Saturday, August 10, 2013

Climate Change from a Climate Change Scientist turned Skeptic

The science is not settled on this matter. If the predictions of the climate models was correct, then we would be seeing the obvious effects of global warming already, but still no islands have sunk, and the icecaps have not melted. There is 30 years of data to prove that none of it has happened as predicted.





The Obama's surrender their Law Licenses

About a year ago, the liberal left unionistas made a list of all the supposed lies told by Governor Scott Walker in the course of his campaign for Governor. But their list had no source material. So I am copying this from another blogger to show how a list of lies should be presented, WITH the source material. The following is a small list of the flaws and illegal activities carried out by our president and his wife, not simply made up allegations.

I am reposting for those who have missed it.
FORMER LAWYERS?
I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn't know why until I read this.
This is 100% legit. I check it out at https://www.iardc.org/ Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.
Big surprise.
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
3. Facts.Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ;
7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/
9. Free Republic : In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight. Keep this moving — educate others

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Fourth Tri-mester abortion is illegal!

Who knew! Not these young Americans.



So why would anyone think that Fourth Tri-mester abortion should be legalized, can anyone give me a decent explanation?

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Natural Born Citizen defined by Barack Obama

This video proves that Obama himself knows that he is not eligible to serve as President. He is illegally occupying the office and We the People need to remove him, forthwith.

Monday, July 1, 2013

High Treason Defined, Take Action!

Borrowed:

1ST AMENDMENT CITIZEN’S LIEN AGAINST TREASON
Consequence of filing under 18 USC § 4

Any Judge, Attorney and/or other court officer using the Court system acting under the Color of Law who violates his/her required Oath to support the Constitution for the United States of America is violating the Soldiers Oath to support and defend against all enemies, foreign and Domestic; thus is committing Rebellion and Insurrection against the Authority of the United States, which Authority is the Constitution, therefore the Judge, Attorney and/or other court officer is committing Treason.

5 USC § 3331. Oath of office

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

US Supreme Court justices take two oaths of office. The first, a Constitutional Oath mandated by Article VI of the Constitution and 5 USC § 3331 (federal law), is sworn by all federal employees except the President:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

The second, the Judicial Oath of Office, originated with the Judiciary Act of 1789 and continues as a requirement under 28 USC § 453, but was amended slightly in 1990:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.

18 USC § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

18 USC § 2382 - Misprision of treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

18 USC § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The Constitutional Criminal Complaint process we utilize is the Citizen’s first Amendment right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a Redress of grievances.

Judges and/or US Prosecuting Attorneys in any court system cannot Lawfully attack our LIENS AGAINST TREASON, which any Citizen files against Federal Judges, US Prosecuting Attorneys, Federal Agents, State and Local Public officials because of these Public officials violation of their required Constitutional Oath for the Constitution of the United states of America, without shutting down the Selective Service of the Military.

Our Liens are more specifically called: Consensual Public Commercial Liens against Treason.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Ignorance does NOT trump expertise

Most people feel it is wise to never offer an opinion on a subject in which you personally have no experience.  In health care matters, one does not ask the opinion of a cashier; in matters of law enforcement, one asks a lawyer or police officer, not the paper boy.  We understand that when we know nothing about a certain subject, we cannot offer an expert opinion.

Would you go up to a brain surgeon, as a layman, and tell him I don't think your theory on neural ganglia is correct?  I have never spent an hour studying neural networks, but I feel that I am sufficiently educated on the subject to offer my negative opinion.

Or would you say to a rocket scientist, that he/she really shouldn't have to account for the gravitational field of the sun when sending a rocket to the moon, because they are on the opposite sides of the planet?  Do you feel that your opinion is valuable?

Or would you point out to a concert pianist that they really don't need to worry about rhythm or cadence, because that is the job of the conductor or percussionist.

Or would you walk into a gun shop and tell the gunsmith that is shouldn't be necessary to clean a weapon after firing a few hundred rounds through it, even though you have never shot, nor even owned a firearm?

And yet....

Atheist and agnostics feel completely comfortable in their ignorance of religion to claim that there is no God, and to claim they understand the Bible; even though they have never read a single word it contains nor spent any time becoming an expert in Biblical Studies.

Why do you feel it is perfectly acceptable to impinge your ignorance of the spiritual realm to someone who has spent decades studying the Bible, and can explain to you nuances of spirituality that you have never experienced?

Why is it perfectly acceptable for you to judge an expert in an area from a position of complete ignorance of the subject, simply because it is in the area of spirituality? Why is it that you think that, because you know absolutely nothing about the Bible, you can impugn an expert.

