Friday, December 31, 2010

EDITORIAL: Trying to eradicate coyotes in the suburbs may be futile!! Oct. 10, 2010

EDITORIAL: Trying to eradicate coyotes in suburbs may be futile

Coyotes are on the prowl, right here in our suburban neighborhoods.

That’s alarming to many people. Why should we put up with wild creatures that would as soon eat our cat or small dog as a mouse or a squirrel?

And if coyotes will take on a pet, why not a child or even an adult?

Recent media reports detailed how coyotes are spreading into many communities. There appears to be no reason they won’t spread into all.

One animal was captured in downtown Detroit a few years ago. They live in our parks, our golf courses and small woodlots.

They have no predators, but prey on small wild animals such as rabbits, squirrels and mice. They’ll eat garbage and dog food left outside in a bowl.

But they’re wary or afraid of humans. We are not ordinarily their prey, although there are occasional exceptions. And they may lose their wariness if they find food easily near our homes.

State law permits trapping and shooting on private property without a permit if owners believe the animal may cause damage. While urbanized communities may permit trapping, they don’t ordinarily permit shooting for obvious reasons. Some cities will trap the animals, but most leave that up to homeowners or the private companies which homeowners call on.

We shouldn’t put up with them if they’re aggressive, unafraid of us or attacking our pets.

As for the rest, who are normally shy of humans, we’ll put up with them because we have little choice.
No urbanized community, to our knowledge, has ever successfully eradicated the wild creatures.

Attempts to eradicate coyotes are virtually certain to have bad consequences.

Eradication programs may remove individual coyotes, but wildlife experts tell us others will soon occupy the habitat. Trapping and poisoning may work, but they’re apt to work on other animals, including our pets. And they might inadvertently harm our children.

The likelihood of attack is small. A child was reportedly killed by a coyote in California 30 years ago. A handful of attacks on humans are reported in the nation each year.

People, including children, are far more likely to be bitten by a dog than a coyote.

At this point, there’s no will to do more than cull aggressive animals. That might change if some coyotes, perhaps because they’ve been fed by unthinking humans, grow unafraid of humans.

In the absence of that unlikely event, it’s better to live and let live. And keep our cats and small dogs inside.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Read Biden's Lips: New Taxes in 2013! Posted by Moe Lane Sat. Dec. 25, 2010

Read Biden's Lips: new taxes in 2013!

Vice President Joe Biden, bless his heart, is promising that there's going to be a tax hike (including one on small businesses) in 2013.  This, despite the fact that that the Republicans used their 58/42 minority in the Senate and 256/179 minority in the House to somehow prevent the current ruling party from moving ahead on the promised tax hikes: no doubt the President will make a speech and shine the light of his countenance upon the 112th Congress, thus causing them to tremble and flee the righteous Hope-and-Change of the Lightworker.  Or the President will pout, which will probably have roughly the same effect.

VP Biden also promised that the administration would be hiking the death tax, speculated that the next post-DADT repeal step for the White House would be addressing the 'so-called' DOMA (although Biden apparently neglected to mention why he voted for it in the first place, just like a majority of his party's Senate caucus), and walked back the White House's walkback on Biden's recent unilateral declaration that we'd be out of Afghanistan by 2014.  Biden then ritually slew a baby harp seal wrapped in the American flag on national television; the Vice President managed to gouge out the heart with his bare hands and offer it up to President Obama before somebody managed to switch to commercial.

Seriously: why do they let this man out without a keeper?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Sunday, December 26, 2010

U.S. Congressmen Declares: Borders will be 'Irrelevant' (World Net Daily News) Thursday, Dec. 23, 2010

Thursday, December 23, 2010

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
U.S. congressman declares: Borders will be 'irrelevant'
Stunning statement from same lawmaker sworn in with hand on Quran, not Bible

Posted: December 22, 2010
8:59 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein


WASHINGTON - JANUARY 04:  U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) (R) takes his oath of office by swearing on a Koran during a ceremonial swearing in with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (L) and his wife Kim (C) at the U.S. Capitol January 4, 2007 in Washington, DC. Ellison is the first Muslim elected as a U.S. Congressman.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

A so-called spiritual conference at which Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., called for the U.S. border to become an "irrelevancy" was led by a slew of extremists, including a Marxist who reportedly compared the tea-party movement to Hitler.

