You are here: Home / Archives for Susan Stamper Brown

Gangsta’ Government And The GOP

March 5, 2013 by 2 Comments

GOP SC Gangsta Government and the GOP

America’s founding fathers were beholden to the odd notion that the best prevention against a tyrannical leader or mob rule was the simple yet effective system of checks and balances. Presently, a nominal Republican majority in the House of Representatives is the only thing keeping American capitalism from a nosedive into collectivism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, or Maoism. (Feel free to choose your noun.)

I write “odd notion” because since taking office, Obama and Team Pelosi-Reid have effectively used the U.S. Constitution for White House toilet paper. They consistently write checks that can’t be cashed and operate on budgets that cannot be balanced. Not exactly what the founders had in mind. Need a more specific example? All one needs to do is remember the spending spree Democrats went on when they were in control during 2009-2010, leading to the Obamacare fight that Republicans and a majority of Americans went on to lose.

As a result, the electorate said “yes” to checks and balances when it said “no more” to Democrats-Gone-Wild, awarding Republicans the House majority during the 2010 midterm elections (and again in 2012). It’s been a miserable two years for debt-addicted Democrats. Addiction is the right word to be applied here. Addicts (insert Democrats) lose control of their sensibilities, never attaining satisfaction because they always need more.

To heck with the electorate’s wishes and checks and balances; many of these archetypal addicts have convinced themselves any way but their way is downright immoral. According to the Washington Post on March 2, President Obama told reporters he can’t “force Congress to do the right thing” regarding the sequester he originally initiated. Right thing? Seems to me Congress is doing the right thing when they say no to what they believe is the wrong thing for those they represent. Right… err…correct?

Not on your life — if the goal is to eliminate all things traditionally American. And if that’s the case, brace yourself for more Chicago-style gangsta’ politics to regain control of the House of Representatives in 2014. That’s why we will continue to hear incessant rants flowing from Obama’s mouth articulating a dishonest portrayal of the “checks” (Republicans) placed to keep him in balance.

We also see the creepy metamorphosis of Obama’s “Organizing for America” into “Organizing for Action” (OFA), which, according to The Weekly Standard, exploits “a loophole in campaign law and ethics regulations” by claiming it is an ostensibly nonpolitical “social welfare group.” Considering some of the emails they’ve sent and I’ve received, they’re about as nonpolitical as the 501c(3) organization Media Matters, of which Fox News claims is bias to Democrats and “maintains a close working relationship with the Obama White House.”

OFA is pimping out the POTUS at $500,000 a pop. Regardless of legality, OFA is raising “pay to play” to a whole new level. “You can buy four audiences per year with President Obama,” according to the Washington Examiner. And $500,000 is for what? A means to an end, I guess.

Those beholden to common sense can glance beyond the peripheral to see what’s undoubtedly happening. Had public welfare, by way of job creation or relief from exorbitant food and gas prices, been a priority, the momentum would be moving in the other direction five years in. Instead, Obama is bent on destroying the one thing, the GOP, that is keeping him from his dream of radical change.

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

There Once Was A Place Called America…

February 26, 2013 by 12 Comments

constitution 2 SC There Once Was a Place Called America...

“There once was a place called America,” our children’s children will one day write, “a bright and shining city on a hill, divinely placed by God to serve as a beacon of hope to the entire world. A land filled with generous-hearted souls who showered the needy the world over with their abundant blessings.”

You see, America was founded by a handful of God-fearing patriots who didn’t always agree but believed certain things like life, liberty, and the personal pursuit of happiness were worth dying for. And to ensure their ideas would survive the ages, they crafted one of the most revered documents ever put to paper, the United States Constitution.

It wasn’t long before this exceptional nation became the envy of those who thirsted for freedom and the enemy of those who despised it. Some loathed America to the point of making threats while others declared war. But a certain few understood defeat was increasingly less likely and instead devised a plan to take down America from within, one small step at a time.