How many decades have you spent reading the written Word? How many years have you spent doing comparative studies between multiple translations and outside literature? How many hours have you spent searching for the nuances between passages?  When did you become a Biblical Scholar? What I see is an ignorant Neophyte and your opinion on the value of the Scriptures is less than worthless.

Why do you feel it is perfectly okay to tell people that the Bible may contain the truth, when you have never read a single word in the Bible, and have no idea what truth it may contain? I find it simply amazing that you feel your utter lack of research qualifies you to dispute the validity of a subject you have spent no time contemplating.

Why do you think that ignorance trumps expertise?

Try that line of reasoning with any other area of study, and see how far you get.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Worst Country Ever?

Michelle Obama is famous for saying she is finally proud of this nation after the election of her husband. The school system is teaching our kids that the Founding Fathers were horrible people who couldn't see past their slaves or millions and gave us a horrible place to live. Liberals say the Constitution is a living breathing document that needs a lot of work to be workable, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is famous for telling the young Egyptian government to look at some other nations constitution because the American Constitution is flawed.  Obama himself has claimed that he could do whole lot more for the nation if only the horrible Constitution weren't tying his hands and keeping him from running the nation the way he feels.

I agree!!!

The Founding Fathers were a group of doddering old fools, who couldn't foresee the future that we live in now.  They had no clue to how badly they tied the hands of the blessed, utopian, elitists who know what is best for the people and cannot possibly have  had the best interests of the people at heart when they wrote the damnable Constitution.

It is such a shame that all those refugees from nations at war, that have seen killing and know terrible fear, are forced to move here. What a horrible nation to have to call home, the land of full on hate and unequal distribution of wealth.

It is such a shame that all those immigrants were never given an opportunity to break out of the cycle of poverty, never given the chance to make a better living for themselves and their families, never given the chance to see their children educated and graduate from high school or even college.

It is such a shame that all those slaves were freed.  They had everything they could have wanted, they were taken care of, their families were cared for, they had it made. But those horrible white abolitionists had to go messing around and teach them how to read and write, and show them how to leave their comfortable homes in the south to travel to the north, were they had to subsist on their own wits.

It is such a shame that all those Cuban people had to die trying to reach the Florida shores, if only they would have realized that they had it so much better in Cuba. They would have never ventured to a nation that is so fueled by greed and corruption if only they would have been told how wonderful and easy they had it in their own nation, how their life of ease and safety was so far and away better than the horrible freedom and risk that was available to them in America.

It is such a shame that all those illegal Mexican's feel the need to cross the borders and find employment here in America.  If only they could see how bad it is to be left to your own devices to make a living and make decisions for you life that puts them at risk for failure.

Too bad all those poor people had to work for their subsistence and get a job to make sure they didn't end up on the streets. Too bad old people have to be forced out of the work place and retire. Too bad all religious faiths cannot get along and respect each other, too bad  public discourse cannot be civil and respectful of other beliefs. Too bad all those citizens have the right and responsibility to protect themselves and their property. Too bad all those citizens have access to private property.

Too bad all those sick people from around the world had to travel to this nation to get health care. If only they would realize that the rationed national health care that was promised to them in their own nation was so much less expensive and better than what could be found here in America, they would have been better off.  Did they not realize that the health care here in America is the worst ever, and their nations have it correct by providing socialized medicine for all citizens.

Too bad all those innovators had to get their patents here, too bad they had to see their inventions come to market, too bad they had to make money from their inventions, too bad they had to put people to work by creating jobs.

Too bad all those artists, musicians, writers, game developers, dancers, sculptors, and other craftspeople had to live here to see their products sold and make money.  How awful that they couldn't just offer their talents at no cost to the public and get nothing more than adulation.

Too bad all those people have to work to get money to live on. Too bad they have to be given raises and time off and benefits, and health care that are linked to work.  They should just be given all the benefits without the requirement of employment. (Nancy Pelosi is famous for not wanting people to have to feel the need to work to earn a living.)

We live in such a horrible nation.
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


Why in the world would anyone want to make their home in such a horrible nation.  It is only now that the liberals are in charge that the nation can finally be fixed and made right and good for all people.

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Friday, May 17, 2013

Big Bang v. Evolution





Think about this: if the maximum possible organization was only available at the initial moments of the big bang, and the universe has been under the law of entropy since; science has just vacated any and all theories that rely on unassisted organization. The accretion disc theory of the solar system, expansionism, and evolution comes to mind immediately. Since the universe was brought into being at the big bang more organized than we see it now, there is no need for evolution.

