Why I Don’t Care What the World Thinks

stand-up-for-americaTonight I am going to talk briefly about the speech that the President gave today at the United Nations. Then I am going to explain why he is dead wrong and bad for America. I listened to the speech because I wanted to hear what he was going to say to the world. As I have said in the recent past, I am past the point of believing that the President is going to do anything that will make this country, better, stronger, faster than it was before (how many of you recognize that as part of the opening for “The Six Million Dollar Man”? I loved when Steve Austin battled Bigfoot). He has a vision for America. And his vision is horribly wrong. So was George Bush’s vision, for the record. And it is time that we started looking at things the way they are rather than the way the politicians tell us they are. It is time we started remembering why this country came to the greatness that it did, and stop these out of control Washington lunatics from turning it into the economic and industrial wasteland that the majority of the world has become.

As we all know, many of the world leaders have gathered at the United Nations in order to address the “world governing body” on various subjects. He spoke on the illegitimacy of Israeli settlements in the Gaza strip (a topic I will be covering early next week). He spoke tough words to North Korea and Iran. And when addressing the general assembly on the topic of world governance, he made the following statement:

Obama in Cairo“Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anyone can do that. Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demands more. In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold,”

and later in the same speech:

“Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibility. Wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice.”

Throw in a little bit of a speech in Berlin prior to the election:

“The burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more — not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity”

And maybe a touch of Cairo:

“Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail.  So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it.  Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.”

Now I am not going to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon and start talking about how Barack Obama wants to secretly form some sort of “one world government.” Because I don’t think that he wants to do such a thing. I know that some of you do believe that. You are entitled to that belief, but I do not share it. What I believe that the President wants to do is bring America down to the level of the rest of the world. I don’t think that he views it in quite that way. But that is the end result of the path he is discussing. Just stick with me here a moment while I explain and make my position a bit more clear.

Obama Berlin PosterI believe that Barack Obama thinks that the world is more important than the United States. I think he really believes that our fate must be linked to the fate of the rest of the world when it comes to prosperity, education, and treatment of the people. And because of this we have seen him do a lot of “apologizing” for what America has become. We have seen him do a lot of promising that we will do more to recognize the greatness of other countries and cultures. He has basically, in my opinion, decided that America is no better and no more important than any other country in the world. And I have to be honest and say that I have a real problem with that sentiment.

I acknowledge that the United States has made plenty of bad decisions in terms of how we involve ourselves with the nations of the world. Many past Presidents from both parties overstepped their bounds and got us involved in things we had no business being involved in. I could list for hours and hours the mistakes we made. I could list for hours all the legitimate reasons that many countries out there have for hating everything about America. I think Barack Obama sees this too. But his response to it is to grovel at the feet of the world, ask for forgiveness, and buy positive world opinion by sacrificing what America stands for. I intend to support no such action.

I have watched the attacks on the American way of life for the last 20 years from those on both sides of the aisle. Let us not pretend that it is only the Democrats. Certainly the attacks from the “liberal left” are more identifiable. The espousal of socialism (or some form of it), the subversion of American common sense by the environmentalists, and the blatant and ongoing attack on capitalism happening every day (most recently done with another propaganda piece from resident loon Michael Moore). But the “conservative right” has done no better. Subversion of human natural rights to conform people to religious dogma, the use of fear campaigns to involve us in foreign conflicts and usurp our rights through misnomers such as the “Patriot Act”, and slightly more perversion of capitalism than the Democrats can be accused of (only slightly more though).

Michelle Obama First Time ProudI am through with supporting those who don’t recognize the greatness of America. There are many things we need to fix, but even with all of our faults we are the greatest nation on earth. But we won’t be for long if we continue to subvert our principles and values in order to “fit in” and “play nice” with the rest of the world. Let me be clear up front with one or two points. I have already stated my desire for a “defense only” posture for our military. We need not be the world police. We need not “protect our interests” throughout the world. In this the Democrats are correct. We should not fear war, but we should never takes steps to seek it. Second, we must take steps to ensure that we are dealing in business with the rest of the world with integrity and honesty. This has not been the case as we have exploited anyone we could for our gain. Much like my social darwinism beliefs, if we cannot deal with the world honestly and without coercion, then we deserve to fall from the ranks of the world’s elite countries.

Capitalism is a key to our past success. Anyone who does not understand that is either limited in their intelligence or intentionally being dim. Our free market system allowed a country to go from “13 savage colonies” to one of the most powerful and successful countries in the world in less than two centuries. The key to that statement is that it was a FREE market that allowed this to happen. Were there bad people along the way? Sure. But that doesn’t take away the fact that the free market capitalism that this country espoused was the catalyst for the largest expansion of knowledge, industrial capability, and “middle class” in history. Henceforth, anyone who attempts to tell me that socialism (the mindset of “I want to be led”) or communism (the mindset of “I want to be ruled”) or fascism (the mindset of “I want to be controlled) is better than capitalism will be taken to task by me for failing to have a grip on reality. Don’t bother to attempt to argue that “big, mean, unethical” business required government control. I will beat you there too. This country began its decline the day government began its intervention into the private industries.

Capitalism is Dead CartoonBut the real secret to why the United States came to be the great country that it became was freedom and liberty. We founded this country on those premises. The premise that we have rights as human beings that override the government, that override EVERYTHING. It was the recognition of those rights that made our country unique. Our country was formed differently and defined differently from any in history. But for two hundred years, we have allowed those who lay claim to some “moral enlightenment” to steal from us those liberties and freedoms that made us what we are.

Despite that, America has been a beacon of light for people throughout the world for all of our history. Would it surprise anyone to know that we have, on average, 1.3 million immigrants to this country every year. And those are just the legal immigrants, not those changing status or coming here illegally. It shouldn’t surprise you. It also should not surprise anyone to know that we have 3 times the number of immigrants annually than any other country on earth. America is where the world comes to make a better life. Many leave countries that live under one of the other “isms” for true opportunity under capitalism. Many leave countries where the freedom they seek is not provided to come to one where it is the basis of what we were founded on.

America is a great country. She has lost a little bit of her shine over the last 50 years. But she is still the best there is. We need to fix her problems. We need to break out the cleaner and shine her up again. But doing so does not equate to subverting ourselves to the whims of the rest of the world. Our President doesn’t understand this. But I am hoping someone will forward him the blog.

Obamas Flag CartoonThe answer to our problems, fellow Americans, does not lie in becoming what the rest of the world is. That should be the last thing we want to do. Why would we want to follow Europe into the crapper? What part of Africa’s governments and social structures do we find appealing? South America has as many countries where, either they operate under a dictatorship posing as a legitimate government, or where the drug trade is the largest contributor to GDP, as there are legitimate countries. China has treated its people as pawns in government’s game for centuries, and only now has begun to aspire to change into what America provided an example of. The middle east is, well, the middle east. Why would we want to be what any other country in the entire world currently is?

President Obama ended his speech in Cairo with the following passage:

I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived – at great cost and great sacrifice – to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom – indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us – what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores – is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

I humbly suggest that the President remember that. America has always drawn people from throughout the world on the premise that we strive to be a country of principles, of freedom and liberty, of hope and promise. We need to restore our country to the promise it once was, not change our country to mirror the rest of the world, which simply has not achieved what the United States has.

And that is why I don’t really give a crap what the rest of the world wants us to do. I don’t care what they think of capitalism or what they think of how we espouse freedom and liberty. They are not us because they don’t do what we do. And their people leave their shores to come to ours. When the United States changes herself in one way, we no longer need to worry about what the world’s opinion of us is. When we begin to get back to operating with integrity, eliminating foreign aggression, and start giving back the freedom and liberty to our citizens that is their right by the laws of nature, the world’s opinion of America will change. They will again see us as what they should strive to be, instead of expecting us to come down to their level. Our actions won’t breed hatred in the world, only envy. We need to get back to being the America that faced down England and had a mindset of self reliance and personal integrity.