Conference speakers include radicals with deep ties to President Obama.

Yesterday,, founded by Fox News host Glenn Beck, posted a video from a conference led by the Network of Spiritual Progressives, or NSP, in which Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, declared to about 400 attendees that "God willing," the U.S. border will become irrelevant.

Stated Ellison: "No security policy position can be premised on military might. ...The way it works is we are a country guided by ideals of equity, generosity and engagement in our relations with other nations and those philosophical ideals create safe borders … and, God willing, one day the border will become an irrelevancy."

Ellison continued, "And you know, the fact is, it's time for us to answer a critical question, and that is how are we going to shape a progressive foreign policy agenda that provides a platform for the U.S. government in the 21st century."

WND has learned the conference was led by a slew of extremists who have had close relationships with Obama.

(Story continues below)

One of the main speakers was avowed Marxist Michael Lerner, editor of the pro-Palestinian Tikkun Magazine. Lerner has been accused of using the magazine to justify Palestinian terror and has written articles in which he suggested the 9/11 attacks were a response to U.S. policies.

According to an account of the conference by Baltimore Sun columnist Marta Mossburg, who attended the two-day event, Lerner compared tea party activists to Hitler at least five times.

Mossburg wrote that Lerner used the conference to bolster support for Obama.

"We're here to support Obama. …We're here to help him to be the Obama Americans thought they elected," she quoted Lerner as saying.

Lerner said Obama attended Tikkun meetings in Chicago and used to read the magazine, according to conversations he had with Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Lerner identifies himself as an ordained rabbi. However, as Discover the Networks notes, Lerner received a controversial private rabbinic ordination by "Jewish Renewal" rabbis, whose ordinations are recognized only by those within the Jewish Renewal community and the out of mainstream Reconstructionist Judaism.

Orthodox Judaism, the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the Conservative movement's Rabbinical Assembly all consider such ordinations invalid.

Lerner was an activist in the 1960s anti-war movement, the Students for a Democratic Society, from which the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization splintered.

Meanwhile, a co-chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives conference at which Ellison made his remarks is Princeton professor Cornel West, an avowed Marxist and honorary member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Obama named West, whom he has called a personal friend, to the Black Advisory Council of his presidential campaign. West was a key point man between Obama's campaign and the black community.

West served as an adviser on Louis Farrakhan's Million Man March and is a self-described personal friend of the Nation of Islam leader. West authored two books on race with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., who was at the center of the controversy last year in which Obama criticized Gates' treatment by police outside his home after a report of a burglary.

Another speaker at the Network of Spiritual Progressives event was Heather Booth, founder of the Midwest Academy, which teaches the community organizing tactics of radical Saul Alinsky.

WND was first to report that the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director alongside Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, provided funding to Midwest Academy.

WND also broke the story that the executive director of Midwest Academy was part of the team that developed and delivered a group of volunteers for President Obama's 2008 campaign.

Also, in August 1998, Obama participated with Booth in a panel discussion following the opening performance in Chicago of the play "The Love Song of Saul Alinsky," a work described by the Chicago Sun-Times as "bringing to life one of America's greatest community organizers."

Ellison's entry into Congress drew attention when he posed with his hand on a Quran instead of a Bible after taking his oath of office in January 2007. His campaign was bolstered by the work of staff members of the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations.

As WND reported last year, Ellison defended CAIR when members of Congress sought to investigate whether CAIR was placing interns with members of strategic security committees, as revealed in the book "Muslim Mafia" by Dave Gaubatz and Paul Sperry.

