· Random DUI checkpoints? Sure. It is unclear whether aerial Penny Press NEVADA USA 16 PAGES VOLUME 9 NUMBER 41 JUNE 21, 2012 Penny Wisdom We are rapidly entering the age of no

“I’ve got a much better chance at four more years than you do.”

Penny PressNevada, USA Volume 9 Number 41 JUNE 21, 2012

PennyPressLogotype Pointedlymad licensed from: Rich Gast

Credits:Publisher and Editor: Contributing Editors:Fred Weinberg Floyd Brown Al Thomas Doug French Chuck Muth John Getter Pat Choate Tom Mitchell

The Penny Press is published weekly by Far West Radio LLC All Contents © Penny Press 2012

Letters to the Editor are encouraged. They should be emailed to: [email protected] No unsigned or unverifiable letters will be printed.

702-418-0433 eFax: 201-304-0355

www.pennypressnv.com

THE PENNY PRESS,JUNE 21, 2012 PAGE 2

By THOMAS MITCHELLContributing Editor

Those smarter than your average reporters back inside the Beltway at The Washington Post are laughing up their sleeves at the

gullible rubes out West who fell for the story that the Environmental Protection Agency was using, gasp, drones to do aerial surveillance of cattle operations in the Midwest.

“It was a blood-boiler of a story, a menacing tale of government gone too far …” The Post story began. “The only trouble is, it isn’t true. It was never true. The EPA isn’t using drone aircraft.”

It turns out the spying aircraft had pilots in the cockpit, instead of in an air-conditioned office at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nev., where Air Force “pilots” guide Raptors and Predators to rain Hellfire missiles and other high explosives on terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan 7,000 miles away.

So a big guffaw is in order, right?

Not so fast, shorty. It is a distinction without a difference. Drones might be cheaper and thus a bigger threat to more frequent use, but warrantless aerial surveillance is the same no matter where the pilot is sitting.

I’m not sure where the drone part of the story first pulled on its boots and raced around the globe, but the Omaha World-Herald

reported on June 4 the EPA was using manned aircraft to spy on livestock operations in Iowa and Nebraska to see whether manure might be seeping into waterways in violation of the Clean Water Act.

EPA officials in the Kansas City office provided written responses to questions emailed from the Omaha paper. Asked about the legality of flyovers, the EPA said, “Courts, including the Supreme Court, have found similar types of flights to be legal (for example to take aerial photographs of a chemical manufacturing facility) and EPA would use such flights in appropriate instances to protect people and the environment from violations of the Clean Water Act.”

The paper was told surveillance flights began in 2010 in Iowa, with seven flights since, and 2011 in

Nebraska, with nine flights. Any flights that identified potential problems led to on-site inspections. “By eliminating the need for on-site inspections at these operations, the flyovers have saved money,” EPA wrote.

I don’t recall anything in the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures without warrants supported by oath or affirmation of probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched that says: Never mind, it is OK if it saves money.

I fear we have become a society that shrugs and says, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. Random strip searches at the airport? No problem. Random DUI checkpoints? Sure.

It is unclear whether aerial

Penny PressNEVADA USA 16 PAGES VOLUME 9 NUMBER 41 JUNE 21, 2012

Penny WisdomWe are rapidly entering the age of no privacy, where everyone is open to surveil-lance at all times; where there are no secrets from government. —William O. Douglas

The Conservative Weekly Voice Of NevadaInside:El Rushbo A Bad Deal For Radio

See Editorial Page 6

ANDY MATTHEWS PAGE 5FRED WEINBERG PAGE 6DOUG FRENCH PAGE 7GEOFFREY LAWRENCE PAGE 9AL THOMAS PAGE 10MATT BARBER PAGE 11CHUCK MUTH PAGE 14PETS OF THE WEEK PAGE 15

It's Simple. The EPA Hates Food!

Commentary

Continued on page4


surveillance has been used in Nevada, but considering the vast reaches of barren land and the ongoing tensions between ranchers, miners and those who dare trek across federal land, I wouldn’t put it past them.

According to The Hill, a Washington publication, the Federal Aviation Administration is planning a “pilot program,” (I doubt the pun was intended.) that would allow unmanned aircraft to fly in six test sites.

But Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and Edward Markey, D-Mass., wrote a letter to the FAA raising questions about whether this technology might “enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protections.”