The leader of the former Soviet Union Communist Party, Nikita Khrushchev promised his beloved Communism would bury the capitalistic West without declaring war. The plan was outlined in a fascinating book called “The Naked Communist,” written in 1958 by a man named Cleon Skousen who accurately warned Americans of troubles to come unless things changed.

Skousen laid out the dangers Americans faced, point by point, almost as a Communist roadmap to America’s demise: Progressives captured the Democratic Party (goal number 15); civil rights actions were taken in courts to “weaken basic American institutions” (16); the educational system was infiltrated (17); rioting like the Occupy movement was encouraged (19); the press was infiltrated (20); domination of the big screen and television waves (21); cultural standards of morality were broken down (25); homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity were presented as “normal” (26); churches were infiltrated by those promoting social justice (27); and prayer in schools was eliminated (28). Moreover, the Constitution and founding fathers were discredited (29 & 30) and American culture belittled by those promoting “cultural sensitivity training” seminars similar to one recently uncovered by a video showing employees pounding on tables while chanting anti-American rants led by a man representing the organization, Souder, Betances, and Associate, reaping more than $3.3 million taxpayer funds according to USASpending.gov.

Skousen may have been a prophet, seeing that most of his predictions came to pass. Too clever to be labeled Communists, they chose the name “Progressive” and in the name of change set out to dismantle the Constitution, piece by piece. Progress was slow but steady, that is until their savior, Barack Obama, arrived.

And no one was outraged because the Communist mission was complete. As former KGB agent Yuri Besmenov so eloquently described, without war or bloodshed, America and her people were demoralized, no longer having the reasoning ability to distinguish right from wrong, or to comprehend the immensity of the treasure they’d buried just outside the gates of Hell.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

So, Who Really Does Care?

February 20, 2013 by 4 Comments

Obamacare In The Moon SC So, Who Really Does Care?

If there’s one thing I’ve learned, there’s no shortage of well-meaning people who want the world to be a better place. But, without the willingness to roll up your sleeves and be part of the solution, you run the risk of making the situation worse.

Obamacare is a good example. Its European-style socialized healthcare system will fail the American people just like Britain’s National Healthcare System (NHS) has failed many of its citizens. When we allow the government in the name of compassion to do for us what we should do for ourselves, individuals become numbers, treatments become quotas, and lack of funding sparks rationing.

I learned a similar, albeit much smaller, lesson recently while adopting a sweet little dog from a rescue organization, which I soon found has more compassion than capability. As is typical with many online advertisements, the dog shown on their website was nothing like the sickly, tartar-mouthed, urine-drenched dog I picked up. As I write, my pup rests in my lap, just happy to have a home. Her first 24-hours included several baths, a vet visit, administering meds, and lots and lots of hugs in between. Although I’ve had to give up time and money, there is peace in my heart that only comes from personal sacrifice.

Arguably, liberals are far more well-known for their love of animals, but that same affection doesn’t extend to those of us walking on two legs. Most liberals actually believe the ill-equipped and incapable federal government is better suited to meet our needs. In Britain, however, some patients are in worse shape than my dog.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, a 2010 report found many “NHS patients were left unattended ‘for unacceptable amounts of time’ in urine-and feces-soaked beds.” The NHS system is in a death spiral. Costs are on the rise; and funds that should be used for improving healthcare are reserved for negligence claims, which rose more than 30 percent from 2010 to 2011, according to the UK Telegraph. And there’s no reason to believe Obamacare will be any better.

It’s easy to say you care when you see a need, but caring is only half the answer. There must be individual action tied to a bleeding heart. The question is: Do you care enough to do something about it yourself?

Awhile back, author Arthur Brooks wrote an unbiased book titled “Who Really Cares,” based on sound research finding conservatives to be 30 percent more generous than liberals; and a Google study a few years ago found conservatives were twice as charitable as liberals. Of course, there’s an exception to every rule; so if we searched long enough, we’d find a few tightwad conservatives and a charitable liberal or two.