And Tomorrow I will begin to talk about where we went wrong in our government and our national mindset that allowed the tarnish to begin accumulating.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. HI USW,

    Well stated. I have one question for you. Why is you believe Obama doesn’t want to form a one world government?

    I wonder why he would settle for ‘changing’ America when he can change the whole world. Of course, its possible only if the rest of the world is as foolish as 53% of American voters…

    • Good Morning!

      Sometimes it seems as though we are living a conic book story and BO is the evil genious. Just waiting for the super hero to show up and save the day.

      Will follow throughout the day.

      PEACE!

      G!

  2. bottom line says:

    “Now I am not going to jump on a conspiracy bandwagon and start talking about how Barack Obama wants to secretly form some sort of “one world government.” Because I don’t think that he wants to do such a thing.” – USW

    USW, I suspect that somewhere in the back of your mind, it is at least starting to weigh in as a legitimate posibility. You recognize things like the below quote and wonder. You did mention it…which is indicative of you making the connection.

    “Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.” – BHO

    There are many examples of worldly figures discussing the NWO. It’s not a conspiracy or a theory. It’s evolution in how we manage our planet.

    The New World Order isn’t gonna be some morbid doomsday scenario where the anti-christ rises up and chips us all and makes us immortal slaves in hell on earth. We’re not gonna be rounded up and thrown into FEMA camps and burned in ovens, or sprayed with bio-weapons because the rich want to depopulate the planet. It’s not any of that crazy shit you find spewing out of the mouths of chicken littles everywhere.

    More than likely it’ll end up some type of global republic of sovereign nation states/continental unions, where we still have our culture, way of life, and our constitution…as will all nations. It’ll effect things like agriculture/food management, oil supply, energy, ect. My guess is that we’ll all be old or dead when it happens. It’s just now in it’s infancy. It’s prolly gonna take a while.

    My concern is that the transformation/change-over is gonna get really messy. I can think of many potential problems.

  3. Good morning all!
    Here, here USW! I agree with your statement wholeheartedly. I really don’t give a ratz what anyone thinks about us.

  4. Well said USW. I can only say that while I don’t believe that we will all become one world nation, I do believe that if Obama had his way or IF he can have his way, we will find ourselves suborned to the UN and THEIR wishes.

    You can hear it in the speeches he gives like yesterday. He is not talking about a one world government. He IS talking about setting up the framework for making all nations INCLUDING THIS ONE subordinate to international law and to the United Nations.

    This is pure horseshit!! I won’t try to say it any nicer. And I for one am not going to stand for it happening. I am just an old Country boy with absolutely no power to change anything. But I refuse to sit here and be quiet while this fool basically GIVES my Nation away because HE is ashamed of us. If that is the way that bastard feels, let him resign and move his ass to Kenya. Then maybe after a few he’d have more appreciation for the life he had here.

    And by the way, let him take the rest of his cabinet and his czars with him. They would make good lion food.

    • bottom line says:

      And a “well said” to you too EHG. Hell yeah! Blunt and honest! I love it!

    • Esom, your role in VDLG is speech writer. I love the way you tell it straight up.

      • I have truly only gotten decent at writing since I began blogging. I started in response to the changes Obama began making almost from the very day he was inaugurated as President. Before that I was expecting the worst but really, really hoping for the best. It took about a week to disabuse me of that.

        The only power I have at all Kathy is words. I have no money, no prospects to make it. I know no large political figures. If they cut off the internet, I will move to the streetcorner. I will not be silent.

  5. bottom line says:

    I heard part of BHO’s speech yesterday. I just sat there shaking my head. Who IS this guy?

    • BL. Sometimes I think he is stuck in Campaign mode and can’t get out of it. Other times I think he is a resurected Neville Chamberlain. And then there are the times occasionaly when I think the SOB is the Anti-Christ. 🙂

      No, but one thing I do know about BHO. He is the worst nightmare of a President we could have at this time.

      But having said that. Beck is right. Better him than McCain. If McCain had been elected we might not have woken up in time. Had he won and then followed Bush’s slow timeline of Socialistic type governance, we may have just slumbered on until one day we wok up and all our freedoms were gone. The one mistake that may undo Obama is the fact that he has gone too fast and scared the hell out of most of us.

      • bottom line says:

        “He is the worst nightmare of a President we could have at this time.”

        Agreed. But so were the others. Like with most elections…we didn’t have a choice. Obamadinejad, Hitlery, or McSame. Gee, what a dilema.

    • Same here. We need to get out of the fear of being labeled conspiracy theorists and realize this is all true. This guy hates what America is and can be and he is trying to bring her to her knees.

  6. USW,

    One of the BHO quotes you provided sounds good, patriotic, and American: “…what drew my father to America’s shores – is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.” But, even this has a subtle plug for socialism – “…free from want…”. This sounds like code for equality of outcome which is, in turn, code for wealth redistribution.

    This guy is scary good at subtle propaganda. He even manged to sneak that one by you!

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Connecting the conspiracy dots sure is fun – makes for a good Dan Brown novel I guess. Consider “free from want” more contextually based on the time his Father came to America and where he came from. “Free from want” may be more easily linked to things like clean water, access to education, and so on.

      • or, more probably, all that social justice, for the greater good crap

      • It’s easy to connect the dots when the man continually comes right out plain and tells everyone his plans for America.

        “I want to redistribute the wealth.”
        “Everyone is ‘entitled’ to a fair wage.”
        “Everyone is ‘entitled’ to the American Dream.”
        “Everyone is ‘entitled’ to health care.”

        That ‘entitled’ word sure does keep coming up a lot in conversation with him.

        I submit that everyone, just as the THE CONSTITUTION says, has the ‘opportunity’ to realize the American dream.

    • Good catch CWO…..

    • Chief,

      While I am no fan of the current pres and his ideas, he was merely quoting the Four Freedoms espoused during WW 2 by FDR, Freedom from Fear, Freedom from want, Freedom of speech and Freedom of or from Religion. Those of you who have never seen the posters created by Norman Rockwell to honor these Freedoms are encouraged to Google them up and do so. I cannot think of anything more moving or more “American” than they are.

      Let’s not fall into the trap of making things worse than they are. They are quite bad enough.

      Best

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        SK,

        The Rockwell posters may be as American as apple pie, but the concept of freedom from want is not.

        Freedom “of” religion is… Freedom “from” religion is not.

        Freedom from fear would be, but Roosevelt’s whole point was to instill fear while he claimed he was the one that could free us from it.

        • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

          Peter,

          We have a philosophical disagreement here. I am suggesting that it is beneficial for society to have “Freedom from Want”. Now over the years I have helped a number of people and given them a “leg up”. This has benefited them, their families and ultimately our society. Some have not taken advantage which is their right too. I have never and would never suggest that we rob Peter to Pay Paul nor tax Peter for that matter but I think we can all, as individuals who have succeeded help others to find that path. Enlightened self interest if nothing else tells me to do it. I believe that FDR looked at it as did Rockwell from the standpoint of the privation during the depression. You and I could both agree albeit from hindsight, that Roosevelt’s policies were probably not the best but that did not reduce the horror of what the society went through. As a history buff, I used to make it a point to ask folks who did go through it how things were. I doubt that today’s folks could rise to the occassion.

          Re the religion comment, you got me! I was too PC. I still think though that I have the right/obligation to allow others to choose not to believe as I do (even no God) if that is what they want. I may very well feel that they will be damned to hell but they do have that choice.

