canfield cartoon

Un-named Source

Those were the good old days. Watergate. Nixon. Isn't it amazing what an un-named source was able to accomplish all those years ago in the hands of liberal journalists? 

But today with Fraudgate and Obama things are different. People who actually sign affidavits with their real names, detailing credible evidence that a Democrat President has engaged in criminal acts, well, they are ridiculed by the same media.

Maybe if the evidence about Obama's fraudulent social security number and forged birth certificate had come from an un-named source with a pornographic nickname, instead of American citizens who put their reputations on the line, it would have had the kind of gravitas liberals love.

Linda Jordan | Seattle, Washington

Hundreds of Thousands Disarmed by ATF Ruling

The Obama administration is at it again.

With the stroke of a pen, the U.S. Justice Department has just subjected hundreds of thousands of Americans to a lifetime gun ban. 

In an open letter to all licensed firearms dealers, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) unilaterally decided that any person who is prescribed marijuana for medical purposes is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

That means over 300,000 people in the states that allow medical marijuana suddenly cannot buy or possess a gun.  Oh yeah, and for the many who already own firearms, watch out. They are now felons and could be subject to lengthy prison terms of up to ten years. 

Gun Owners of America is not going to wade into the marijuana debate, but the fact that such a large group of people are losing their constitutional rights without even seeing the inside of a courtroom leaves a lot of people scratching their heads.

After all, this is the same Justice Department that, in 2009, basically advised federal prosecutors to turn a blind eye to medical marijuana use. 

And, in a bit of twisted irony, the ATF itself has helped thousands of guns to get into the hands of known and dangerous drug cartels in Mexico through their operation “Fast and Furious,” which has led GOA to call for anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation.

The Justice Department makes it perfectly clear in the letter what it expects from gun dealers and gun purchasers, even though the Department and ATF obviously consider themselves above the law – both at the federal and state levels. According to the agency: 
Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medical purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. (Emphasis added.)

Notice that persons need not be regular users of the prescribed drug; just the mere possession of a prescription card from a doctor is sufficient to trigger the gun ban. Firearms dealers are further instructed by the ATF:

If you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have “reasonable cause to believe” that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. 

As far as the overbearing, overreaching federal government is concerned, there is no need for a finding in a court of law that the person is a criminal, and there is no need for a finding that a person is a danger to self or others. 

In fact, the gun ban is not even limited to when a person is actually using the drug for medical purposes. If you have the prescription card, you can’t own a gun – period.

This is just one example of how the government uses various existing laws to sweep people onto its gun prohibition list. The same thing occurred over the past decade to more than one hundred thousand military veterans who were prohibited from owning guns because of ailments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) – in this instance, too, without the benefit of due process of law.

The fact that the ATF is acting against a state-sanctioned medical issue is also particularly troubling. The reason Gun Owners of America has opposed ObamaCare so vociferously is over the concern that medical records databases could be abused by the government. 
How many other heretofore legally prescribed drugs could be frowned upon by federal agencies and subject masses of people to a lifetime gun ban?

If the ruling in the ATF letter is allowed to stand, we will have allowed the federal bureaucracy to arbitrarily carve out – with no input from the peoples’ representatives in Congress – an entire class of persons for whom civil rights may as well not exist.

And, to make matters worse, this letter looks like more proof that the ATF is doing all it can to draw attention away from its own “gunrunning” scandal and to avoid investigating and punishing official wrongdoing along the U.S. – Mexico border.

