Speaking to an audience of college students at Xavier University, Obama rolled through his standard teleprompter-zombie applause lines:

(“it’s great to be back here in [insert city name]. What a job you all have done recovering and rebuilding from [insert disaster reference here]. I promise you I’ll do everything in my power to ensure [repeat disaster reference here] never happens again. Remember, vote for me, because I give a damn.”)

Then the President, looking remarkably refreshed after his latest vacation — this time in Martha’s Vineyard, an ultra-exclusive enclave favored by liberal millionaires, began spouting talking points which strained credulity, to say the least.

Standing in the heart of a city which was nearly wiped off the map by a combination of decades-long Democrat incompetence and corruption, a dystopic liberal culture of dependence and one mighty impressive natural disaster, the fabulously wealthy President Obama… blamed everything on President Bush.

Again.

But blame is as American a pastime as baseball. Actually, given the multisyllabic surnames dominating most Major League rosters these days, blame is right up there with Mom and apple pie. But Obama is blaming the wrong guy.

With Hurricane Earl now becoming a force to be reckoned with, and the five-year anniversary of the Democrat-engineered Katrina disaster, I thought I’d take a moment to — as the kiddies say — drop a little knowledge on you.

According to Obama, Katrina was:

"a man-made catastrophe — a shameful breakdown in government that left countless men, women and children abandoned and alone.”

Last time I checked, hurricanes are almost never man-made, despite Al Gore’s assertions. As for governmental breakdowns, the actions of Mayor Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin, and Governor Kathleen “Crocodile Tears” Blanco in the face of Mother Nature’s oncoming wrath didn’t exactly reverberate with redoubtable statesmanship. Of course, the goodly people of New Orleans re-elected their Candyman, so some of the blame for their plight can be placed on them.

Actually, quite a bit of the blame for the plight of New Orleans can be set down right on Bourbon Street. Despite the insistence of multimillionaires like Spike Lee and Kanye West, the teeming mass of destitute humanity gathered at the Superdome wasn’t consigned to their plight because “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Nor did the levees near the 9th Ward give way because they were secretly destroyed by Federally-placed explosives (sorry, Mr. Farrakhan).

A massive hurricane formed in the Bahamas, made its way into the Gulf of Mexico and then headed for Mardi Gras-ville. Bush actually declared a Federal state of emergency two days before Katrina’s landfall. In fact, Bush ended up having to push Louisiana’s Democrat Governor Blanco to order mandatory evacuations less than 24 hours before Katrina’s arrival, with Nagin finally ordering mandatory citywide evacuation later that day.

Beyond that, the pictures tell a far more accurate story than the Democrat-controlled corporate media would ever allow. And I’m not just talking about flooded fleets of school buses. Nor am I referring to those scenic shots of fine Orleans-ians swimming through the flooded streets with filched flat screens (although had they purloined the plasmas earlier, they might have caught the GET OUT, THERE’S A GIGANTIC FREAKIN’ HURRICANE HEADED RIGHT FOR YOU warnings blaring from the boob tube for at least 72 hours before Katrina set up shop near Lake Pontchartrain).

I’m thinking of the thousands of NOLA residents swarming together at the Superdome and adjacent convention center. After decades of voting Democrats into office, they were helpless; willingly robbed of their ability to fend for themselves beyond basic self-preservation instincts. Nagin, Blanco and the massive, overarching bureaucracy created by virtually unfettered liberal authority — granted by the electorate — had abandoned them at the crucial moment and they were prostrated before God and CNN.

Five years later, and still, according to Obama: Bush did it.

Now I’m going to throw out a heavy concept for you port-siders: Let’s assume that Bush DID do it. Let’s say he engineered a hurricane, directed it to New Orleans, dynamited the levees, ensured Blanco and Nagin would both fumble the ball on the goal line, pulled the batteries out of the NOLA buses and flooded the city.

Perhaps this is not a man with whom you want to pick a fight.