          Lastly, Roosevelt did not have to gin up fear, any more than Churchill did. It was right there every morning in the paper staring you in the face. Nazi’s, Fascists, Concentration camps, Nanking, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry and a thousand other places. Check out the Lidice massacre and how many American towns are named Lidice and why. It is instructive. If you were not brain dead, you should have been scared.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            How much of the fear staring the average American right in the face was the direct result of previous government intervention and creation going back to World War I and before?

            I submit that our own government bore a large portion of the responsibility for the fear that was being reported to the people on a daily basis.

            Also, freedom to have no religion whatsoever if you so choose is not equivalent to “freedom from religion” as you, of course, realize.

            I am perfectly ok with the concept of “freedom from want” if it is voluntarily provided by the people. Roosevelt was, however, saying that the government was the engine of provision which was necessary to keep the people free from want, and I am totally against that premise.

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Most historians are now leaning towards the first and second world war being one war with a re-alignment and time out. That makes you partially right. However, I submit what was going on in 1941 (the year of the speech) was pretty damn scary and had to be dealt with regardless of how we got there.

              Semantics on the freedom from religion thing. I tend to think that the constant harping on Fundamentalist proselytizing is over blown but I will say that it does exist based on my two sons experience in the AF and Army respectively. Therefore I used the term freedom “from” religion.

              Agreed on the last point. Roosevelt may have wanted it to be a government program but we all know how that worked out in the ’60’s when LBJ actually implemented it. You gotta want to make it and if people want to help based on their perception of you great.

              The difference between a liberal and conservative to me has always been the liberal sees the world the way he wants it to be, the conservative sees it the way it is. You can try to improve it but it is on a case by case basis. One size definitely does not fit all.

    • CWO2,

      That didn’t slip past me. I noticed that in the paragraph. I simply didn’t think of it the way that you did, or at least not as strongly as you did.

      To expand on that one short part of the paragraph would have been another 1000 words railing against socialism, lol.

  7. Stuck in Ohio says:

    I also listened to much of his speech yesterday and much like Bottom Line wondered “what does he think he is doing?”.

    USW-excellent analysis of his speech. I think you are right on the money once again. It will be interesting to see what other comments come up today.

    Interesting to me that Kadafi has been pretty quiet for a long time, but suddenly feels compelled to open his yap again and start complaining about the US once again. I take this as just one more sign that these guys see Obama as a very weak leader & that they now have a golden opportunity to increase their power and prestige with little or no chance of action on the part of the US.

  8. Check this out folks. I tried to explain this to someone on the left a few months back and was excoriated. It is at least somewhat on topic of the day.

    I also tried to explain that the logo for the Stimulus Projects, see highway signs is also circular by design. When I first saw them, I actually thought it was the Obama logo. I had to check to make sure they weren’t the same. That is trully effective branding when you can get people to see your logo or message when they are in fact looking at something else.

    JAC

    • Interesting video. His one mistake is to not show the others that have used this technic in the past.

    • My school filter blocks You Tube, so I can’t see it. Wish I could.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Is a good video – for another view on this ‘approach’ see some of George Lakoff’s writing on how the right uses language very effectively to shape opinion and drive results (e.g. the spooky “Death Panels”).

      • Ray:

        All involved in the political at this level use language to their advantage. I happen to think this has been largly driven by the media’s increased use of soundbites. The politico’s figured it out and started creating the soundbites that carry their message.

        You have used Lakoff before to extole the right but I remind you that it has been the left who has been redefining the meaning of the English language and playing word games with us for almost 100 years.

        Lets also not forget the use of political cartoon going back hundreds of years as a method of creating both language and visual connections to emotions and ideas.

        Do you deny that the Obama Logo as an icon is new to American politics?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Sheesh JAC – I thought that is what I meant by ‘is a good video’. Rest assured the right is hard at work looking for the next/new competing logo or symbol as well. What is weird for me is that I am normally a visual person – I love diagrams and drawings and so on to help depict words. I divert when it comes to politics because I know there is a message embedded that someone is trying to ‘sneak in’ – I tend to look quickly and move on.

          Think about it – is there a reason USW selects the images and cartoons he does outside of trying to be funny or give the blog some ‘splash’. You tell me. 🙂

          • The only way for the right to come up with such effective imagry is to hire someone from the left.

            Most of us righties aren’t the artistic types.

            The reason I asked straight out about the logo is because the acknowledgment of the quality of inforamtion is not an agreement with the conclusion, in and of itself.

            I have fallen into that trap before, assuming that someone agreed because of a compliment about the content, only to find out later they did not. Sorry, if you felt tweeked. I just wanted to make sure where you stood on that one question.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              I thought the video was very good and completely agree with assessment of the logo – in the past I may have dismissed this all – but I believe the logo and its use are intentional.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Effective Imagery? Willie Horton? Dukakis in the tank?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              So JAC – do you agree or disagree that USW effectively uses imagery to also shape how one may view or interpret his writing?

  9. Good Morning Everyone

    Great article USW. Hope Mrs. Weapon is feeling better with each passing day.

    If this wasn’t such a great country, then why is everybody flocking to get in? I’m tired of all the apologizing that he has done. Apologizing for what? What a great country we are.? I don’t think we have to explain ourselves to any other country for what we do here. Like so many have said, I don’t give a ratz behind on what these countries think of us. Why does he feel he needs to make such a great impression on these other countries. If these other countries don’t like the way we do things, then quit asking for more money. Don’t come here, we don’t need you.

    I have never, ever seen any president go about apologizing for America, never. Why does he feel he needs to lower this country on the level of others. Sounds to me like these other countries are just jealous of us, and can’t stand the thought of all the freedom we have here. I don’t go out of my way to make a phony impression on anybody, why should he. I can’t say I hear him say too often how proud of this country he is. He sounds like he’s ashamed instead, or embarrassed by it.

    Another thing I’m getting sick of, is all this politically correct crap. Why must we cower down to those who get offended by our American symbols, like the flag, a cross, or Christmas, or Easter, or any of the other traditions we have? They don’t like, please, feel free to leave. I guess this stems from the conversation from last night, Sorry.

    What’s this vision he has anyway? To run this country into the ground? I think he’s doing a good job at that. I don’t see anything new and improved at what he’s done. What I see is a great big take over of everything.

    Sorry for the rant, just in a little peeved mood this morning, that’s all. Just saying what I see and believe.

    Hope all will have a good day.

    Judy

    • Hey Judy!

      You know, if he really just had too, I could have accepted his apologizing for some of the Highhanded treatment America has given a FEW nations in the past. Maybe.

      But like you, I am sick and damn tired of him apologizing for us EVERY time the idiot gets up in front of an International audience.

      And what’s up with throwing Isreal under the bus? If he didn’t have anything nice to say he could have at least kept his big mouth shut. They have enemies enough without Obama giving them rocks to throw.

      • Hey Esom

        I agree with what you said about Obama. Maybe once, maybe twice, then stop. But to continue at every turn, well, that put it over the top for me.

        As for Israel, I always thought we were supporters of them, guess not anymore now. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Israel told Obama where to get off at.

  10. Ray Hawkins says:

    A different tactic may have been to offer what you do perceive as effective global governance. Perhaps the answer to that, based on the title of your article is none! Color me naive as you may, but I do not see or read his words as asking us to stoop down to the rest of the world or for us to “become what the rest of the world is”. I see and hear his words as shining some light not just on others but on ourselves as well. While there is some risk in airing your dirty laundry, it isn’t as if saying Gitmo was wrong or stupid is a big secret to the rest of the world. As I read the article, the fear entered me that what you’re really bringing us back to a Frank Kellogg type of reality where we are really good at the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ mantra. In recognizing what globalization is, how it affects us, how we affect it (very important), and what our role is in helping shape and influence it, we are required to establish policy objectives and roadmaps for what we need to do. A big part of what you need to do depends on acknowledging where you are – the so-called gap assessment and being honest about what exactly is your dirty laundry.