John Velleco ( | Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America (A grassroots lobbying organization with over 300,000 members nationwide)

Remembering Hank

I just wanted to thank you for your great story about Hank Patterson. Hank was a mentor to me especially in the area of power dissipation.  There are a lot of us old PED engineers who think of you often. Remember when we had the skeet club?  Best regards,
Hugh Barton

Nice remembrance of Hank Patterson.  It sounds like he was quite a guy and a great friend. Thanks for sharing those memories.
Jim McAllister

Don – thanks for writing your remembrances of Hank.  I didn’t know him as well as you but I liked him for being just him.
Hugh Nicolay

Your tribute to Hank was very nice.  I laughed at him saying "Gentlemen don't spit"! :-)  Sometimes it is hard to believe so much time has passed since we spent those days at Radiation, Inc.  How did we get so old? 
Take care. Love,


Liberal-controlled media are splitting Republican voters over divisive social issues

Candidates in Debates Should Refuse Moderators' Troublemaking Questions and Only Discuss National Interests

Do you ever expect to hear the news media interviewers ask Republican presidential candidates about their plans for the economy, nation's security, creating jobs, or any other important issues?

The media is concentrating on social divisive issues that will divide the Republicans, such as taxes, healthcare, abortion, social security, welfare, and spending cuts that never happen.
The media's purpose is undue prominence of controversies to weaken the leading Republican candidates and excessive praise of weaker candidates, like what caused a not-so-popular candidate to be nominated in 2008.

As an example, remember how Sarah Palin was the most popular politician in America after the 2008 national election?  The Democratic national leadership was scared to death of Palin, so they started a hateful propaganda attack against her.  They claimed that they hoped she would be the 2012 Republican presidential candidate because "she would be so easy to defeat".  They instigated so many frivolous law suits against her as Alaska's governor that the enormous defense litigation time and expense forced her to resign the governorship.

Democrats launched a well organized gossip attack questioning Palin's experience, her intelligence, her knowledge, her character, her family, her personality, etc.  Before long, half of America claimed that they didn't like her, but couldn't state any actual example why.
How does the media have the ability to do this?

This is because almost all of the news sources, publishers and entertainment businesses are owned or controlled by only six major groups – five groups are liberal and one favors conservatism.

The five liberal groups are: General Electric, Disney, Time Warner, Viacom and CBS.

The conservative leaning group is News Corp, which includes jealously slandered Fox News.
Recent surveys show that 90% of media employees voted Democratic in the 2008 national election, and that most union school teachers and college professors pass liberal ideas to their students.

I personally feel that so far the Republican presidential debates have been counter productive.  The negative infighting about happenings in other states that they would have no control over will cost the candidates more lost votes than any support they would gain.
Really capable statesman-like possible candidates who would make the best president are refraining from the race because they want to avoid the undue criticism to themselves and to their families.




The treachery of the attempts to raise taxes for projects like parking lot paving and renovation of school buildings our children won’t set foot in, is again afoot. Those yellow signs warning about dire straights for all of us, with respect to our home values, are sprouting up again. What is devaluing our homes is that students (with the support and encouragement of their parents) are choosing to attend schools other than CCUSD because of the performance ratings, which are deplorable. However, the numbers espoused by the LEARNYES crowd are misleading.

If your home is located in Phoenix and it is valued below $250,000, which many in the 85331 zip code now are, LEARNYES is understating the tax liability of homeowners.

However, most of us who live in this school district do not live in homes in that value range.
To even consider allowing Burdick and the board to continue pulling stupid and illegal crap rather than get a clue how to run a school district is just beyond delusional. They actually expect us to vote to tax ourselves more in this economy rather than ask them to do what we all have done. Run efficiently and effectively, save where you can. Cut hours, streamline departments and eliminate duplication. Reduce expenses. Balance your budget rather than ask for a handout.

If you can’t figure it out, we’ll establish a committee of citizens to handle the job. We can save the salaries of those of you who can’t do yours.

Fed up with CCUSD | Name withheld by request


It's time to abandon Keynesian Economics

President Obama came to Capitol Hill a few weeks ago to unveil his new stimulus package, a $447 billion “jobs plan.” The President’s idea is to pay for new government spending and temporary tax cuts by permanently raising taxes by $467 billion over 10 years.

