JG55

CRIME BECK BLASTS ABC’S MISREPORTING, USES GOOGLE TO TURN TABLE ON REPORTER WHO INDICTED TEA PARTY Posted on July 20, 2012 at 1:39pm by Tiffany Gabbay The mainstream media never seems to miss an opportunity to politicize a tragedy in its rush to paint conservatives in a negative light. In this instance, ABC news irreverently used an unverified report in an attempt to tie the Tea Party to the Aurora, CO shooter. The result was that an innocent man by the same name was fingered as the shooter. (Visit The Blaze’s separate page on the shooting for all the latest news and updates) Responding to ABC’s Brian Ross and his hair-trigger reporting, Glenn Beck said that the media’s job “is not to go out and speculate.†“Their job is to report the news not make the news.†ABC was the “first†to turn this tragedy into a “political potato,†Beck said, and even noted that he wondered in his initial reaction who would be the first to do so. Beck and his crew discussed the level of irresponsibility among journalists and news outlets today and said it is time for irresponsible media to be sued and made an example of. Even the Huffington Post is blasting ABC for its reporting, which speaks volumes about just how unprofessional the news outlet’s conduct is. Beck asked what good misinformation does for anyone. “It does none.†But Beck and his radio team wasn’t done there. They also decided to point out the absurdity of Ross’s actions by doing some Googling and finding crimes in which someone named “Brian Ross†was mentioned. It wasn’t hard, and it made for a revealing segment: This story has been updated with additional information. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/beck-blasts-abcs-misreporting-on-co-shooter-media-should-be-sued-and-made-an-example-of/