    Afghan is a great example – any strategy, inclusive of troop augmentation, is highly dependent on an accurate assessment of where we are today. I thought that was what they asked McKhrystal to do – so I’m pissed and puzzled that now we’re not sure what to do with his request (and I honestly think whining about his assessment occurring before the elections is bs – but I digress).

    Returning to my point – eliminating our collective narcissism (I find it amusing that USW takes broad potshots at pretty much every other country on Earth vis a vis their institutions, yet writes almost daily on how screwed up our own are – I’m just sayin’……) will at least provide as the ability and path to look at ‘what else works’? Do we always have the right answers? I doubt it – but sometimes we can learn from others. How about instead of watching India open yet another call center off the Golden Quadrilateral we open a few near our depressed urban areas? New Orleans? Detroit? Carping that we have nothing to learn from anyone else only deepened the suspicion that others have of us that we see them not as partners on any/some/all issues, but as doormats to wipe our shoes on.

    • Question for me, Ray. As you know, I am not a globalization supporter or a one world person. I do not believe that we can live peaceably as 10,000 years has proven. We may be able to co-exist but not as bed partners. However, you did strike a chord in that we can learn from watching others. We, the US, does not have all the answers…I acknowledge that.

      But, my question to you. Do you believe in the globalization theory or one world theory? If so, do you see the United Nations as the governing body?

      Thanks D13

      BTW…hope you have a great day.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        D13 – look at most any value chain and you will see globalization. Much as one may detest Thomas Friedman – the Lexus and the Olive Tree captures much of this quite accurately – it is that crossroads of the two that creates differences in policy and approach. Now – the notion or idea of “one world” – I really don’t know what the hell that is supposed to mean. Lofty rhetoric? Code speak for a secret government? A nice and warm way of saying we all put our pants on one leg at a time? I dunno. What I do know is that language and words do matter. When you get lofty rhetoric people that inherently oppose you will try and fill in the blanks. POTUS cannot seem to understand that. I think we need to ask more hard questions as to the efficacy of the U.N. – no Nation should be expected to cede its own sovereignty, but global problems sometimes require global solutions – maybe it is the perceived power or formality of the UN that goes up people sideways. Are there missions of the UN that are ‘good’ but could be better served by a more purposed based approach that disbands when the task is done? If I apply my EEE test (effective, efficient, economical) to the UN it would probably always fail. What are your thoughts D13?

    • Ray,

      To have the fear enter into your mind that I want to get to a “do as I say not as I do” mindset is to have not taken the entire article into your thought process. I clearly stated that there were a lot of things we needed to fix in our country. And my mentality was and is that we have to learn to become good neighbors while at the same time asserting that we don’t have to do what our neighbors do. But I appreciate quick jump to thinking the worst of what I am saying.

      I don’t have an issue with apologizing for where we have stepped out of line, but apologizing for being a better country crosses my line. The feeling that we hold an obligation to save the world from itself is as misguided as the notion that people are entitled to everything here. What he speaks of is socialism on the global scale. I don’t like that any more than I like it on the national scale.

      USW

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Maybe I’m missing something, but when I consider “apologizing for being a better country” – I didn’t see that in the article.

  11. Each generation will reap what the former generation has sown.

    • I second that.

      Also each generation must fight for there own freedom through blood, sweat, and tears, and will not appreciate it until they have.

  12. USWep

    Simply;

    A Collectivist will always promote a high-order collectivism when possible.

    Statists are, naturally, all collectivists.

    The greater the size of the collective under the control of the smallest (in proportion) elite is the highest desire until All is controlled by One.

  13. $18 drop in gold –

    Somebody dumped. I will find out who…

    If you do not have gold yet, and are wondering ‘when do I buy’ – today is the day.

    The dump will be absorbed quickly by China/India and the relentless assault of Gold vs. Central Banks will continue.

  14. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    “and start giving back the freedom and liberty to our citizens that is their right by the laws of nature,…”

    USW… I HATE to be picky… Oh wait, no, I LOVE to be picky, what am I saying 🙂

    The part of a sentence I quoted here is philosophically incorrect. I am sure it is simply a mis-wording on your part, but the way you worded that gives the impression that the government is capable of giving freedom and liberty to the citizens, which is patently incorrect.

    The government can only repress or attempt to take away freedom and liberty. It is up to the citizens to keep the government from taking these things from them. Government has no ability to confer freedom and liberty and rights TO THE CITIZENS, because the citizens already HAVE all of these things, by natural law.

    So, the proper wording would have been, “It is time for the citizens to begin taking back their natural freedom and liberty, which the government has taken from them, against natural law.”

    This makes it much more clear that by using coercion, repression, opression, threat of violence, etc, the government has violated natural law and continues to do so. It is up to us, not the government, to put a stop to it.

    • Hey, Peter…you are pretty picky :smile:(How are you today, btw) I read it differently than you..but then again,,,, it takes two horses to have a horse race. I read it that way you wanted to rewrite it.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        D13, you undertstood what USW MEANT, and I understood what he MEANT, but I cannot assume that everyone that reads this will understand what he meant, so I re-worded it 🙂

        How things are phrased makes a great difference in what they potentially mean. You and I know USW’s philosophy well enough to know what he intended to say… others may not.

        That is why I am picky 🙂

    • Peter could not agree with you more. I have said before that a right is always a right, always will be, and always has been. What has changed is how government tries to interfere with those rights.
      As for bad wording how about the name “bill of rights” giving the impression the constitution provides rights. A more accurate description should be “bill of government restrictions,” because thats what it does it restricts the governemt.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Seed,

        I believe that the perfect title would have been “An Enumeration of Rights to be Protected Against Government Intervention.”

        • But your suggested title furthers the confusion by alluding to the idea that unless listed the govt is free to restrict.

          I like Seed’s idea of “An additional list of restrictions on the delegated power of federal and state govts”.

          I still believe that putting these in the Constitution was a grave mistake. It allowed for the subversion of the documents intent and they delayed and muffled the effects of increased govt power over time. Without the Bill of Rights the flit would have hit the shan a long time ago, when Congress first stepped across the line in a serious way.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Ok, JAC, I capitulate on this one, merely because naming it “An incomplete and not necessarily totally inclusive listing of Rights which are not to be infringed by the government” would be hopelessly confusing 🙂

    • bottom line says:

      Good point. They’re refered to as “UNALIENABLE RIGHTS”

      un·al·ien·a·ble adj.

      Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable: “All of them . . . claim unalienable dignity as individuals” (Garrison Keillor).

      Adj. 1. unalienable – incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”
      inalienable
      intrinsic, intrinsical – belonging to a thing by its very nature; “form was treated as something intrinsic, as the very essence of the thing”- John Dewey

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable

    • PeterB,

      Being picky is fine. Words matter. Often I get hammered by Ray and the rest of the left leaning folks for my sometimes poor attempts at putting into words what I think. This time, I get it pointed out by you. You captured the truth of what I was trying to say and what I think, so I appreciate that you started from the assumption that I was trying to say the right thing as opposed to immediately jumping to “USW is attempting to mislead and misconstrue the truth”. LOL

      Good catch!

      USW

  15. Someone please explain to me why it is not appropriate for the President to apologize for our bad behavior.

    It that not a value we want to teach our children?

    Do we not complain about the erosion of civility and decency in our society?

    Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t think we need to grovel at the feet of the world. But what is wrong with simply stating we were wrong to do X Y and Z. We are sorry and will try to do better. Now the rest of you had better clean up your act as well.

    What was wrong with re-stating this country’s long held position that the Israeli settlements in occupied territory is WRONG. Even Bush II started out with this position and was in fact the first President to publicaly state that Palestinians deserved a separate State of their own.

    Please explain

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      JAC,

      You are right in one important way, but in a way that Obama would never recognize.

      You see, the US has pursued global interventionist policies for a long time now, in direct violation of the Jeffersonian principle of “Alliance with none, free commerce with all.”

      If that was genuinely what he was apologizing for, then I would indeed favor his apology. However, he makes the mistake of believing that the current American system IS the INTENDED American system, which it demonstrably is not. His goal is not a return to “the intended American system” of government, but a replacement of the intended system of American government with something else entirely – an even greater role for the Federal Government than it currently possesses.

      His proposed “cure” for a runaway unconstitutional federal government is to increase the size and scope of it even more, which will only lead to MORE interventionist policy into other countries affairs, not less.

      So, I guess I have to say I agree with his apology, but I completely, totally, 100% DISAGREE with his proposed method of redress of grievances due to our bad behavior.

      • I most certainly can support your most learned and wise conclusion.

        Perhaps his words would not be as offensive if uttered by one who wished a return to our founding principles.

    • I see all kinds of problems JAC….give me some time to fashion the correct response.

    • JAC, As you can read in my response to Judy, my problem with him is that he apologizes every time he has an audience of international flavour.

      As far as Isreal goes, don’t they have plenty of enemies around them. They don’t need Obama to tell them what to do. They should give up the settlements, but unlike OUR estinkd’ leader, not do so without getting something back. You know; like a promise for the ragheads not to try to wipe their asses out.

  16. USWep:

    Independence required independent people.

    The march to Socialism required the assertion of dependency.

    Independence and dependence are logically opposite. You cannot be one and the other at the same time.

    Pick one.

    • BF,

      I disagree, you can be dependent and independent at the same time. There are levels of dependency. Attempting to ignore that would be to ignore reality. They are polar opposites as you say, but I would assert that while people in the US are dependent on government at the moment, they are far more independent than those in many other countries. This is an area where there is point A and point Z, with 24 other points in between. I would like us to get to point A eventually, but I don’t submit that because we are at point K we are no better off than those at point Z.

      USW

  17. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/12/new-police-professionalism-serious.html

    Ramon Perez, a homeschooling father of four beautiful children and a part-time lay preacher, was a rookie police officer in Austin, Texas when he responded to a domestic violence call in January 2005.

    On arriving at the address, Perez discovered that the squabble involved an elderly couple. The woman had been pushed down the stairs; the alleged assailant, an elderly man in frail health, was leaving the scene.

    One of Perez’s associates “lunged” at the man, took him down, and ordered Perez to shoot the elderly man with his Taser.

    Perez, fearing that the suspect wouldn’t survive, refused to do so, choosing instead to take him into custody with “soft-hand” tactics.

    Perez believed the use of potentially lethal force in that situation was unwarranted, unconstitutional, and illegal. It would also have violated the “use of force” policy established by the Austin Police Department.

    Nonetheless, his refusal to carry out an illegal order would cost him his job.A few weeks after that incident, Perez was summoned to an interview with department psychologist Carol Logan. He was told the meeting was about “improving communication with his superiors.” That was a lie: He was covertly being subjected to a “fit for duty” review.

    Logan concluded that Perez was unfit for duty because of the inflexibility of his religious and moral beliefs: As a Christian, Perez’s beliefs were an unacceptable “impairment” to functioning as a police officer, because — as demonstrated by his refusal to obey an order to subject a non-violent elderly suspect to a potentially fatal Taser shock — he believes in a moral duty beyond mere obedience to his superiors.

    Given the choice of being terminated “for cause” and losing his peace officer license, or resigning and finding work elsewhere, Perez chose the latter.

    He then filed a religious discrimination suit against the APD. His former superiors sought dismissal of the suit based on “qualified immunity,” that magical claim that makes official misconduct disappear. But in this instance the incantation failed.

    On September 8, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court’s denial of the qualified immunity claim, allowing Perez’s lawsuit to proceed. The appeals court observed that “there [is] a genuine issue of fact as to whether Defendants terminated Perez for his religious beliefs,” one that a jury should decide, rather than being dismissed prior to trial.

    Irrespective of the outcome of Perez’s lawsuit, two things are quite clear:

    First, although extraordinary efforts are made to retain police who commit crimes of violence against innocent people under color of “authority,” police who refuse orders to commit such acts can expect summary termination;

    Second, Ramon Perez is a man of uncommon integrity, and his example should inspire other honorable men in law enforcement to interpose themselves between the public and the rising tide of official lawlessness.

    • bottom line says:

      “Ramon Perez is a man of uncommon integrity, and his example should inspire other honorable men in law enforcement to interpose themselves between the public and the rising tide of official lawlessness.”

      Agreed. Why would you wanna taze an old man and risk killing him, if it isn’t necessary? Officer Perez did the right thing. I’m not sure it was about religion but instead, simple humanity. I wonder what the other guy was thinking? Perez is probably the type of cop that genuinly wants to make a contribution and help society. The other guy probably got picked on alot as a kid and gets off on bossing people around and beating them up. Control freak ego-maniac inferiority complexed half-witted cocky with their badge and not thir balls trigger happy type cops suck. Hey other guy cop, Go easy on the old man. He’s liable to be a little delicate in comparison to you. If he proves otherwise by getting out of hand…put him in a full nelson and plant his face in the ground. Are you such a wimp that you have to tase him?

    • BF…what you have so eloquently left out, is that Texas changed their law pertaining to such some time ago. And, while Texas still has its degenerates, our system will filter it out and has on more than one occasion. What you have also left out, is that the “good old boy” system is being phased out everywhere in Texas and Perez also had very strong community support as well as State support to pursue his claims. The other thing you left out, is that three of the supervisors have been advised to seek employment elsewhere and have left. You have also left out that the procedures have also changed to reflect that the “good old boy” system is no longer valid. The days of Judge Roy Bean are over. Good in their day…not good now.

      The process works and the 5th Circuit is one of the best. The “extraordinary” efforts you relate are the exception in Texas…as it has been proven…and will continue to be the exception. We take care of our own regardless of race.

      D13

      I was also a contributor to his legal fund that was set up by Texans for Texans.

  18. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm

    Every single State needs to enact this NOW, and Kentucky needs to verify it is still on the books and has not been superseeded.

    Every single State needs to make it VERY PUBLIC when they enact exactly this resolution.

    If this happens, prepare for the federal government and the supreme court to make every effort to declare all such resolutions “unconstitutional”. That would be the final demonstration required that our government no longer even vaguely resembles what was intended.

  19. **Warning 101 **

    Federal Reserve Admits Hiding Gold Swap Arrangements, GATA Says

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Federal-Reserve-Admits-Hiding-bw-2550373789.html?x=0&.v=1

    Yesterday, in part to question, I described the process of lending gold to Bullion banks as a way to manipulate the price of gold.

    Gold is ‘lent’ to a bullion bank who sells the gold – driving the price of gold down – while the Central bank still claims it holds the ore.

    Of course this is fraudulent.

    People trust a currency because it is backed by some sort of reserve. Saying you have such a reserve when you do not is fraud – since people are trusting the value of your currency based on that reserve (in this case, gold).

    Selling the ore under these conditions will push the price down because the public believes these sales are not diminishing the reserve.

    If the gold sales was central banks directly – then it would actually cause a rise in prices.