The largest new tax in the Obama plan would cap income-tax deductions for small businesses and some individuals. As it happens, a Democratic-controlled Senate already rejected this proposal, in 2009, when the Democratic caucus had 60 members­a filibuster-proof majority. So there’s very little chance that it can pass today, when there are far fewer Democratic votes in Congress. Indeed, several key Democrats have already expressed skepticism about the new stimulus bill. President Obama surely knows this, raising the question of whether this may be more of a reelection plan than a serious jobs plan.

Whatever his motivation, let’s analyze the legislation on its merits. It is built on the premise of Keynesian economics, which was also the basis for the 2009 stimulus, Cash for Clunkers, and the 2008 stimulus checks sent out under President Bush. Keynesians believe that, when economic growth is weak or nonexistent, the chief problem is low demand for goods and services. In such circumstances, they recommend that the government spend money to stimulate consumption, arguing that businesses will respond by increasing production and creating jobs.

But this raises the question: Where does the government money come from? After all, Congress can’t merely print new dollars. Its funds have to be taken out of the private economy, either through borrowing or higher taxes. A paper from the Heritage Foundation compares Keynesian economics to the act of redistributing water in a swimming pool: “Removing water from one end of a swimming pool and pouring it in the other end will not raise the overall water level. Similarly, taking dollars from one part of the economy and distributing it to another part of the economy will not expand the economy.”

Moreover, raising taxes on small businesses to “pay for” the spending will reduce incentives to hire and invest. When you tax something more, you get less of it. A better idea is to incentivize production, or the “supply side” of the economy. The fundamental principle behind supply-side economics is that people work harder and take more risks when there are more opportunities for economic gain and less government intrusion.

Translating this principle into good public policy means reducing government consumption by cutting spending of borrowed money, thereby leaving resources in the private sector. It also means not raising taxes on anyone, and certainly not on the job-creating small businesses we count on to hire more workers.

Adopting supply-side policies would encourage robust job creation and investment. Doubling down on Keynesian stimulus spending is unlikely to have the same effect. Consider the historical record. In the Wall Street Journal, economist Stephen Moore compares President Reagan’s economy with President Obama’s: President Reagan inherited a sagging economy in 1981. By 1983, after his administration had implemented or supported a bevy of supply-side polices (including tax cuts, spending controls, deregulation, and sound money), economic growth had soared to 5 percent “and was racing to 7, even 8 percent growth.” Contrast that with President Obama’s record: As we approach his third year in office, economic growth is barely 1 percent, and some economists believe we’re heading for a double-dip recession.

The evidence couldn’t be clearer. It’s time policymakers consign Keynesianism to the history books and focus on supply-side policies that give job-creators the long-term certainty they need.

Sen. Jon Kyl | Senate Republican Whip


Domestic Terrorism goes unreported

November 6th is National Remembrance Day for those killed by illegal aliens. While our men and woman are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting Al Qaeda Taliban, innocent U.S. Citizens are dying at the hands of Illegal Aliens at work or home. The invasion is condoned by both mainstream Republicans and Democrats who get cheap labor and votes. ( A marriage made in heaven.)  It would be interesting to see what Senators and Congressmen and Congresswomen would sign on to such a day of reflection. It is sad that must of us have been brainwashed into accepting every wound this country gets as progress!


Joseph DuPont | Towanda, Pennsylvania


Attacks on Israel

The recent terror attacks in Israel were totally unprovoked and targeted civilians.
Israel's response has been measured. Israel gave the terrorists a chance to calm the situation; instead the terrorists continued firing scores of rockets at Israeli civilians.
Israel has the right to defend itself. Its people should not have to live in constant fear of terror and rocket attacks.

The United States and the international community should condemn these attacks unreservedly.

The international community should cut off ties with Hamas, a terrorist organization that receives money and weapons from Iran and is committed to destroying Israel.

The international community should oppose the Palestinian unilateral bid for statehood backed by the United Nations and urge the Palestinians to return to unconditional peace talks with Israel.

Israel Under Attack


Suzanne Monashkin | Scottsdale