To be fair, liberals do give liberally, especially with other people’s time and money. Otherwise, the closest many would come to a homeless or hungry person is if they accidentally hit one with their government-subsidized Chevy Volt while texting on their federally-funded Obamaphone.

Statistics prove liberal programs like the war on poverty do much to line the pockets of bureaucratic administrators but do little to help those most in need. Don’t believe me? Then take a walk around the White House after dark to watch the dumpster diving taking place near the First Family’s organic garden. A few years back, in D.C., my husband and I bought books of McDonald’s gift certificates and spent Christmas Eve walking in the vicinity of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue passing them out to homeless people. We figured we could get away with giving out greasy hamburger gift certificates to the Obama’s next-door neighbors while they were off eating healthy stuff on Hawaiian holiday.

As much as this is going to upset liberals, the only solution to poverty, homelessness, and all other social ills affecting this country is charity motivated by courage and conviction, not penalty of law. We each have a responsibility to put feet to Jesus’ words about caring for the least among us.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Obama’s Gone Jack Bauer On Us

February 12, 2013 by 6 Comments

Jack Bauer SC Obamas Gone Jack Bauer on us

The Obama administration seems to have gone Jack Bauer on us, which would be okay if we were just talking about non-American enemy combatants on some far-flung battlefield.

It seems the administration danced its way around case law and the Constitution in an attempt to justify the assassination of three American citizens it refuses to acknowledge it had any part of, post execution. In September 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki, the mastermind behind the failed December 25, 2010 airplane BVD bombing, and his cohort, Samir Khan were killed. Two weeks later, in a separate drone attack, the 16-year-old son of al-Awlaki (a Denver native) followed his father’s fate.

According to the Washington Post, “a recently leaked ‘white paper’ from the Justice Department…permits the government to kill its citizens in secret while refusing to acknowledge, even after the fact, that it had done so.”

No matter how evil someone is, it is unnerving that any president wouldn’t hesitate to blatantly disregard an American citizen’s constitutional right to a trial and then make the decision to become prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner of that same citizen — and not man-up afterward.

To be clear, the use of drones on the modern battlefield has proven effective; but great ideas in the wrong hands can sour quickly.

In the recently crafted white paper, the administration makes a weak argument to justify its seeming extrajudicial power grab by suggesting “the use of lethal force” against an American citizen is equivalent to George W. Bush’s detention of foreign enemy combatants.

It seems like only yesterday a then-junior senator from Illinois repetitively repudiated Bush’s actions that included the capture, detention, and questioning of non-American enemy combatants, and a military-style christening of a few. Many say Bush’s actions led to information regarding Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts and eventual elimination.

What a difference a little (or a lot of) power makes. There’s a new sheriff in town and, suddenly, the North Star we Americans call the Constitution is no longer the effective navigational tool it once was. Now it’s okay to assassinate citizens and grant due process to non-citizens.

After Obama’s election, his administration became obsessed with lavishing constitutional rights on Guantanamo Bay terrorists and tried to move them to New York City where they’d be granted due process. Back in August 2012, Attorney General Holder told Bloomberg he still regrets the “missed opportunity.”

To complicate things, the white paper extends the battlefield to any foreign country. Page 7 suggests “clear evidence” — that a specific act will occur in the near future — is not required. Page 11 supports killing those simply in the scheming stage, leaving no room for a change of heart. They are guilty because they thought about it. To be fair, the paper does identify potential targets as high level leaders; and it also lists “capture” as an option but contradicts itself considering what supposedly happened to the 16-year old Denver resident. Guilty by association?

Throughout the 16-page document, the white paper intermittently leaves out the word “al-Qaida,” and uses the term “terrorist groups” (or variants thereof), which would be of no concern were we dealing with a more transparent and less paranoid administration. Lest we forget, they put out the “Right-wing extremists” watch list in 2009 secretly informing police forces to look out for those who love God, celebrate freedom, adhere to wholesome values, and cherish the Constitution.