    Gold is being withdraw from the reserve – increasing the risk to that currency, speeding the move from currency in gold, increasing the price.

    Gold going up in price is opposite of government trust.

    Gold going up in price risks forward sellers and bullion banks.

    So the requirement is to fool the public by saying “we still have gold” while whispering “..though, right now, it is now just little pieces of paper and a promise” – and sell the gold via the bullion bank, pushing the prices down.

    The FED has been caught doing this.

    Quote:
    Fed for information about gold swaps, transactions in which monetary gold is temporarily exchanged between central banks or between central banks and bullion banks

    The disclosure, GATA says, contradicts denials provided by the Fed to GATA in 2001 and suggests that the Fed is indeed very much involved in the surreptitious international central bank manipulation of the gold price particularly and the currency markets generally.

    This will ripple through the market in October, after the FED is audited.

    I believe it will bring down the international house of cards around fiat currency. There will be very few survivors.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Very nearly everything the Federal Reserve does is fraudulent, so them participating in yet another completely fraudulent activity should come as no real surprise.

      What is surprising is that even after what was likely a poor auction of US debt a few days ago, and even after “getting caught with its hands in the (gold) cookie jar” the dollar is actually up about 1% per day.

      I guess that is because 510,000 jobs lost was “better than expected”. Hooray for economic “improvement”! LOL

  20. Often G-Man, USWep, and D13 say that the US military will not participate in gunning down US citizens wholesale.

    http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=652

    In July, unrest hit U.S. rail lines. Pennsylvania Railroad workers struck to resist wage and job cuts. Here, on July 21, militia fatally shot some twenty-six people. A battle followed; rail property was burned. The strike was finally broken by U.S. troops.

    • I am talking about the here and now, not the distant past. The lines of communication between peoples is much different now than it was then. At that time people could act in that way because they had no “link” with people in another state. That is not true now. In that time most of the rest of the people would never really know what happened there, now they would know before the last shot was fired. It is a different world and a different country. I stand by the assertion that I, D13, and G-Man have put forth.

      USW

      • Hi Guys!

        I would agree that those were far different times. After the Kent State incident, which I beleive would be the most recent, The mindset of our militia, State and Federal is quite different. Anti-war protesters vs. the militia, not the best idea. Angry strikers hell bent on violence vs. the militia, not the best idea. Tens of millions of pissed off Americans who are angry at their government because 1) They are not listening, 2) Are not supporting our militia that is currently engaged in combat operations in a timely manner.

        Add too the facts that the militia are our kids and grandkids, I’ll side with my premise that they would turn on the government after the first unarmed civilian was killed, and follow their oath to defend the Constitution.

        G!

      • There is nothing significantly different about the people and citizens of the USA then, or now.

        There is nothing significantly different about people in other countries from people in the USA.

        It has happened – repeatedly – in the USA in the past.

        It has happened – repeatedly – in other countries.

        Nothing significant, IMO, has come about to change that – if anything, it is worse. Back then, the standing army was very, very small.

        Today, it is very, very large.

  21. Is this the new thing in schools now?

    Lyrics: Songs About President Obama
    The following are the lyrics of two songs reportedly taught to a class at a New Jersey elementary school full of praises for the “great accomplishments” of President Obama.

    Thursday, September 24, 2009

    Song 1:
    Mm, mmm, mm!
    Barack Hussein Obama

    He said that all must lend a hand
    To make this country strong again
    Mmm, mmm, mm!
    Barack Hussein Obama

    He said we must be fair today
    Equal work means equal pay
    Mmm, mmm, mm!
    Barack Hussein Obama

    He said that we must take a stand
    To make sure everyone gets a chance
    Mmm, mmm, mm!
    Barack Hussein Obama

    He said red, yellow, black or white
    All are equal in his sight
    Mmm, mmm, mm!
    Barack Hussein Obama

    Yes!
    Mmm, mmm, mm
    Barack Hussein Obama

    Song 2:
    Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
    For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”

    Hooray, Mr. President! You’re number one!
    The first black American to lead this great nation!

    Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
    To make this country’s economy number one again!

    Hooray Mr. President, we’re really proud of you!
    And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

    So continue —- Mr. President we know you’ll do the trick
    So here’s a hearty hip-hooray —-

    Hip, hip hooray!
    Hip, hip hooray!
    Hip, hip hooray!

    • Matt, Ray, Chris, Todd and others who call yourself left of center (including left leaning moderates).

      I would like you to express your opinion about the teaching of this song to school children.

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        I have no opinion on something that was ‘supposedly’ or ‘reportedly’ done in one elementary school in New Jersey that is being used to flame the right wing on Fox, Hannity, so on and so forth. Please try and disclose the whole picture and not just part of it next time before the trap is set.

        😉

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Ray,

          You can omit the “supposedly” or “reportedly” because the whole thing is on film, and clearly it did occur at a public school.

          Yes, it is likely an isolated incident (at least as far as we can currently tell), but even one isolated incident of this is abhorrent.

          What would your reaction have been if this had been 5 years ago and the subject of the song had been President Bush? I know I personally would have found that abhorrent as well, although maybe not for the same reasons you would give….

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            Sorry – found the one vid on Google. What a travesty eh? Clearly indicates the decline of Western Civilization and the successful indoctrination of a new crop of communists/socialists/fascists/epithet-du-jour. Abhorrent? Probably as abhorrent as the socialist message he gave to all the kids a few weeks ago too. For sure – the teachers involved in this will be reprimanded/disciplined. As far as agenda-advancing or brainwashing versus some cheerleading? I think you know by now where I fall on this. I see it as pretty harmless and would have thought the same for last POTUS.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Ray,

              My point is, this is unacceptable regardless of who the President is…

              Perhaps YOU would not have been “all over it” 5 years ago if the song had been about Bush, although (for different reasons than the “standard” “liberal” ones you should have been).

              I am, however, certain that the media would indeed have been “all over it” 5 years ago if the song had been about Bush, but again, it would have been for the “standard” “liberal” reasons and not for the right reasons.

              Every media outlet should pick this up and hammer it, and if it had been Bush, every media outlet should have picked it up and hammered it.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Peter – I consider anyone who gets that upset over this to be someone who needs to un-bunch their panties. I mean SERIOUSLY – we’re talking one school, 1-2 idiot teachers, and a bunch of schoolkids who probably could care less about this in another week.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Hi Ray…

                Honestly, I beg to differ…

                Song is by far the most effective means of teaching small children that there is.

                Historically, knowledge has been passed from generation to generation through song.

                There are times that I have had arguments with my small children…I tell them something and they tell me that I’m wrong…I’ll ask why…the answer is, “my teacher told me xyz”. You add this in the delivery of a “song” and voila…it sticks.

                Think about it Ray…the Alphabet Song, One, two, tie my shoe, etc.

                Don’t you ever get a ditty into your head and it won’t let go…you hum it for an entire day.

                Best Regards,
                RS

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                So re-read the words and tell me where the danger lies that will initiate some argument back home.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Continue thread to #33

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Ray,

                So you are saying that you are in favor of propaganda directed at children as long as it is only on a small scale?

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Pick the hill you’re going to die on Peter. The radical right picks this up and makes a mountain out of a molehill – it is a pimple on the ass of a flea. Its still a pimple and I’m sure the folks in NJ will deal with it. FOX and their ilk propagate this to make it seem larger than it is. And as I stated to RS – what is so patently offensive about the words? Ease down on the sensitivity trigger pal – its isn’t that bad.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Ray,

                Is there REALLY something wrong with putting a stop to it?

                Really?

                Even if it is a local event, it deserves national attention just for the stupidity factor

                🙂

          • I’m sorry, but since when does this president rate songs about him? I don’t recall any other president having songs sung about him. There have been a couple here in Reno that did the same thing, but it was short lived.

