Mid week Open Mic w/a Twist

I’m putting forward a link, that within the link is a lengthy movie that is dated 1993.  I watch and read a great deal things each day.  I love a good conspiracy theory, it’s entertaining and helps the mind to really think.  Granted, most things I bring up are far fetched in many ways, others a rather simple.  This movie, which I have just seen, blew my mind as to how close it talks about what is happening in today’s world.  It talks about the Iron Mountain Report.  A government ordered study that began in 1961.  The report that is covered is amazingly accurate to today’s day and age.  Please take the time to watch this.   It is 30 years old, but the response I have gotten from those who have watched is telling. As for all Open Mic’s Feel free to pick a subject and bring it up for discussion!

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/03/un-agenda-21-this-is-the-video-that-started-it-all-iron-mountain-blueprint-for-tyranny-full-length-video-2498636.html

About these ads

Comments

  1. Good Morning SUFA :)

    Back to an Open Mic again. The Iron Mountain Report, which the above link is about, is a very telling piece of work. As explained in the movie above, my questioning of Global Warming and even the Cold War may have much more merit now. Even Waco and Ruby Ridge have a purpose in the Iron Mountain Report. Mixed in is a how some events may have Biblical meaning. Worth the time, if nothing else, the entertainment value of a documentary that’s 30 years old is neat. I hope you enjoy it. :)

    • I hope that everyone understands that the Head Cop in the USA is saying that Obama can kill a human being, on US soil, without providing said soon to be dead person with any Constitutionally guaranteed rights. You know, like a trial by a jury of peers.

      It might go something like this:

      Radio transmission: Target in sight and locked in

      Obama: I’m positive that Anita is a terrorist

      Eric Holder: If your sure, it’s legal!

      Obama: launch missile!

      Anita: Oh Shit!

  2. One type of person I can’t stand is a liar (see Obama when he talks). Here’s another problem with how the Left tries to get there way with their low intelligent voters.
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-lies-that-gun-grabbers-tell.html

  3. I will even add a conspiracy theory to your list…….the Venezuelan VP claiming that the United States infected Chavez with cancer. …..

    • Mornin Colonel :)

      Sorry, your already late to that party. Even Russia wants an investigation. Cancer, the disease not the Democrats, has a lot to be looked at as far as how it “CAN” be put into the human body. The word is, it can be and is being done. That’s another subject for another day :)

      • Everyone is mourning because of the loss of WWE star Paul Bearer, the longtime manager of The Undertaker. Many call this a much greater loss than that of Chavez. He was 58 as well. May God rest his soul.

  4. displacedokie says:

    It is kinda impressive that man that fat made it to 58….and yes, it is a far greater loss to mankind.

  5. I am against any government mandating, even this one. I would be OK with it if there was a private waiver system allowed. A citizen can simply write a letter of exemption to the City govt and it is automatically approved. With this being done privately, the deterrence still remains high. A win-win for everyone! http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/city-looks-make-gun-ownership-mandatory/nWhgr/

  6. Gee, G, it looks like you’re the only one around these days … what’s up with that?

    But seriously, can’t you come up with anything more than BF’s desperate “envy” argument? It’s pathetic, but it’s also enough for me to come back to my senses (and join most of the other lefties who’ve left all 5-8 of you alone to stew in your own absurd juices). So, at least for now … arrivaderci, wingies! Remember to kiss your Marc Levin pictures before you go beddy-bye and feel secure in the knowledge that your liberty is safe and sound under the God you worship, the 1% … because they “earned” what they have and you need to protect it for them :)

    Take a look at what you wrote about the 1%, G … see if you can find the obvious hypocrisy …:)

    And as for “communist Iceland” … thank God the world doesn’t rely on “your experiences”, G … for Iceland IS NOT A COMMUNIST COUNTRY.

    Nice try … I’m sure it went right by the rest of the geniuses in here.

    • Charlie, in 1988, I was briefed by the military that it was a Communist country. That was a long time ago, for sure.

      • So the army lies too? Part of the government, no? Sweet Jesus, get your facts straight before you attack an entire ideology.

        • Back so soon :)

        • No, they didn’t lie. It is possible that Iceland was Communist in 1988. Remember, Communism has been dying at a slow but regular rate, because it don’t work. Now, the whole discussion was about a grapgh in a video you linked too that showed wealth distribution as equal across the board under Socialism and I threw the BS flag on it and said that it does not and has never existed that way. The countries I was in was an example, that is all.

          So with that said, can you name one country on this planet that the wealth is equally distributed throughout it’s citizens? This was the claim in the video and I still say it’s total bullshit. So, do you have an answer?

          • Gman,
            “Iceland has a free-market economy with relatively low corporate taxes compared to other OECD countries.”

            “It is arguably the world’s oldest parliamentary democracy.”

            I highly doubt you were “briefed by the military that it was a Communist country.” More likely it just fits your “all of Europe is a Socialist/Communist hell-hole” mentality.

            And this kind of stuff is so easy to verify/learn. Maybe you need to do some of your reading each day on something other than the right-wing websites.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland

  7. Forty minutes into your movie G, and will have to come back to it. Have heard of Iron Mountain before, but don’t know much about it.

  8. Bottom Line says:

    EXCELLENT find, G.

    I am still watching it, but I can already see some discrepancies with the interpretation and position of the narrator, (sounds like Bill Cooper) …as well as the government report. Although I do appreciate the accuracy in the notion that the transformation to a peaceful world will be most difficult.

    Indeed the transformation to peace will be difficult, as people have been, for generations, structuring their lives around certain practices and ideologies that are rooted in evil and have manifested into what we have today. It is not so easy to reverse.

    The report accurately suggests that the core of a ‘nation’ is force, be it the ability to enforce itself, either on it’s citizens, as a means of defense of it’s standing, or by imposing itself onto other nations. Because modern society has developed from this cornerstone of force, the transformation to a peaceful global system will require a complete dissolution and restructuring of all current national political and economic systems.

    The inaccurate assertion is that it will have to be replaced by a socialist system. The reality is that in order to maintain a proper balance of political and economic stability, we will have to live in a world where we practice a combination of both Libertarian and Socialist principles/systems integrated together.

    Socially/politically, the answer, in the interest of respect for basic human rights, is to have a Libertarian based structure much like the US constitution seeks to protect.

    Economically, the only way to maintain a balance is by a truly free market base system using alternative methods to replace the purpose/function of regulations as we currently use. For communal/collective economic responsibility, there will have to be some sort of decentralized network of voluntary socialism/communism in place of the current system of forced taxation.

    Such a system will be difficult to implement as most people are unwilling to compromise on, or even entertain the idea of, anything contrary or even a little different to what they are used to.

    Try going into any group of people where the discussion is political in nature and suggest a New World Order for, of and by the people where everyone compromises for an all around win/win. They will not listen to the reasoning or logic behind the message. They will only hear the idea of a global system and immediately reject it as they are afraid of change.

    There is also the religious implications and conspiracy theory garbage that seems to only fuel fear and distract from any ability to reason or entertain the idea of world peace as such.

    The vast majority of people are too evil stupid and/or stubborn to accept any peaceful solution for managing our planet, thus the only route to any significant or abrupt change is via mass genocide, or situation where we are otherwise forced to unite by circumstance.

    Otherwise, it has to be a gradual transformation over several generations.

    Globalization is inevitable though, as the more technologically advanced and populated we become as a species, the more we integrate, the smaller the world becomes. It is only a matter of time before it happens as a matter of our natural evolution.

    The question is of How.

  9. A leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama’s political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget cuts as painful as possible to win the public opinion battle against Republicans.

    The email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service office in Raleigh, N.C. He appears to tell his regional team about a response to his recent question on the amount of latitude he has in making cuts.

    According to the partially redacted email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states: “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/06/leaked-email-adds-fuel-to-claims-white-house-playing-politics-over-impact-cuts/#ixzz2MmU85BLL

  10. Check this out. O’Reilly was one heated hombre last night. Not only O’Reilly though. Greta pressed Darrel Issa hard about Benghazi too. Last week Hannity had it out with Ellis..forgot his last name. Someone told these anchors to start putting the heat on….
    http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=3341#1

  11. Bottom Line says:

    Excellent find with regard to the video, G.

  12. Bottom Line says:
  13. Started watching the film-for some reason BF came to mind-anybody remember what he said about why Kennedy was killed?

    • Something with the Fed??

    • I believe it was because he wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve. It may also have to do with the fact he would not attack Cuba, or both :)

      • Gman;

        His assisnation was in part orchistrated by the Mob and its foreign associates, because Kennedy didn’t deliver what he promised as a result of winning the election. Remember the Mob gave him the Union vote. And turning brother Bobby loose on them as the AG didn’t help the matter any. Add to that the fact that LBJ hated the man and well, we know the rest of the story. It was not one crazed shooter from a rooftop with an old bolt action rifle, and Jack Ruby didn’t act out of rage for Oswold killing the President.

        CM

        • Good enough for me CM. I’ve numerous reasons, but it was not just an act one one man who woke up and said: “Hey, I think I’ll shoot Kennedy today”. I’ve heard CIA too, but it really don’t matter, that was even before I was born.

          Hope today finds you and yours well today :)

          • No, actually it was a well thought out plan. He had ordered the rifle and tried to kill General Walker with it. He was seen at the range, there are photos of him with the rifle. If you have ever been to the Book Depository and up to that window and look down into the street where there are X’s marked to indicate the location of the limo as the shots were fired, you can see what an easy shot it really is to make. the Carcano, in my opinion is a piece of crap. If I were Oswald, I probably would have sprung for the $ 29.95 1903 Springfield rather than the $ 12.95 Carcano. But just because the rifle appears crude, does not mean that it cannot be accurate. Couple that with the 6.5MM round, a flat shooting High Velocity cartridge and at the range actually shot (75 yds.) you have a formidable weapon. I have this 6.5MM Japanese Arisaka which looks like somebody fabricated it in their basement in 1944 but the first time I shot it I was astonished with the accuracy.

            Like the little creep at sandy Hook, or the Columbine shooters or the movie theater shooter or the assassins of Garfield and McKinley, what you have is the little man trying to be big. The unibomber, McVeigh, and Booth all had what they considered to be well thought out legitimate grievances but guys like Oswald, well, we all know Walter Mitty guys like him. A little jerk who has failed at everything trying to be a big man. Think Cagney in “White Heat”, “Top of the World Ma”!

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    I just saw that Rand Paul is conducting an OLD FASHIONED Filibuster on the floor of the Senate, over the new CIA director.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    http://www.unausa.org/about-us

    Bwahahahahahaahaa…………….

    • We invite you to learn more about some of the institutions that support UNA-USA and its programs and campaigns.

      Merrill Lynch Global Philanthropy
      The Annenberg Foundation
      The Bank of America Charitable Foundation
      United States Agency for International Development
      Ford Foundation
      Rockefeller Brothers Fund
      Newman’s Own Foundation
      The Oprah Winfrey Foundation
      US Department of State
      Deutsche Bank
      Goldman Sachs Foundation
      American Jewish Committee
      Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights
      The Ross Institute
      Microsoft
      National Geographic Education Foundation
      The New York Times Company Foundation
      The Open Society Institute
      The Starr Foundation

  16. G Man….Iceland is not communist and never has been….in fact in 1998…..it was ruled by a center right administration. It is a multilevel government with a President and Prime Minister. There are no term limits except its parliament. The Progressive party faltered years ago and is trying a resurgence. It is one of the highest tax countries in the world and has a socialistic bend but it is not communist.

    • If that is so, then I stand corrected. I was given poor information. I even have to correct my date, it 1987, not 1988. Nice place to visit but wouldn’t want to live there. One thing, there were some very beautiful blond women on that island. The softness of their skin was amazing :)

      • Just don’t tell JAC, I told him I was never wrong and this might get in the way of that. How about we say that I acted on bad information and that they were wrong and I just repeated their incorrect information, this way I won’t be wrong. This of course is said with my best Joe Biden voice :lol:

      • “I was given poor information.”

        The understatement of the year, G …:)

        Your ranks seem to be fading fast, SUFA … or are the billions worldwide who tune in without commenting just here for the golden nuggets of information … like Iceland is communist … :)

  17. Arkansas now has the most restrictive abortion law in the nation!! WoooooooPIG!

    Ark. House overrides veto of 12-week abortion ban

    By ANDREW DeMILLO
    Associated Press

    LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — The Arkansas House on Wednesday voted to override Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto of a bill that would ban most abortions from the 12th week of pregnancy onward, giving the state the country’s most restrictive abortion laws and setting the stage for a certain court challenge.

    A day after the Republican-led state Senate voted to override Beebe’s veto, the GOP-controlled House voted 56-33 to do the same. Only a simple majority was needed in each chamber.

    The vote comes less than a week after the Legislature voted to override the governor’s veto of a separate bill banning most abortions starting in the 20th week of pregnancy. That bill took effect immediately after the final override vote, whereas the 12-week ban wouldn’t take effect until this summer.

    Abortion rights proponents have already said they’ll sue to block the 12-week ban from taking effect. Beebe warned lawmakers that both measures are likely to fail in court and that the state would end up wasting money defending them if they became law.

    Beebe rejected both measures for the same reasons, saying they were unconstitutional and contradicted the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion until a fetus could viably survive outside the womb. A fetus is generally considered viable at 22 to 24 weeks.

    The 12-week ban would prohibit abortions from the point when a fetus’ heartbeat can typically be detected using an abdominal ultrasound. It includes exemptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother and highly lethal fetal disorders. The 20-week prohibition, which is based on the disputed claim that a fetus can feel pain by the 20th week and therefore deserves protection from abortion, includes all of the same exemptions except for fetal disorders.

    The measure is among several abortion restrictions lawmakers have backed since Republicans won control of the House and Senate in the November election. Republicans hold 21 of the 35 Senate seats, and 51 of the 100 seats in the House. It takes a simple majority in both chambers to override.

    Beebe has signed into law one of those measures, a prohibition on most abortion coverage by insurers participating in the exchange created under the health care law.

    Unlike the 20-week ban, which took effect immediately, the 12-week restriction won’t take effect until 90 days after the House and Senate adjourn. Lawmakers aren’t expected to wrap up this year’s session until later this month or April.

    In vetoing both measures, Beebe has cited the costs to the state if it has to defend either ban in court. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas has vowed to sue if the state enacts the 12-week ban and the group said it was considering legal action over the 20-week restriction as well.

    Beebe noted that the state paid nearly $148,000 to attorneys for plaintiffs who successfully challenged a 1997 late-term abortion ban.

    The original version of Rapert’s bill would have banned abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, but he changed the measure after facing resistance from some lawmakers worried that it would require an invasive procedure.

    Women who have abortions would not face prosecution under Rapert’s bill, but doctors who perform abortions in violation of the 12-week ban could have their medical licenses revoked.

  18. For URGENT review ! D13, all of SUFA, Here is a link to a letter that some veterans are getting from the VA, claiming that they can eliminate their 2nd Amendment rights.

    http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/VA-letter-Copy-by-RedFlag-News.pdf

    Inputs?

    • Bottom Line says:

      1. – Any law[s] that are in conflict with and/or do not comply with the constitution are automatically null and void.

      2. – If it doesn’t respect inalienable rights or free will of individuals, it is evil. If it actively attempts to violate said rights or free will, it is acting in accordance with evil – kill it.

    • Another chance missed to do just a little bit of research and learn the truth. But you’d prefer to just have another feather-in-your-cap about the Great-Big-Bad-Obama-Socialist-Government.