In its quest, the community is supported by most New Yorkers, as a new Zogby International poll found that more than 68 percent believe State and Federal governments should honor Indian treaties that bar state taxation of their businesses.

"Once again the people of New York State have voiced their support of our rights as a sovereign nation," said Seneca Nation of Indians president Barry E. Snyder, Sr.

This is not the only outcry against New York state plans to ramp up taxes. For example, bagel sellers also expressed criticism over plans to enforce a sales tax for sliced or prepared bagels, according to the state Department of Taxation and Finance.

"Instead of thinking what can be done to encourage small business owners, they are wasting their time and taxpayer money, harassing job creators to fund the state budget," said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst at The Cato Institute, quoted by CNN.

For 75 years the rule has been that in order for any class of workers (e.g., pilots) employed by an airline or railroad to unionize, a majority of all employees in that class have to vote for unionization. But the proposed new rule would require only that a majority of employees who actually vote on the question of unionization would be needed to unionize.

All Democrats love unions; Republican progressives love unions; and even many conservatives believe that a worker should be allowed to join a union voluntarily, so long as those who do not want to join the union are not forced to do so.

Which probably makes me a minority of one. Why? Because not only do I believe that workers do not have a right to unionize a company through tyranny of the majority, I don’t believe that any worker has a right to join a union without the consent of his employer.

It is a basic tenet of libertarian-centered conservatism that without property rights, no other rights are possible. Unfortunately, most people do not understand this fundamental concept. They view property only as inanimate matter, separate and apart from a person’s life. They cannot seem to make the connection between the two.

In actual fact, they are so connected that one is virtually an extension of the other. How can one separate a person’s life from his property? If you took everything that an individual owned, the fact is that he would not own his own life because whenever he attempted to create something for his personal gain, the fruits of his labor could again be confiscated.

The same is true of purchasing property. The money used to make a purchase presumably was earned through the purchaser’s efforts. That makes the money an extension of his life and, therefore, the same would be true of anything purchased with that money. No matter what the circumstances, when a person’s property rights are violated, his freedom is violated.

A libertarian-centered conservative (i.e., a true conservative) believes that no one has a right to any other person’s property, which includes both his body and everything he owns. Once this concept is understood it would be proper to say that, in reality, all crime is based on trespassing on the property of an owner.

When people make “humanitarian” statements about human rights being more important than property rights they are, in a sense, correct. That’s because human rights include property rights, as well as all other rights of man.

A man has the right to dispose of his life and his property in any way he chooses, without interference from others. By the same token, he has no right to dispose of any other person’s life or property, no matter what his personal rationalizations may be.

As explained in The Fundamentals of Liberty by Robert LeFevre, there are only three possible ways to view property:

1. Anyone may take anyone else’s property whenever he pleases.
2. Some people may take the property of other people whenever they please.
3. No one may ever take anyone else’s property without his permission.

It is self-evident to anyone who believes in individual liberty that the only morally valid way to view property is No. 3. Likewise, no one has a right to tell a property owner (property being land, buildings, a business or anything else that a person may own) what he can or cannot do with his property.

Take a business, for example. It belongs to the owner, whether he started the business himself or bought it from someone else. No one has a right to take any part of someone else’s business, nor do they have a right to tell him what he can and cannot do with his business.

If a business is a public company, it is the property of a large number of people (shareholders). Thus, size is irrelevant when it comes to property rights. When property rights are violated against a multinational corporation as opposed to a mom-and-pop business, it simply means that far more people become victims of government aggression. It is a moral absurdity to believe that bigness validates aggression.

Therefore, as a minority of one, I am compelled to say that regardless of the size of a business, the only way unionization is morally valid is if the owner of that business voluntarily agrees to it. Why? Because it’s his business! It’s his property! And it is his human right to set the rules for his own property!

In a truly free society, a worker has one inalienable, overpowering right with regard to his job: He can quit at any time. He is not a slave, so his employer cannot chain him to his work. If he wants to belong to a union he is free to search for employment with a company that allows workers to unionize.