Saturday, May 4, 2013

How do you treat the poor?

There are two political camps in the nation, and most of the world, today. Each says they are taking care of the poor. Each claims to be compassionate, so what is the difference.  As I see it the two factions have a different way of treating the poor.

The Conservative View:

The poor are people, just like you and I, they need to be respected. We all have access to the goods from Nature, they are equally available to all, one only needs to avail themselves to them through labor.  We do not harvest food crops unless we have planted and watered them. Each person is entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labor, this means that some may attain more if they labor more. It is not greedy to possess and appreciate what ones' hard work has acquired.

A conservative tells a poor person, I will give you a job, I cannot pay you very much at the beginning, but you will be able to work your way up, and earn more as time goes by: a concept known as upward mobility.  It is always hard at first, but with much hard work, training, experience, and time even the lowest can move up. Through a job the indigent gain self-respect, knowledge, confidence, reputation, and private property.

Natural law allows for one to accumulate wealth, and as long as he does not allow what he can accumulate to be of no use to himself or anyone else, then there is no limit to what he can procure.  In other words, if I work on a farm and grow tomatoes, I am allowed to eat as many tomatoes as I want, I am allowed to can as many tomatoes as I can. I am also able to barter with others to access what I do not have myself. And being able to save for the future is not only right, it is admirable.

This philosophy has been extolled by John Locke, Cicero, Thomas Paine and the Founding Fathers. It is not possible to demand that human nature change to accommodate society. Society needs to account for human nature and adapt it to the betterment of society.



The Progressive View:

The poor are people, just like you and I, they need to be taken care of. Those of us who have taken advantage of the goods that Nature has given us, need to share our bounty with everyone fairly. No one person or group should be allowed to hoard their yield, the whole of the goods that Nature provides are for the benefit of all in society. Not everyone is capable of attaining the same access to Nature, so those who have greater capability must give up the excess that they can access to give to those who cannot.

The progressive tells the poor person, I am sorry you do not have the same access, you can go to the government and they will give you what they think you need. You shouldn't have to work to provide for yourself, you are entitled to certain basic needs, including shelter, water/food, and (under current era thinking) health care, education, clothing, safety, unionization, reproduction, affirmative action, and tolerance.

No one person or group is allowed to have anything private, everything (including offspring, life, work, and even your identity) belongs to the state and the state will divvy it up "fairly." The state is the only entity that understands what is for the good of society, and those who make up the state determine what "fair" distribution is. When everyone is given their needs, there is no necessity for further striving or excess. The whole of human society will recognize that and will conform to the constraints of the statists for the good of society.

A philosophy borrowed heavily from Thomas Moore, Plato, Marx, Machiavelli and Hobbes.  It is necessary for man to change his nature to accommodate society. Only when all men are provided for equally will there no longer be any contentions between parties.



The future of the world is the treasure in this prize-fight. On one side is Freedom, the other side Slavery. I for one will choose the path of freedom.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Dissent of Government is patriotic

For those who think that criticizing the Obama regime is a felony I leave you with this:



Hillary Clinton at her most shrill. But for once she is right!

Monday, March 11, 2013

Following like sheep

Mark Twain said "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." Every socialist, communist, and Nazi dictator knows this from his rise to power. Truth is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the people believe. Specifically, what matters is who the people perceive you to be.

Hugo Chavez died with a net worth between $1-2 billion by various accounts. Human Rights Watch points out that Hugo Chavez’s presidency was characterized by a dramatic concentration of power and open disregard for basic human rights guarantees. Yet his people kept electing him, and praised him for caring for the poor. The lack of sense of reality is replicated over and over in history. http://www.inquisitr.com/558917/hugo-chavez-dead-net-worth-2-billion-venezuela-dictator/#lpuZ2Gkgo7fsuSVx.99

Joseph Stalin was honored as a great leader in his time, as he convinced peasants of the evils of the rich while enslaving millions of them in labor camps to make himself rich and powerful. Likewise, Hitler's propaganda machine hid the evil intent behind his political ambitions and racist policies that led to the murder of millions. The world was in denial of the atrocities while evil reigned.