      More of that intellectual laziness…

      http://burnpit.us/2013/02/about-va-letter-regard-guns

      • Good find Todd, seriously. You must admit, though, the administration gives us plenty to worry about. We can’t track it all down.

        • Is Obama making the sequester cuts painful on purpose? Do you anything on this subject?

        • Anita,

          You must admit, though, the administration gives us plenty to worry about. We can’t track it all down.

          No, it’s not the administration that gives you plenty to worry about. It’s the people who take every fact and twist it around into a conspiracy theory, that give you plenty to worry about.

          Ignore them, and you won’t have so much to track down.

          Or do a search on the first line of the article and see what you find…

      • Thanks for your kind words Todd, you such a gentleman :lol: Per your link, at the bottom: So here’s the real deal….yes, it is happening, but only to people who are adjudicated as being mentally incompetant for purposes of handling their financial dealings.

        That is pretty much what the whole story was to begin with, the letter was primarily about those who are being told they aren’t capable of handling their own finances. I’m guessing that some form of legal proceedings would have to occur for a power of attorney. With that said, there are two points to consider, 1. the VA is not really known for being efficient or accurate 2. If a person is mentally incapable of handling his finances, is he/she mentally capable of understanding the letter?

        Thanks for the link, I was interested to verify if it was actually happening. I’m sure mistakes will be made. Will it be abused? Hope not!

      • Oh, Todd, I forgot. Asking D13 and others to “review” something and asking for input is a form of research. I made no claim in my post that it was a conspiracy. Maybe you should learn to read the words written, rather than making up hidden meanings so that you can claim a higher intellectual position and make personal attacks. That’s not intellectual laziness on your part though, more like intellectual incompetence to think it would work :wink:

        • Gman,

          Oh, Todd, I forgot. Asking D13 and others to “review” something and asking for input is a form of research.

          No it’s not. It’s pretty much the definition of intellectual laziness.

          I made no claim in my post that it was a conspiracy.

          Ah yes, deny any responsibility for your actions. I see that a lot here…

          • Todd, I was only trying to confirm the letters, as I stated. I wasn’t making it a conspiracy and probably would not have continued to look into it without your wonderful encouragement. You should be a motivational speaker for the LBGT or other organizations having difficulty being accepted in our society..

            Oops, got on a rant, back to subject. Now, it has become a conspiracy. Not a theory, because it is recorded and on record. Fortunately, it will go nowhere and never become law. But, them evil backdoor Executive Orders are of concern now, imagine that?

            http://www.infowars.com/feinstein-all-vets-are-mentally-ill-and-government-should-prevent-them-from-owning-firearms/

            Don’t worry Todd, everything will be fine and there is really nothing to see, so move along :wink:

            • Feinstein actually tried to force a bill through. I have read it word for word. The funny thing about the bill is that she wanted to exempt all wars prior to Iraq as to P T S D. She knows nothing about this ailment as it has been around since Moses was a horse wrangler. It has been called shell shock, depression, war weariness…etc. Feinstein and her ilk have been disparaging veterans for a long time and she always will. She is part of that progressive thinking that veterans/military are war mongrels and killers not to be trusted. PTSD is a buzz word that is supposed to strike fear into the hearts of the unknowing and a good excuse for gun control….which is 24 carat bullshit. People like this are bottom feeders…….mud dwellers who prey upon the easily led.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Gman

    My initial response to your video Iron Mtn.

    Lets see…..if I want to maintain the Nation of the United States then I must accept WAR.

    If I want PEACE then I must accept the New World Order and UN Government.

    What an absolute bunch of CRAP.

    • JAC, The video is 30 years old! First, I had to watch it twice. That was rather boring, LOL. I viewed it as “what do we do when there is no war” to make money? By the rich, which is who the video is implicating. I’m going to take a guess that you really didn’t watch it with an open mind. Which is just fine, I have found that to be a wish in others, rather than the norm. :)

      • Just A Citizen says:

        gman

        You should know me enough by now to know I never approach anything with an open or closed mind. I try to maintain an ACTIVE mind.

        I watched about the first hour. Couldn’t take it any longer. It is a typical piece that takes truths and then mixes them with accusations and conclusions that have no foundation or proof.

        I have probably spent more time than anyone here on the Agenda 21 stuff. Perhaps BF or Kent would have me beat, I don’t know.

        I can tell you that I don’t like most of it but that much of what is claimed about it being One World Govt is a very, very, very, long stretch.

        Did you notice the contradiction in claiming the “rich people” would control this. WHY?

        If the Rich people got rich with this system then why in the hell would they take a chance on an entirely new system just to control the resources, money, and people?? Makes no damn sense.

        • Funny how we can see things differently. I thought Agenda 21 was a small part of the movie, almost not even worth mentioning. The Biblical stuff was interesting for me, my knowledge is very limited on that subject. As the movie was going through the report itself, as in, Alternatives to War, using the Space program, global environmental issues, healthcare, education, etc, it made sense to me. That’s about making money. There have been failures as well, such as disarming us.

          These rich people, Charlie’s best friends, may not have had anything to do with how things have played out over time. Maybe they did. What’s next is far more important than what has happened. Fun times ahead :)

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    More on the video claims.

    I have one major disagreement with one of the guy’s first claims.

    That we are being led down this path without our knowledge or consent.

    While many people may not realize how large the Green movement is or about the various items contained in Agenda 21, for the most part they have CONSENTED to those programs.

    These ideas, concepts and controls are not implemented by some dictatorship. They are accomplished by fellow CITIZENS participating on thousands of Civic Groups and Local Govt organizations.

    We the People have consented to the program goals via the people we KEEP ELECTING who openly discuss these goals and agenda items.

    But now lets turn the argument inside out. While Agenda 21 calls for the use of Zoning to accomplish certain “goals” regarding human habitation, does that mean that supporting Zoning in general that you must also be supporting One World Govt under UN Control???

    I think NOT!

    • I agree, what you said is correct. Most people have consented to the programs in Agenda, despite not having a clue what they mean. Yep, those elections have worked real well for everyone. Would you like me to post a couple thousand videos of the outright lies of those wonderful elected ones? Really? Them? Are you kidding me?

      JAC, your sounding like a govt plant/shill! Which is it?

    • Actually, the video isn’t worth arguing about. Let’s say it’s spot on, what’s next? They can’t disarm us, what is their next move? I think it’s clear that many want to disarm us, do you contest that?

      Keep in mind that I have written about how the Cold War may be a ruse, just to enrich the elite. That was long before I brought this video forward. I do not claim that any claims made in the video are true, but it’s interesting to think about it. Like building a puzzle, but with real events!

      I will say, the alien thing was interesting. I have always been interested in UFO’s and the all that goes with it. I do refrain from bringing that subject up here. I don’t know why, considering the huge amount of video evidence now available, most people are afraid to discuss the subject openly. I think it’s a normal subject for open minded people who can understand that there has to be other life in the universe. To think it don’t exist is silly, what say you JAC, can other life be visiting our planet, or is that just more conspiracy theory?

      • Bottom Line says:

        ” I will say, the alien thing was interesting. I have always been interested in UFO’s and the all that goes with it. I do refrain from bringing that subject up here. I don’t know why, considering the huge amount of video evidence now available, most people are afraid to discuss the subject openly. I think it’s a normal subject for open minded people who can understand that there has to be other life in the universe. To think it don’t exist is silly, what say you JAC, can other life be visiting our planet, or is that just more conspiracy theory? ”

        Oh, they’re real alright.

        We ARE them.

        Don’t get me started.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Bottom Line

          Yes, intelligent life could have visited earth. However, I don’t think there have been any such visitations in modern times. At least not “physical” visits with space ships and such.

          • Bottom Line says:

            JAC,

            My knowledge is only nominally partial, but what I have discovered thus far leaves me with a look on my face like the guy on the insurance commercial that has just seen a talking duck.

            I am still learning, but I have tapped into SOMETHING, and can see that it is just as much physical as it is metaphysical.

            What I see is that we are not alone, that our world is directly related and being influenced and/or manipulated…past, present, and future.

            Tempus Edax Rerum

            Ordo de Chao

            Annuit Coeptis – Novus Order Seclorum

  21. Been listening to Rand Paul’s. He just yielded after 12hrs. I think it is great to actually witness a real filibuster.

    • I’ve only been following the headlines that he continued to talk. Have heard a couple talking heads explain that Paul’s speech is actually a perfect learning tool. In fact many congress people should listen. At least he’s speaking in more than sound bites, that itself is refreshing.

      • naten53 says:

        I was watching on CSPAN last night, I have seen the articles on the liberal news sites, and the troll comments of people that clearly didn’t watch any of it blasting about how using drones to kill americans is not right at all. But Paul was talking about more then that, he was talking about the warrentless searches, the fishing for information, the fact that these military drones are being used over the US right now without rules in contradiction to the rules of not using the military as a police force.

  22. The funny thing about Paul’s filibuster is the silence from the Progressive agenda. For months, I have read from those on the left, those that claim to be anarchists, fervent supporters of Obama, and very hard liberals that have lambasted the military and previous administrations for the use of drones, claiming violation of rights. Now, when the use of drones is brought to light in the USA for spying on the American people without warrant, the possible use of drones to “take out” supposed enemies, etc.

    The very fact that there was no support for Rand from the left, the liberals, the progressives, and the anarchists indicates that there is support for this type of program. Their silence is very confusing and very deafening and smacks of the hypocrisy of the Progressive movement. Why is it so terrible to use in other countries and not so terrible in the US.

    • naten53 says:

      My favorite comments I have seen from progressives is along the lines of “Where was he during the Bush administration?”

      (Paul was first elected in the 2010 midterms)

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Would that be the same 2010 Elections that made absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in Congress????

        Bwahahahahahaa

        • Yep…the same.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            d13thecolonel

            Good morning Sir.

            Tip o’ the hat to your Freshman Senator as well this morning. I loved how he brought the Alamo into the discussion to reinforce his words of support.

            Ted Cruz…that would be from the 2012 Elections that made absolutely NO DIFFERENCE.

            You consume a Grizzly one bite at a time. But to kill him you must first get him cornered. That is a slow and deliberate process, lest you become the meal.

            Hope all is well in Texas, or should I say Idaho LITE…………bwahahahahaha.

            • Idaho Lite?………surely you jest……ummmmm…..where were your Idaho reps? At least Cruz stepped up. We do like him………by the way, as of today, the US flag is not flying above the State Capitol….it is the Texas Flag and the “come and take it” flag….. The US flag has been relegated to a flag pole.

    • I find it interesting that the media and Graham and McCain have missed the entire point. While I may have had some qualms about the question of drone strikes within the US and is it a silly issue to fight over, the reluctance of the AG to give Sen;. Cruz and unequivocal NO answer made me wonder. that plus the memory of Ruby Ridge and Waco. That plus the increased distancing of the police from “civilians” as they call them. Of course their dressing in SWAT/SS gear, needing all those automatic weapons and their steroid looking muscles with their shaved heads might just give me some pause to think also.

      Whoops, got sidetracked. Paul’s point I think was just how far the central government has divorced itself from the country. There is this Us vs. Them thing going on that really frightens me.

      People today were criticizing him for voting for Hagel. Correct me if I am wrong but does not Paul’s neo-isolationism as a Libertarian not come close to Hagel’s? Don’t both have similar fears/questions about Israel? Don’t both question the results of having this huge military industrial combo?

      This is an interesting man to watch, him and Ted Cruz. They actually seem to have beliefs. Last night watching Sen. Paul on C-Span I saw Jimmy Stewart. When I saw McCain this morning I saw Claude Rains. For those of you who don’t get those references, please go watch “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, the original version from ’41.

  23. A black guy and a white guy are in a doctor’s office waiting to get vasectomies.
    A nurse comes in and asks the men to strip and put on their medical gowns while they wait for the doctor.
    A few minutes later she comes back , reaches under the black man’s gown and begins to masturbate him.
    Shocked , he asks , What the hell are you doing? To which she replies , we have to vacate the sperm from your system
    to have a clean procedure.
    Not wanting to cause a problem , he relaxes and enjoys it as she completes her task.
    The white man watches all of this and by the time the nurse turns to him , he’s quite ready for his turn.
    To his surprise , she takes off her top and drops to her knees , opens her lips and begins to give him a blow job?
    The black man surprised too , asks , Hey , what is this? Why is it that I get a hand job and he gets a blow job??
    The nurse says , “That sir , is the difference between ObamaCare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield!!!!

  24. Justice Kennedy notes power shift to high court
    APNews | 13 hours ago

    A

    0Comments

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Justice Anthony Kennedy says he is concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court is increasingly the venue for deciding politically charged issues such as gay marriage, health care and immigration.

    The 76-year-old associate justice said Wednesday that major policies in a democracy should not depend “on what nine unelected people from a narrow legal background have to say.”

    Rather, he said, it is important for political leaders to show the world that democracy works through compromise.

    Kennedy, a former Sacramento law professor, was in California’s state capital to attend the dedication of a federal courthouse library bearing his name. He often has been the swing vote on the high court’s split decisions.

    http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2013/03/06/justice-kennedy-notes-power-shift-to-high-court-n1527558

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H. and SUFA………Along those same lines………….Tyranny of the Court

      Judge overturns Idaho law to protect unborn…..Notice the “argument” made by the judge. I will make a bold comment on it so you don’t miss it.

      “BOISE, Idaho — A federal judge has struck down Idaho’s law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on beliefs held by physicians and others that the fetus is able to feel pain at that point.

      U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled late Wednesday in favor of Jennie Linn McCormack, who was 33 at the time she decided to challenge the state’s so-called fetal pain law and other abortion laws.

      Idaho was one of seven states to adopt fetal pain laws in 2011, following in the footsteps of Nebraska’s approval of the law in 2010. But those laws are no longer the most restrictive. This week, lawmakers in Arkansas overrode a veto of a near-ban on the abortion procedure starting from the 12th week of pregnancy.

      In his 42-page decision, Winmill sided with McCormack and her attorney, Richard Hearn, declaring Idaho’s fetal pain law places an undue burden on a woman’s right to have an abortion. The judge also took the Legislature – dominated by Republicans in both chambers – to task for the motives driving adoption of the law, finding that efforts to protect a fetus don’t outweigh a women’s right to choose. MOTIVES??? THE JUDGE IS RULING ON THE MOTIVES OF THE LEGISLATURE. HE IS CLAIMING THAT THEIR MOTIVE IS PART OF THE DETERMINATION OF LEGALITY.

      The judge found “compelling evidence of the legislature’s `improper purpose’ in enacting it,” Winmill wrote. “The state may not rely on its interest in the potential life of the fetus to place a substantial obstacle to abortion before viability in women’s paths,” he said. SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. AN APPOINTED JUDGE GETS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE DULY ELECTED LEGISLATURE IS ACTING WITH “PROPER” OR “IMPROPER” PURPOSE. OF COURSE THE LAST PART IS ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE TO ME. HE IS CLAIMING THAT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF GOVT MAY NOT RELY ON ITS INTEREST IN PROTECTING “POTENTIAL LIFE” TO CREATE OBSTACLES ON ABORTION.

      FIRST THIS MEANS THAT HE RECOGNIZES THE STATE HAS AN INTEREST IN THE FIRST PLACE. THEN HE UNILATERALLY DISMISSES IT AS “IMPROPER PURPOSE”.

      The ruling also finds unconstitutional at least two other Idaho laws dealing with abortion that Hearn and McCormack also challenged.

      One is Idaho’s requirement that first-trimester abortions be performed by a physician in a staffed office or clinic, a law that makes most drug-induced abortions, such as RU-486, illegal. The ruling also targets a law requiring that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital and a statute that criminalizes the woman in some cases for undergoing the procedure.