Though the courts have been very lax about permitting aerial spying, the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a paper in December 2011 recommending, “With drone technology holding so much potential to increase routine surveillance in American life, one key question is the extent to which our laws will protect us. The courts should impose limits on the use of drones for surveillance, prohibit ing them from becoming pervasive.”

The drone buzz has already prompted Republican Sen. Rand Paul to introduce Senate Bill 3287, which would “protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones ...” The bill has exceptions for border patrols and imminent danger.

It also says: “No evidence obtained or collected in violation of this Act may be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in the United States.” That’s what happens when law enforcement now violates the Fourth Amendment.

I would suggest the senator amend his bill and take out the words “unmanned” and “drones.”

If anyone from the government wishes to sneak and peak from the air or anywhere else, get evidence and get a warrant.Thomas Mitchell is a longtime Nevadan. You may share your views with him by emailing [email protected]. Read additional musings on his blog at http://4thst8.wordpress.com.

Why Don't They Just Put A Drone In Your Bedroom?Continued from page 3


Call the number below and save an additional $25 plus get free shipping on your �rst prescription order with Canada Drug Center. Expires Dec 31, 2012. O�er is valid for prescription orders only and can not be use in conjunction with any other o�ers.

Call toll-free: 1-888-679-1961

Bottle AManufactured By

PfizerTM.Typical US brand price

for 20mg x 100

LipitorTM

$544.06 Bottle BManufactured By

GenericsManufacturers

Generic equivalent of LipitorTM

generic price for 20mg x 100

Atorvastatin*$43.00

Their PriceOur Price

Are You Still Paying Too Much For Your Medications?You can save up to 90% when you fill your prescriptions at our Canadian Pharmacy.

NexiumTM $534.00Typical US Brand Price

Esomeprazole* $59.00Generic Price

VS Effexor XRTM $465.00Typical US Brand Price

Venlafaxine* $97.00Generic Price

VS

CelebrexTM $403.00Typical US Brand Price

Celecoxib* $116.00Generic Price

VS ZoloftTM $347.00Typical US Brand Price

Sertraline* $79.00Generic Price

VS

Compare our prices and see how much you can save! For more prices call us toll-free at 1-888-679-1961.

Save more today with an extra $25 off & free shipping!

Order Now! Toll-free: 1-888-679-1961 $25OFF

Get An Extra

And FREE SHIPPING

Get an extra $25 o� your �rst order today!

Prescription price comparison above is valid as of December 16, 2011. All trade-mark (TM) rights associated with the brand name products in this ad belong to their respective owners. *Generic drugs are carefully regulated medications that have the same medical ingredients as the original brand name drug, but are generally cheaper in price. Generic equivalents are equal to their "brand" counterparts in Active Ingredients, Dosage, Safety, Strength, Quality, Performance and Intended use. It may vary in colour, shape, size, cost and appearance.

Please note that we do not carry controlled substances and a valid prescription is required for all prescription medication orders.



Even The Libs Know We Were Right

There are few things sweeter in life than being told, “You’re right.” But when those words come, even indirectly, from the most unlikely of sources, it’s even better.

For years, we at the Nevada Policy Research Institute have noted that Nevada’s modified business tax (MBT), which is a payroll tax, hinders economic growth, because it is a disincentive to hire employees. The Legislature’s decision to raise taxes by doubling the MBT during the 2009 and 2011 sessions is one significant factor

in Nevada’s current 11.6 percent unemployment rate.

You know this. Many elected officials know this. But you know who else acknowledges that the MBT hurts the economy?

Lynn Warne, president of the Nevada State Education Association, and Danny Thompson, executive secretary treasurer of Nevada’s AFL-CIO.

Yes, the heads of two of the most liberal organizations in the state. Don’t believe me? In their own words, here is what they said recently about the modified business tax.

As reported by the Las Vegas Sun, Warne said she thinks the MBT “hurts businesses’ ability to hire.”

Last week on The Agenda

television program (at the 3:56 mark), Thompson made this statement.

“The modified business tax was a poorly written tax. It’s probably the most regressive thing that we have that stifles economic development. ... You pay taxes based on an employee, so there’s a disincentive to hire employees, because then I have to pay a tax. Whether or not I make money, it doesn’t enter into the equation.”

These union bosses are echoing NPRI talking points.

Now, our stance hasn’t always been popular with the big-government crowd, but that doesn’t change the fact that NPRI’s position on this issue was and is right. We spoke the truth, stood firm and, a few years later, even some of the staunchest liberals in the state have agreed with our position.