            I’m sorry to sound so callas here, but I don’t think he deserves it. Name one great thing he has done since taking office. Just because he’s our “FIRST” black president doesn’t make him the greatest thing since sliced bread.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Who cares! Let the parents of those kids decide – its a local school issue – Fox and Hannity pick this up and use it to say that Obama is now indoctrinating all our school kids! Nonsense!

              • Ray,, Fox and Hannity had nothing to do with this, they also showed it on our local news. I just don’t think he’s that big a deal to have kids sing songs about him, that’s all. People act like he’s God’s gift to us. Never mind, strike that, he thinks he is God.

                Yes, I said it, and I believe it. And I’m in a very pissy ass mood, in case you can’t tell.

              • Richmond Spitfire says:

                Dearest Judy…

                Even though I like you in a pi$$y @$$ mood, here’s a hug from me!

                Hope your day gets better you strategic thinker you!

                Hugs and much love,
                RS

              • Thanks RS. Don’t know why, but I better get out if soon. Here I am at work, and how would that look if a client came in, I jumped all over them? Not too good I’m afraid.

                I hereby do solemnly swear that for the rest of the day, I’ll be a happy camper. I promise, and I never break a promise.

                Hugs back at ya.

                Judy

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Judy – you seem to miss the point that bozos like Hannity do actually have an audience. Mindless conservatives lap up his schlock like hungry puppies and never bother to challenge the fact that he frequently lies and has become adept at driving conservative causes into the ditch.

              • RAY,,I apologize for being such a grump. Please forgive this grouchy crab.

                Judy

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Judy – how dare you take my mantle as the resident grump! The teachers that taught the kids the song – they are not real wise for doing so. I consider the song fairly harmless – but in this unfortunate climate everything like that is blown up as the end of our Country. Its a local issue, let them deal with it locally. If it came down on DeptEd letterhead I’d be on your bandwagon.

              • Ray

                Sorry to step on your toes as the resident grump.

                I will try and not let that happn again.

      • The lyrics just keep rollin’ around in my head! Gives me that warm fuzzy feeling!

        Just like that song last Spring: Obama, Obama, Obama… 😉

        I saw the story of this video on Fox News and just had to come out here. I knew it would cause a flurry! I haven’t watched the video or read the lyrics. Kind of busy lately…

        So JAC, what should the kids be taught? Maybe the hatred on display at the Tea Party events?

        Is this over the top – Yes. But the right-wing gets so worked up into a tizzy with little distractions like this.

        And as Ray said, I’d like to hear the entire story…

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Todd,

          Have you ever GONE to a tea party event, or are you relying on the media’s PORTRAYAL of the tea party events?

          I have been to a tea party event. It was peaceful, it was civilized, and the participants even cleaned up after themselves.

          There were a FEW people that displayed signs that were directly anti-Obama, but even though they were directly anti-Obama it would have been a STRETCH to paint any of the signs as “racist”.

          The majority of the signs and demonstrations were directly opposed to taxation without representation.

          Yup, that sounds a lot like HATRED to me!

          ROFL

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Oh, and by the way, kids SHOULD be taught that taxation without representation is illegal and unconstitutional, and why we had an American Revolution in the first place, so, to answer your question, “Yes, kids should be taught the “hatred” that goes on at the tea parties.”

          • Hey Peter,
            You seem to get a little worked up and defensive about the Tea Parties. Why is that?

            So you think it’s good to teach kids to call the President:

            Obama – The Anus of America

            But it’s bad to teach them:

            all must lend a hand, To make this country strong again

            we must be fair today, Equal work means equal pay

            we must take a stand, To make sure everyone gets a chance

            red, yellow, black or white, All are equal in his sight

            Are you really serious?

            • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

              Without context, it is stupid. The little kids cannot understand the meaning, merely the jingle. they therefore become good little, Choose one: Young Pioneers or Hitler Youth.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Todd,

              Show me where you pulled that quote from (other than from the Anus of America) and I will be happy to disagree with it.

              However, your generalization that that was what was being said or being taught at the tea parties is totally off base, and I am sure you never went to one, so you have no basis of knowledge of anything that ACTUALLY went on at one.

              You seem very defensive about deriding something that you did not even participate in… why is that?

              • My bad – the “Anus of America” was from an anti-healthcare reform rally, not a Tea Party.

                Sorry – but it’s hard to keep all the hate mongering separated into the correct piles.

                I don’t see a lot of difference between anti-healthcare reform rallies and Tea Parties, but I suppose you might…

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/americans-for-prosperity_n_255599.html

                You might want to check out this. School kids from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama singing the praises of the Bush administration’s response to hurricane Katrina…how’s that for irony…

                http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/04/17/out-of-the-mouths-of-babes/

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                An excellent post Todd. That is why it is so very important for those who get all worked up over Obama songs to fact check for Bush, Carter, Reagan, Clinton songs first. If it has been done before, especially by the complaining side, you look like an idiot for even bringing it up.

                Watch out with the phrase hate mongering though. I see people who are very, very upset about the direction their country is taking and see that there would be no turning back. There is an old saying about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, this is how we feel about healthcarereform.

                Ok, first show us you can stop the fraud, waste and abuse. Nobody should be against that. Then cap lawsuits, then and only then, before you stand the world on its head, talk to me about changing the basic program.

                One should never pass a law, nor anything else for that matter, merely for the sake of passing a law.

              • SK,
                Am I being too Politically Incorrect? 😉

                If not hate mongering, what would you call it? I don’t think that sign and others like it qualify as ‘upset’ – even ‘very, very upset’.

                I agree stopping fraud, waste, abuse and unwarranted lawsuits should all be a part of the health care reform, but how can we work towards that when extremism and hatred are all that’s out there? It’s gotten to the point where anyone who tries to compromise and find middle ground is attacked by the extremists from their own side.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                L:lets see if we can do 48 below

      • Matt, Ray, Todd, et al:

        It appears your assumption that it was just a renegade teacher and discipline would be forthcoming has gone down in flames.

        http://exurbanleague.com/2009/09/24/confirmed-kids-praising-obama-an-official-public-school-activity.aspx

        Also suggest you check our Malkin’s site. She points out that a person involved in this has conducted similar sessions at schools around the country. Don’t know if that means conducted directly or just has pushed her materials and the song for use by others.

    • I would give this a resounding meh. While I am not crazy about a cult of personality being built around anyone, I do not see anything harmful per say in the lyrics. Over the top, yes, but nothing so bad. Equal work for equal pay, first black president, etc, the President is a good guy, etc, seems alright to me. Elementary school kids are not, by and large, particularly political and these kinds of things tend to go over their heads.

      That said, if it had been about Bush, I know my reaction would have been much worse. But if it were about Washington or Lincoln, I would be perfectly ok with it. So I have to assume that there is something else objectionable to this other than that it glorifies the President. I’m just not sure what it is..

      It is important, I think, that this is an isolated incident and not a widespread conspiracy to indoctrinate our youth. People do dumb things all the time, and teaching this to a bunch of kinds is just another example – stupid and possibly irresponsible, yes, malicious and/or criminal, no.

      So, in conclusion: Meh.

      • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

        Washington and Lincoln had a number of songs written, but it was usually after they were off the stage. I felt that once the Navy started naming ships after living people, an unwritten law was being broached and stupid crap like this would be the result.

    • I posted the link to this video yesterday.

      Seems very Chairman Mao-like to me.