      “Historically, abortion statutes sought to protect pregnant females from third parties providing dangerous abortions,” Winmill wrote. “As a result, most states’ abortion laws traditionally criminalized the behavior of third parties to protect the health of pregnant women – they did not punish women for obtaining an abortion. By punishing women, Idaho’s abortion statute is therefore unusual.”

      McCormack originally filed her lawsuit in federal court against Bannock County’s prosecuting attorney on grounds the new fetal pain law was unconstitutional. She initially sought class-action status against prosecutor Mark Hiedeman, who filed criminal charges against her alleging she had an illegal abortion.

      McCormack was charged after police began investigating after finding a fetus in a box in January 2011. An autopsy determined it was between five and six months gestation. Police said McCormack told them she didn’t have enough money to go to a licensed medical professional, so her sister helped her access abortion-inducing drugs online.

      A judge later dismissed the criminal case without prejudice for lack of evidence, but left open the possibility for prosecutors to refile.

      In her lawsuit, McCormack challenged the lack of access to abortions for women in her region, as well as the ban on abortions after 20 weeks.

      She noted there are no elective-abortion providers in southeastern Idaho, forcing women seeking the procedure to travel elsewhere.

      McCormack was unmarried and unemployed at the time of her pregnancy – with an income of $200 to $250 a month – and already had three children. She couldn’t afford the time or money it would take to travel to Salt Lake City to get an abortion, the lawsuit says.

      • Isn’t that pretty much what Roe vs. Wade says?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          It has been awhile since I read the actual ruling but I do believe the MANY people since then have assigned standards and criteria to Roe that really are not there. One of the biggest arguments used to justify the decision was that of “right to privacy”. Not viability.

          They did discuss viability but they did not set a time certain as I recall. They admitted that science could “move” the date of certainty. I do recall they mentioned the last trimester as a possible cutoff point. But if that were such a hard criteria how did we get late term abortion being claimed as a right under Roe v. Wade.?? Guess I will have to spend a little time digging into this some more.

          The bigger issue to me is the Contradictions in Roe vs Wade, the arguments by both sides and the arguments made by this judge. These contradictions then spread throughout other legal decisions.

          With respect to abortion it seems to me that the only arguments that are not filled with contradictions are the 100% Ban and the !00% Unrestricted. Everything else is filled with caveats and conditions that belie rational explanation relative to moral/ethical standards.

          I see the argument of “viability” as one of those nebulous criteria. The use of heart beat was pretty “objective” in my view. Remember that either Mathius or Buck proposed using “brain waves”.

          It will be interesting to see if there are appeals by the States and if so, what the SCOTUS does in the end.

    • Many of us started noting the courts interference in what should have been legislative matters back in the 1960′s. Glad to see Justice Kennedy finally woke up.

  25. March 7, 2013
    The Third-Party Temptation — Just Say No
    By Jeffrey Barrett

    The fiscal cliff and sequester battles between Obama’s political operatives and the House Republican leaders reveal an Obama political strategy that is impressive in its cunning. No matter what the final outcome of fiscal struggles past and future, Obama has brilliantly maneuvered himself into a position where he always wins. At this point in his administration,
    Obama understands that his tactic of blaming George W. Bush for seemingly endless sluggish economic growth is getting a little long in the tooth. But now, if House Republicans refuse to capitulate to one of his offers of faux compromise, Obama has a new Republican culprit to blame and indeed, in the aftermath of the sequester battle, he has publicly promised to do just that.

    But while they can win with the first option, Team Obama would vastly prefer that the Republicans chose the second option of total or at least partial capitulation. The Obama strategists know that if the Republicans do fall into the trap of capitulation that many in the Republican ranks will withdraw from politics in disgust or will bolt to a third party ensuring Democrat election victories well into the future. Team Obama fondly dreams of a Republican capitulation because if they can drive the constitutionalists (many of whom identify themselves as Tea Party people or Libertarians) from the Republican Party, they will have removed the Republican Party as a major obstacle to their Progressive/socialist agenda.

    Constitutionalists can counter this strategy by duplicating again and again from coast to coast the recent success of constitutionalists in Accomac County, Virginia. The victory had its genesis in a small group of Accomac constitutionalists who in 2011 formed in a constitutional study group known in those parts as a Virginia Liberty Project. Participants in this group were not Republican Party members and were loath to call themselves Republicans due to the sorry record of the Republican Party from the national level right down to the local party in Accomac County.

    As the 2012 presidential election approached, the members of the study group faced a choice. They could have joined a third party with constitutional values more compatible with their own, but they opted instead to support the major political party they merely disliked in order to thwart the ambitions of the other major political party they detested.

    And support the Republicans they did. While the official Republican Party apparatus (called “Units” at the county level in Virginia) did next to nothing, the study group members quickly recruited over a hundred volunteers and began registering everything that moved. Registration soared and while 2012 Republican election turnout was down in most counties throughout the U.S., Accomac County increased its Republican turnout from 2008.

    This whirlwind of activity did not go unnoticed among the minority of members of the official Republican Accomac Unit who were frustrated at the pusillanimous campaign efforts of their own leadership. So they approached the study group and asked for their help in dethroning the Republican county chairman. This was no small task since it required at whopping two-thirds vote of the members. But the study group agreed and quickly produced a Petition for Removal with the required signatures. When the Unit Chairman balked, they flooded the Republican Unit with so many new members that the stunned chairman was forced to resign.

    The Accomac County experience can serve as a calming tonic for constitutionalists who suffer the pangs of the third-party temptation but deep in their hearts know the consequences. Rather than falling into the trap set by Team Obama and starting a futile Ross Perot-type movement, they can focus their energies on their own respective counties and take over the Republican Party machinery at that level. Once they control the party machinery, they can work to support real constitutionalist candidates for their state legislatures and the Federal House of Representatives. Electing the right state representatives is doubly beneficial because those same state representatives can use their power of redistricting to ensure that as many constitutionalist Republicans as possible ascend to the heights of Capitol Hill. With the House in the control of serious Republicans as opposed to get-along, go-along careerists, the Progressives will find that at least some of their ambitious agenda will be thwarted.

    It all starts with the county. The Accomac experience has shown what a small group of committed constitutionalists can accomplish. First, study the Founding Documents so you will really have a firm understanding of what the Founders were trying to achieve and why those eighteenth-century ideas are even more relevant today. Second, focus your efforts on your local county political machinery, take it over by recruiting new members and leverage your energies from that position of power. And lastly, no matter how frustrated you get with the Democrat-lite Republicans in Washington, resist as if your salvation depended upon it that politically ruinous third-party temptation.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_thirdparty_temptation%20just_say_no.html#ixzz2Mrj2GKLG
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Sound familiar to anyone here?

      • Well, it sounds familiar to me-except at the end of the conversations-I kept hearing don’t bother to vote at the national level.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          You never heard that from me.

          Precincts are where organized politics begin.

          Precincts govern Counties, which govern States, which govern the National Committee.

          So a little inside activism coupled with external activism can cause things to shift.

          • Yes, I know, I never heard that from you-but just between the two of us-a few people on here keep being stubborn about this issue and won’t admit we’re right :)

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.

              Isn’t Rand Paul your Senator? Couldn’t remember if you were in Kentucky or Tennessee.

              If so you should be PROUD today.

              If not you can be proud anyway, and accept my apology for confusing Kentucky with Tennessee.
              :)

              • I suspect your uncertainty is a result of confusing my State with my bourbon. :)

                And yeah, proud of Rand Paul this morning and would love to kick Lindsey Graham in the behind, course I’m always wanting to kick him.

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    PREDICTION.

    Limbaugh and others are claiming that Paul’s filibuster may have been a game changer. That it may have caused a major shift in the political field. Both within the elephant party and between parties.

    So you can expect that Mr. Paul and his other YOUNG GUNS will be under increasing ridicule and attack. The “ESTABLISHMENT” must humiliate them in order to maintain their relevance.

    See Lindsey Graham and McCain’s responses, for example on the R side.

    On the left I expect you will see the surrogates take the lead. The establishment can’t be seen as opposing civil rights/liberties directly.

  27. Well, well, well. There’s good news and there’s bad news,

    The good news is that Carl Levin will not seek re election in 2014.

    The bad news is how he phrased it:

    As Barbara and I struggled with the question of whether I should run again, we focused on our belief that our country is at a crossroads that will determine our economic health and security for decades to come. We decided that I can best serve my state and nation by concentrating in the next two years on the challenging issues before us that I am in a position to help address; in other words, by doing my job without the distraction of campaigning for re-election”.

    Read more: http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/political/michigan-democratic-senator-carl-levin-wont-seek-reelection-in-2014#ixzz2MtcBD95r

    • He he he :)

    • Anita;

      At least there is some hope that he will be replaced by someone less an asshole. Now if only his idiot brother would follow suit.

      BTW: Have you ever wondered if those stupid glasses of his are perminately glued to his fat face?

      CM

      • Now that you made me think like like, he’s a tall Danny Devito. He’s on the Armed Services committee. I hope he doesn’t focus on his job too much in the next year..everything they touch turns to _______ .

  28. I get that some people abject to pictures of abortion but how exactly does showing pictures of vaginas show anything but disrespect for woman!

    Public University Displays Billboard-Sized Vaginas in Pro-Abortion Exhibit

    by Jennifer Kabbany – Associate Editor on March 7, 2013
    FIX FEATURE
    Print This Post Print This Post
    vphoto2

    Nearly a dozen billboard-sized photos of vaginas in various states – including shaved ones, others that are blemished, and still some with tampons inserted – are slated for display today and tomorrow at the University of Cincinnati as part of a student-sponsored
    “Re-Envisioning the Female Body” exhibit.

    The female genitalia photos are in direct retaliation to an anti-abortion display hosted by prolife students at the university last May that included graphic images of aborted fetuses, its organizers state.

    “Their billboard-sized photographs equated mutilated fetuses with genocide victims in an effort to shame women,” states Female Body exhibit organizers on their Facebook page. “Our demonstration serves to call attention to the vaginas as a site of conflict … its purpose is to incite conversation about the objectification, exploitation and discrimination of women’s bodies … it points to the negative disposition our society holds toward the vagina.”

    “Re-Envisioning the Female Body” is hosted by the university’s LGBTQ Alliance and UC Feminists student groups and showcased at the school’s McMicken Commons, an outdoor “free speech” area at the center of campus with grassy knolls and several student walkways.

    The exhibit consists of “11 4-by-6-foot photographic billboards of vaginas, 15 smaller signs featuring personal quotes about the female experience via the vagina, and one large billboard with a quote about race and the vagina,” according to an article in City Beat, a Cincinnati-based weekly newspaper.

    “This exhibit’s billboards, whose production, along with the rest of the demonstration, was funded through club resources … and approved by the University Funding Board, show images of vaginas in an almost gynecological perspective, with legs spread, as if in stirrups,” the article states. “Some are shaved, some are blemished, some have tampons inside.”

    “The pose that I chose reflects this idea that a woman’s body is sort of medicalized,” Kate Elliott, the University of Cincinnati student who co-organized the exhibit and took the vagina photos, told City Beat. “I overexposed the images so they’re really jarring. They’re not cutesy or subtle, they’re right up in your face.”

    Reaction to the vagina display is mixed, according to the myriad of comments on the exhibit’s Facebook page.

    “The event is brave,” Mecca Bosbarger, a Loyola University Chicago student, said on the Facebook page. “It shocked me to just hear about this event, but that is necessary.”

    University of Cincinnati graduate student Kyle Galindez praised the display.

    “I am really glad to see this happening at UC,” he said on Facebook. “We live in an incredibly misogynistic area. … Hopefully this can spark a much-needed discussion in Cincinnati about why we must let women control their own bodies and never allow so-called ‘pro-lifers’ to bring their misogynistic hate speech around here again.”

    But student Annmarie Condit, president of University of Cincinnati’s Students for Life group, which brought the controversial “Genocide Awareness Project” anti-abortion images to the campus last year, decried the vagina exhibit as a red herring to the abortion debate, as well as outright ridiculousness.

    “UC Students for Life are deeply saddened by this response to our use of abortion pictures on campus,” Condit said in a prepared statement. “The abortion pictures, while shocking and offensive, display the truth about the humanity of the babies killed by abortion. Using objectifying images of women with the claim that it makes a political or artistic statement is an utter non-response to the important issue of abortion; it’s nothing but the depraved use of obscenity for shock value. This display is an embarrassment to the students who are organizing it, and to the university as a whole.”

    The involvement of Planned Parenthood with the vagina exhibit has also raised the ire of members of the prolife movement. Planned Parenthood was set to host a panel discussion dubbed “The Vaginas Are Coming” on Wednesday night to kick off the exhibit.

    “Of course Planned Parenthood would be involved in this kind of immature campus event,” quipped Students for Life of America executive director Kristan Hawkins. “Forty-six percent of abortions are performed on college-aged women, so it’s no wonder why the local Planned Parenthood is less than a mile from UC’s campus. They want to be close to their targeted customers, and this event will only help market their lies. What these displays should be showing is a vagina with genital warts or a dead preborn baby being ripped from it as that is what Planned Parenthood sells.”

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/12856?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thecollegefixfeed+%28The+College+Fix%29&utm_content=FeedBurner

  29. I’m starting to see more and more articles like this. Brings back memories of my youth.
    http://janmorganmedia.com/2013/03/americas-future/

    • It is funny in a way The idea to homogenize the sexes in this country, a boy is a boy is a girl and the reverse has increasingly taken hold. One can pooh-pooh the idea that it is inherently Marxist unless you think back to the days of Chairman Mao. There was a time, in the not too distant past, when all the Chinese people dressed alike. Men and Women were indistinguishable by garb. Everyone seemed to wear the same dull, drab quilted fabric in shades of blue, black or grey. With the changes in China after Mao’s death, more western clothing became the norm. the girls look and dress like girls, the men, like men.

      I find it fascinating that modern American culture and Western European for that matter seem hell bent to embraced a failed society.

  30. Ahhhh Reality!

    March 6, 2013
    Blue Civil War: The Battle for California

    Via Meadia readers know that the most important political battle in America today isn’t the much-ballyhooed battle for the soul of the GOP. It is the blue civil war, pitting key elements of the Democratic coalition against one another as the old social model fails and the growth curve of rising blue model costs runs up against fiscal limits. Blue model policies, whatever their merits, don’t generate the revenue that can support blue model institutions and
    methods, and when those shortfalls appear, the coalition divides. It’s happened in Wisconsin, it’s happened in Indiana; it’s happened in Michigan and it is happening in California.

    The Battle of San Diego is now in full swing. Last summer, voters there approved Prop. B, a ballot measure to reform a pension system whose cost had quintupled in 12 years, eating up revenue for other activities. As politicians struggled to pay off the pension obligations, libraries closed their doors and roads deteriorated. Voters had enough. No longer would they accept service cuts (or tax hikes) to pay to keep unionized public employees in the lifestyle to which they had grown accustomed.

    The unions are striking back. A few weeks ago, the Public Employment Relations Board, a quasi-judicial administrative agency for public employees, ruled that “the city failed to negotiate in good faith with its public employee unions before Proposition B was placed on the ballot,” as a local news station reported. In other words, unions believe they should have veto power over which options are put before the voters. City Attorney Jan Goldsmith was not impressed:

    “We’re not gonna back down one iota, I can tell you that,” he said. “Because the people do have a right under direct democracy to bypass the city council, to bypass the state legislature, to bypass the labor unions, and to bypass PERB. This is a constitutional right, no different than the first amendment.”