People do not want to believe the leaders that they elected are that evil. They would rather live in denial. Americans believe that our president has altruistic and compassionate motives. But when the evidence shows that he is following the game plan of his mentors, which is specifically to deceive the masses to attain the end of weakening America, the conclusion can no longer be that he is magnanimous. He is just as tyrannical at heart as the dictators of history. We all want a Savior, a hero. But he is only a deceiver. Don't be fooled. Admit it. We are in trouble. Maybe it's possible to turn from going down the road of destruction if we see the truth.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Guns and Freedom

With all the talk on Capitol Hill about banning assault weapons being the solution for gun violence, I began to think about why would the Progressives focus solely on the guns and not on the violence.

1. Progressives have a phobia about guns, not all weapons, just guns.  History has shown that other methods of violently ending another person's life cause more deaths than guns. And yet whenever a tragedy happens the progressives focus on the guns. We also know that the perpetrators of  the most recent tragedies were not mentally healthy, but it is the guns that have become the focus of the progressives and not the mental health of the criminals.

2. The progressives love to make everything a crisis. From the recession of 2009 to Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy (anyone remember Snow-maggedon and Frankenstorm?), to the Fiscal Cliff and health care crisis, to the mass shooting in CO and CT; we do not have ordinary societal problems anymore, everything is a CRISIS!!!  And the blame is always focused on the right that the progressives want to take away.  Yesterday it was tax hikes on the rich, today it is gun control, tomorrow it will be private property (see Agenda 21).

3. It is much easier to focus on the tool used in the action than on the cause of the action.  It is much easier to get the public all upset with guns than it is to tackle the issue of evil people.  The progressives have never been very good at defining evil, for most of the last century they have wanted us to believe that most humans are basically good people and the violent offenders are only acting out because of some injustice in their past and they need to be pitied and coddled because they were not loved enough. Well guess what, there are EVIL people. There are people who wish to hurt others, not because they were not hugged enough as a kid, but because they like to see people hurt.

4.  The progressives like to use emotion to push their agenda.  Rahm Emmanual said: "Never let a crisis go to waste."


So in order to ensure your agenda is forwarded, use emotion. Even if that means getting upset and emotional in front of a Senate committee: 

Never allow the people to frame a purely logical conclusion, never let the facts stand for themselves. Never be completely unbiased:


 "The Progressives believed in the Hamiltonian concept of positive government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored lands. The real enemy was particularism, state rights, limited government." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States.  Progressives have been waging war on the American Culture for over a century now.
Since  the 1970's progressives have been using Saul Alinsky type warfare to force their concept of social justice on the American people.  Saul Alinsky developed rules to transform the political climate and push the social justice agenda on an unwilling American citizenry:
  • RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
  • RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
  • RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
  • RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
  • RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
  • RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
  • RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
  • RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
  • RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
  • RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
  • RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
  • RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals
I would say that Rule 9 is being applied very well to the current issue of gun control. And Dianne Feinstein is a master at Rule 8.

We are fighting a century old virus that has been allowed to become infectious. The agenda has made its way into the education system, the hall of justice, the legislatures, the corporations, the unions, the media, and into the hearts and minds of the younger generation that has been indoctrinated into thinking that everything must be "fair".

Freedom is risky, progressivism promises "fairness"; Freedom can be dangerous, progressivism promises security; Freedom has no guarantees, progressivism promises cradle to grave care; Freedom is costly, progressivism promises safety. And yet refugees from around the world are still seeking the freedom that is available (maybe for a limited time) here in the United States.

So why the attack on the guns? Because the guns are the last line of defense against their agenda. Progressives cannot take the final step of enslaving the freedom-loving American people as long as we can defend ourselves. Guns equal Freedom.  If we allow the progressives to take away our guns, freedom is the casualty.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, January 20, 2013

Investigate, Indict, and Impeach

http://www.petition2congress.com/9026/start-immediate-investigation-barack-obamas-use-forged-ids-ct-ssn/?m=2980213

 We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Speech from Guns Across America

Dave and I made our way to the State Capitol this Saturday, Jan 19th to stand in support of the Constitution.  For us it is a ten-minute drive, for many of the others with us it was a much longer trek, I was very encouraged with seeing many new, and unknown to me, faces.  It is great to see the march of freedom is gathering yet more people to the ranks.  The current administration and his crony media would have Americans believe that freedom is passe, that we are in the minority, but I can tell you, from seeing so many new people, the march for freedom is not backing down we are gaining speed and strength. 
I do not want to see the road to European-style socialism and bankruptcy that our federal government seems hell-bent on taking us lead us to become just another third-world puppet dictatorship, or worse a tyrannical oligarchy that tramples over her citizens and treats them like cattle.  We can, and must, fight with all we have in us to see this is not the end result of the progressive era.  We were very taken with this speech:



We the People have to take back
Enhanced by Zemanta