July 19, 2012 Surviving Obama By William L. Gensert Barack Obama is the worst thing to happen to America in my lifetime. Yet he lacks the work ethic and intellectual rigor necessary to destroy us -- despite actions which are purposely malevolent or moronically unintentional. He has forced his will upon us through: Legislative chicanery -- the abomination of ObamaCare. Policy excess -- Dodd-Frank financial reform, which reforms nothing but makes it impossible for business to borrow and citizens to get mortgages. Crony capitalism -- the green energy roach motel, where our money goes in, but nothing ever comes out, except for Obama campaign bundlers, with bundles for his campaign. Executive orders and regulatory fiat -- the war on fossil fuels and small business. Disastrous policy preferences -- resulting in the destruction of the economy, lower employment, decreasing freedom, and a tenuous, less prosperous future for our children. After three and a half years of the dismal, abysmal slow-motion implosion, the ship of state is certainly damaged and debased. Yet rumors of our demise are premature. Destruction of the nation is still beyond his reach -- and it always will be. I'm not sure that Obama's intent has been to destroy America -- more likely, he wants to remake the country in his own image, ignorant that who he is is not what we aspire to be. Yet even if his intentions were indeed bad, as a faux great man (or is it a great faux man), accomplishing this task is simply not within the scope of Obama's "brilliance." You see, America is blessed. It's not just our natural resources. By some estimates, our nation has more fossil fuel reserves than the rest of the world combined. If we chose to do so, we could exploit these blessings and never, ever take another drop of oil from our enemies. Remove the monopolistic power of oil from terrorist nations, and their particular tyrannies will crumble, allowing peace to thrive. With the royalties alone, America could eliminate deficits and pay off the national debt, while the lower prices of gasoline and electricity would result in an economic bonanza for the nation. To paraphrase Nietzsche, nothing cures the ills of a nation like prosperity. Declining energy costs as a component of production will again make American products competitive worldwide, while increasing employment and salaries here at home. American energy has the power to fuel the future of the nation, making this century an American century, much like the last one. For the demagogue within, cutting the price of gasoline and electricity in half would do more to even out the disparity in incomes than any tax increase on the 1%, dreamt of in Barack Obama's philosophy. The high energy prices created by Barack Obama's policies have engendered a world where the poor cannot afford to keep warm or own a car, relegating them to nothing more than a sad existence in walking distance from where they are. Our formidable economic system alone does not make us unbeatable, despite the fact that since its inception, American capitalism has led the world in prosperity and economic mobility. In the history of humanity, where else has it ever been possible for a poor man to become rich, a rich man to become richer, and a regular man to become special -- or even for a fatherless child to make his way from Hawaii, to Indonesia, to Chicago, and ultimately to the White House? Opportunity is what capitalism has given every man, woman, and child in America. Sure, there are no guarantees, and the system is mocked as trickle-down prosperity, but there is no denying the prosperity. Look around: we live in a society where the poor are now fatter than the rich. What have we received from three and a half years of Barack Obama's brand of bitterness and envy -- trickle-up poverty? It is "fairer," certainly, when everyone is poor, but is this what we aspire to? Is this what any human being aspires to? If given a choice between a "fair" system, with everyone equal but poor, and one where success is attainable but not guaranteed, most people would choose the potential for prosperity over a life of poverty, even if the impoverishment in the latter case were not as severe as it might be. It is not our form of government, either. The United States is humanity's most successful experiment in representative governance, enumerated powers, and checks and balances, as well as individual liberty and free speech. Yet coming to America from the deepest, darkest disaster of a place this brutal world has to offer, and wanting to be an American, and making the effort to be an American affords the possibility of actually becoming an American. The opportunity is not there -- it is here, and it and always has been. Why else would people storm our borders to get in? What other nation or civilization has ever presented that same prospect to the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses? Michelle may have never been proud of America before the ascendance of Barack, but I've always been proud -- damn proud. And there are millions like me, and we are tired of her and her race-baiting, incompetent husband. America is strong and transcendent because of all these things together -- our people, God's great blessing of location and resources, our form of government and economy, our freedoms, our rights, and our pride. We are a proud nation, and Mr. President, "you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Barack Obama is at best an aberration, a bump in the road, because in the end he is nothing more than a mix of hubris and narcissism. He pales in comparison to the greatness of America and who we are as a people. The dream our nation represents has drawn people the world over, willing to sacrifice everything to give their children the possibility of being an American. America never needed in the first place, and we certainly never needed Barack Obama. This is precisely why he cannot destroy us, despite his best efforts or missteps; we have too much going for us. After all, where else could a man who never actually held a real job, who talks of saving humanity in general while never having ever saved anyone in particular, whose life is so shrouded in mystery as to be a work of fiction -- where else could this man become president?The answer is nowhere else. America will survive, and Barack Obama will fade into history as just another nobody who thought all this was about him. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/surviving_obama.html#ixzz2140cmzzm

If you are asking yourself, What's going on ? this makes no sense ! This could be the explanation>> http://www.theblaze....ti-colonialism/ http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=22985619&topic_id=24584158