    The PERB ruling isn’t binding on the city, but the court battles have already begun. If Prop. B is overturned in court, the city of San Diego stands to lose $27 million.

    But if the statewide trend is any indication, that won’t happen. Public employee unions elsewhere in the state are currently losing similar battles against a state employee pension reform bill signed into law last August. And the unions have a surprisingly tough foe in Governor Jerry Brown, who is now going to the mat against the unions on this issue.

    It’s a striking sign of the times: in a Democratic trifecta state where Dems control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature, the governor is facing down the same unions that conjured up millions of dollars and thousands of supporters to back him. The irony is rich; during Governor Brown’s first two term administration between 1975 and 1983 he helped create the modern California system of powerful government employee unions.

    For decades, Democrats have straddled a divide: they sought to represent both the producers of government services and the low and middle income citizens who depend on those services. Democrats want the votes and the contributions of teacher unions, and they want the votes of the parents whose kids attend public schools. As long as the blue model worked, the contradictions could be managed.

    Increasingly, however, the contradictions have come to the fore. Teacher unions want life employment for incompetent teachers; their representatives negotiate farcically unsound pension arrangements with complaisant politicians and want taxpayers to pony up when the huge bills come due. Other producers of government services also have their sweetheart deals.

    The result is that the consumers of government services, many of whom of course are Democrats, are getting a raw deal. They are paying too much money in taxes to support a system of government that, however outstanding and dedicated some people in it may be, simply cannot deliver acceptable services at a reasonable cost. The Democratic claim to represent both sides fairly is getting harder to sustain.

    Republicans right now are largely irrelevant to the blue civil war. The consumers of government services—folks who send their kids to public schools, depend on mass transit, can’t survive in old age without Medicare and Medicaid—want government to work better and more cheaply, but they don’t want it to do less. This is why the Battle of San Diego and similar fights taking place across California are unlikely to redraw partisan lines anytime soon.

    But there’s a serious political opportunity in America for a movement that cares deeply about ensuring that the people who need public services (whether provided directly by the state as in public schools or indirectly through vouchers and charter schools) receive good value for their money. A movement that fights to reform government and make it work, to strip away unnecessary frills and patronage posts, to disempower bureaucracies and return control to citizens and to create a regulatory and legal framework that can bring start ups and jobs into inner cities could change the balance of power in American politics.

    We wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the young people who’ve gone into programs like Teach For America, or been active in movements like the effort to rebuild New Orleans begin to think outside the blue box about what kind of agenda America’s troubled cities really need. When and if that happens, the politics of the 2oth century will finally begin to shut down, and the politics of a new and more hopeful era in American life will get under way.

    http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/03/06/blue-civil-war-the-battle-for-california/

  31. Good post V ! I see this as an example of what happens when they run out of other peoples money. It’s inevitable anywhere that public unions exist. It’s been a nice long ride for the union members, but the taxpayers can no longer pay their what their contracts have promised. I think we all could see this coming, after what has happened to many unionized industries in this country over the last few decades.

    It would be nice to hear from some union folks on this subject.

  32. HuffPo is going crazy, Obama made the record books! He is now the very best President at one thing :lol: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/once-again-obama-suggests-laws-don-t-apply-him_706540.html

  33. I have to travel this weekend again. I have a very controversial article that I can put up for the weekend or I can continue with the Open Mic and save it. Asking nicely for input :)

    And no, it’s not about ” Great-Big-Bad-Obama-Socialist-Government. ” stuff !

  34. I agree and have been consistent on my beliefs concerning the murder of US citizens by drones.
    Rand Paul “The laws of war don’t involve due process, so when they ask you for an attorney you tell them to shut up. That’s not my understanding of the way America works,” Paul told Fox. “I don’t think the laws of war apply to America, I think the Bill of Rights do and I think it’s a disservice to our soldiers that our senators up there arguing that the Bill of Rights aren’t important.”

    Read more: http://thehill.com/video/senate/286881-paul-blasts-back-at-mccain-graham#ixzz2MuiLno4I

  35. Question. Holder and Brennan claim that the CIA and the military do not have the authority to operate inside the territorial US. Is Holder’s letter that claims it would be illegal to kill a non-aggressive American on our soil limited to just those branches of government. In otherwords, can DHS, FBI, states or local governments use drones to take out Americans? From other stories, it is clear that other branches of government are actively trying to or have acquired drones for domestic use. It seems like it would be easy to weaponize them.

    • Holder’s letter:

      It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.

      It is not limited to the CIA and the military. It covers everything under the President – CIA, military, DHS, FBI, and everything else.

      I guess states or local governments could act on their own perceived authority, but the letter does not grant them any authority.

      It seems like it would be easy to weaponize them.

      Really? Exactly how?

      • Doesn’t appear to be much wiggle room but I still do not trust government not to change the rules at will. Holder et. al. have weaseled their way around this enough to have lost my trust. The answer should have been obvious the first time it was asked.

        As for weaponizing a drone, I am sure that several hundred good engineers in this country that could accomplish this quite easily. I believe I could figure out how to do it if I put my mind to it. It is not something to be discussed on line.

        • T-Ray,

          The answer should have been obvious the first time it was asked.

          Holder’s first letter was clear – a drone COULD POSSIBLE be used, but only in an EXTRENE situation.

          As for weaponizing a drone, I am sure that several hundred good engineers in this country that could accomplish this quite easily. I believe I could figure out how to do it if I put my mind to it.

          So, do you advertise to hire someone for this? Local law enforcement looking for engineer to weaponize our drone…

          And where do you get the weapons? Last time I did a search, I couldn’t find any hell-fire missiles on e-Bay or CraigsList. Maybe I should check Amazon…

          • Oh Ye of little imagination. We can bounce a rover encased in a balloon onto the surface of Mars. The Taliban has been kicking our butts with unconventional weapons for a decade.

            http://hawaii.gov/hawaiiaviation/aviation-photos/1940-1949/wheeler-field-air-force-base/ha_photo_album_view?b_start:int=12&-C=

            First photo upper left.
            In Hawaii after Dec. 7th, my Dad built the first model airplanes for a GI that was toying with radio control of a an airplane. Gen. Flood saw them flying one day and asked who was responsible. Naturally the guy with the radio talent got shipped to Dayton and came back a year later with the Mother Goose and Six Chicks in the photo. This technology is not new. This is as far as I will take this discussion in an open forum.

            • T-Ray,
              The issue is not whether radio-controlled planes/drones are possible. The issue is whether they are being used to kill Americans on American soil.

              Per Holder’s letters, they are not by the federal government.

              And I don’t see state and local governments acquiring drones for this propose.

              PS – thanks for the link – cool pictures and stories!

      • Todd,
        Really? Exactly how?

        So now it’s OK for T-Ray to do YOUR research! And you wonder why no one takes YOU serious :wink:

        • No, T-Ray suggested is would be easy to weaponize a drone. So I asked him to explain how.

          Maybe this is too complicated for you Gman…

      • If you are asking if it is easy to weaponize a drone…..the answer to that is yes…very easy. If you would like an explanation, I can walk you through it step by step….from a drone weighing only 30 pounds to drones capable of carrying air to air and/or air to ground missiles. The new EPA drones can be weaponized very easily as well….the same bracket that carries the camera, is connected to a GPS unit and can carry 2 anti personnel mines…..as well as 1, anti tank mine….as well as 3 intrusion detection devices. ALL drones, whether used in military or civilian use are bracketed for weapons for various other duties.

        • I might add that there are 31 countries using drones for military and surveillance use. You might be surprised at whom…….for example……Switzerland, Austria, Mexico, Canada, UK, China………and various others. I can supply a list…..and all are or can be weaponized.

        • D13,
          Anti-personnel mines and anti-tank mines? Not exactly “targeted killing”.

          Where does local law enforcement go to buy these mines, air to air, or air to ground missiles?

          • Todd, I was ONLY responding to the inference that all drones are not equipped for military style weapons…..they in fact are. That is all…..all and I mean ALL…..civilian drones are equipped with the bracketing and stylus to be armed. As to the mines………ummmmmm…….do you not realize that aerial mines are used continuously on the Southern border? Now, they are not anti tank nor anti personnel, but a “mine” does not have to be explosive. Mines can be interdiction….surveillance types. Surveillance mines can determine shape and size of vehicular traffic, personnel trails and passageways, and can determine radioactive and gas type weapons.

            One other observation that you seem to ignore or that is how I read it. The CIA manufactures its own weaponry…..none of the weaponry used by the CIA and the Homeland defense is military in origin and that includes armored vehicles. The CIA is the second largest supplier of arms and munitions to the United States Government. In 2011, the CIA distributed more arms and munitions to different parts of the world than China. This included night vision, shoulder fired ground to air missiles, small arms, machine guns, mines etc…..not manufactured by the military. The CIA is separately funded. So is HD and the FBI, which also lodges the greatest amount of armored vehicles next to the US armed forces, including .50 cal weaponry.

            • D13,

              That is all…..all and I mean ALL…..civilian drones are equipped with the bracketing and stylus to be armed.

              Can this drone be armed:
              http://store.apple.com/us/product/H8859ZM/A/parrot-ardrone-20?afid=p219%7CGOUS&cid=AOS-US-KWG-PLA

              And I don’t think the Shadow 200 RQ-7, used by the Army and Marines, can be armed.

              And surveillance mines can’t really be used to kill people – unless it lands on your head…

              One other observation that you seem to ignore or that is how I read it. The CIA manufactures its own weaponry…

              What does how they’re manufactured, for whatever agency, have to do with this? And I posted about the CIA, HD, and FBI. Holder’s letter covers them.

              • Come now Todd……..this does not even fit the definition of drone much less being one….however, you and I both know we are talking about government type of drones,not models that kids can buy and fly at 20 ft. HOWEVER, this picture that you sent, can be equipped with surveillance type of technology as it states. While I realize that we are talking about “killing” people, please be reminded that you asked the question and I answered it…..ALL drones used by government facilities and departments, are designed to not only provide surveillance but with the weight and lift and carrying capacity to be armed. It is not a decision of “engineers”…….it is a decision that was made years ago that all drones be fitted with brackets so that they can be retrofitted for civilian LE use with weaponry if needed.

                The Shadow, now designated as RQ7B……is a very unique weapon…and it is a weapon. We tested them at Fort Hood for quite a while and are using them on the border as we speak. The original version, The RQ was replaced by the RQ7A with an expanded wing lift to carry payloads up to 100 pounds and is now designated as the RQ7B…..or the Dementor,…as we now call them, ever since Harry Potter came out. Very unique in its applications…..and very quiet. They can be equipped with surveillance technology, laser technology, and weaponry…specifically the AGM114a Hellfire missile. It is, however, primarily used in conjunction with other weapons systems….such as the Blackhawk helicopter and the Predator Drone and forward air control aircraft. It carries a very sophisticated laser guidance and ranging system and can be coordinated with field artillery units and the ever present a lethal BGM109 cruise missile which has a range of over 850 nautical miles. It is called a tactical unmanned drone for a reason…..tactical.

                As to the CIA…I was under the impression that you thought all drones were military in designation….my mistake if I read you improperly. Many civilian agencies use the same type drone technology as the military and manufacture them using other manufacturers than the ones the military uses.

                As to Holder’s response in his letter………….his response needs no qualification nor endorsement. The man is a liar and a blight upon our legal system. To borrow a phrase from the movie…the Alamo….I would not believe Holder if ” he told me that day is light and night is dark”. That means to me, that whatever dribble he puts out…..is not worth the paper it is written on…AND…for elected officials to believe him……makes it worse.

                Forgive me as I know you did not ask my opinion of Holder…..but I thought that I would put it in here rather than start a new thread.

                In reality, Todd, what we are using on the borders now is very sophisticated weaponry and the drones are part of that. We can find anything that crosses the border now and engage targets with a 99% accuracy which includes identification and elimination if necessary. Now,let me explain elimination before you get your panties in a wad……if we start an interdiction, and are fired upon, we will return fire with lethal means. With our laser guided system and using our Dementor, we can hit a bad guy that is using an innocent as a shield and not even muss up the hair of the innocent. TWO RQ7B drones ( one fitted with a laser system and the other fitted with a .50 caliber sniper unit ) are very effective in saving lives…..especially Mexican lives. This is why the bad guys are moving to Arizona and California where they are welcomed with open arms by the Feds.

                Hope this helps some. Nothing here is intended to be an argument but is intended to inform. My only regret is that in October of this year……..I will be out of the loop unless contracted again.

              • Oh, please let me also clarify……that these drones are not flown and operated by the United States Army but are flown and operated by the Texas National Guard, under State control, and the Texas Department of Public Safety (which also operates our gun boats that patrol the rivers and lakes on the border).

              • D13,
                Yes Colonel, these do fit the definition of “drones”. And as you pointed out, they can be used for surveillance, but not weapons. There are all kinds of these small drones, and they are a bigger threat to privacy – whether government or private ownership – because anyone can afford them and they are easy to fly around any neighborhood.

                ALL drones used by government facilities and departments, are designed to not only provide surveillance but with the weight and lift and carrying capacity to be armed.

                Once again, the word ALL is going to get you in trouble. Can you list ALL the drones that fall into this category? Because ALL is a pretty broad category.

                The man is a liar and a blight upon our legal system.

                I have this feeling your opinion of Eric Holder has some “ideological bend” to it…

                Oh, please let me also clarify……that these drones are not flown and operated by the United States Army but are flown and operated by the Texas National Guard, under State control, and the Texas Department of Public Safety (which also operates our gun boats that patrol the rivers and lakes on the border).

                Sounds like we should be more concerned about Texas’s use of drones and the potential to kill innocent people than the Federal Government…

                But no one here would ever even consider that…

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Todd

        Actually, Holder’s response made sure to use the exact phrase “not engaged in combat”.

        The issue is over the Administration being able to designate “unlawful combatants” and then take them out. It is about War Powers.

        So the entire issue is in fact relative to the Military and CIA, not regular Law Enforcement.

        His answer of NO is relative to the War Powers and CIC role of the president.

        Now it would be applicable to Law Enforcement except that LE does have the ability to KILL people who are NOT ENGAGED IN COMBAT.

        Holder could do us all a favor by answering what he knows are the core issues in a comprehensive way. Instead he is choosing to be an ass, in my opinion. Very typical of his previous responses to Congressional inquiry.

        • JAC,

          So the entire issue is in fact relative to the Military and CIA, not regular Law Enforcement.

          Correct. But T-Ray brought up Law Enforcement, so I was commenting on that.

          Holder’s first letter gave the long-winded “technical” answer – in an EXTRENE situation when someone is a “Clear & Present Danger,” a drone could be used. But that is very unlikely.

          Holder’s second letter was short and very direct to answer a very specific question. I thought that’s what you guys want – straight forward answers?

          I doubt that you’d be satisfied with any answer Holder would give – except for “I’m a commie-pink-o trying to destroy America and everything it stands for…”

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Todd

            The YOU would be VERY WRONG.

            He knows what the issues are. He could have addressed them directly in his first response.

            He wanted to show his “power” off a little to the Freshman Senator. That has been his mode of operation since day one.

            Could be the lawyer background or his politics background. Or both.

            But if you are in the Executive and you want to instill confidence and trust in the Legislative branch then you need to address what you know are the issue comprehensively. Not play silly games by addressing ONLY the specific questions and then making them ask more questions.

            This leads me to wonder whether this is just his nature or if it is calculated.

            I would like direct answers. But I would like to see these ass-hats start answering the full question which they know damn well is being asked. Of course our forthright PRESS isn’t smart enough to dig into the underlying issues either. They are content playing the back and forth, he said …. he responded…….he said……he responded.