This is a powerful vindication, not just for NPRI, but also for you and our thousands of supporters throughout the state. Our shared principles of individual liberty, free enterprise and limited, accountable

government have, once again, emerged victorious in the battle of ideas.

So I hope you’re encouraged — but not passive. While Warne and Thompson have acknowledged the destructive impacts of the MBT, they want to replace it with a tax that’s much larger and even worse — the margins tax.

NPRI has done extensive work on the many problems with the margins tax, and we’ll be releasing even more in the next couple of weeks.

So when some members of the elite media, special-interest lobbyists or even just your liberal friends try to berate you into supporting the destructive and distortive margins tax, remember how our principles and analysis have been justified.

If we stand our ground and give them a few years, even liberals will recognize that we’re right on this issue, too. ANDY MATTHEWSAndy Matthews is President of the Nevada Policy Research Institute

Commentary: Andy Matthews

The Penny Press Tips Its Cap To:

Las Vegas Review-Journal multimedia producer Justin Yurkanin, who won a regional Emmy award Saturday night for his video work on the investigative series "Deadly Force: When Las Vegas Police Shoot, and Kill." First off, it was a great series but second, isn’t it interesting that a newspaper web site won an Emmy?

The jurors in New York who saw through the Federal Government's "case" against Roger Clemons and gave the Rocket an acquittal on every charge he shouldn't have been charged with in the first place.

The Penny Press Sends A Bronx Cheer And A Bouquet of Weeds To:Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who joined with Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., to spon-sor a bill to regulate boxing at the Federal level. What a bunch of whores. We can’t agree on healthcare but we give a flip about boxing because we don’t agree with a judge’s decision on a Manny Pacquiao fight. Biggest blowhards in the world.

Tips Of Our Capand

Bronx Cheers

Regular readers know that I have extensive investments in radio and many of those stations, both past and present, are AM talk stations.

That said, I don’t carry Rush Limbaugh anywhere. In fact, I have dropped his show whenever I have purchased a station which carried him.

It’s certainly nothing personal, nor does it signal a fundamental disagreement with his politics because there is none.

It is—as Don Corleone once said—just business.

He is so divisive that you simply cannot sell advertising in his show. Worse, where most talk shows are syndicated on what is called a “barter” basis—that is, you split the advertising time between local and national—he charges a radio station cash.

So when you add up a significant cash outlay and the inability to sell much time in his show, it’s a net loser for the owner of a radio station no matter how much you may agree with what he has to say.

And, let’s make one thing clear: Radio is a business.

Lest you think that not being able to sell advertising in Rush’s show is a phenomena restricted to conservative talk radio, trust me, I couldn’t sell advertising in Ed Schultz’s show either. In his case, it’s not interesting enough to attract very many listeners.

My first experience in dropping Rush came back in the early 90s when I bought KBIX in Muskogee, Oklahoma—the town which Merle Haggard immortalized in Proud to be an Okie from Muskogee.

I went to the large car dealers and was told quite simply, liberals buy cars too.

And, believe it or not, that was a sizable piece of business in Muskogee.

So, I dropped Rush.

I actually got a few death threats and one guy who called up and said, “The only reason I listed to your damn station (I’m cleaning this up a bit) is for Rush.”

I told him the truth. That he was a listener I couldn’t afford.

Our sales went up and the calls stopped after a few days. And many of the death threats I got came from people who kept listening to our then, mostly local line-up.

If you ran a radio station in a large market, back in the day, you could run Rush solely for ratings purposes. In Tulsa and Las Vegas, that’s what my competitors did.

I preferred to make money throughout my entire day.

To a great extent, Rush is a good deal like Bill Maher. He thinks he can be as outrageous as he wishes because his success has made him a protected species.

The truth is that if you have Rush on in the top 10 markets, you can probably make money with him.

But if you’re going to depend on flyover country for your listeners, you are going to have to bow to some convention and, as an example, not call a female activist a “slut”. Remember, when he called Sandra Fluke a slut, he didn’t do it on his radio stations. He did it on radio stations which, for the most part, are owned by businessmen trying to serve the communities they are licensed to. And while I can guarantee you that most of those businessmen are not liberals, very few of them would have chosen that language either in public or private.

If Rush had been in my living room, I would have been just as uncomfortable as I was when I heard it on the air.