Sen. Lamar Alexander attacks local newspaper for criticizing his vote for EPA rules Published: 1:33 PM 07/13/2012 By Matthew Boyle Bio | Archive | Email Matthew Boyle Follow Matthew Boyle Get Matthew Boyle Feed Photo: AP Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander is attacking a newspaper in his state for criticizing his vote to help President Barack Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency implement what the paper considers an economically devastating regulation. On June 20 Alexander was one of five GOP senators who voted to allow the EPA to implement Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology regulations, which will force coal energy plants to install giant scrubber-like materials inside smokestacks to capture and cleanse carbon particles. The upgrade cost could fall on company employees and coal miners in the form of layoffs, as well as on businesses that might have to pay more for energy. Business leaders – including Obama’s own Small Business Administration – have pointed out how this regulation, contrary to EPA estimates, will be economically disastrous. In a lengthy letter to EPA Director Lisa Jackson last summer, Obama’s Small Business Administration’s advocacy office wrote that the EPA “may have significantly understated†the economic “burden this rulemaking would impose on small entities.†The other four Republican senators who voted in favor of the regulations were Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Susan Collins of Maine. Had those Republicans voted the other way – in favor of a resolution Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe sponsored that would have blocked EPA implementation of the MACT regulations – the regulations would have been blocked. That’s because five Democrats – Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Warner of Virginia and Jim Webb of Virginia – voted with the majority of Republicans on the measure. Alexander’s vote prompted a local newspaper in Tennessee – the Chattanooga Times Free Press – to look into the situation. The paper found that shortly after Alexander’s vote in favor of the EPA regulation, a liberal environmentalist organization – the Environmental Defense Fund – launched a $200,000 ad campaign to thank Alexander for his vote. After making the discovery, the Times Free Press ran an editorial on July 9 titled “Lamar sells out,†in which the paper lays out the economic impact of the regulation and how Alexander is getting $200,000 worth of friendly ads from a liberal group for voting in favor of it. “How much is a vote worth?†the piece leads off. “Tennesseans now know the answer since Sen. Lamar Alexander traded his vote in defense of the wrongheaded, ridiculous Utility MACT regulation in return for $200,000 in ads courtesy of an alarmist environmental outfit.†That editorial didn’t sit well with Alexander: He sent in a letter responding to it, accusing the paper of printing inaccuracies aimed at smearing him and demanded a retraction. “Never would I have imagined that the first newspaper to accuse me of a felony would be the Free Press, which has a distinguished reputation for high standards and fairness,†Alexander wrote. “Your editorial charges that I ‘traded’ my clean air vote in return for $200,000 in television ads. If you have evidence, let’s have it. If not, the honorable thing to do is retract it. Your charge is harmful, malicious and untrue.†“The truth: When the U.S. Senate voted on clean air on June 20, the only ads running that I knew about were attacking me as ‘anti-coal,’†Alexander added. “Later, two groups ran ads thanking me for supporting clean air. One of these was a conservative group, one an environmental group. I did not coordinate with any of these groups on their ads. Your editorial not only is untrue. It is inaccurate, reckless and misleading.†In response to Alexander’s letter, the Times Free Press fired back again, sticking to its guns. The paper accused Alexander of trying to silence it. “No one likes to receive criticism for choices they make,†said a new editorial that ran alongside Alexander’s letter on Thursday. “Still, this page was saddened and disappointed to receive the letter – printed elsewhere on this page – that you authored in an attempt to silence criticism of you.†Follow Matthew on Twitter Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz20avvLVLo

LMAOFF!!! LOL

Action starts at 40 seconds in .. It's Startling to see a bull shark appear from nowhere and take the fish.. LOL

D-Day for Gun Control Written By : Dick Morris Without much fanfare and as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N. The Treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights. The ATT is nominally to stop international arms sales to gangs, criminals, and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT’s true intent: to force gun control on the United States. Secretary Clinton will doubtlessly succeed in inserting language into the treaty belying this intent and asserting that the treaty in no way is to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty. The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will assure that “parties [to the treaty] small take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within its territories…to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users.†The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this requirement and will move to assure that they do, indeed, take “all necessary measures.†This requirement will inexorably lead to gun registration, restrictions on ownership, and, eventually, even outright bans on firearms. Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: “After the Treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.†Bolton explains that “the Administration knows that it cannot obtain this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use an international agreement to get domestically what they couldn’t get otherwise.†The Treaty makes no sense otherwise except as a circuitous vehicle to achieve gun control in the U.S. The vast majority of all small arms and light arms exports (the nominal focus of the Treaty) are from sales by the governments of the U.S., Russia, China, Germany and Israel. Individual or corporate arms trafficking is a distinct minority. But it is to absorb the brunt of the Treaty’s regulations. Insofar as the Treaty restricts governmental action, it bars governments from arming “illicit†groups in other nations. This provision could well be interpreted to ban U.S. arms sales to Iranian or Syrian dissidents. It could even be used by China to stop us from selling arms to Taiwan since the U.N. does not recognize Taiwan as a nation but rather an entity occupying territory that should belong to China. And let’s not forget how well the United States has done in reducing murders and other crimes despite the absence of comprehensive gun controls and bans. In 1993, there were 24,350 homicides in the U.S. Last year, there were 13,576 (despite a growth of sixty million in the population). Only 9,000 of these murders involved a firearm. (Less than one-third of the highway deaths each year in the U.S.) Obama has left gun control off his legislative agenda so far. Now his strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it. And bear in mind that under the Supremacy Clause of our constitution, we would be obliged to enforce the ATT despite the Second Amendment. International treaties have the force of constitutional law in the U.S. If it is ratified at the lame duck session of the Senate this year, then nothing can ever change it. Goodbye Second Amendment. Right now, we need 34 courageous Republican Senators to stop up and demand that Hillary not sign the Treaty and indicate their intention to vote against its ratification if it is submitted. Only such an action can stop this treachery in its tracks.