            • JAC,

              He knows what the issues are. He could have addressed them directly in his first response.

              This is Rand Paul’s first letter to Brennan: http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/Brennan2.pdf

              It’s quite a laundry list of entirely hypothetical scenarios that would be impossible to give a simple answer too. This leads me to wonder whether this is just his nature or if it is calculated…

              If you want simple, direct answers, ask simple, direct questions.

              This was Brennan response:

              Brennan told Paul that “the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so.” Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul’s question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

              Pretty simple and direct.

              And then Holder responded to Paul’s letter – and his follow up question.

  36. Trayvon’s girlfriend caught lying under oath!

    ‘Will you charge the 19-year-old Miami woman with perjury?’

    Trayvon Martin‘s girlfriend, the state’s most important witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie, it was revealed Tuesday.

    It was not the first piece of misinformation tied to her, but it was the most damaging to date and left prosecutors in a very awkward position.

    They had to publicly acknowledge that their star witness had lied under oath and had to answer questions about what they intend to do about it.

    Reporters asked: Will you charge the 19-year-old Miami woman with perjury?

    The state’s lead prosecutor, Bernie de la Rionda, gave an ambiguous answer: “You can all read the law and make your own decision.”

    The woman had told prosecutors she was in the hospital on the day of Trayvon’s funeral.
    “In fact, she lied,” defense attorney Don West said.

    The disclosure was one of two major developments Tuesday at what had been expected to be a dull hearing about the exchange of case evidence.

    The other: Zimmerman’s lawyers will not hold a “stand your ground” hearing in April, one that could clear him of criminal wrongdoing before his trial.

    Read more: Orlandosentinel.com

    Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/03/busted-trayvons-girlfriend-lied/#ixzz2MxEYd4Wt

  37. Not a shock here, sadly, there will be no charges filed for murder against Cheney : http://www.prisonplanet.com/cheney-admits-that-he-lied-about-911.html

    • You really believe he should be tried for murder? Seriously? We just had 3000 murdered. Somebody is going to get it. You want Cheney to be the fall guy? Doesn’t matter to me who said to shoot the plane down. What would your MO have been?

      • Sorry, let me clarify :) I’m thinking of Iraq and all the lies leading up to it. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and they didn’t have any WMD’s. They knew this and lied to us to send our troops to war. I’m guessing it was to surround Iran because they wanted to sell oil for something other than the US dollar. A lot of innocent people died without any real threat posed to us. That is a crime in my book, how about yours?

        • Umm, actually our own D13 has said they did in fact have WMD’s. Used them against their own people. While the media and left have convinced most that your version is true, in reality it isn’t. Why did everyone that had access to intel believe otherwise? It was only after it all became unpopular that the “Bush lied” rhetoric became common speak.

          • Kathy they used them against the Kurd’s, long before the first Gulf war. If he had any by the start of the second Gulf War. it was an insignificant amount, and they posed no threat to the U.S. War is not a popularity contest. When we learn that we were lied too to go to war in the first place (lying seems normal for politicians, all of them), it’s too late to go back and have a do over. You hold people accountable, popularity be damned. That will never happen, so don’t worry. The Republican hero’s of the era will never be touched.

          • Bottom Line says:

            If you remember, there was a lot of talk about how those in charge had “no doubt” that Iraq had weapons of destruction. This is different than ‘knowing”, as knowing is indicative of knowing the rest of how, when, where, etc.

            It stands to reason, that if they were certain, they would have been able to explain a bit more about how they were certain. (unless there was some otherwise reason to keep things quiet)

            Instead of saying Iraq had WMD, they are at location X, were obtained from Y, with Z means, …it was “we have no doubt”.

            Interesting how the show started before weapons inspectors were able to complete their inspection. Was this to avoid them finishing their job to not find WMD? ..or was it perhaps for some other reason?

            Granted, the US did KNOW about Iraq having anthrax, as it was sold to Iraq by none other than the USA.

            Did the anthrax in the letters come from the anthrax sold to Iraq? Why did the doctor in Maryland get accused?

            What was really going on? Were the people told the truth? Was Iraq really a legitimate threat to the US?

            I dunno, but the uncertainty itself says something. The people should know exactly why they sent their troops to war.

            • More than Anthrax……Iraq had, at one time, substantial nerve agents. They also had, at one time, substantial mustard gas and crystals. As a matter of record, Iraq learned the fine art of mixing nerve agent crystalline on dirt roads to mix with dust churned by vehicles or foot traffic. They deployed this quite well in the Iran War and against the Kurds.

              In Desert Storm in Kuwait, as battalion cdr of an armored unit, we had chem alarms going off on several occasions but there were no chemical casualties. So, there is some precedent. However, my units never found chem agents around or in any captured vehicles, ammunition, or personnel. Just alarms going off.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Colonel,

                I don’t mean to suggest that Iraq didn’t have anything, but rather the way it was portrayed to the public…as if they had a means to attack the US, and had posed am imminent threat.

                If it was about an imminent threat, then why all of the games with the inspections and ‘no doubt’. If it was imminent, then why no clear definition as to why or how?

                Were there ICBM’s loaded with nerve gas or a clear plot to sneak a bio-weapon into the US?

                If it was about violating whatever legal agreement, then why not allow and/or help the inspectors to find them? Why did the invasion start before they were fully inspected?

                Why would you move that many weapons, personnel, and stuff into place, poised for an invasion, if UN weapons inspectors might have simply found something and confiscated it, thus eliminating an imminent threat?

                I can see a reason for holding a force on standby in case there was a surprise resistance to inspectors, but why use it if there was cooperation with inspections?

                There are a lot of unanswered questions with regard to the way it all played out.

                Perhaps it was because Iraq was dragging the US global strategy war machine down, so it decided to quit messing around with Iraq and go ahead and take it out, just get it over with…control the resources, position, etc.

                I mean, …keeping an even partial suppressive force can get expensive and time consuming in the long run. …perhaps it is more efficient to just take another piece of the chessboard while it is there for the taking.

                And while you’re at it, why not deem EVERYTHING a potential terrorist threat, invade a couple more places, and make a few billion bucks helping make everyone feel safer with all those expensive new gadgets and… …

                …A decade later and we’re discussing drones patrolling US skies.

              • Bottom Line says:

                Further…

                When you step back and look at a broader view of the world with regard to global strategy, you have to consider the goal. What is the general strategy and ultimate goal of a militant presence on Earth? What is the game of Chess about?

                The first world industrialized nations assimilate the second world developing nations either through political, economic, or hostile means. Third world nations eventually follow suit.

                Eventually, the whole world will become developed nations, or will be integrated naturally by population growth, political convenience, economics, and whatever else becomes a shared global experience.

                Then what?

                And if we’re going to end up integrated as a planet anyway, why are we fighting about it instead of having a more unified and helpful approach toward what we the people of Earth want for our planet and civilization?

                How can we make that transition? Can we do it without destroying ourselves in the process of trying? Can we switch from a militant society to a peaceful one without defeating the purpose?

                What is the purpose? Why are we here and WTF are we doing?

                We’re like bloody babies in the universe playing with razor blades.

    • GMan, seriously?

      • Yes, seriously! They are no better than the idiots in office now. Liars, all of them. Politicians are like sperm, 1 in a million becomes a human being :)

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    House Cleaning

    1. The issue of armed drones killing Americans is about WAR powers, not law enforcement. LE has the authority to use armed drones to kill suspects just as they do to use rifles, handguns, etc. Rand’s issue was the classification of “unlawful combatants” and “combatants” and the notion that the entire WORLD is a “battle field”.

    2. The Administration has clamped down…..hell let tell it like it is…..PROHIBITED federal agencies from talking to the Press over Sequestration Impacts. We have come full circle and are back to where we were when they took office. They did the same thing with STIMULUS if you recall.

    3. Yesterday was the FIRST day in the organized “Press” effort to get Hillary Clinton elected President. It was the Second day of the same “press” trying to push Chris Cristie onto the Republican party as their candidate.

    4. The ELITE do in fact run the world and they DRIVE major efforts we see manifested in things like the UN or our own Govt policies. But the ELITE is not some group of identifiable men/women who simply pull strings. It STARTS with the “Intellectuals”. Those who are “opinion leaders” in academia and in Govt think tanks. We are suffering a mindset that has been built over decades. So when you see all these leaders buying into globalization or “new world order” stuff it is because they BELIEVE it will improve human existence. You cannot fight this by ranting about the ELITE. You have to CHANGE the hearts and minds of the ELITE.

    5. Along the same lines, those EVIL Corporatists, Rich, 1%’s, etc, etc. These people are not necessarily part of the ELITE or INTELLECTUAL class that LEADS the way. They do, however, understand how to best play the game to enhance their own well being. Once we accept the ethic that it is OK to steal from one man to help another, THIEVES will THRIVE.

    6. There is an increasing outcry for COMPROMISE, mostly aimed at Republicans. Let me remind everyone again that when Good compromises with Evil…………EVIL WINS. Compromise for the sake of compromise is a BANKRUPT concept.

    7. Those complaining about Exec Salaries should do a little math once in awhile. A 1 million bonus to a CEO of a company employing 5000 people would amount to $200 if distributed to all the employees. While it may make for great rhetoric or even good “publicity”, the real affect is minimal.

    8. New unemployment data is out. The RATE has dropped and the number of new hires went up more than expected. But the Long Term unemployed INCREASED and the Employment Participation Rate DROPPED. Bond Rates fell in response to the news. This is a MIXED bag of information. I think it shows continued growth and recovery, with a large overhanging FEAR of inflation and the chance the Fed might back off its easing.

    • JAC, Best wishes to you and yours today :)

      Just some questions, Do you think the elite are going to start WWIII at some point? I actually think it has begun already, it just has not escalated to the use of WMDs.

      Do you think the dollar will lose it’s place as the Petrodollar and world reserve currency?

      Will our economy crash at some point due to debt or any other reason? When?

      Spring is coming, are you as happy as me? :lol:

      • Bottom Line says:

        G,

        JAC makes some legitimate points.

        I am still figuring things out, but I have already discovered truths that are in direct conflict with what many believe.

        The whole Luciferian Illuminati elite NWO genocidal take-over grand conspiracy thing is, at least in part, based on a false premise. There is a lot of misinterpretation and filling in the gaps with irrational fear and bullshit on the part of the masses.

        The nature of mankind and it’s capacity to do evil is the real enemy. But you can’t tell people that. They won’t listen.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        GMan

        Elite start WWIII?………….NO! A war is possible, but the Elite would prefer no more World Wars in my view. That doesn’t preclude more “police actions” to get hotspots back in line. One point based on your other comments and the Iron Mtn video. One of the Big REASONS for the effort to move towards “New World Order” is to PREVENT another World War.

        Dollar loses stature?……………..YES! Although this can be prevented. I think it is in the Elite’s interest to not let this happen. At least in the near term. I can see a future where the Chinese dollar is the world standard. Long term.

        Crash? …………… YES! It happens about every 7 years.

        Happy? ………… Probably not as much as you at the moment. But will be heading back to Montana at the end of the month for week of visiting and fishing. Then You will have no standing on the Happy Meter.

        The SUN is shining here today, however. Which certainly is an improvement in everyone’s mood. No snow all winter………..just clouds and rain.

  39. I was inspired. Makes my problems seem a little more manageable. Hope it does the same for you guys. :)

    Inspiration From a Teen Born Without Eyes or Nose

    Michael Brown

    Mar 08, 2013

    The news line on Drudge Report immediately got my attention: Girl Born Without Eyes or Nose. But when I clicked on the link, expecting to read about a just-born, severely handicapped baby, I found a very different story, a story about a courageous teenager with an amazing attitude to life. One simple quote from her said it all.

    Before I share the quote, let me introduce you to 16 year-old Cassidy Hooper, born without eyes or nose. A child like this would be the perfect candidate for abortion in today’s society, especially since her condition is traced to “a rare birth defect that likely occurred during the first two weeks of gestation.”

    Yes, this is the age of designer babies and gender-selective abortions, and if it’s OK to abort a baby because it isn’t wanted or it’s the wrong gender, why bring a child into the world who will suffer so much pain and hardship? Isn’t the compassionate thing to put an end to her suffering before it even starts – in other words, to play God? Cassidy would answer with an emphatic “No!”

    (Here’s a chilling side note: Had Cassidy been born in Holland, there’s the possibility a “compassionate,” God-playing doctor would have euthanized her at birth. But that’s another topic for another column.)

    According to a March 5th report on ABCNews.com, Cassidy “has high hopes for a career in radio broadcasting, despite her physical challenges. . . . She attends The Governor Morehead School in Raleigh, N.C., a residential K-12 school for the blind, but no challenge is too big for her: She runs on the track team and recently qualified for a scholarship to the Charlotte Curling Club.”

    She runs on the track team and she’s blind? And she’s into curling, that odd-looking ice sport that most of us only know from the Winter Olympics?

    According to her mom, “She’s very outgoing and never met a stranger. Whenever we go anywhere, she says, ‘Put me by the pool and I’ll go make friends.’ She loves to talk and is very, very self-confident.” And the first week she started attending the school for the blind in the fifth grade, she said to her mother, “Mom, everyone here is blind, so I’m normal.”

    According to the news report, “Since the age of about 11, Cassidy has gone through a series of skin graft and facial reconstruction operations at Levine Children’s Hospital in Charlotte [North Carolina]. In three final surgeries done over two to three weeks, doctors will stretch skin flaps over a bone or cartilage graft from another part of her body.

    “Cassidy said she is excited that for the first time she will be able to smell and breathe through her nose. ‘I’ll have a real nose like everyone else’s,’ she said.”

    But what about her other challenges? Even with a functioning nose, she’ll still be blind and will face a lifetime of obstacles and hurdles. This is how Cassidy looks at life, and this is the quote that so impressed me: “Things always may be hard,” Cassidy said, “But here’s what I think: I don’t need easy, I just need possible.”

    What would the world look like if all of us lived like this? No eyes? No nose? No problem! She rides go-karts, has even tried playing baseball, and is curious, adventurous, and independent.

    With severe physical handicaps that almost none of us could ever relate to, not to mention her numerous surgeries, her spirit remains indomitable. And some of her inspiration comes from the movie Soul Surfer, telling the story of another courageous young woman, Bethany Hamilton, who at 13 years-old lost her arm to a shark while surfing, only to return to the waters as a champion surfer. (She actually went back to surfing just one month after losing her arm.)

    And it is from the Soul Surfer story that Cassidy learned the line, “I don’t need easy, I just need possible.”

    Yes, Cassidy (and Bethany) tell us, life may be hard, but that’s nothing new. Life has never given anyone a free pass, and it has dealt some people absolutely crippling blows. But, as the saying goes, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and if it doesn’t break you it will make you.

    And so, rather than having an endless pity party or living in hopeless despair, Cassidy is here to tell us to quit making excuses, to quit blaming others, to quit feeling sorry for ourselves, and to quit looking for an easy escape. Instead, she reminds us that, “Things always may be hard. But here’s what I think: I don’t need easy, I just need possible.”

    Time for an attitude adjustment, anybody?

    http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2013/03/08/inspiration-from-a-teen-born-without-eyes-or-nose-n1528954/page/full/

    • Nice story. Everything we do requires effort. For those with handicaps, like Todd, It takes much more effort to get things done. She’s an inspiration for sure, in many different ways. :wink:

  40. Nancy Pelosi speaks. What is wrong with what you are about to read?

    “Our whole budget is what, $3.5 trillion? So, when we talk about reducing spending, we certainly must, and we certainly have–$1.6 trillion in the previous Congress, $1.2 of it in the Budget Control Act. But spending is also related to tax cuts. Tax cuts are spending. Tax expenditures, they are called. Subsidies for big oil, subsidies to send jobs overseas, breaks to send jobs overseas, breaks for corporate jets. They are called tax expenditures. Spending money on tax breaks.”

    Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/pelosi-fail-tax-cuts-are-spending/#ixzz2MyImtART

  41. Funny video, maybe. Your fellow voters ladies and gentleman!

    It’s not hard to understand how people like Nancy Pelosi (we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it), Sheila Jackson Lee (“I stand here as a freed slave because this Congress came together”), Maxine Waters (170 million jobs could be lost due to Sequestration), and Hank “Guam Will Tip Over” Johnson get re-elected even after they say stupid things. In fact, I think their vote totals increase every time they add to their repertoire of absurdities.

    It’s funny, but these people vote.

    Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/03/i-just-voted-for-obama-because-hes-black/#ixzz2MyKs4837

  42. I love this Republican party fighting! Got another call from one of the fund raising wings just this morning. Haven’t donated to the party in years, but because I donate to Walker and other conservatives, still get their calls. Poor guy had to listen to my rant. Then I asked him to repeat my concerns back to me and asked him what he would do with them. Probably some poor volunteer or cheap labor guy – acknowledged that to him – but you want my money? Change your ways, R party!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/08/wacko-birds-mccain-and-staff-keep-dumping-on-rand-paul/

    • My day turned bad on me. Could you repeat the rant here? I could use the laugh.

      • Poor guy. His timing couldn’t have been worse. I know their phone number and usually just ignore it, but answered on the first ring today.

    • You know, enough kids are getting into trouble on their own-we do not and I am personally tired of-these idiots trying to make criminals out of our children, when they are simply being children.

      • Your union teachers at their finest! Mix in the fact that they are also government and you have a recipe for disaster. I agree with both of you, this is totally stupid. I wonder when someone will sue the school for child abuse.

  43. I really need to be doing other things, but here’s one more.

    This is a two-for-one argument for the statists. 1. Why we need to keep giving $$ to PP for safe fetus elimination and 2. Why we must ban guns.

    Wonder if she had a CC permit????

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/loaded-gun-in-vagina-687341

  44. From an E-mail. What say you SUFA?

    BOTH PARTIES APPROVE DRONES
    Don’t be fooled

    Has This Been A Shell Game?

    Despite the fact that Rand Paul filibustered against drone assassinations, Republicans John McCain and Lindsay Graham blasted Paul in response, Paul fired back, and Paul claimed victory, take a close look at the outcome.

    Holder answered NO to the question: “Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?”

    The Republicans accepted Holder’s response. This, then, has become the de facto policy, at least for now. But look at that question. It is highly qualified.

    Both Parties Agree

    The fact is, both parties have reached an unlegislated agreement that:

    o Drones over American skies are OK.

    o The drones can be militarized.

    o Drone assassinations of Americans on U.S. soil will be lawful – in some circumstances, which will undoubtedly expand with time. The Founding Fathers, for example, could have been assassinated by drones because they certainly engaged in combat on American soil.

    o Unalienable rights and constitutional protections, therefore, are not the supreme law of the land.

    o Executive orders and agencies are in charge, not Congress.

    What Drones Can Do

    It addition to dropping assassination bombs, it is known drones have been fitted with technologies that can provide high-resolution images over entire cities in real-time (capable of identifying people carrying weapons); recognize, categorize, and track cars, trucks, people, etc.; and monitor all wireless signals including cellphones and WiFi traffic. Interestingly, the YouTube video that let us see this technology in action has been removed. These technologies are advancing as fast cellphone and computer technologies.

    I suspect Utah’s NSA center will be the hub for drone control and signal recording & analysis.

    Don’t Stop Fighting

    We The People can have only one position: all drones – commercial (i.e. Google, etc.), government, and military – violate our unalienable rights, and the Bill of Rights. There are no exceptions. Murder-by-drone of Americans subverts constitutional and human rights.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Gman

      Some comments to your email.

      Both Parties Agree

      The fact is, both parties have reached an unlegislated agreement that: NOT EXACTLY TRUE AS THE LAWS GOVERNING MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE “LEGISLATED”

      o Drones over American skies are OK. THEY ARE A TYPE OF AIRCRAFT AND HAVE BEEN OVER AMERICAN SKIES SINCE THE DAY THEY WERE INVENTED. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON ACCEPTABLE USE.

      o The drones can be militarized. YES, BUT IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE “ARMED” AND WITH WHAT.

      o Drone assassinations of Americans on U.S. soil will be lawful – in some circumstances, which will undoubtedly expand with time. The Founding Fathers, for example, could have been assassinated by drones because they certainly engaged in combat on American soil. NO. ASSASSINATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. KILLING AN AMERICAN ENGAGED IN COMBAT IS NOT AN ASSASSINATION. THE FOUNDERS WERE HUNTED DOWN AND HUNG FOR TREASON. I’M SURE THE ENGLISH WOULD HAVE USED DRONES IF THEY HAD THEM. BUT HERE IS THE RELEVANT PART. AN AMERICAN COULD BE KILLED BY ANY OTHER MEANS IF HE/SHE WAS INVOLVED IN REVOLUTION OR INSURRECTION AND REFUSED ARREST OR FIRED UPON GOVT OFFICIALS. THIS IS CURRENTLY LEGAL PER OUR CONSTITUTION.

      o Unalienable rights and constitutional protections, therefore, are not the supreme law of the land. THIS IS TRUE, BUT THIS SUPPOSED AGREEMENT OVER DRONES HAS NOT CHANGED THIS IN ANY MATERIAL WAY.

      o Executive orders and agencies are in charge, not Congress. FALSE. CONGRESS IS IN CHARGE. THEY COULD OUTLAW DRONES IF THEY WISHED AND THE ADMINISTRATION COULD NOT IGNORE THEIR ORDER.

      THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED THE OTHER DAY AND NEEDS REPEATING. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DRONES AND POLICE HELICOPTERS OR PLANES?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED THE OTHER DAY AND NEEDS REPEATING. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DRONES AND POLICE HELICOPTERS OR PLANES?

        Good Morning JAC, Choppers are loud, can be heard and seen easily and most importantly, have pilot’s on board. While drone’s are a good war weapon/intel gathering device in a war zone, why would our law enforcement need such an expensive tool over our cities? Would the cost/benefit ratio be enough for tax dollars to be spent on them.

        Today’s desensitized young people who will likely be piloting these things could be too easily manipulated should they decide to arm them. Unwarranted concerns? Maybe, afterall, Holder said they would not be used over U.S. soil. The same Holder who was found in contempt of Congress (real credible words coming from him, eh?)

      • @ JAC…..you asked….”THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED THE OTHER DAY AND NEEDS REPEATING. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DRONES AND POLICE HELICOPTERS OR PLANES?”

        D13 says: None……with one little exception. Drones are designed for stealth.

  45. Will the Left Finally Get the Tea Party Now?

    by Joel B. Pollak 7 Mar 2013 693 post a comment

    Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster against the confirmation of CIA Director and “drone czar” John Brennan offers a “teachable moment” to the media and the left about the Tea Party. As they seethe in outrage and confusion that it took a Republican to question the constitutionality of drone attacks, it is important to remind our friends on the other side that it wasn’t just any Republican, but a–gasp!–Tea Party Republican who spoke “truth to power.”

    Not only that, but the Senators who were first to offer their assistance were also Tea Party Republicans–the so-called McCarthyist Ted Cruz of Texas, and Marco “Water Break” Rubio of Florida. All three of these Senators won their primary elections against candidates favored by the Republican establishment. All three have been attacked by the left and smeared as racist and extremist for belonging to the Tea Party. Yet without them, no one from either party would have questioned a policy that the left once saw as a dangerous abuse of executive power.

    Only one Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, supported Paul. (Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois came to the floor very late in the game to offer a few challenging questions and formally end debate when Paul finally yielded.) Ryan Grim and Mollie Reilly of the Huffington Post observed: “…progressives who might have assumed to have been supportive were absent, leaving members of the GOP as the sole defenders of civil liberties. The White House was equally silent.” Some Democrats, notably Maxine Waters, even slammed Paul as “destructive.”

    What many on the left and in the media have willfully failed to understand is that the Tea Party exists to defend the Constitution from unconstitutional encroachments on power and dangerous expansions in the size and cost of government. It did not merely arise in opposition to President Barack Obama; it had its roots in conservative outrage at the bailouts of the last months of George W. Bush’s presidency. At its core, the Tea Party is about American values, not Republican politics. It exists not to obstruct the Democrats but to restore the Constitution.

    Rand Paul’s filibuster provided a useful contrast between the Tea Party and the GOP establishment. While Paul stood on the Senate floor, unable to leave the chamber to eat, a dozen other Republicans chose to dine with President Obama in a gesture of bipartisanship. (The contrast is not exact; a few Tea Party favorites attended the dinner, too, and joined Paul later in the Senate chamber.) It had already been hours since Wyden joined Paul’s protest, illustrating that true bipartisanship is forged on the basis of shared principles, not just political necessity.

    Democrats and journalists like to describe the Tea Party as “hostage-takers,” holding Republican leaders and moderates in their thrall while they try to dismantle the government. But in reality it is the Washington elite that have taken the country hostage, forcing through expansions of government power and spending vast sums of money that the nation will struggle for generations to repay. The Tea Party represents the last chance to escape the zero-sum politics and economic stagnation that has plagued much of Europe for the last several years.

    As Paul continued, liberals who once railed angrily against Bush were forced to confront the fecklessness of their own party. Hollywood’s John Cusack asked: “Where are the so-called progressive Democratic senators?” Meanwhile, the supposedly racist Tea Party Senator from Kentucky was leading the charge. It was not a political ploy for votes, or even an attempt to block one of President Obama’s nominees, which Paul acknowledged he would fail to do. It was just a stand on principle–which is what the Tea Party has been about all along.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/07/Will-the-Left-Finally-Get-the-Tea-Party-Now

  46. Oh….and for those concerned……the Homeland Department has not purchased over a billion rounds of ammo….it is only 650 million.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      I am curious about what you think the Govt is up to with all the ammo purchases.

      Some are now trying to rationalize this as just normal “practice” and replacement.

      I have no knowledge of what normal inventory levels are so I can’t argue that one.

      One thought I had was an effort to secure “cheaper” ammo because they knew they would take a run at driving up ammo cost to the “rednecks”. Like proposed taxes or ammo bans.

      Your insight would be appreciated.

      • Hey JAC….it has nothing to do with cheaper ammo. Normal inventory for ALL homeland personnel is 15 million rounds. Normal homeland training uses 12 million rounds per year. This large number does not represent rounds already purchased but a long term purchase to fix price.

        I can find NO confirmation of armored vehicles being purchased but remember, Obama, in a closed door move, has put all Federal Law enforcement under homeland security. This includes FBI, CIA…..etc. it is unprecedented. Even Bush did not do this. So, any armored vehicles and ammunition requests will now be under one order. There is no evidence that the I R S has purchased ammunition.

        What is troublesome to me is the order to put all independent law enforcement under the power of the President. This was done under the radar. The minute border patrol and INS went under HS…they disarmed them. Non lethal means now used to fight lethal means. This is very troublesome to me. Border patrol are leaving in droves.

        • By the way, this has never been done before.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          I missed the move of bringing all LE under Homeland Security. Although I thought that was already done.

          But since you brought that up here is another one. The Administration is discussing, internally, to combine the wildland fire suppression portion of the various land management agencies under ………. Dept of Homeland Security.

          This could be another end run by the hard left to gut the land mgt agencies and then force their consolidation. Or it could be to gobble up all the emergency response resources.

          The land mgt agencies have far greater/better emergency response infrastructure than DHS currently.

          I share your concerns with the FBI and CIA, and other agencies being under one Secretary.

          What interesting times we have found ourselves in.

          Best to you and yours.

          • The one thing that cannot be done is to bring state National Guard units and State LE under HS. If that could happen, then you would have total LE under one department. This is not even constitutional, I am told. However, the States and State governors will fight this….that is most will. New York will probably be first to not fight. Very strange thinking up there.

  47. A U.S. park ranger, who did not wish to be identified, told FoxNews.com that supervisors within the National Park Service overruled plans to deal with the budget cuts in a way that would have had minimal impact on the public. Instead, the source said, park staff were told to cancel special events and cut “interpretation services” — the talks, tours and other education services provided by local park rangers.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/08/park-ranger-claims-supervisors-pushed-sequester-cuts-that-visitors-would-notice/#ixzz2N0pyMYwd

    How does the left stay so silent on this stuff. I know of no Repub that has done things like this.

  48. I read this morning that democrats immediately started attacking Rand about his support for the Lochner decision. Thought it might be interesting to discuss. Read this article and others, which I will post deparately- find myself confused by all the different points. Help :)

    Rand Paul, in Drone Filibuster, Tells Obama to Revisit Lochner Case

    by Joel B. Pollak 6 Mar 2013 7 post a comment
    During his old-fashioned, “talking filibuster” of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA Director, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called for President Barack Obama “to re-think the Lochner case” en route to strengthening protections of individual rights against, among other things, drone strikes. Obama referred specifically to the Lochner case in 2012, when he tried to argue that the Supreme Court should not attempt to overturn Obamacare.

    The Lochner v. New York case of 1905 is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, and has had a profound effect on legal and political thought for more than a century. The Court struck down a New York law limiting the working hours of bakery employees, on the grounds that freedom to contract, while not explicitly in the Constitution, was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

    The Progressive movement hated the Lochner decision because it limited state power, particularly the power of the government to regulate economic activity. The left also denounced the decision as an archetype of judicial activism, and set about demonizing the decision and the Court that produced it, especially during the New Deal era of the 1930s, when the Court struck down many of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ambitious new programs.

    When the Court ultimately rejected the Lochner limits on state regulatory power in 1937–after intense pressure from the Roosevelt administration–the left celebrated. And the left-leaning legal academy has continued to teach the Lochner case as though it were a profound injustice, the result of a plutocratic Supreme Court doing what it could to protect rich corporate interest from state and federal government intervention to protect the workers.

    Curiously, conservatives began invoking Lochner as a negative precedent in the 1970s, after the Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that there was a due process right to privacy. Suddenly, the “substantive due process” right that the left had rejected in Lochner became the basis of pro-choice arguments. Conversely, conservatives began to criticize substantive due process–and to echo the complaints Progressives once made about judicial activism.

    One of the amazing observations made by legal scholar David E. Bernstein in his brilliant book, Rehabilitating Lochner (University of Chicago Press, 2011), is that the old Progressives were so committed to upholding state powers that they were prepared to tolerate–and even defend–state laws enforcing racial segregation. It was the pro-Lochner camp that defended civil rights–and indeed, many early civil rights cases relied on Lochner’s logic.

    After the Second World War, when parts of the Democratic Party began to feel a sense about its embrace of the segregationist policies of Jim Crow, the left began to see the courts as an important tool in undoing official racism. The left never gave up on state power, as such; it just sought to confine state power to the economic arena, while using the courts to protect civil liberties. But that did not mean the left embraced Lochner.

    On the contrary, the left continued to regard Lochner as a retrograde decision–and added a new accusation: that supporters of Lochner were in fact racists. That claim grew out of the argument that state economic power was necessary to reverse not just economic inequality in general, but racial inequality in particular. Supporting freedom of contract meant supporting a laissez-faire system under which, the left argued, minorities suffered.