Ellison read a statement in Congress criticizing the call for an investigation.

"The idea that we should investigate Muslim interns as spies is a blow to the very principle of religious freedom that our founding fathers cherished so dearly," Ellison said.

"If anything, we should be encouraging all Americans to engage in the U.S. political process; to take part in, and to contribute to, the great democratic experiment that is America," he said.

U.S. prosecutors, however, believe CAIR, while claiming to be a civil-rights group, is actually a front group for Hamas and other terrorists. The Justice Department stated in September 2007 during its prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas – the largest terror-financing case in history – that CAIR "has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew."

With research by Brenda J. Elliott


Sunday, December 19, 2010

Mexico & U.S. have shared interest in creating a 21st century border...

Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
March 23, 2010

Mexico and the United States have a shared interest in creating a 21st century border that promotes the security and prosperity of both countries. The U.S. and Mexican governments have launched a range of initiatives that challenge the traditional view of "hold the line" and are developing a framework for a new vision of 21st century border management. 

The new framework is based on the principles of joint border management, co-responsibility for cross-border crime, and shared commitment to the efficient flow of legal commerce and travel: 
  • Enhancing Public Safety – The protection of Mexican and U.S. citizens from the criminal organizations responsible for the traffic in people, drugs, arms, and money across our common land border is a key priority for both countries. In addition to the bilateral Merida Initiative programs currently underway, we must develop joint strategies for key smuggling and trafficking corridors along with regular sharing of information on investigations, prosecutions, and screening practices.
  • Securing Flows – The central challenge in managing flows of people and goods is to separate high-risk travelers and cargo from low-risk ones. Tools that help prevent illegitimate trade and travel while expediting legitimate trade and travel include implementing complementary risk management strategies in both countries, establishing a bi-national "model port" to share information on goods and people, and improving trusted traveler and shipper programs. We must work together with the private sector to ensure that we achieve these goals.
  • Expediting Legitimate Commerce and Travel – Each day, about a billion dollars of commerce and a million people cross the U.S.-Mexico border. Affirmative steps that accelerate the flow of people and goods through ports of entry enhance both countries' economic competitiveness. Both countries need work with the private sector to encourage investment in the people, technology, and infrastructure that comprise a 21st century border. Secure transit lanes for pre-cleared rail and truck shipments as well as passenger pre-clearance programs are two tools that could make cross border trade and travel more efficient.
  • Engaging Border Communities – Mexico is the number one or number two export destination of twenty-two U.S. states. Cross-border trade contributes enormously to the economic vitality of both countries, especially in the border region. Continuing to engage border communities, as well as state, local, and tribal governments in bi-national strategy development, law enforcement, and communications, is essential to collaborative border management.
  • Setting Policy – Achieving rapid policy change requires an agile inter-agency process within each country as well as a means by which both governments can easily coordinate at a bi-national level. Both countries need to reinvigorate their policy-setting architecture to address the statutory, regulatory, systems, and infrastructure changes needed to realize our new vision of collaborative border management

Repeal ObamaCare. Then, Let's Do Something Really Radical...Try Freedom. (Posted by Labor Union Report) Thu. Dec. 16, 2010

Repeal ObamaCare. Then, Let's Do Something Really Radical…Try Freedom.

Government is (and always has been) the problem, not the solution.

ObamaCare. No, it's not dead. Not even close. Yet, with Monday's ruling that ObamaCare's individual mandate is unconstitutional, there is some hope on the horizon that the foray into enslaving America in a government-dictated insurance scheme may yet be repealed, outlawed, or just thrown into the ash heap of really, really bad ideas.

There is so much wrong with ObamaCare that it could fill an entire post (and then some), but that is not the reason for this post.

The reason for this post is very simple: First, we need to recognize that government is the problem with America's health care costs, not the solution. Second, we need to start coming up with some fresh and bold ideas in the eventuality that we can slay the beast of government-run healthcare once and for all. Even if ObamaCare is repealed in House, unless there are 67 senators who can be dragged away from the altar of closed-market health care to override a presidential veto, 2013 is the earliest ObamaCare can be aborted—but then what?