If you get a chance read the book by Gary Taubes "Why We Get Fat " it's a eye opener and easy to read. Amazon has them used for about $2. No weird smell problems here. Atkins type diets have been proscribed for centuries...

LMAOFF I might be willing to pay to see that !!

Couple of notes that I have learned this time around. Like any diet it has to become a life style change. Once the goal is reached you can adjust your intake of carbs to maintain the results which means you may be able to add some carbs in reasonable proportions back but still maintain weight. Also I have found plenty of low carb recipes on the internet that help with variety of food tastes. Read Gary Taubes book "On why we get fat" the cholesterol question may not be as cut and dry as presented by the medical community. Exercise is not required for weight loss but is required for overall good health. I am committed to the lifestyle change and have found the i don't miss the bread, pasta and other food as much as I thought. I am a chocolate and Ice cream lover, I have found low carb recipes that give me the taste without the carbs so I am happy.

I did the same thing as below all Atkins all the time, Weight came off without exercise, the new evidence suggests that Atkins had it right and that Protein diets were being used in France and England centuries ago to lose weight. Below is not me. Just another success story... How I Lost 50 Pounds in 6 Months Without Exercising And 10 Inches off my waist. by Duane Lester Bio July 6, 2012 - 7:00 am Here I am around 295 pounds. 299 I looked at the number again. I was one pound away from 300. Something had to change. I had tried to use the gym at work, but with a 12 hour day and a 4 am alarm, rising an hour early to workout wasn’t happening. Warm beds are difficult to leave at three in the morning. So I brought workout clothes with me in order to hit the gym after work. Instead, I convinced myself my time was better used behind the keyboard at home than in the gym. At the end of the day, I just went home without a second thought. But when I looked at the scale, standing on the edge of 300 pounds, I knew I was in real danger. Heart attacks were common in my family history. So was Diabetes. It wasn’t long after that I heard this episode of EconTalk. Russ Roberts was talking with Gary Taubes, author of Good Calories, Bad Calories. Taubes is also the author of Why We Get Fat, a book Glenn Reynolds promotes on Instapundit. I expected a good interview, but this was an eye-opener. It would change my life. For decades, the accepted science claimed diets lower in fat and higher in carbohydrates were healthier. When Robert Atkins published his Diet Revolution in 1972, he received condemnation. The American Medical Association even called it a “bizarre regimen.†Because of that, any research into Atkins’ claims was considered in “the realm of unscientific fantasy.†What blew my mind was when Taubes stated little scientific evidence existed that diets high in fat contributed to heart disease, obesity or Type 2 diabetes. The push for a diet low in fat for origins more in politics than science. Gary Taubes In his 2002 article in the New York Times, “What If It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie,†Taubes wrote, It was Ancel Keys, paradoxically, who introduced the low-fat-is-good-health dogma in the 50′s with his theory that dietary fat raises cholesterol levels and gives you heart disease. Over the next two decades, however, the scientific evidence supporting this theory remained stubbornly ambiguous. The case was eventually settled not by new science but by politics. It began in January 1977, when a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its â€Dietary Goals for the United States,†advising that Americans significantly curb their fat intake to abate an epidemic of â€killer diseases†supposedly sweeping the country. It peaked in late 1984, when the National Institutes of Health officially recommended that all Americans over the age of 2 eat less fat. By that time, fat had become â€this greasy killer†in the memorable words of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the model American breakfast of eggs and bacon was well on its way to becoming a bowl of Special K with low-fat milk, a glass of orange juice and toast, hold the butter — a dubious feast of refined carbohydrates. In the intervening years, the N.I.H. spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating fat and getting heart disease and, despite what we might think, it failed. Five major studies revealed no such link. A sixth, however, costing well over $100 million alone, concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith. Basil Rifkind, who oversaw the relevant trials for the N.I.H., described their logic this way: they had failed to demonstrate at great expense that eating less fat had any health benefits. But if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same. â€It’s an imperfect world,†Rifkind told me. â€The data that would be definitive is ungettable, so you do your best with what is available.†Some of the best scientists disagreed with this low-fat logic, suggesting that good science was incompatible with such leaps of faith, but they were effectively ignored. Taubes noted a paradigm shift in nutrition science. Today more scientific evidence showed diets with enriched carbohydrates and refined sugars caused heart disease, obseity and Type 2 diabetes. As I listened to this, I thought about that scale. I thought about my mother and father, both of whom have heart disease. I thought about my father and my brother, both of whom have Type 2 Diabetes. I pulled out my ear buds and turned to my wife: “I’m going back on the protein diet.