    The reality, however, was that Lochner’s embrace of freedom of contract owed its intellectual roots to the “free labor” ideology that accompanied the abolitionist movement prior to the Civil War, and that reigned supreme in the decades that followed it. For similar reasons, Republicans became the champions of civil rights, while the Democratic Party that had once supported slavery now supported state-enforced segregation through statism.

    Revisiting Lochner, as Paul suggested today, does not mean giving up on opposing Roe v. Wade. It is possible to support the idea of substantive due process, or the doctrine of natural law that preceded it, without backing the contention that the right to abortion would have been considered by the Framers of the Constitution to be a natural right implicitly incorporated into the document or reserved to the people by the Tenth Amendment.

    Rather, as Paul indicated, returning to Lochner would mean returning to a vision of strong individual liberties, weaker government regulation of the economy, and affirming the idea that our natural rights are prior to the Constitution, not the other way around. Regardless of whether he is wrong or right about the power to use drones against U.S. citizens who have joined our enemies, he is right about the rights that precede that power.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/06/Rand-Paul-in-Brennan-Filibuster-Calls-for-Revisiting-Lochner-Case

  49. Finally got unlazy enough to go to the NYC website and look up the current (since 1991) rifle and shotgun permit requirements in NYC.Fascinating and yes, Virginia, it CAN happen here. When I think back to the law passed in 1966, this is night and day. back then, permitting was NOT done by the NYPD it was a separate not totally insane agency with limits on what they could do. Somewhere along the line, it was turned over to the Police.While reading the law and noting the reality, it is apparent that the Commissioner can pretty much damn well do anything he wants to do. There is no specific prohibition on M-1 garands in the law, nor on their magazine capacity but they are banned.

    Moral of the story is don’t let the police be in charge of anything! This has to be the most incredibly un-constitutionl thing I have ever seen. Thought the Supremes said there was “reasonable” standard?

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/rifle_shotgun_permit_application.pdf

  50. Can someone help me out here? What is he saying? When have we had austerity measures here? Help!

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/03/09/krugman_there_would_be_2_million_more_jobs_if_we_didnt_have_austerity.html

    • The only area where there has been any austerity is at the local and state levels. The Feds continue to borrow and spend as much as they can. The job numbers are phony as the number of employed people in the US is about 131M down from the 138M in 2007. Add in the population growth and we are way under where we should be. As for the tax hike causing an increase in jobs, it is way too soon to determine that. The stock market is primarily riding on the Fed printing press since interests rates are so low that any other investment other than maybe real estate is a nonstarter. Our healthcare costs at work just went up 11%, so O-Care is really working at lowering costs. If Krugman had his way, we would be $20T in debt now.

  51. BL……as to your above questions….all relevant. I was only addressing the chem weapons issue and not the reasons and the immediate threat. The only immediate threat was…….to troops in that region….not the US. The second immediate threat, perceived or otherwise, was “they have done it before”. There was no credible intelligence and the weapons inspectors and IAEA are jokes to the world. They were, and still are, very useful pawns in the big game and quite effectively used in blocking strategies…..true chess players know how to use paws to redirect offense.

    So, the political gamesmanship is a different story. Fact 1. Iraq had WMD’s…Fact 2. They have used them before. Pretty easy reasoning.

    Also in fact was the intelligence gathering in the past years was……at best…..stupid. And not just intelligence gathering from US sources but from the Mossad, and MI6 as well. There was also inteliigence faults from a variety of sources.

    If you wish to say Bush lied when the intelligence was presented….then do so. Who the hell cares. He went to the Congress, to the UN, and to the coalition with his intelligence data and all made the same decision. Everyone makes the assumption that WMD’s was the sole reason for going into Iraq. Overlooked were the many violations of the so called peace treaty 10 years before. Right or wrong we went in there with prepositioned troops. That is also fact.

    Was it the wrong decision….some say yes….some say no. History is proving that the real target should have been Iran…..but what the hell, it is too late now. Besides, Iran is no threat….they are doing exactly as I laid out almost two years ago…..the only difference between them and the aspirations of the old USSR…….we do not call it a cold war. But it is the same none the less. Everyon can stick their head in the sand, but history is proving my prediction correct…..so far 100%. I wish some of it were wrong,.

  52. After a week of President Obama extending lunch and dinner invites to congressional Republicans, ahead of the next budget battle, party leaders are expressing cautious optimism about the president being sincere – not just leading a so-called charm offensive.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/10/republican-leaders-wary-obama-new-courting-efforts-as-budget-battles-resume/?intcmp=trending#ixzz2NBa292Vv

    LOL……Party Rinos are expressing optimism……the rest of them…..no trust. As for me……well…..never mind.

  53. gmanfortruth says:

    Good Morning SUFA,

    After a nice weekend away from politics, it’s back to business. Came home Sunday and butchered a deer, so tonight is fresh backstraps on the grill :)

    With all of the past discussions in mind, I asked what it would be like if free thought were ever completely shutdown and the only message is the one that the “authorities” want us to have? What if we didn’t have anyone questioning the “official” story anymore, because they found themselves under constant attack and ridicule, that they just said “fu@& it” and clammed up? Would this world be a better place?

    The SPLC just came out with their pathetic list of in country terrorists and there was very little of this spoken of. that I saw anyway, about good freedom loving Americans being deemed as terrorists. Granted, they are not worthy of any being legitimized, but the other problem is that they have Janet Nepolitano’s ear and she probably believes their garbage. That in itself should be enough to slam them relentlessly. Yet, mostly quiet. Is the Tea Party dead? They are on the list, as is Oathkeepers and many other good groups of people.

    Just some thoughts this fine Monday morning :)

  54. Hey, Hey, Hey Goodbye Kwame Kilpatrick. Guilty on 24 counts..extortion and racketeering, after two full weeks of deliberation. His buddy Bobby Ferguson also guilty. His father, Bernard Kilpatrick, guilty on only one of nine charges. One count of extortion gets him 20 years. Haven’t come across the total years he’ll be gone yet.

    In other Detroit news..Gov Snyder has declared Detroit in financial emergency, ready to appoint a Emergency Financial Manager..council is appealing..Mayor Dave Bing does not side with council. Citizens of Detroit are furious..staging traffic protests..stopping their cars on busy freeways and city streets. Pass the popcorn!

    • Why are the citizens furious about? Do they like the Gov’s approach or are they protesting against his approach? And if it is against, what do they want instead?

      • Where do I start… Maxine Waters has a double on the council, Joanne Watson. I think she taught Maxine..She wants Obama to throw Detroit some bacon for all the black votes he received..but that’s a side story itself. The residents beef consists of… It’s democracy run amok! They voted down and EM last fall. Snyder has recommended an EFM..which cannot be repealed by vote..so Snyder, aka “whitey”, is going to ruin the city more. It really all comes down to racism.

        • It always comes back to that for some, doesn’t it? Lady parts, skin color – why don’t we ever hear about using your brain from the left?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Anita, Atlanta may be soon to follow. The failure of black leadership will most always result in these problems. Once that leads to corruption, the ball is rolling and the only answer that the Left can muster is racism. They can’t see it’s exactly the road they, the left, has led the people down, and the people are too dumbed down to know better.

  55. March 11, 2013
    The Chicago Roots of President Obama’s Leadership Style
    By Michael Bargo Jr.

    Speaker Boehner and the Republican House are frustrated that they can’t get President
    Obama or Senate leader Reid to compromise with them.

    The regular rules of order in Congress are that the committees hold hearings, both parties have input into the writing of legislation, and eventually the Senate and House leaders have a conference to come to mutually agreeable terms. This conference report results in a bill that is submitted to the president for signing.

    But the president doesn’t seem to follow the old established rules. He wants the speaker to visit the White House, meet with him and his inner circle, and, particularly with regard to issues of spending, sign an unconditional surrender.

    Analysts have seen this as proof of Obama’s totalitarian ambitions or an inflated political ego. Others characterize it as a sure sign that he is pursuing socialism.

    While the president’s behavior can be used to support all of these descriptions, the real answer may be none of these. Those who seek to understand President Obama may benefit from studying the governing tactics of Chicago’s Mayor Daley I. These have been thoroughly described in biographies of Daley.i

    Chicago’s Mayor Daley I gained absolute power by gaining absolute control over the budget. The way he did this was that he “arranged for the Chicago Home Rule Commission to recommend shifting responsibility for preparing the city budget from the City Council to the Mayor.”ii The Commission also “called for ending the long-standing requirement that the City Council approve all city contracts over $2,500.”iii Once these recommendations “arranged” by Mayor Daley became law, the City Council then became “little more than an advisory body.iv No one in the City Council complained, since all the members owed their jobs to Daley I. This astounding coup was accomplished without a shot being fired, lawsuits filed, or media outrage.

    Congress’s authority to write a budget is determined not by a Home Rule Commission, but by the Constitution. But President Obama was able to cleverly subvert Congress’s power of the purse this way: the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate has not passed a budget in four years. One can reasonably ask if President Obama enlisted, in the early months of his first term, the cooperation of Senate Leader Reid in suspending the constitutionally mandated responsibility of the Senate to pass a budget. Since Harry Senate Majority Leader Reid has the power to refuse to consider a budget bill, this is not a far-fetched idea.

    Once the Senate refused to pass a budget, the House then had no input into budget decisions and, as a consequence, policy-making. A policy that is not funded may as well not exist. The GOP-controlled House is reduced to going along with continuing resolutions.

    In effect, Obama cleverly usurped congressional budget authority, with the added benefit of eliminating a budgetary paper trail. The real reason for this strategy is to weaken the legislative power of Congress, just as Mayor Daley I weakened the power of Chicago’s City Council.v The fawning news media have not discussed this power-grab. Budgets reveal “who gets what,”vi and Obama doesn’t want the public to know the details.

    The Chicago mayoral paradigm of governing President Obama is accustomed to is very simple: in his view, the Republicans in the House have no “clout,”vii to use an old Chicago term. Clout refers to the influence necessary to get things done — the ability to influence spending.

    President Obama has a small group of insiders, mainly from Chicago, who decide what the policy shall be and the language of bills. The president was most content during his first two years, when he had the power to send money to all the units of government throughout the U.S. run by Democrats. The government website recovery.gov shows where the tens of thousands of grants and loans went throughout the U.S.

    This spending is not blind; it has gone toward public-sector unions and units of government largely controlled by Democrats. Like Daley I, Obama is using federal dollars to assure the long-term electoral security of his party. Consequently, he does not want Republicans to have any input; it would only interfere. The only constraint President Obama faces is that he desperately wants to raise the debt limit, but for that, he needs House cooperation.

    Since the House refuses to raise the debt limit, Obama seeks to turn the voters against the Republicans and win the House back. Here lies his weakness: Chicago is so small by comparison that once the mayor gets elected, he need not worry about losing power. He always controls everything. Obama has to compromise with the House, but he has no experience doing so. The only strategy he can use now is rhetorical: he makes outrageous policy statements, such as extreme statements on gun control or doomsday predictions regarding the effects of sequestration.

    President Obama is confined by this paradigm, because he has no understanding of, or inclination to engage in, the legislative process. He made a mistake when he assumed that the Republicans would panic at the sequestration of Defense Dept. spending. He assumed they would give in and not allow any of their defense lobbyists’ programs to be cut. This is primarily because he assumes that the GOP thinks the same way he does: that rewarding campaign contributors takes the highest priority.

    President Clinton worked with Speaker Newt Gingrich and was able to accomplish many notable legislative milestones; Obama has no interest in doing so.

    President Obama’s weakness, then, derives from what he thinks is his strength. Because he does not have to deal with the legislature, he does not understand politicking. In his view of governing, his only hope is to raise the debt limit and once again achieve majority control of the House. This may be unlikely, but his governing paradigm won’t allow any other option.

    President Obama did not become president with the intention of ruling as an autocrat. It is more accurate to say that autocracy is the only style of political leadership he knows. The frustration he feels toward Speaker Boehner

    has two causes: he sees Boehner as refusing to acknowledge his role as the ruler of government, and secondly, he sees Boehner as interfering with his primary goal of achieving electoral security through spending. Their standoff is that Obama feels that Boehner has no clout, while Boehner feels that Obama is not playing by the rules of order — that Obama is not allowing Republicans and their constituents to have any input into federal government.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_chicago_roots_of_president_obamas_leadership_style.html#ixzz2NFhN3cZc
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      The following statement in this article is FALSE:

      “Once the Senate refused to pass a budget, the House then had no input into budget decisions and, as a consequence, policy-making. A policy that is not funded may as well not exist. The GOP-controlled House is reduced to going along with continuing resolutions.”

      The only thing preventing the House from controlling the budget is their own lack of courage.

      The House is needed to pass Appropriation Bills as well as any Continuing Resolution.

      What the Senate has done is eliminate a JOINT Budget from which the Committees of BOTH houses can work in their “Appropriation Bill” process. Thus making EACH Appropriations Bill a separate FIGHT.

      It also eliminates imposing the Byrd Rule in the Total Budget because there is NO BUDGET. The Byrd Rule placed restrictions on changes to the “Budget” unless there were enough votes to override a filibuster.

      For the record, it was the Byrd Rule that caused the Republicans to make the Bush Tax Cuts SUNSET. That and the Dems would not vote to make them permanent from the start.

      • Okay, then what is the effect of not having a budget for 4 years?

        Maybe I don’t understand enough about the process-but is a continuing resolution not a type of appropriation. If they cannot agree on these separate appropriation bills do they not just pass a continuing resolution, which allows the departments to just spend the same amount without much Congressional input into what they spend it own-or am I just way off on how this works?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          Lets start with where we are, continuing resolutions. They are a form of appropriation. They require BOTH housed to approve them and the President to sign them. They are “temporary” in that they do not cover the ENTIRE Fiscal Year. Thus the current CR expires at the end of this month. If you have problems understanding this mess now, just take a look at the Current CR. You will see why I have heartburn over “lawyers”.

          http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ175/html/PLAW-112publ175.htm

          In 2011 a couple of the CR’s included REDUCTIONS in spending from the prior year. I believe the Current CR increased spending in seveal areas. Notice it uses the President’s Budget to set spending on the War on Terror. The problem with CR’s is primarily the distraction in Congress and the lack of certainty for the Agencies covered by a CR.

          The effect of NOT having a budget………this is a tough one. It means that the House and Senate have NO AGREED LIMIT on spending from which to work with in their respective Appropriation Committees. The BUDGET is a Joint Resolution that is binding but does NOT require the President to approve it.

          This makes it impossible to know if a new policy will increase spending or reduce revenues enough to trigger the BUDGET act restrictions and the Byrd Rule. The BUDGET is also where Congress agrees to the general “increase” for inflation and other things before allocating the amounts to each Agency, program, etc.

          So there is some truth in the article because this in turn allows the White House and Senate, working together, to ISOLATE the HOUSE REPUBLICANS as a problem to what ever they want. Note how the House keeps passing a budget which then gets ridiculed and demagogued?

          But in REAL terms, that is budgetary terms, the lack of a Budget is NOT THE PROBLEM. The Dems are correct when they claim this is not really a big deal. Except of course in political terms. And in Washington, we all know that politics rules.

          It is the lack of APPROPRIATION BILLS that spend LESS. It is the lack of courage by the House Republicans to Pass Appropriation Bills and then stick to their guns. Or in worse case, make cuts via the Continuing Resolution process.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Obama and the Dems can blame the deficit and increased debt on the Repub’s now. More stupid games, nothing more.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          A little more explanation, well MY opinion, on why the Dems are not passing a Budget.

          The end result is that it almost guarantees that Congress will have to use Continuing Resolutions to fund Govt.