As a small business owner who just got hit with a $3600 insurance premium hike for 2011 and who will be paying (at a minimum$177,500 over the next ten years just for the "privilege" of having one family covered with insurance, you can be assured that my points are more than mere rhetorical ones. If I had my druthers, I would have a catastrophic-only plan that covers emergencies and life-threatening illnesses, and pay the rest out of pocket. I'd probably save well over $125,000 in the next ten years with a plan like that—if one existed.

The problem is, a plan like that doesn't exist…can't exist. Why? The government bureaucrats won't allow it. In our state, there are, by law (or regulation), only three types of insurance, provided by three insurers. It is a closed market scheme. In addition, let's just say (for the sake of discussion) that a plan like that did exist in the next state over and I wanted to purchase it. I couldn't do that either—because the government bureaucrats have created an artificial wall that won't allow insurance to be bought across state lines. You see, in this simple and real small-business example, already government is the problem—and we're paying the price.

Last year, when Nancy Pelosi went on her lunatic rant about insurance carriers being "immoral", it was the epitome of hypocrisy—sort of like the Devil calling demons evil for doing what their master taught them to do. [Too harsh?...What is it then, if not evil, for those who purposely unleash a disease to also claim to be the cure?] People who claim that insurance companies have monopolies don't realize that it is Congress that created the monopolies to begin with. That is why Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and the rest of their ilk, have been so disingenuous in shoving ObamaCare up America's rectum.

Like a healthy person going for a checkup, and going home with herpes, America has been gamed, lied to, and tricked into believing that health care is incompatible with a free market—lied to by the very people who claim to have the cure. Democrats and their union coaches have become nothing more (or better) than snake oil salesmen.

Yes, the cost of health care has risen exponentially for years. Health care costs have destroyed incomes, cost American jobs, caused strikes, and bankrupted companies. But it's not due to a lack of government, it's because of too much government.  It hasn't been the fault of the free market, as the socialist union bosses and the Marxist Democrats claim, it has been because it has not been a free market. If America wants to blame anyone, we should blame those who have been controlling and gaming the system—the bureaucrats and their union bosses—who now claim that more bureaucracy is the cure.

So, before we continue talking about "how government should fix health care," perhaps it's time we recognize how government caused it to be broken in the first place. Let's begin looking at the true reason why the cost structure has been so blown out of alignment. And, then, perhaps more will understand why we need to tell government to get out of the way—now!

Last year, as the heated rhetoric of the health care debate was raging all across America, John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that provided some market-based alternatives to the monstrous big-government scheme that has become ObamaCare. While Mackey's piece was brief, the Left's reaction to it was extreme.

Immediately, the attack dogs from the unions launched a nationwide boycott of Whole Foods, Mackey was attacked personally, and the Left screamed hysterically. To see the Left's ridiculous reaction indicated that they felt threatened by Mackey's ideas—which meant they were probably pretty good ideas. While you can read the entire Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare here [and it is worth reading in its entirety], below is the main thrust of Mackey's ideas:

Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to $1,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.

Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.

Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.

Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.

Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.

Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?

Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.

Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

While there are likely other ideas that are out there, Mackey's ideas serve as a good starting point for debate and discussion as to what we will "replace" ObamaCare with, if we can ever get to that point. However, if we are not serious about coming up with solutions that truly reflect a market-based system, as opposed to a government run bureaucracy, there is no point in trying to repeal ObamaCare. If politicians on the Right think they can replace big bureaucracy with little bureaucracy, it will fix nothing, we'll be right back where we were two years ago, and we're wasting our time.

In healthcare, as in all other areas of life, we can either choose freedom and a free market, or we can choose to be our brother's' keeper—and he our keeper—but you can't have both. Freedom is incompatible with a government bureaucracy making life and death decisions. And, in healthcare, we can't just be against ObamaCare, and not be for something to replace it. The question is, can we take the steps to beat the bureaucrats back?  And, if so,then what?