†This was not my first rodeo with a low-carb, high protein diet, so I understood my wife’s skepticism. More than once I had started a “diet†only to grab a Mountain Dew and a couple honeybuns at a gas station on the way to work. However, this time I told her this wasn’t a diet. It was a change in my eating habits. I think my mindset made all the difference. To most, a diet is something temporary, a way of doing things until a goal is met. I explained I wasn’t changing the way I ate because of a desire to lose weight. I was changing because I didn’t want to die clutching my chest. I didn’t want to flick a syringe every day because I needed to take insulin. I was making the change because I wanted to live a longer and healthier life. To me this wasn’t temporary. It was how I needed to eat to survive. She got it. That was mid December. I haven’t had refined sugars or enriched carbohydrates since. Instead, every meal consists of a minimum of 40 grams of proteins and a maximum of 10 grams of carbohydrates. This is based on a formula from the book Protein Power. I had implemented the 40-10 rule before and had some success, but since my mindset was that it was a temporary way of eating, I gained the weight back and then some. This time, I didn’t see it that way. And believe it or not, it isn’t that hard to stay on the plan. To give you an idea of what a meal is like under these guidelines, the normal breakfast for me is six eggs, either scrambled or fried. Each egg has six proteins and one carb. That’s close enough to forty to me. Also, sometimes I’d get some sausage or bacon with the eggs, so I know I was reaching my protein level goal while limiting my carb intake. For lunch, I might have two quarter pound hamburger patties, each with a slice of cheese, some pickles and mustard. Ketchup was fine too, if you minimize the amount. In our freezer, three deer waited for me from the previous hunting season. Those, along with a steady stream of chicken and pork, kept me in a fairly constant state of ketosis, which is the goal. Ketosis: merely means that our bodies are using fat for energy. Ketones (also called ketone bodies) are molecules generated during fat metabolism, whether from the fat in the guacamole you just ate or fat you were carrying around your middle. When our bodies are breaking down fat for energy, most of the it gets converted more or less directly to ATP. When people eat less carbohydrate, their bodies turn to fat for energy, so it makes sense that more ketones are generated. A couple weeks later, my younger brother was home for Christmas. When I refused to eat something high in carbs, he looked at me and said, “r keto?†“Yeah,†I replied. I recognized the term “keto,†but the “r†part confused me. “Wait, what,†I said. “r/keto. On Reddit.†The website Reddit offers content threads based on specific topics. These are called “sub-Reddits.†My brother said one of the sub-Reddits is called r/keto and he used it to change his eating habits. In the sidebar are must-read links for beginners. While I had read Protein Power years earlier, they offered information on r/keto I had either forgotten or never learned. For example, you are encouraged to use heavy cream in your coffee because of its high fat content: I just discovered heavy whipping cream. It goes perfect in coffee, it has less then 1g carbs per oz, and you won’t need more then an ounce for a cup of coffee. It’s also good if you want something milky, you can do a 50/50 whipping cream and water mix, and it tastes really good. I learned you want more fat because it makes the digestive process slower, which results in a decreased desire to snack between meals. r/Keto users post all kind of tips, recipes and their NSVs (non-scale victories) motivated me to look for successes outside of my routine visits to the scale. I remember one morning I walked into work and one of my peers said, “Have you lost weight?†“Yeah,†I answered. “About 30 pounds. Thanks for noticing.†It was my first NSV and it felt pretty good. But that felt nowhere near as good as the day I pulled a pair of size 36 khakis out of my closet. I hadn’t worn them in years. When I first started, I wore size 44 pants. I held those khakis in front of me. I figured if I was going to get them on, I’d have to lay down on the bed to fasten them, but even that would be a huge NSV. I put one leg in. Then the other. Pulled them up. They fastened. “Sara! Come here!†I had to share this with somebody. I made the change a little over six months ago and I recently dropped below 240 pounds for the first time in a decade. Wii Fit Plus said I’m no longer “obese,†just “overweight.†My size 36 jeans are already loose and friends I saw recently didn’t recognize me at first because they only knew the 291 pound me. I didn’t make exercise a part of my life. I did visit the gym twice, both times for 30 minutes and I spent more time focused on getting out of there than I did on getting a good workout. I didn’t lose the weight because of exercise. I lost it because I kept myself in a constant state of ketosis. In the past six months, there have been times where I wanted to have something sweet. One time in particular was in an airport. I wanted a coffee and the closest place was Cinnabon. As I stood in line, I started at these: That was the closest I ever came to cheating. My “diet†consists of eggs, bacon, cheeseburgers and steaks. Every now and then, I’ll throw some greens in the mix, as you should. Believe it or not, when bacon is considered a food group, that’s an enjoyable diet! Plus, the impact it had on my life motivated me to keep doing it. When my parents saw the change my way of eating had they asked for explanations. I revealed the change and printed out everything on the r/Keto sidebar for them. Since they made the change my Dad hasn’t had to take any insulin. He has more energy. He and my mom have both lost weight. My brother has had similar success. I have yet to reach my target weight, but in the past six months, I have lost 50 pounds and dropped 10 inches off my waist, without becoming a gym rat. If a guy who lived on Mountain Dew and honey buns can make this change, why can’t you?