What one generation does in moderation the next does in excess; the same goes for presidents. Baby steps. As simplistic as it is, two wrongs will never make something right. We are now witnessing liberals using Bush’s so-called extra-judicial activities as case law to justify stepping deeper into the darkness in support of third world-like capital punishment without trial. So what might this president, or his successor, try next?

Photo credit: Aubele (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Yes, Progressives, God Made Farmers

February 6, 2013 by 10 Comments

Farm SC Yes, Progressives, God Made Farmers

What was it about the Dodge commercial, “God Made a Farmer,” that stirred the souls of so many Americans during the Super Bowl? Maybe it was the imagery of the dirt and grit of real America, not the white-washed concrete meccas many of us call home. Maybe for just a moment, we were unplugged from our instant and superficial world and taken back to a time when we were captivated by God’s creation, not what our friends were doing on Facebook. Or maybe it was just the quintessential sound of the late American icon Paul Harvey, whose voice wraps around you like a warm blanket on a cold day. His message was one you could expect for a happy ending, even at a time when happy endings weren’t en vogue.

Or maybe it was the unvarnished idea of the farmer, which is so often identified with America. It is the image of a tough life, one marked by hard work and honest living. A time when men were men, and that was okay. A time when workdays didn’t end until the work was done.

When was the last time anyone gave a second thought as to where their groceries came from? Or, even cared? I haven’t in a long time, at least not until this commercial aired. When I need food, I drive to the nearest grocery store and buy some and become irritated when the date on the milk isn’t as new as I’d like it to be. I’ve never had to provide milk for myself; and I’ll bet farmers feel a certain sense of pride when the shelves are full, and dates are fresh.

But why should we care? Because besides feeding us, American farms feed the world. According to the American Farm Bureau in 2010, one third of the farms in the U.S. exported upwards of “$115 billion worth of American agricultural products.” All this from more than two million farms across the country. Not too shabby, until you consider that in 1935, there were nearly seven million farms. And it’s getting worse.

Farming, like manufacturing, has begun a slow death in this country, sped along by a lazy younger workforce, many of which would rather stare at (as my niece so describes) “glowing rectangular objects” (smart phones) than produce something with soiled hands. According to the EPA, around 40 percent of farmers are 55 years old or older. And according to the 2007 USDA Census of Agriculture, farmers under the age of 45 dropped 21 percent in five years.

The EPA report stated, “The graying of the farm population has led to concerns about the long-term health of family farms as an American institution”; therefore, the direct attack on family farms in 2012 by the Progressive-leaning Obama administration should have come as no surprise to anyone. After massive outcry, the DOL dropped its oppressive imperative banning children from working on their parents’ farms.

In their quest to upend all that makes this country great, Progressives have hijacked the word “progressive” in hopes to paint buttercream icing over the cow dung they call ideology. And many of us have theoretically ingested it, without thought, and have no idea why our stomachs hurt and souls feel empty. It came as no surprise liberals attacked the Paul Harvey Super Bowl commercial. The Atlantic called it “racist,” The LA Times called it “retro,” and some bloggers deemed it “religious.”

All is not lost though because a real and present war still wages for the heart and soul of America. On one side, there are those who would have us wholeheartedly embrace hedonism, self-worship, and bowing down to the god of government. And on the other side, there are those who provide for the needs of the others and still find time to quietly celebrate God, family, country, sacrifice, and the virtues of hard work and self-reliance.

Photo credit: iluvcocacola (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With:

All The Presidents’ Women

January 30, 2013 by 2 Comments

War on Women SC All the Presidents Women

At least Romney had binders. Binders full of qualified women to fill cabinet positions, that is. Democrats mercilessly pounded Romney for the binders comment he made during the 2012 presidential campaign, but I’ll bet the Obama campaign now wishes Romney had passed the binders on to Obama since it seems he’s having a hard time picking women to fill his second term cabinet positions.