"I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes." Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776


Live to Ride: Ride to Live
Harley~Davidson #1
Don't take life for granted, You never know when it will be suddenly knocked out of you!! By a Mazda MPV no less!!

This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain BS Ranch proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to the BS Ranch. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

Friday, December 17, 2010

Obama's urgent treaty push called 'contempt of Congress'

WND Exclusive

Obama's urgent treaty push called 'contempt of Congress'

Analysts fear START doc holds something prez wants concealed

Posted: December 16, 2010
11:40 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily
Editor's Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND. Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev

Concern is mounting among experts in the arena of international treaties that the Obama administration is forcing U.S. senators to ram through a new strategic arms reduction document with the Russians without fully understanding the implications or its provisions – described by critics as unverifiable, according to a report from Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin.
"(President Barack Obama's) demand that senators approve this defective accord during the few days remaining in the lame-duck session amounts to contempt of Congress," said Frank Gaffney who is president of the Center for Security Policy. "It must not be tolerated, let alone rewarded."
Critics say the treaty could "restrict" the nation's ability to defend itself, and suggest that there may be provisions Obama doesn't want members of the Senate to analyze, and possibly oppose.
Gaffney, a former acting assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, is versed in START treaties; he was involved in arms reduction negotiations during the Reagan administration.

He claims that senators have not had time to review the extensive negotiating record which reflected Russian opposition to U.S. positions while the administration decided to push for its approval anyway.
He and other critics claim that the treaty sets up a Bilateral Consultative Commission that will affect the treaty's terms materially – and make those changes without giving the Senate its constitutionally outlined advise and consent process.
The Senate requires a two-thirds vote, or approval by 67 members, before it is ratified.
Now, the Senate leadership has announced that it will hold a weekend session in an effort to ratify the treaty.
But critics are alarmed the treaty draft establishes a relationship between missile offense and missile defense, and as the U.S. shrinks its inventory of strategic nuclear weapons, it presents less latitude to beef up U.S. defenses against potential missile attacks not just from the Russians but other countries as well.
Critics are concerned that limitations in this treaty will preclude bolstering missile defenses against such countries as North Korea and Iran which are developing their own intercontinental ballistic missiles that soon could reach the U.S.
The net effect of any changes that could occur without U.S. approval would restrict U.S. missile defenses and make other reductions in U.S. nuclear deterrent forces, Gaffney said.
Other former leaders from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, along with top nuclear weapons and arms control experts, oppose the new START.
In a Dec. 13 letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, they raised objections to consideration of START, especially in a lame-duck session, given all of the issues that still persist with the treaty draft.
"It is our considered professional judgment that this treaty and the larger disarmament agenda which ratification would endorse are not consistent with the national security interests of the United States, and that both should be rejected by the Senate," they wrote.
Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.
For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, subscribe now.

M.I.A.: Pelosi, Reid Absent For Tax Cut Bill-Signing Ceremony (By Meredith Jessup) Dec. 17, 2010


I'm trying not to read too much into this bit of news, but it's hard to ignore the fact that the Democrats' top two leaders on Capitol Hill would be absent during President Obama's bill-signing ceremony for the Bush tax cut extension compromise. Via Politico:

Spokespeople for both offices said the Democratic leaders would be taking care of business on the floor of the Senate and the House and wouldn't be able to make it.

"Senator Reid cannot make every bill signing and right now he is focused on taking care of everything we need to get done before the end of the session," said Regan Lachapelle, a spokesman for Reid.

The White House released a list of names, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, of lawmakers who are expected to be there. It includes four other Republicans — Reps. Charles Boustany, Dave Camp, Tim Murphy and Dave Reichert — and a slew of Democratic House and Senate members.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Friday that the tax bill, which would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich while keeping unemployment benefits, is a "big win" for Obama.