So TRUE

Ditto that.. My only real gripe in hindsight was why He let the other side mercilessly attack him personally and for the war. They called him everything but a son of God and accused him and the military of everything. The only answer I have ever heard given for not responding to these attacks was that he thought they were below the dignity of the office. Maybe so... but look what it got us... No matter what you say that non response got us a the present disaster...... So yes it's his fault .... for not fighting back ....My 2 cents...

well at least a good decent man ....

No matter how mad he ,made me.... \

Worth Watching http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000100633&play=1

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=22661309&topic_id=24584158

Actually alot of this is Bush's fault. If he had defended himself back when the dems were using him for a punching bag. We might not of been stuck with this turkey... He lost the congress which in turn gave us ObamaCare and because he let the press and the dems just abuse the #### out of him as the worse President ever we got Hope and Change.

This ruling makes it more than likely Obama will be re-elected in November which will be a a very sad day for America.

Whose the idiot? It's all over the internet.....

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=22411831&topic_id=24584158#/copy

Looks like Andrea Mitchell and her counterparts got caught Cheating . You would think they would of learned by now that lying gets fraud reporting gets caught in the internet age. Makes you wonder how much more have they lied about before the internet.. SShhh what stupidity and dishonesty !!!! http://web.gbtv.com/...=24584158#/copy