The recently released official White House photo of a predominately pale-faced and testosterone-filled cabinet (which I have no problem with) is enough to cause any misinformed voter into wondering what has become of the so-called party of women.

To be fair, women fill about half the White House staff positions; but the highest-level cabinet positions are currently extremely male and predominantly white. This seems a bit odd, considering the media narrative over the past 50 years has painted Republicans as the party of rich white men. But that’s not the case, if you look at the actual highest-level cabinet positions women were appointed to since Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR).

FDR appointed Frances Perkins as the first female cabinet member in 1933. Democrat presidential successors Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson appointed zero.

Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Oveta Culp Hobby as the first secretary of the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; and Republican president Richard M. Nixon, zero.

At that point in history, after four Democrat and two Republican presidents, two female cabinet members were appointed, one per party.

Republican president Gerald Ford appointed Carla Anderson Hills as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and then Democrat president Jimmy Carter appointed Shirley Ann Mount Hufstedler as Secretary of Education, Patricia Roberts Harris as Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, and Juanita Morris Kreps as Commerce Secretary. The score: Democrats 4 and Republicans 2.

Republican Ronald Reagan appointed Margaret Heckler as HHS Secretary, Ann McLaughlin Korologos as Secretary of Labor, and Elizabeth Dole as Transportation Secretary. Reagan’s successor, Republican president George H.W. Bush, appointed Elizabeth Dole as Labor Secretary, Lynn Morley Martin as his second Labor Secretary, and Barbara Hackman Franklin as Secretary of Commerce. Democrats: 4, and Republicans: 8.

Democrat president Bill Clinton, who thoroughly enjoyed women in the White House, only appointed five women to his cabinet during both terms. Clinton appointed Hazel Reid O’Leary as Energy Secretary, Alexis Margaret Herman as Labor Secretary, Madeleine Albright as Secretary of State, Janet Reno as Attorney General, and Donna Shalala as HHS Secretary. Democrats: 9.

And then there was George W. Bush, God love him. Bush haters may want to take a deep breath before reading how many women he appointed to his cabinet. Gale Ann Norton was the first female Secretary of the Interior, Condoleezza Rice became the first female African American Secretary of State, Elaine Chao enjoyed two terms as Labor Secretary, Ann Veneman was appointed as US Secretary of Agriculture, Margaret Spellings served as Education Secretary, and Maria Cino served as acting Transportation Secretary (until another female, Mary E. Peters, was nominated to that position.) Christine Todd Whitman was appointed as EPA Administrator; and, for a total of nine female appointees, Bush appointed Susan Carol Schwab as US Trade Representative in 2006. Republicans: 17.

This takes us to President Obama, who, in his first term appointed to his cabinet six women including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Commerce Rebecca Blank, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. So far, Obama’s appointed zero new women for his second.

Since FDR, the Democrat Party has governed over 12 presidential terms with seven presidents, who combined, accounted for 15 female nominees as compared to the GOP’s nine terms, six presidents and 17 female nominees. It seems the “Party of Women” is actually the Republican Party, which doesn’t fit the mold cast by Democrats of a party filled with pregnant, barefoot soccer-moms who forgot to pay for their birth control.

Photo Credit: naralprochoiceamerica (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Definition Of ‘Liberty’

January 22, 2013 by 17 Comments

Liberty Tree Obama SC Obamas Definition of Liberty

Oh, how far-removed we are from what now seems like the “innocent” Bill Clinton days when all we had to worry about was the various definitions of the word “is”. And now, after watching President Obama’s second term inaugural address, it is clear we have a president who calls into question the meaning of the word “liberty.”

It is incomprehensible that this former constitutional lawyer would argue during his speech that America has evolved to the extent that “our founding documents” no longer require us to “define liberty in exactly the same way.” But then again, it’s not so far-fetched considering what he’s done so far as well as the radicals he’s wrapped his life around. Some in the mainstream media have pondered if compromising with Republicans will be part of his second term agenda; but based on his address, the short answer is “no.” Put on your seatbelts; we’re headed for four more years of divide-and-conquer politics. The carnage will be immense, considering that the majority of Americans are not far-left radicals.