The fact that many people reading this article will find my comments to be extreme speaks only to how far down the road toward socialism we have traveled. We no longer respect property rights, especially when the property is a business. Generations have been brainwashed into believing that abstract notions such as “the good of society” and “social justice” are more important than private ownership.

The proposed new ruling by the National Mediation Board opens a debate over the issue of whether 75 percent of the overall majority of workers in a given class should be required to unionize an airline or railroad, or just 75 percent of those who actually participate in voting on the question. But, in reality, the debate is nothing more than a distraction. The real debate should be over whether or not employees should be allowed to unionize at all without the consent of the owner.

This is precisely the kind of issue that has caused conservatives to lose their way over the years. Until politicians have the courage to confront an issue such as unionization head on and stop buying into debates about whether to move further to the left or stick to what has become the status-quo left, America will continue its acceleration toward total collapse — both morally and economically.

It will be interesting to see if anyone reading this article has a strong enough belief in the absolute sanctity of property rights to agree with what I’ve said here. That would be nice, because it would instantly elevate me to the status of being part of a minority of two.

–Robert Ringer

A new study from German researchers has found that the location of body fat may play a large role in determining whether or not lifestyle changes will make an impact on an individual’s weight and health.

Scientists from University Hospital Tubingen found that fat located in the liver or around the abdomen can be extremely difficult to burn of through exercise or eliminate with improved diet.

"You may have two individuals who weigh the same and have the same body mass index, but have very different levels of internal fat," said lead researcher Jürgen Machann. "Abdominal and liver fat are the two most important factors in predicting whether a lifestyle intervention will be successful."

He added that fat in these areas may also damage heart health to a greater degree, making it vital for doctors to pay attention to the distribution of their patient’s fat.

However, experts say there are ways to enhance the appeal and value of one’s house — especially if it’s about to go on the market — without spending a lot of money.

Painting the house and replacing the front door, which is the first thing prospective buyers see, are obvious and low-cost ways to spruce up the house and make it more attractive, according to Kiplinger.com.

In a similar vein, spending $300-$400 on landscaping can make the property stand out from among its neighbors and boost the chances of a successful closing.

Furthermore, replacing old sinks and adding low-flow faucet aerators, which can reduce water usage by 30 percent, costs less than $500 and can be done in one day. Prospective buyers pay particular attention to the kitchen, and this is one investment that can greatly pay off, the news source advises.

In Nullification: How To Resist Tyranny In The 21st Century, Thomas E. Woods Jr., explores the history of nullification in America. It’s a history that few students are taught in government schools, and one that even fewer mainstream historians are willing — or able — to discuss. In fact, Woods writes that at a scholarly debate he attended in 2003, only he and one other academic defended the Thomas Jefferson view of nullification (as espoused in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts and known as the Principles of ’98).

Woods holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and received a master’s, a Master of Philosophy and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He’s a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he edited Exploring American History: From Colonial Times to 1877 (an 11-volume encyclopedia) and is the author of 10 books.

He says that the Founders meant for the States to be checks against Federal tyranny and the 10th Amendment was put into the Constitution to reinforce the rights of States to nullify unConstitutional laws.

A commonly-used argument against nullification is the idea that the Civil War “settled” the issue. Woods argues that the Civil War had nothing to do with nullification even though the Southern States seceded based on the (correct) compact theory of the union. That theory maintains that each individual State — not a single group of united people — joined together to form the Union. Each individual State, acting in its sovereign capacity, ratified the Constitution in the months and years following its drafting in 1878.

“The very fact that the states voted separately to ratify the Constitution, and that the Constitution was not ratified by a single, consolidated vote of all individuals in the original thirteen states, is an important piece of evidence to compact theorists that the states, rather than some single American people, created the federal Union,” Woods writes.

This is not the American history that most school children learn — nor the one that most law students study. What they are taught can be called the nationalist theory which conceives of the United States as deriving from a single sovereign people rather than from an agreement among States and the residents of each State.