          Now remember that the Republicans got blistered over shutting down the Govt under Clinton. The Dems are positive that any battle over a continuing resolution that would end in shutting down Govt will be a VICTORY for THEM. Most of the Republican Leadership SHARES this view.

          So the Dems by not passing a Budget and using that normal process can FORCE funding of Govt via Continuing Resolutions. This in turn allows them two or more chances per year to put the Republicans on the spot and FORCE their budget demands to be accepted.

          The CR’s are BLACKMAIL, or perhaps EXTORTION would be a better term. This is why I say the problem is LACK OF COURAGE by the Republicans. They need to explain this situation to the American Public, pass some bills that make sense and then let the chips fall where they may. THEY have to find a way to break the STIGMA attached to shutting down Govt so that BOTH parties will have to come to the table with neither having a hammer over the other.

          This is why I say that Obama has not eliminated Congressional or House AUTHORITY over the budget. They still have that POWER. But politically, there is some truth to this. The Republicans are not in the position to force the issue without paying a heavy price politically.

          I hope this all makes more sense now. Please ask more if I made it worse. I am sure I can confuse the matter even more. :)

          • Thinking :) Question-if they do not pass a budget-how do they determine how much they are allowed to spend for the whole year? How long do CR’s last?

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              The Leadership could establish some guidelines along with the Ways and Means Chairman. Then hold the CR’s or the individual Appropriations to the selection proportion.

              Or, stop passing any appropriations once they hit the selected limit.

              CR’s in the past were usually for only a few months at most. I think the Current one was for six months. They are talking about passing another one to finish out the fiscal year. That is Sept 30.

  56. The So Called Adults Within the GOP Are Stupid

    By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | March 11th, 2013 at 03:30 AM | 80

    I realize there are those within the Republican Party who do not like Rush Limbaugh. Some of them even think the GOP is worse because of him.

    Likewise, there are those within the GOP who say they like Rush and see “a use” for him, but they themselves do not like listening to him. He’s just not their cup of tea or something.

    These people should really spend a week listening to Rush three hours a day and perhaps they would not be so stupid.

    Most of the people who fall into these camps have been mouthing off on two topics about which their commentary has been decidedly stupid. Perhaps if they were students of the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies they’d wise up.

    The first, of course, is CPAC, put on by the American Conservative Union.

    The ACU gave Mitch McConnell a 100% rating and gave Renee Elmers of North Carolina, one of the most worthless members of Congress to ever be elected as a tea party candidate, some award to prove her bona fides. That basically means the award is her conservative bona fides because she doesn’t have a record to show for it.

    Basically, ACU is good at giving people cover.

    And now they’ve given Chris Christie cover. They haven’t invited him to CPAC.

    Boo-freaking-hoo.

    If you listen to the libertarian leaning serial whining twitterati of twenty-somethings, this is an outrageously outrageous insult. They’ve invited Donald Trump to speak and his positions and Chris Christie’s are a lot alike, but for Trump actually taking the fight to Obama.

    If you listened to the average Republican — not conservative — pundit on the right, it has been just ridiculous that Chris Christie was not invited. These people are more outraged over that than the ACU giving Mitch McConnell a 100% conservative rating. The adults in the GOP just cannot get over it.

    The fact is, and to repeat myself, the ACU is good at giving people cover. They have given Chris Christie cover. Do you really think it is hurtful to Christie, headed into a campaign year in New Jersey, to be dissed by the conservative political action conference?

    Come on people, smarten up.

    But there is an even bigger issue.

    The number of notable Republicans critical of Rand Paul’s filibuster is really amazing. Rand Paul put serious points on the board against the Obama Administration and John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Bill Kristol, National Review, and others are out dismissing him.

    If they had paid attention to the crux of his argument on Wednesday, he worked hard to find common ground on the right. His filibuster was premised on the Obama Administration claiming it could use drones to kill Americans in the United States without due process of law after defining “imminent harm” in a way that was not imminent.

    I support killing bad guys with drones overseas. Hell, I’m okay with killing bad guys in the United States with drones if they are about to cause imminent harm. But the administration’s standard was far too nebulous. It is opposed by a majority of Americans. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, and others who are okay with drone attacks on bad guys supported Rand Paul because Paul found the sliver of ground on which they could all be opposed to an Obama Administration policy.

    The act drew headlines. It united conservatives, independents, and even some progressives.

    But then the so called adults within the Republican Party had to weigh in. They had to rain on the parade. They had to criticize Rand Paul.

    The fact is Rand Paul put more points on the board than Bill Kristol, National Review, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or pretty much any other Republican over these past few months. He did so on ground the GOP rarely fights on in a way that those who do not share much of his view on drones could find common ground with him.

    But he took the spotlight away from the adults in the room. That was his sin. He had to be rebuked.

    The adults in the GOP’s big tent have been complicit in getting us to $16 trillion in national debt and have never met a victory from which they could not snatch defeat.

    Perhaps if they spent more time listening and learning from Rush Limbaugh and less time trying to show the world they’re better than him or the base he gives voice to they’d be more effective. Right now, they’re just stupid.

    Like in Middle Earth, the so called leaders and wise men really should just let the filthy Hobbits take care of things.

    http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/11/the-so-called-adults-within-the-gop-are-stupid/

  57. Gman, I know you posted on this before, but just came across this article. I have no personal experience with any of these drugs, but when trying to find possible reasons behind violent actions, these drugs must be part of the conversation.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14655-prescription-for-murder

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I agree. These drugs are dangerous. The story is being suppressed by the corruption. It will never be more than an afterthought when another tragedy happens. Not much different than crack cocaine and heroin.

  58. Just popped in, too a few looks and, yep, most of yous are still crazy :)

  59. gmanfortruth says:

    State judge halts New York City’s ban on large sugary drinks, calling the ban ‘arbitrary and capricious’
    Waiting on link. Emperor Bloomberg can’t be happy to have his authority challenged.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Why do some lawyers think it is legal to tell others what to eat and drink? I’m starting a new profession. it pays very well, relies on lies and ambiguity. It’s sole purpose is to legislate who lawyers are allowed to screw. Maybe then they will wake up to reality.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578354543929974394.html

      Example: “This measure is part of the City’s multipronged effort to combat the growing obesity epidemic, which takes the lives of more than 5,000 New Yorkers every year, and we believe the Board of Health has the legal authority—and responsibility—to tackle its leading causes,” Mr. Cardozo, the city’s top lawyer, said in response to the ruling Monday.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Sorry Buck, We need to investigate if your relationship with your wife is healthy, so we a passing a law to ban you from having any form of physical contact with your wife until a full investigation confirms it is a healthy relationship. This may take about 3 years to complete, so please understand the delay and we’re sorry, but you will have to bare the costs of getting serviced in the mean time. We have the full agreement of the House of Politically Correctness. Failure to obey will cost $500 the first time, 30 days in jail for the second and life in jail for the 3rd violation. Enjoy your day, Sir!
        :lol: :lol:

  60. gmanfortruth says:

    How does someone who say’s things like this allowed to continue in public service? And Ya’ll wonder why I have an issue with Federal elections. :roll:

    Sen Feinstein: “The time has come, America, to step up and ban these weapons. The other very important part of this bill is to ban large capacity ammunition feeding devices, those that hold more than 10 rounds. We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines. Limiting magazine capacity is critical because it is when a criminal, a drug dealer, a deranged individual has to pause to change magazines and reload that the police or brave bystanders have the opportunity to take that individual down.”

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9799/feinstein-cites-hunting-humans-as-reason-to-ban-guns-magazines/#ixzz2NGO3PlHk

    I love to hunt, but even I don’t want one of these licenses.

    On another note, went to a gun show this past Saturday. Packed house and long lines to get in. Prices are insane, even on reloading supplies. I get them cheaper at the nearest gun store. Plenty of “assault” style guns, all junk and all way overpriced. There were still some nice deals on hunting rifles and scopes. Overall, overpricing was the name of the game. The free market at it’s best really, considering demand. I wasn’t looking for anything, just wanted to see prices.

  61. gmanfortruth says:
  62. gmanfortruth says:

    To me, this is scary. This should scare the hell out of everyone.

    The news story went on to list the amount of government aid available to a single mother of two who makes $19,000 per year. Mind you the figures vary from state to state, but this is what would be available in the Lancaster area: Click link to see list, it’s long!

    The total government aid available totals up to $81,589. Some of those are a one or two time assistance only and others are yearly.
    http://lastresistance.com/1589/how-welfare-is-draining-the-system/

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Interesting article. Krugman is an idiot and one day will be amusing all of us when he files bankruptcy. He is not important, what is important is the claim that both the Repub’s and Dem’s are equally guilty. If the article is accurate, then it supports my claim that Federal elections are a failure. It’s beyond “too” corrupt. It is totally corrupt.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Kathy

      It is simply amazing to me how there are two completely differing views of Soc Security solvency.

      The TRUTH is on Mr. Johnson’s side here, NOT Krugman. Not surprising. He accomplished his little tirade and dismissal by CHANGING THE PREMISE. Mr. Johnson is discussing the entire program solvency. Krugman tries to make it look like Johnson is ONLY talking about the assets (Treasury Notes) held by the Trust Fund. But notice that language used by the Soc Sec TRUSTEES in their 2012 Report:

      ” Social Security

      Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086. ”

      See that date of 2033. EXHAUSTION OF THE TRUST FUND RESERVES. That means all interest and T Notes are gone. The payments are made from annual payroll taxes.

      Now what was the date that Mr. Johnson used?

  63. gmanfortruth says:
  64. gmanfortruth says:

    Another wanna be politician getting ready to retire from the Navy: http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/10/commander-of-u-s-pacific-forces-says-global-warming-is-our-top-threat/

    Hey, the earth is not warming, or did he miss the memo?

  65. Obama Resists Simple Fixes for Sequestration Cuts

    Byron York

    Mar 11, 2013

    Obama Resists Simple Fixes for Sequestration Cuts
    The little secret of sequestration is that the Obama administration could fix much of the problem pretty quickly. But it doesn’t want to.

    Congress tells executive branch agencies how much money they can spend and how they should spend it. Sometimes the instructions are broad, and sometimes they are quite detailed. Cabinet secretaries and lower-downs are bound to work within those congressional directives.

    But if Cabinet officers want to spend the money differently, there is a long-established process for doing so: They ask Congress for permission. It happens all the time, with lawmakers routinely giving the executive branch the OK to spend money in different ways than originally planned.

    That could be happening now. All those Obama administration officials complaining about across-the-board cuts dictated by sequestration could come up with plans to make the same amount of cuts in ways that would create fewer problems for federal workers and services. Then they could ask Congress for permission to do so. Lawmakers would say yes, and things would be fine.

    But it’s not happening. And the fault is not with Congress.

    In recent weeks, House Republicans have been virtually begging administration officials to ask for permission to move money around. If one program could be more easily cut than others, those Republicans say, just ask us, and we’ll let you do it.

    “We sent out on Feb. 28 a letter to every Cabinet officer asking them what changes they’d like to have — pluses, subtractions and so on — to give them an opportunity to show us at least one program they would like to have cut, which would then save on sequestration,” Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said in an interview recently. “We did not receive a single answer.”

    Issa explained that Congress can allow Cabinet officials to “reprogram” money to ease the burden of sequestration. For example, the sequester requires the Department of Transportation to cut $2 billion from its budget.

    “If they were to come up with, for example, $500 million in cuts, their remaining sequestration would drop by 25 percent,” Issa said. “If they were able to come up with $2 billion worth of things they wanted to drop altogether or reduce, then they would have no sequestration.”

    In other words, Obama Cabinet officials, if they chose, could have an enormous amount of flexibility in making the required budget cuts. They just don’t want to. “We’ve had zero answers,” repeated Issa.

    At a recent committee hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan asked officials from the Transportation and Education departments a simple question. Since they’ve known about sequestration for a long time and also know they have the ability to ask Congress to reprogram money, why haven’t they responded to Issa’s letter offering help?

    The officials had no answers. “Those wheels are turning,” said the man from the Education Department, indicating that, whatever crisis sequestration presents, the bureaucracy will take its time to respond.

    It turned out that the officials had done little or no preparing for sequestration and instead focused on drastic measures — things like closing down one of the two air traffic control towers at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport — to deal with it.

    “I would think that most public servants would want to do what’s in the best interest of the taxpayers and the public, and not try to do things for political gain,” Jordan said in an interview later. “But let’s be honest. Some of the statements we’ve heard from the administration run counter to what we hope public officials would do.”

    In the meantime, the administration continues to advertise new job openings for decidedly nonessential positions. (For example, why is the Federal Aviation Administration looking for a couple of “community planners”?) “What’s going on is total tone-deafness from the administration,” says one frustrated Senate GOP aide. “They are posting for new, low-priority jobs while announcing furloughs. If they have money to make new hires, why not use those funds to prevent furloughs? It’s absurd.”

    Sequestration is still in its early stages. There is still time for the Obama administration to have a change of heart and try to enact cuts in the least dramatic, least obtrusive way. Certainly, Rep. Issa remains ready to go. Congress can move very quickly on something like this, he said, making an open offer to the administration: “If you find programs that you can cut altogether or programs that you can combine, the authority for it would be only hours away.”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/byronyork/2013/03/11/obama-resists-simple-fixes-for-sequestration-cuts-n1531476/page/full/

    I’m assuming this is true??

  66. Wisconsin Education Officials Want Students to Wear ‘White Privilege’ Wristbands

    Kyle Olson

    Mar 12, 2013

    Wisconsin Education Officials Want Students to Wear ‘White Privilege’ Wristbands

    The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction runs several programs that heavily emphasize racial issues in public schools, EAGnews.org has been finding.

    Some feel that one of those programs – an Americorps operation called VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) – may go a bit overboard by encouraging white students to wear a white wristband “as a reminder about your (white) privilege.”

    Geared towards high school students, the program “seeks to build capacity in schools and districts serving low-income families to develop an effective, sustainable, research-based program of family-school-community partnerships,” according to its Facebook page.

    That sounds reasonable enough.

    But the program’s approach becomes a bit suspect when one reads the Gloria Steinem quote on the top of its webpage: “The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn.”

    The webpage also offers a series of suggestions for high schools students to become more racially sensitive. They include:

    · Wear a white wristband as a reminder about your privilege, and as a personal commitment to explain why you wear the wristband.

    · Set aside sections of the day to critically examine how privilege is working.

    · Put a note on your mirror or computer screen as a reminder to think about privilege.

    The Wisconsin DPI also sponsors several similar programs, including CREATE Wisconsin, an on-going “cultural sensitivity” teacher training program which focuses largely on “whiteness” and “white privilege.”

    EAGnews will be exposing more about that program in a film documentary titled, “RE-CREATING AMERICA: Cultural Sensitivity in Wisconsin Schools,” along with a two-day written series on the same topic, beginning Wednesday.

    Will DPI’s obsession with race and “white privilege” actually translate into better educational outcomes for all students? Not likely.

    But it will continue to divide the state by race and income status, and allow bureaucrats to make a case for more government funding so they can create a different type of America.

    Wisconsin taxpayers really ought to be paying more attention to how their education dollars are spent.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2013/03/12/wisconsin-education-officials-want-students-to-wear-white-privilege-wristbands-n1531315

    Good Grief-it’s like telling them they must wear a badge of shame for being white-Scarlet Letter anyone.

    • Exactly. I wish ‘they’ would just leave stuff alone Weather there was a problem or not before hand, once ‘they’ step in…there’s definitely a problem. They run around with solutions to problems that don’t exist, so they need to create the problem. It’s bullshit.

      That’s it V. I’m getting off here. You pissed me off already and it’s not even 7am yet. ;)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 119 other followers

%d bloggers like this: