Friday, January 25, 2013

It's Happening Here Too

A woman in her late 20's came to the hospital today with her 8th pregnancy.

She said to me  me "My mum told me that I am the breadwinner for the family."

I asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money from the Government for the family. 

It goes like this: The Grandma calls the Department of child services and Centrelink, and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for all of her kids. And they agree, then tells her the children will need to go into foster care. 

The Grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and receives a cheque for $400 per child each month. 

Total yearly income: $72000pa and soon to be more when the 8th one is born, tax-free and nobody has to go to work! 

In fact, they get more if there is no husband/father/man in the home! The brother does not count.Not to mention free dental treatment, free housing,  free school dinners, free tuition fees at college or Uni, free eye care and glasses, free prescriptions and various other benefits... 

Total value of all benefits combined probably approaching $120,000 per annum.That's about my salary as a senior consultant with years of experience and surgical skills in a Melbourne teaching hospital.

Indeed, Grandma was correct that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the family.

This is how the politicians spend our taxes.

When this generous programme was invented in the '60s, the Great Society architects forgot to craft an end date... and now we are hopelessly overrun with people who vote only for those who will continue to keep them on the dole.... 

No wonder our country is broke! 

Worse, our Muslim brothers have been paying attention, and by mandating that each Muslim family have eleven children, they will soon replace the voting bloc above and can be running this country in around 12 years. 

Are we alarmed yet, is anybody listening? 

Please know I am not racist nor am I against Immigration, I just worry where this uncontrolled sort of immigration is going take this wonderful country. There must be limits and controls in place or in around 12 years or less we will be going to midday prayers at the local mosque. That's a simple fact of life my friends. They clearly intend to force that upon us. 

Sebastian J. Ciancino - Obstetrician,
Melbourne Vic
Don't forget to pay your taxes!!
There are a lot of “breadwinners” depending on you! 

Fed Buying That Which It Creates

When Obama was inaugurated in 2009, the Fed owned $475.322 billion in U.S. government debt. As of the close of business on Wednesday, Jan. 23, the Fed owned $1.696691 trillion in U.S. government debt, up $1.221369 trillion during Obama's first term.” 

And Americans still reelected this fraud. Truly amazing… 

Bend over and grab your ankles, America. There is no effing hope dot com.

Give a Man a Fish (Revised)

Give a man a welfare check, a free cell phone with unlimited free minutes, free internet, cash for his clunker, food stamps, section 8 housing, free contraceptives, Medicaid,
ninety-nine weeks of unemployment, free medicine, and he will vote Democrat the rest of his life…even after he's dead.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Talk About Change!

The following table provides a sample of change during the Obama administration from January 19, 2009 to September 30, 2012 for several key commodities ...

·         Gasoline, was 1.1544, now 2.9180. Up 152.77 %.

·         Corn, was 390.5, now 764.5. Up 95.77 %.

·         Cattle, was 82.675, now 122.075. Up 47.66 %.

·         Coffee, was 119.65, now 173.50. Up 45.01 %.

·         Sugar, was 12.70, now 20.42. Up 60.79 %.

·         Cotton, was 0.5064, now 0.7065. Up 39.51 %.

·         Lumber, was 151.00, now 279.00. Up 84.77 %.

And everybody, many well-informed, who reelected this fraud did so despite knowing about these and other critical economic indicators.
There is no effing hope for this country

Friday, January 18, 2013

Anti-Gun Senator Shoots Intruder


State Senator R.C. Soles (D - NC)

Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home just outside Tabor City , N.C. about 5 p.m. Sunday, the prosecutor for the politician's home county said.

The intruder, Kyle Blackburn, was taken to a South Carolina hospital, but the injuries were not reported to be life-threatening, according to Rex Gore, district attorney for Columbus, Bladen andBrunswick counties..

The State Bureau of Investigation and Columbus County Sheriff's Department are investigating the shooting, Gore said. Soles, who was not arrested,declined to discuss the incident Sunday evening.

"I am not in a position to talk to you," Soles said by telephone. "I'm right in the middle of an investigation."

The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn't hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

In typical hypocritical liberal fashion, the "Do as i say and not as i do" Anti-Gun Activist Lawmaker picked up his gun and took action in what apparently was a self-defense shooting. Why hypocritical you may ask? It is because his long legislative record shows that the actions that he took to protect his family, his own response to a dangerous life threatening situation, are actions that he feels ordinary citizens should not have if they were faced with an identical situation.

It has prompted some to ask if the Senator believes his life and personal safety is more valuable than yours or mine.

But, this is to be expected from those who believe they can run our lives, raise our kids, and protect our families better than we can.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

2013: The Year To Strike a Blow Against Climate Alarmism


For too long, scientists who promote the hypothesis that man’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing dangerous global warming have been given a free ride by politicians and the press. Their pronouncements, no matter how fantastic, are accepted without question and repeated ad nauseam by compliant governments and reporters alike. When scientists do what all scientists are supposed to do — question and probe — they are treated as enemies of the people and condemned by opinion leaders.
With the upcoming release of the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, 2013 can be the year governments and media grow up on climate change.
Treat catastrophists who push for climate and energy policies that would bankrupt us just as we do other end-of-the-world cultists: demand they prove their beliefs before providing them the time of day, let alone our tax dollars. Insist that climate catastrophists cease with their speculations and instead employ the scientific method.
This involves creating hypotheses based on predefined assumptions. Other scientists, in their proper roles as skeptics, challenge the hypothesis by testing the assumptions. They try to disprove — or as philosopher Karl Popper explained, falsify — the assumptions. Popper’s doctrine of falsifiability: “Our belief in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis than our unsuccessful critical attempts to refute it.”
This part of the scientific method has not been applied to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, and it is costing us plenty: literally hundreds of billions of dollars per year, the loss of thousands of jobs, and the rapid destruction of our most reliable and least expensive power source — coal-fired electricity.
The problems started when proponents of the AGW hypothesis, mainly the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), abandoned the scientific method and set out to prove the hypothesis because of a political agenda. They ignored or rejected contradictory evidence, no matter how convincing, and attacked those who tried to disprove the hypothesis. They produced false, imaginary, or concocted ideas and data instead of considering limitations and errors in their work.
This is well illustrated by their failure to properly consider the null hypothesis that global temperatures will not rise appreciably because of CO2 emissions from industrial activity.
Environmental fundamentalists knew that weakening the developed world by cutting off the fuel supply would be met with howls of protest, so politicians have not dared try this, at least not overtly. But an engine may also be stopped by choking off the exhaust, and so extremists worked hard to demonize CO2, the principle byproduct of civilization.
They ignored the benefits of the gas, such as its role in sustaining life. Instead, they labeled CO2 a pollutant and a harmful substance because of its supposed impact on climate.
Activists then succeeded in convincing governments to add the benign gas to lists of toxic substances to be controlled through regulations. This has allowed both the American and Canadian governments to bypass our elected representatives and, through the Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, impose expensive but useless regulations on CO2.
The most effective strategy for fighting climatism — the label given to the climate scare by author Steve Goreham of the American Climate Science Coalition — is public education. Once enough citizens understand that the science, the foundation of the alarm, is hopelessly flawed, support for expensive and futile government action to “stop climate change” will quickly wither.
Here is what the public needs to learn quickly if we are to avoid further damage to our societies.
CO2 is one of three major so-called greenhouse gases (GHG); the others are water vapor (H2O) and methane (CH4). The problem initially faced by extremists bent on tainting CO2 is that the gas is less than 4% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor is typically 95% of the total. Their solution was to argue that CO2 is a far more effective GHG.
Trouble is, we don’t know how much more effective, so activists created a phony term — “climate sensitivity” — and spoke about it as if it were high at today’s CO2 levels, now approaching 0.04% of the atmosphere.
In reality, the impact of increasing CO2 is analogous to putting coats of black paint on a window. The first coat of paint blocks most of the light from passing through the window. A second coat reduces light only fractionally more, and further coats accomplish even less.
From the University of Chicago MODTRAN facility. The degree to which increasing CO2 levels affect temperature drops rapidly as CO2 concentration rises. In other words, climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration, until, at today’s level of nearly 400 parts per million, climate sensitivity approaches zero. Note that the first 20 ppm of CO2 has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm combined.
The same is true of the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere. Research shows that the temperature’s sensitivity to increasing CO2 is now close to zero. In other words, from a temperature perspective the atmosphere is nearly saturated with CO2.
Instead of withdrawing the AGW hypothesis — since the assumptions on which it is based have failed — the IPCC cites a positive feedback to enhance the CO2 effect. As temperatures rise, even marginally, they say, more water evaporates, which acts to raise temperatures further, causing more water to evaporate and so on, bringing catastrophe upon us. But underplayed by alarmists is the cooling influence of increasing cloud cover that would occur as the atmosphere’s water vapor content rises.
Recent evidence suggests that cloud-induced cooling more than offsets water vapor-induced warming.
The AGW hypothesis is not supported by empirical evidence, either. Measurements taken from Antarctic ice cores show CO2 rise tends to occur centuries after temperature rise, not before it, so it could not possibly have caused the onset of warming.
The hypothesis also fails between 1940 and 1980, when human-produced CO2 rose quickly after World War II yet global temperatures declined; fears of a coming glacial period dominated. Catastrophists blame the increase in sulphates from industry for reducing sunlight, therefore causing cooling. But they ignore the fact that temperatures rose after 1980 with no decrease in sulphate levels.
Today, during a period of rapid CO2 rise from the industrialization of India and China, we have had 16 years with no overall planetary warming.
None of this bothers catastrophists, of course. Ignoring real-world observations, they simply make up science to fit their worldview, programming their computer models to show warming when CO2 rises. To magnify make-believe AGW trends, they even lowered early temperature data to steepen the slope. And so, not surprisingly, even their least sensational climate models forecast more warming than actually occurs.
The IPCC is now putting the finishing touches on their Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the most important part of which — the Working Group I report, “The Physical Science Basis” — will be released in mid-September. We know it will be yet more climate catastrophism, because on December 14, 2012, the second order draft was leaked. It included the assertion that CO2’s “relative contribution has further increased since the 1980s and by far outweighs the contributions from natural drivers.” 
This is only true because they do not properly consider “natural drivers” far more significant than CO2, such as changes in ocean currents and the output of the sun.
Priming the public to continue to uncritically accept the AGW hypothesis is essential if AR5 is to help keep the global warming scare alive. Consequently, we can expect media and government climate propaganda to intensify over the coming months.
Citizens who care about the future of their countries must stop pampering climate catastrophists in 2013. We must take every opportunity to contest alarmism and to help end the most expensive scandal in the history of science.

The Hypocrisy of the Left on Display

Saturday, January 12, 2013

"What's Good for Me Isn't Good for You"

Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

While simultaneously launching effort to disarm the American people
Paul Joseph Watson
January 11, 2013
Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.
“The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected,” reports Yahoo News.
The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16.
The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.
But it’s not the first time that Obama has lauded the notion of responsible Americans using firearms to protect himself and his family while concurrently eviscerating that very same right for the American people.
During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26 yet recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” in order to protect his daughters.
In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times, yet the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school massacres has been dismissed by gun control advocates who want school campuses to remain “gun free zones” where victims are disarmed and shooters are free to carry out their rampage unimpeded.
The hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly work to create victim disarmament yet surround themselves with armed men is rampant amongst the political class.
As we reported last month, despite in the same year calling for “Mr. and Mrs. America” to “turn in” their guns California Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of a draconian bill set to be introduced later this month that would treat gun owners like sex offenders, admitted to carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection after she was threatened by a terrorist group.
Other prominent gun control advocates such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg have also aggressively pushed to disarm Americans while themselves employing armed bodyguards at all times.
Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at New York’s JFK airport back in 2005.
A White House petition created at the end of last month calls for making the White House and all federal buildings gun free zones. “If the government believes gun free zones are a solution for citizens, the same standard should apply to government servants and employees,” states the petition, which currently has over 12,000 signatures.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

For Them But Not For Us Or Our Children

Coming to America

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:
"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up, then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term...

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. 

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hunger for mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. 

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. 

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. 

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. 

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. 

Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. 

The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, over here, if he can get it done.

The UN Small Arms Treaty that Hilary is  negotiating would take away our 2nd Amendment rights.

And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

History Repeated

Guess Who I am...

A Little Gun History

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. 

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. 

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. 

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! 

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. 

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! 

Switzerland issues every household a gun and trains every adult in the household in its use.

Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world.

What a coincidence...


More Evidence That We're Screwed

This time straight from Pravda, Russia’s de facto news organization…

Gone fishin’