Further, given the 24 hour news cycles of cable news channels and the easy availability of audio and video on the internet, anybody saying anything on any mass media is likely to hear it over and over.

I try not to say things my 85-year old mother would not appreciate and Rush’s problem is he keeps forgetting that limiting factor.

His message would resonate much more robustly if he minded his manners.

Just like Maher—who’s almost made me turn off HBO—Rush needs to clean up his act.

Sadly, that will probably never happen in either case.

FRED WEINBERG


OPINIONFrom The Publisher...

El Rushbo May Be Right, But A Bad Business Deal


Turkish Government Wants Their People’s Gold

Just one visit to Istanbul’s Grand Bazaar tells a visitor how Turks store value. The Turkish monetary authorities have a history of debauching their currency so Turks store their wealth in gold and rugs. There are 373 jewelers and 125 rug stores in the bazaar.

In 1966, one US dollar bought 9 lire. By 2001, a dollar bought 1.65 million lire. Four years later, six zeros were lopped off the lira and a dollar equaled 1.29 new Turkish lire. Today, a dollar can be traded for around 1.80 lire.

The last half-decade of tamer inflation has helped make the Turkish economy one of the strongest. However, Ahmet Akarli, an economist at Goldman Sachs in London, told The Economist last year, “The cyclical picture is looking ugly, imbalances are accumulating and financial vulnerabilities are growing.” Akarli says wages are up 18 percent, domestic demand is increasing 25 percent, and credit growth is 30 to 40 percent.

The Turkish government is facing a current-account deficit and now has its eye on the vast amounts of gold held by private citizens outside the nation’s banking system. The Wall Street Journal reports,

Government officials say the banking regulator will soon publish a plan to boost incentives for consumers to park their household wealth inside the financial system. Banking executives said they are considering new interest-yielding gold-deposit accounts that would allow savers to withdraw gold bars from specially designed automated teller machines.

The moves come after the central bank in November announced that lenders could hold up to 10% of their local-currency reserves in gold, in part to tempt Turkey’s gold hoarders to deposit their jewelry, coins or bullion at banks.

This counting of gold deposits as reserves allows banks to use that gold to expand their balance sheets, create money, and help fund the country’s current-account deficit.

Just as Murray Rothbard explained that bank runs are an effective weapon against inflation, storing one’s gold outside the banking system, keeps banks from creating money through fractional reserves. Money in a bank is lent out, but ownership of the money isn’t transferred. The deposit remains in the account of the depositor, while the funds are lent to another party. Banks keep 10% (or less) of their deposits around just in case people show up for their money, with the result being money is created out of nowhere. Of course a central bank is needed to backstop the inflationary operation.

Instead of leaving their money in banks to be inflated away, Turks have learned to exchange their government’s money into things that have been stores of value in their culture for centuries: gold and rugs.

The Istanbul Gold Refinery believes Turks are holding 5,000 metric tons of gold in their homes. And with the Lira falling 20% against the dollar last year, gold demand doubled. This ain’t the Turks first inflation rodeo.

That suggests that despite a tripling of incomes and a sharp reduction of unemployment in the past decade, Turks remain nervous that holding too much of their assets in banks could leave them exposed to losses.

Memo to the Turks. Stay nervous, keep your gold at home. DOUG FRENCH

Commentary: Doug French



The West Fires BackSome will call it an ultimatum.It is. But an ultimatum is often necessary when one party refuses to

recognize the constitutional rights of another.And that’s why Utah Gov. Gary Herbert recently signed into law

legislation challenging the federal government’s authority to occupy state lands. Utah’s HB 148, the Transfer of Public Lands Act, sets a hard deadline — Dec. 31, 2014 — for federal authorities to relinquish control of federally occupied lands to that state.

Standing by when Gov. Herbert signed the bill into law were important members of his state’s congressional delegation, including U.S. Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee. Their presence indicated that Congress will soon be forced to address an issue of paramount importance to our federalist system of government that has, for too long, simply been swept under the rug and ignored: the Equal Footing doctrine.

Utah’s latest move actually piggybacks onto a series of moves made by Nevada lawmakers over the past several decades that asserted the Silver State’s right to be accepted into the Union on an equal basis with the original states. The congressional enabling act that authorized statehood for Nevada, after all, proclaimed that Nevada “shall be admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever.”

It then went on, however, to stipulate conditions for Nevada’s acceptance into the Union to which the original states were never subjected. Key among those conditions was the requirement that Nevadans “disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated [as of 1864] public lands lying within [the state’s borders].”

In 1979, Nevada lawmakers passed into law the original “Sagebrush Rebellion” statute. It challenged the federal government’s authority to occupy most of the land within the state’s borders, based upon the argument that the occupation violates the state’s Equal Footing rights.

Legislators asserted that “the attempted imposition upon the State of Nevada by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the enabling act that Nevada ‘disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory,’ as a condition precedent to acceptance of Nevada into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void.”

Indeed, federal case law supports the original claims of Nevada lawmakers. One notable U.S. Supreme Court opinion that was explicitly cited by lawmakers at the time, Pollard v. Hagan, says, “...the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory of which Alabama or any of the new states were formed; except for temporary purposes.” As soon as new states were formed, said the high court, “the power of the United States over these lands as property was to cease.”

In the mid-1990s, Nevadans took another step toward freeing our state of federal land dominion by acting to repeal the disclaimer of interest in public lands from the state’s constitution. Nevada lawmakers voted unanimously in 1993 and 1995 to strike that provision from the state’s

constitution and the motion received overwhelming popular support on a 1996 ballot question.

As a result, the disclaimer of interest no longer appears in the current version of Nevada’s constitution. But a curious footnote remains, indicating that, because the provision was required by the state’s congressional enabling act, repeal cannot become effective without congressional consent or until “a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.”

Not surprisingly, Congress has failed to act in the 15 years since Nevadans approved the constitutional amendment.

Now that our neighbors to the east have raised the bar, Utah’s ultimatum can go before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has original jurisdiction over all cases between a state and the federal government, under Article III, Sec. 2, Para. 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

Other Western states are now considering similar legislation.Given its history and its economic interest, Nevada should be next to

rejoin the fight. GEOFFREY LAWRENCEGeoffrey Lawrence is deputy policy director at the Nevada Policy Research Institute. For more visit http://npri.org. This article first appeared in the June 2012 edition of Nevada Business.


Commentary: Geoffrey Lawrence


Commentary: Albert ThomasHedging a Stock Portfolio – Pros and Cons

There are many ways to hedge. If you don’t learn you will lose during the next crash. And it is coming. Of course, it is always advisable to have stop losses in place. It is possible to protect a stock investment with a hedge using options.

The portfolio contains shares of GET RICH QUICK (GRQ) purchased at $25 per share. It has gone up to $50. Mr. Investor can buy PUT options to sell GRQ 6 months or a year from now at $50/share (or any higher price). Cost will vary on the amount of time and number of shares being bought. If the stock goes down he can still exercise the option at $50. If the stock goes up he may keep the shares or sell at the higher price. The profit is offset by the cost of the option.

Brokers like these as it protects the customers’ money and makes extra commission.

A much more dangerous but less expensive method is using exchange traded equities.

Joe Sixpack has $25,000 in a mutual fund that is invested in the S&P500 Index. He doesn’t want to lose this as it is his retirement. Joe buys an equal dollar amount of shares in SH. This is an exchange traded fund that is the inverse of the S&P500. When the S&P goes down $100 SH goes up $100 (approximately). There is no time limit as there is with an option.

The problem with using an equity to hedge another equity is the

investor now has on 2 positions – one long and another short. When the time comes to exit and the market is either much higher or much lower which one does he sell?

There is a quandary. He has a balanced position with an unbalanced mind.

The most difficult hedge to enter and exit is to use the VIX. This is a sentiment indicator. It may be best for a mixed portfolio if the investor does not want to sell. When the general market declines the VIX goes up. There are several symbols for the VIX. All are exchange traded funds.

Investors must know how to use market timing. If the broker doesn’t then find another broker. If a retirement account is with a mutual fund it will, in all likelihood, drop 40% or 50%. The investor will have find a knowledgeable broker or financial planner. It will require extra cash as this is like a stock purchase.

Few know how to execute it.Any mutual fund that drops 10 to 15% from its highs is a candidate for immediate exit. Find another that is advancing or stay in cash,

Hedging a stock portfolio requires the input of an experienced professional. Very few individual investors know how.

For the little guy stop loss orders are much easier and safer. AL THOMASAl’s new ebook (32 pages) is available on Amazon for 99 cents. It explains the Golden Cross and the Death Cross. These are well known methods of determining long term trends in the market. If you only learned one method of technical analysis this would have kept you out of the 2000 and 2008 crashes and will keep you out of the next one that is coming soon. The title is Never Lose Money In The Stock Market Again.