Clearly, our founders defined liberty as the right of individuals to pursue their own interests with minimal interference from a limited government. To suggest otherwise either shows a lack of understanding of America’s founding principles or a disregard for the same. Obama seems intent on widening the already colossal ideological divide.

And herein lies the complexity of a community organizer turned president: his ideology contradicts the constitution he is sworn to uphold.

If the ultimate goal is to shake up, tear down, and fundamentally transform America into the collectivist society Obama’s honey-filled words dripped of, he will do so without the support of half the country. As the rest of us find ourselves scratching our heads trying to figure out where the constitutional authority exists to achieve this transformation, Obama moves forward, motivated by a ludicrous notion that the Constitution must change because times have.

Obama’s inaugural speech words echoed similar thoughts from his book “The Audacity of Hope,” suggesting the Constitution “is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world.”

At least he is consistent. On WBEZ-FM in Chicago 12 years ago, Obama attempted to make a case for wealth redistribution and social justice, suggesting it would be found in what the Constitution did not say. Citing a previous court case, Obama said “the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties” mandating “what the states can’t do to you” and “what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

And he’s lived in the gray ever since. Black and white have given way to ever-expanding shades of gray so much that listening to a policy speech from the president requires an interpreter. The inaugural speech was replete with duplicitous and eerily conservative phrasing like “equality” to conceal wealth redistribution and “safety” in “the quiet lanes of Newtown” to mask expanded gun control.

It might be time for citizens to grasp an understanding of what our founders meant when they wrote and spoke about liberty. Let me leave you with former congressman Ron Paul’s definition: “Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks…Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety…Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen, and a false government security blanket beckons.”

I still believe. How about you?

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Progressives’ Ridiculous Gun Control Argument

January 15, 2013 by 14 Comments

second amendment SC Progressives Ridiculous Gun Control Argument

Once again, Conservatives have latched onto the bait tossed out by Progressives in their never-ending campaign to grab guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Gun control is just one aspect of the Progressive agenda; in essence, they want control of everyone and everything any way they can.

Toward this end, they will tell you anything to get what they want. For example, they say they are multiculturalists, right up until election season when cultures become pawns to move around the political battlefield. All non-compliant free-thinkers are dealt with accordingly.

Consider the war on women last year contrived to convince women the Democrat Party is the place for them. In the end, they made women look more like sex objects best left in the bedroom. It was demeaning to listen to all the noise made about free birth control at the DNC last summer; I fully expected to see birth control pills and NuvaRings rain down from the ceiling at convention’s close. And how about President Obama’s new near estrogen-free cabinet? The party for women? Hah.

So now they say we urgently need gun control. And, they are exploiting children the same way they exploit minorities and women to get it. The Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre is a means to an end. On MSNBC recently, guest Patricia Maisch said that “It’s a shame we had to get to the 20 little martyrs” at Sandy Hook to take action regarding gun control. Little martyrs? Martyrs for what? The religion of gun control?

The time has come for Progressives to come clean about gun control. Drop the word “gun” and we’ll be a little closer to having an honest conversation. But since they won’t, please let me help. I recently visited one of my favorite Progressive websites, where I ran across an article claiming gun control measures would do little to change anything because Americans at large are too evil and violent. It’s hard to reconcile all the America-loathing out there, but there is a simple solution: Renounce your citizenship and purchase a one-way plane ticket.

The article failed to present an honest assessment of facts and figures, most likely to incite an emotional, rather than rational, response, hence inspiring me to go fact digging, which led me to the FBI’s Expanded Homicide Data Table number 8.

According to the FBI, in 2010, there were 8,775 gun homicides. Of those, 6009 were from handguns, 358 from rifles, 373 from shotguns, 96 by “other” guns, and 1939 “not specified.” This breakdown doesn’t bode well for those promoting re-regulation of assault weapons. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, most mass murders are committed with “firearms that would not be restricted by an assault weapons ban.”

The same FBI report disclosed that knives and cutting instrument deaths (1704) quadrupled rifle deaths; and 540 people died from blunt objects, similar to the Golden Globe award Anne Hathaway just received and labeled as a “lovely blunt object that I will forevermore use as a weapon against self-doubt.” Knock yourself out, Anne. Anyway, I digress. If one applied the same twisted logic as Vice President Biden, who recently said “If only one life is saved, it’s worth it,” then I suppose we need to ban big shiny club-like award objects. Or maybe we need to ban the use of appendages, since almost twice the amount of people who died from shotgun wounds were killed by hands, fists, or feet. While we’re at it, we need to do something about falling because, according to the CDC, 24,792 people died as a result in 2009.

Progressives’ logic on this issue is ridiculous. And it is ridiculous for Conservatives to participate because in the end, Progressives may not get everything they want, but will get more than they should. In reality, according to the aforementioned FBI report, firearm murders dropped significantly from 2006 to 2010; while, according to Bloomberg Business, gun sales have exploded since 2009, meaning the real answer to less gun deaths is more guns.

Photo credit: Rev. Xanatos Satanicos Bombasticos (ClintJCL) (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

The EPA’s Mercury Problem

January 8, 2013 by 6 Comments

EPA 2 SC The EPAs Mercury Problem

Ninety-six. That’s the number of 60-watt incandescent light bulbs I purchased last weekend after learning the other kind, the compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) environmentalists are so in love with, are hazardous to my health and to the environment. I would have preferred a higher wattage but discovered that the 75-watt version was outlawed January 1st.

It took about three hours to replace every CFL bulb in my house and carefully place them in a huge plastic container used to transport them to the recycling center at a local home improvement store. I said a quick prayer for safety while coasting down the road in my SUV. A HAZMAT decal would have come in handy because had I been in a collision, I had enough mercury on board to make the evening news. And because I am a Conservative, they might have labeled me a home-grown terrorist.

CFLs aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. Back in 2008, some Yale University scientists isolated CFLs’ benefits down to one: lower energy bills. The scientists questioned whether a little savings was worth the danger attached to mercury exposure and “runoff downstream.”

Besides making the environment sick, researchers recently discovered that these “environmentally friendly” light bulbs aren’t friendly to humans either. According to the UK Telegraph, CFLs “should not be left on for extended periods, particularly near someone’s head” because “they emit poisonous materials when switched on.” The report found those “carcinogenic substances” should be “kept as far away as possible from the human environment” because they may cause migraines, skin problems, and breast cancer. Great.

It really makes no sense. Somehow, it’s okay to have mercury housed in delicate glass bulbs inside every home in America; yet the EPA feels compelled to enact new regulations like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants promising MATS would raise kids’ IQs, prevent a substantial amount of premature deaths, reduce heart attacks, and lessen childhood asthma. I’d settle for weight control and whiter teeth.

Sounds wonderful. Problem is, the EPA’s logic is about as twisted as a CFL, considering most people don’t live next to a coal-fired plant; but every home in America using CFLs is at risk of mercury exposure.

They say the pricey CFL’s are cost efficient but fail to mention that their measure for efficiency decreases if the bulbs are switched on and off. Nor do they discuss the outrageous price per bulb or the gas usage (carbon footprint) involved in transporting old bulbs. They also fail to factor in human nature; most people will simply discard old bulbs instead of spending their Saturday driving to the recycling center.

Seems to me that enacting the most expensive EPA rule revision in history, MATS, has less to do with people and more to do with coal-fired plants. Back in January 2012, the Washington Times said the rule will cost power plants up to $18 billion a year and “will be passed directly to consumers.” I’ve always believed that Progressives love the planet but hate the people who live on it. Think about it. They are quick to condemn environmental violators but conveniently ignore the massive amounts of mercury Mother Nature herself spews out by way of volcanoes, deep-sea vents, and geysers. Maybe we should tax the planet, just for good measure.