Woods covers the discussions that took place and essays that were written during the States’ ratifying conventions — particularly those in Virginia — that prove they understood the States maintained the right to shield their people from encroachments by the Federal government.

The idea of nullification was invoked in the Principles of ’98 by Jefferson and James Madison, and in subsequent years by a number of States over a variety of issues. And it has continued to this day.

One recent example occurred in 2005 and 2006 when 24 States nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. Opposition to the legislation came from both Republicans and Democrats — with one side opposing the unfunded mandates and the impact they would have on state finances and the other side opposing the privacy issues involved. Another example involves the medical use of marijuana, which is illegal under Federal law but allowed in 14 States.

And it’s through nullification that a number of States are resisting the institution of Obamacare’s mandates that everyone purchase health insurance.

Woods’ book comprehensively covers the history of nullification and lays out a plan whereby Americans can battle the ever-growing tyranny of the Federal government. It deals with all the arguments for and against the idea of nullification and is an excellent source for anyone wanting to learn how to stop the leviathan state.

I recommend Nullification: How To Resist Tyranny In The 21st Century to every patriot looking to resist Federal tyranny. It provides not only a good history lesson, but a legal lesson as well.

In fact, some brands of bottled iced tea have such low levels of antioxidants that consumers would have to drink 20 bottles to get the nutritional benefit as one cup of freshly brewed tea.

The sale of bottled tea and iced tea has grown into a major industry, accounting for more than $1 billion in annual sales, according to the report. The authors note that the health benefits offered by antioxidants are some of the main factors driving the industry’s growth.

"Consumers understand very well the concept of the health benefits from drinking tea or consuming other tea products," said the study’s lead author Shiming Li, who works at a New Jersey-based biotechnology company.

"However, there is a huge gap between the perception that tea consumption is healthy and the actual amount of the healthful nutrients," he said.

A new study from researchers at the University of Newcastle in Australia found that the different varieties of omega-3s — whether eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) or docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) — may affect men and women differently.

To test their hypothesis, investigators gave different groups of men and women either EPA or DHA supplements. They found that EPA had a more significant impact on men’s heart health, while DHA provided more benefits for women.

Researchers wrote in their report that nutritional supplements vary in their levels of these two varieties of omega-3s, and that consumers should be aware of the types that will provide the greatest benefits for their health.

"We have shown that gender-specific responses exist in the 24 hours following dietary supplementation with a single oral dose of EPA or DHA rich oil capsules," they wrote.

The study concluded that the findings could change the way that people view the use of nutritional supplements.

According to Paul, the last “decent audit” was done 50 years ago. In the early 1980s Paul tried to get an audit done when he was on the gold commission. Fifteen of the 17 members of the commission voted not to conduct an audit.

In recent months there have been a number of rumors about Ft. Knox, among them: that it no longer contains any real gold; That it contains only a small portion of what is claimed; and that many of the bars that are there are made of lead or some other material and only coated in gold.

“If there was no question about the gold being there, you think (the Federal Reserve) would be anxious to prove gold is there,” Paul said.

Paul has long been an advocate of sound money and has fought against the Federal Reserve. His efforts last year to get legislation passed to audit the Federal Reserve was ultimately watered down by Congress to the point of uselessness.

“I don’t think the Federal Reserve should exist — it would be best for Congress to exert their responsibilities and that is find out what they are doing,” Paul told Kitco News. “It is an ominous amount of power they have to create money out of thin air and being the reserve currency of the world and be able to finance runaway spending whether it is for welfare or warfare; it seems strange that we have been so complacent not to even look at the books. If we knew exactly what they were doing, who they were taking care of, there would be a growing momentum to reassess the whole system.”

The Federal Reserve has created bubbles and inflation and today’s dollar is worth about 2 cents compared to the 1913 dollar, Paul said.

Paul said he would like to see gold and silver legalized as currency to give people a choice of using the Government’s fiat currency or real money.

Of course, the Federal Reserve can print money to infinity which isn’t backed by anything. This makes wars possible and has led to the devaluation of the dollar and is “legal” theft of the individual by the government.