Liberalism is Terminally IllIt’s been a pitiful sight – a sad week for progressives and “Big Union”

Democrat-shilling thugs. In the wake of the devastating recall smackdown in Wisconsin, tens of thousands of “Occupy” hippies across the nation have simply been too depressed to get stoned and not look for work.

On Wednesday the White House released President Obama’s detailed itinerary through October:

1. Worry 2. Lie 3. Obfuscate 4. Golf 5. Fundraise6. WorryIndeed, the president has much to worry about. No honest politico can

deny that liberals’ Wisconsin debacle likely represents a shadow of things to come – a precursor to November.

Recall DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz’sadmission on CNN. In a rare moment of candor, she said Wisconsin was a “dry run” – a “test run” for the 2012 election. (A bit like the Titanic’s test run, as it turns out.)

Tuesday night Sarah Palin took to Fox News where she said that Scott Walker’s humiliating defeat of Tom Barrett, the DNC and heretofore-excessively-coddled-labor-union-leaders spells big trouble for little Barry. “Obama’s goose is cooked,” she said. “It’s the union leaders who need to be recalled.”

Does this mean the Democratic Party is not long for the world? That our two-party system is on its way out?

Of course not. As long as there are voters who really, really want lots of free stuff

from other people, there will be Democrats and Democratic politicians.Still, what it does mean is that beyond the short-term political

reality that Wisconsin presents a bleak forecast for Democrats in 2012 – liberalism itself (or “progressivism,” as the left euphemistically prefers) is terminally ill.

On Tuesday night, blogger David Burge of theIowa Hawk blog “tweeted: “The principal delusion of liberals is that liberalism is popular. The principal delusion of conservatives is that liberalism is popular.”

Simple, yet profound. Liberals should be afraid. They should be very afraid. The jig is up.

Polls consistently show that Americans identify as conservative over liberal by atwo-to-one margin. Wisconsin was an earthshaking manifestation of this reality.

But it was only a tremor. There’s a distinct probability a massive quake awaits liberals when, later

this month, the U.S. Supreme Court releases its decision on Obamacare. If this, both Obama’s and Democrats’ signature accomplishment, goes down, so too do the obtusely utopian, neo-Marxist dreams of the Democratic Party’s progressive base.

And in November? The tsunami.Indeed, the political tectonic plates are shifting. Unsurprisingly,

so-called “progressives” pretend it ain’t so.Problem is, so do conservatives.

Stop it, both of you! This is about worldview. This is about an epic clash between two

irreconcilable, diametrically opposed socio-political philosophies. It’s a zero-sum game. Somebody wins and somebody loses.

On the one hand, we have secular-socialism, a cultural and political philosophy embraced by labor unions, Barack Obama, the base of the Democratic Party, the mainstream media and many of those controlling the reins of our elitist institutions. It is “progressivism.”

This is a philosophy that, throughout history, has proven to be a serial failure. One need only look to Europe for the latest example. This secularist worldview is based loosely on the unattainable, redistributionist ramblings of Karl Marx, the father of communism.

It hates Christianity. It hates constitutionalism. It hates the precepts of individual liberty and responsibility codified throughout our nation’s founding documents. It embraces moral relativism and says there are no clear lines of demarcation between right and wrong.

It says that government is God and that as government giveth, government taketh away.

In sum: It’s garbage. On the other hand we have the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is

the socio-political philosophy embraced by our Founding Fathers. The historical record is unequivocal. It was within this framework that our U.S. Constitution was created. It is conservatism.

It says that we are endowed by our “Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It embraces the virtues of fiscal responsibility, individual liberty and personal charity. It says there is black and white – right and wrong. It strives for less government and more freedom.

It acknowledges that there is a sovereign God – to whom we are all accountable – including both government and those whom “we the people” place in government.

It holds that as God giveth, God taketh away, and that you lying, cheating, ungodly snakes in Washington, D.C., better just take a step back and quick.

In sum: It is truth. On Tuesday night, as the election returns came in and it became clear

that Scott Walker was landsliding liberals and their union thugocracy, some progressive nutbroke down, sobbing on camera and cried: “Democracy died tonight!”

Progressives, get this straight: On Tuesday night democracy didn’t die. Democracy was fulfilled in a powerful and transformative way.