According to Power Engineering Magazine, by 2016, EPA rules will force the shutdown of “32 mostly coal-fired power plants” in 12 states, and possibly 36 others. The shutdowns will lead to higher power costs, less jobs, and potential rationing. Before long, we’ll be rubbing sticks together to cook food, stay warm, and find our way to the community outhouse.

But, in the meantime…tonight I celebrate. I purged my home of all those hazy mercury-filled bulbs, and I’m switching on every last one of my incandescent bulbs to celebrate — in hopes the Google Earth satellite will drift my way and snap a picture. My house will be one of the brightest spots on the planet, second only to Al Gore’s.

Photo credit: TexasGOPVote.com (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Will 2013 Be The Year We Slow The Moral Decline?

December 31, 2012 by 19 Comments

Christian cross SC Will 2013 Be the Year We Slow the Moral Decline?

With dark shadows of uncertainty descending upon the hearts of so many at the conclusion of 2012, one can only hope 2013 will be a year of promise. But even in these dark days, miracles do still happen, especially when people are willing to roll up their sleeves for the cause of freedom.

This present darkness has its roots in our nation’s moral decline; and the further we get from our moral center, the worse off we are as a people — and a nation. It has taken some time to get where we are today. Over the years, Conservatives have allowed Progressives to hijack the conversation about our founding principles. Liberals have replaced morality with moral relativism in an attempt to justify their own moral ineptitude. For example, a group recently sanitized the King James Bible from any reference to homosexuality, replacing it with their own politically correct version they titled the “New Queen James Bible.”

Moreover, we’ve allowed liberals to distort our founders’ intentions concerning the separation of church and state. Consequently, prayer and most other references to God have been banned from the public square; yet they see no plausible correlation to those actions and recent mass shootings.

Mum’s the word when it comes to God, but the roof is raised by right to choose discussions — just as long as the conversation stays within the confines of the human life women should be allowed to extract from their bodies. But choice flies out the window when the discussion changes to things the rest of us put in our bodies — like soda, fats, salt, and caffeine. They’re all about women’s rights — until you mention Islamic extremism or third-world barbarism in places like Darfur. And to them, capitalism is reprehensible; but taking hard-earned money from a capitalist is okay.

Progressives’ ideological inconsistencies will be their downfall, and their ideology will most certainly crumble beneath the weight of truth, just as the Iron Curtain did in 1989.

What is wrong in America today is what went terribly wrong in Russia many years ago when the Soviet Union tried the Marxist way to go it on its own without God. While many cast the blame for their problems on poor economic and political choices, Russian writer and Nobel Prize recipient Alex Solzhenitsyn blamed it on the fact “men had forgotten God.” He was right, and the world discovered how wrong Marx was when men (and women) who refused to forget God played a monumental role in crushing Communism in Eastern European countries.

The story is told in Philip Yancey’s book, “Finding God in Unexpected Places”; in East Germany, every demonstration began with worship. (I’m not getting all spiritual on you here; I’m simply restating history.) Small groups would throw prayer meetings filled with political dissidents, concerned citizens, and some of those reprehensible Christians. After a period of prayer, pastors spoke while holding newspapers in one hand and Bibles in the other. Afterward, participants went outside to walk peacefully through dark streets holding banners and candles.

In October 1989, as East Berlin was celebrating the 44th year of its communist regime, police were instructed to shoot demonstrators in Leipzig, where crowds had grown to nearly 500,000, but thankfully never did. On November 9, the crowd had doubled to one million when the unimaginable happened; a gap in the Berlin Wall opened. Without incident, candle-carrying East Germans peacefully filed through and over the wall, effectively bringing down the East German government in the process.

By years’ end, multiple Eastern Bloc countries joined East Germany’s fate; and by the end of 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved. Hope sprung eternal, and the world experienced a long-anticipated fresh breath of freedom because people put their faith and longing for freedom into action, thus allowing the world to witness a miracle.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,