of course, not! 

Therefore, we believe that even worse things are going to be visited upon the United States. It is preordained (as was the loss of this election and the hurricane) and that very bad times are coming to this country. Will it mean more hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, pestilence, crop failures, riots, insurrection or insect invasions? Or a major financial collapse? Or an EMP attack? Or an actual invasion? It would be presumptuous to predict what will occur but one might expect a Chinese menu. One from column a and one from column b and one each from column c-z.

We have found solace knowing the reason for the election loss, for the hurricane and for other events that are forthcoming.  No longer are we in a funk. We understand the plan. Now it is up to us to make the necessary preparations to protect our family as the United States falls apart.  Are you ready?

Conservative Tom

The President's Gun Control Plan

President Obama would like to do away with all guns and we believe that he will take the administrative route to that goal. He has shown that his interests are not with the rule of law or allowing Congress to create law. He wants to do what he feels is right and does not want to take the time to have the legislative process work. It is just too messy.

He could not pass the Dream Act so he did it administratively by issuing a Presidential finding. He will do the same with guns.  For those of you who think that he will ban guns, you would be wrong. An outright ban on guns would not stand Supreme Court scrutiny. His way will be more sneaky. He will call the FBI and order them to increase the fee for gun background checks to around $10,000.  Would you buy a gun if you had to pay that type of fee? For most, the answer would be no.

This action will stop all legal gun sales and shut down those dreaded gun shows. It will also kill the gun sale and manufacturing business in the US. The anti-gunners will view this as a success. It will not stop the illegal gun sales but heck, that only effects criminals and everyone knows they NEVER use guns!

With sales and manufacturing eliminated, the next step will be to force all gun owners to give up their guns. Again this will be done administratively. Through the FBI and the state and local gun registration systems, each gun owner will be assessed an fee for maintaining the system and documenting changes in "ownership." It will be sold as a "identification system" to quickly identify who is the actual owner of the gun.  The fee will be something like $500 per gun per year. Who would pay the fee for a gun that cost them $800?

Gun owners will be notified that if they do not pay the fee, local police will be notified and they will come and confiscate the weapon(s).  Those who do not want to pay the fee can simply turn in their weapon to the local police. (Who will sell it to gang bangers!!)

We expect that law abiding Americans will line up to turn in their weapons without a whimper! It would not violate the Constitution as it is a fee and if they pay the fee they can keep their guns.

This is what we can expect in the next couple months from the "dictator."  We hope you are ready to defend your home with a pitchfork, if it is not also taken from you!

Conservative Tom

No Time To Disarm America

December 18, 2012 by  
No Time To Disarm America
In the wake of the terrible tragedy that occurred last week at a Connecticut elementary school, the opinions have begun following in from both sides of the gun control debate. The debate is sure to become increasingly fallacious and nasty in coming months as people on both sides make ridiculous claims to support their case.
President Barack Obama spoke over the weekend at a memorial service for the 26 victims of Adam Lanza’s horrifying shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School. His speech, some people (gun-control advocates, no doubt) gushed, was akin to Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
Here is part of the President’s speech:
We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law—no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.
But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that—then surely we have an obligation to try.
In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens—from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators—in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?
The President is prepared to “use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens” to prevent further tragedies like what occurred in Connecticut. Because, he asserted, Americans must protect the children.
The President’s words are strong, and combined with his past positions there is little doubt that his plan involves launching anything less than a full on assault on Americans’ right to own semi-automatic weapons.
In a USA Today column last week, Glenn Reynolds channeled famed author and renowned gun activist William S. Burroughs in describing what the government’s most likely course of action will be:
“After a shooting spree,” author William Burroughs once said, “they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.” Burroughs continued: “I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”
Many Americans disagree with Burroughs’ opinion and are pushing for police and military personnel to be society’s sole armed protectors. And in gun-free zones, such as schools and many State and Federal properties, they are.
Those places have also become magnets for crazed gunmen. The cowardly mind-set of a man willing to kill at random — despite the anti-hero persona mainstream media seek to affix to these individuals — doesn’t lend itself well to ballsy attacks on rooms filled with armed men. Instead, they seek out the weakest or most unassuming targets imaginable: moviegoers in a darkened theater, attendees at a political rally, mall shoppers or schoolchildren.
And no matter what utopia the American left believes we inhabit, laws banning (and the all-out confiscation of) even every firearm manufactured will not stop the killing. Those capable of murder believe themselves to be far superior to any laws of man.
Perhaps a better option would involve a lessening of gun laws and an American realization that it is not up to the police, but to the citizen to ensure his own safety.
Speculation is reckless, but it is very tempting to fantasize about how Friday morning may have turned out differently if the school had been full of armed and trained teachers with easy access to firearms.
“Guns in schools, the horror,” liberal Americans might say. They may even venture to believe that frustrated armed teachers could be dangerous to students, though that seems very unlikely given the stories of teacher heroism coming from Connecticut where those educators likely wished they had tools at their disposal to better protect themselves and their students.
In 2008, the isolated Harrold Independent School District in Texas made an addition to its $100,000 state-of-the-art security system because administrators feared an armed intruder could do much damage in the 20 minutes it could take police to arrive. Feeling students and staff would be safer if on-site, trained staff members were equipped to handle a crisis at a moment’s notice, they decided to allow teachers to train and carry firearms to school.
In the years since, no gun has been brandished and no student hurt by an armed teacher. In fact, reports indicate that the students really didn’t have much at all to say about the policy. But the school district’s superintendent David Thweatt made a good point in 2009, a year after the policy went into place.
“We’re the first responders. We have to be,” Thweatt said. “We don’t have 5 minutes. We don’t have 10 minutes. We would have had 20 minutes of hell” if attackers had targeted the school.
Despite the President’s opinions, it is no time for gun rights activists to back off on the fight to keep and bear all legal firearms. We are all our own first responders and the protectors of those in our care who cannot defend themselves.