And it’s only the beginning. Liberals went to Wisconsin for a recall vote and a revolution broke

out. We the people have spoken. Tea party? Yes. “Occupy”? Not so much.Christian apologist C.S. Lewis wrote, “We all want progress, but if

you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.”

On Tuesday America hit Wisconsin and did an about-turn. MATT BARBERMatt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action.



Commentary: Matt Barber



Some Notable Primary Victories for Taxpayers

Congratulations to all the candidates who signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge - promising the voters of their districts that, if elected, they would oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes - and won their GOP primaries (no Democrats have signed the Pledge). Some notable victories:

Pledge signers Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Joe Heck easily won their primaries and now move on to tough races against a pair of tax-and-spend liberals in November. They are joined by fellow Pledge signer Rep. Mark Amodei - who had no primary opposition and has only token opposition in the general.

Pledge signer Danny Tarkanian won a squeaker in Nevada’s new 4th congressional district race over Nevada State Sen. Barbara Cegavske who, for some unexplained reason, signed the Pledge years ago when she ran for the state Legislature, but refused to sign it this year as a congressional candidate.

And don’t think that didn’t factor in the voting decision of a lot of CD4 voters. Maybe enough to have been the difference in the race.

Tarkanian also swamped Dan Schwartz (11%) who spent a fortune on television ads pummeling Tarkanian and who not only refused to sign the Pledge, but ran as a moderate on other issues, as well.

Taxpayers scored another big victory in Assembly District 39, where Pledge-signer Jim Wheeler defeated incumbent non-Pledge signer Assemblyman Kelly Kite despite having a third GOP primary candidate in the race. That almost never happens. Usually the challengers split the anti-incumbent vote and the incumbent gets re-elected. But not in this case.

This is a particularly sweet victory for taxpayers since Assemblyman Kite not only refused to sign the Tax Pledge but voted for the $620 million tax hike in the last session and wouldn’t promise not to do it again next session. On the other hand, Mr. Wheeler not only signed the Pledge, but campaigned hard on the issue.

In Assembly District 35, Pledge signer Tom Blanchard defeated Adam Cegavske, a public employee who refused to sign the Pledge, while Pledge signer Assemblyman Pete Livermore crushed his non-Pledge signer opponent in Assembly District 40 with more than 72% of the vote.

In Assembly District 15, Pledge signer Megan Heryet pulled off an easy victory over two non-Pledge signers, Benjamin Donlon and Marco Miller, while in Assembly District 9, Pledge signer C. Kelly Hurst pulled out a 9-vote victory over fellow Pledge signer Victoria Delaguerra-Seaman.

Yes, a number of GOP legislative candidates who didn’t sign the Pledge also won…and those are the ones you better keep an eye on! Because all of the Republicans who voted for that $620 million tax hike/extension in 2012 were Republicans who refused to sign the Pledge. Caveat emptor. CHUCK MUTHChuck Muth is president of CitizenOutreach.com and founder of CampaignDoctor.com. He blogs at MuthsTruths.com


Commentary: Chuck Muth


Every week in Nevada, someone is trying to screw us.

Most of the time, we elected that someone.

That's why we conserva-tives NEED a WEEKLY voice.

That's why the Penny Press has made sticking up for us little guys a whole new Nevada tradition.

Penny Press775-410-1611702-418-0433

eFax [email protected]

pennypressnv.com

Pet Of The WeekAdopt This Pet !

Buddy is an 18-month-old black and tan Doberman. This 80-pound youngster is cropped and docked, neutered, housebroken and has a ton of energy but little training. His original owners developed health issues and could not give him the attention he needs. Buddy is a happy boy who is ready and waiting to make you happy in a new forever home.

Artie is a 3-year-old red Doberboy cropped and docked. His owner surrendered him to DRNV when she was out of food and could no longer take care of him. He currently weighs 70 pounds but needs to eat some good meals to get to about 90 pounds.

Artie gets along with large dogs but not small dogs and definitely does not like cats. He is housebroken, and does well on a leash

BUDDYCall

702-672-7204

ARTIECall

702-672-7204



Winnemucca • Battle Mountain • Lovelock • Surrounding Areas

Real Estate GuideNorthern Nevada June 2012

Free In Winnemucca, Lovelock and Battle Mountain

Documents

· Random DUI checkpoints? Sure. It is unclear whether aerial Penny Press NEVADA USA 16 PAGES VOLUME 9 NUMBER 41 JUNE 21, 2012 Penny Wisdom We are rapidly entering the age of no