    • Let’s see.1.Our children being taught and singing nice little ditties about Obama,no big deal 2.Commercials being make that tell us to SERVE our President-we’re over reacting 3. Presidential address to our children w/ classwork assigned that teaches our children they are supposed to Help our president-no big deal. 4. the president having his own specially made logo-no big deal. 5. classroom video’s stomping on America and it’s people-no big deal

      I’m sure other people can add to this list but lets face it after awhile all these “no big deal things” when put together become a big deal.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Ah, but you see, that is exactly the point! All of these are merely “little things… nothing at all to be concerned about here!”

        Because they can be made to appear to be isolated incidents, wholly unrelated to each other, and CERTAINLY not part of an over-arching strategy, there is obviously nothing whatsoever to worry about!

        Yeah, right.

  22. Kansas readers and Home owners – you do not have to pay your mortgage (at this time)

    (From a pundit)

    MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) holds title to 60 million mortgages. MERS is the foundation of the mortgage market. MERS is now dead in Kansas. It can no longer foreclose on mortgages.

    The Wikipedia entry for MERS summarizes the situation.

    On August 28, 2009, the Kansas Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling regarding the standing, rights and interests of MERS in Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, 2009 Kan. LEXIS 834 (Aug 28, 2009). The court followed the path of the note and the arguments than have been espoused by national consumer advocates such as April Charney, Max Gardner, Nye Lavalle, Chris Hoyer, and Neal Garfield that all indispensable parties must be identified and that the actual lender identified in foreclosure actions to protect each party’s rights. . . .

    In Landmark Nat’l Bank v. Kesler, MERS was the appellant who sought to invoke due process rights which it said were violated when MERS failed to get notice of the fact that their “interest” was being wiped out via a prior foreclosure it did not receive notice of. The Court said simply that MERS — or any nominee didn’t have any interest and proves its point by reference to simple statements in the documents and the simplest of laws and interpretation of the role of MERS and the requirements of recordation. The splitting or bifurcation of the promissory note or mortgage note and mortgage or deed of trust creates an immediate and fatal flaw in title.

    The Kansas Supreme Court went on to cite several other case across the nation and stated: “When the role of a servicing agent [MERS] acting on behalf of a mortgagee is thrown into the mix, it is no wonder that it is often difficult for unsophisticated borrowers to be certain of the identity of their lenders and mortgagees.” . . .

    The court viewed MERS as simply a “straw man” when it stated: “The relationship that MERS has to (to holder of a loan) is more akin to that of a straw man than to a party possessing all the rights given a buyer. A mortgagee and a lender have intertwined rights that defy a clear separation of interests, especially when such a purported separation relies on ambiguous contractual language. The law generally understands that a mortgagee is not distinct from a lender: a mortgagee is “[o]ne to whom property is mortgaged: the mortgage creditor, or lender.” . . .

    The Missouri court found that, because MERS was not the original holder of the promissory note and because the record contained no evidence that the original holder of the note authorized MERS to transfer the note, the language of the assignment purporting to transfer the promissory note was ineffective. . . .

    The Court challenged MERS standing in any foreclosure action when it stated: “What stake in the outcome of an independent action for foreclosure could MERS have? It did not lend the money to Kesler or to anyone else involved in this case. Neither Kesler nor anyone else involved in the case was required by statute or contract to pay money to MERS on the mortgage. . . .

    “The mortgage instrument states that MERS functions “solely as nominee” for the lender and lender’s successors and assigns. The word “nominee” is defined nowhere in the mortgage document, and the functional relationship between MERS and the lender is likewise not defined. In the absence of a contractual definition, the parties leave the definition to judicial interpretation. . . .

    In the end, the court summarized that MERS had no standing or right to assert a claim when it stated: “MERS’s contention that it was deprived of due process in violation of constitutional protections runs aground in the shallows of its property interest. As noted in the discussion of the first issue above, MERS did not demonstrate, in fact, did not attempt to demonstrate, that it possessed any tangible interest in the mortgage beyond a nominal designation as the mortgagor. It lent no money and received no payments from the borrower. It suffered no direct, ascertainable monetary loss as a consequence of the litigation. Having suffered no injury, it does not qualify for protection under the Due Process Clause of either the United States or the Kansas Constitutions.”

    This means that the lenders must prove in a court of law that they, not MERS, possess title to the mortgages.

    This will get very expensive to prove, let alone enforce.

    The lenders have been worried about this for over a year.

    This was a threat from the moment mortgage holders sold off the mortgages to third parties.

    In the old days, a mortgage was held locally. The home owner owed the money to a local bank or S&L. But with packaging of mortgages and securitizing, ownership of the mortgage was transferred to a company that holds the mortgages on behalf of all lenders.

    Now that company has been denied the right to foreclose in Kansas.

    If this ruling becomes a precedent for other state supreme courts, the entire banking system comes unglued.

    This has to terrify lenders.

    If this ruling is appealed and upheld, this authorizes everyone who has a mortgage to stop paying on it if MERS holds the title. It would become impossible to foreclose.

    How will the mortgage market work if lenders refuse to lend? How will the house of cards not topple.

    A guess is that this ruling will be overturned.

    Too much is at stake. But, for now, in the state of Kansas, it is impossible to foreclose on most mortgages.

    I wonder if home owners understand what this means.

    If I lived in Kansas, I would contact a lawyer and ask him/her to look into the details of my mortgage. If MERS held title, I would instruct the lawyer to send a letter to the lender asking for verification regarding who holds title. I would not pay on the mortgage until I received such verification. Why not? Because the contract may not be legally enforceable.

    The banks created this situation for their benefit. I don’t think we owe fractional reserve banks anything unless there is a legal obligation on our part.

    I would like to see the fractional reserve banking system go under. This would end the FED.

    That’s why I think the court’s decision will be overturned. But it is fun to watch

    • Well, Im from Kansas but my mortgage is still held locally. Guess my bank still believes in the old ways. Although my sister and brother-in-laws isnt. I will duely inform them of this. They will most likely keep paying what they owe seeing as they realize nothing is for free and are in no danger of not being able to pay.

      • They may consider demanding proof – and withhold payments – but put the payments into gold –

        If there is proof, they can pay off quickly.

        If there is no proof, they are way ahead of the game.

  23. http://economicrot.blogspot.com/2009/09/las-vegas-unemployment-soars-to-new.html

    Las Vegas – as we know it – has been destroyed.

    PS: Next year, homes bought at $500,000 will probably be selling around $45,000 or less.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      In many places, it is now difficult to find a buyer for a home, even if the price is a mere 10% of what it was 5 years ago.

      If you have money, gold and property are currently the way to go, although I would still recommend some diversification beyond these 2 assets.

  24. If Obama Does Not Impose Sanctions on Iran, Israel Is Likely to Strike.

    Stratfor’s site specializes in international relations. The head of the organization, George Friedman, is a high-ranking member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Stratfor has produced a detailed report on the challenge facing Obama.

    He made a promise to Israel. He will impose sanctions on Iran if Iran does not scrap its nuclear program. It looks as though Iran will not discuss the program with the West.

    This leaves Obama in a difficult position.

    If he fails to act, the Israelis will be off the hook.

    They will not abide by their quid pro quo: not attack.

    What then?

    An Israeli airstrike would involve the United States in two ways. First, it would have to pass through Iraqi airspace controlled by the United States, at which point no one would believe that the Americans weren’t complicit. Second, the likely Iranian response to an Israeli airstrike would be to mine the Strait of Hormuz and other key points in the Persian Gulf — something the Iranians have said they would do, and something they have the ability to do.

    Some have pointed out that the Iranians would be hurting themselves as much as the West, as this would cripple their energy exports. And it must be remembered that 40 percent of globally traded oil exports pass through Hormuz. The effect of mining the Persian Gulf would be devastating to oil prices and to the global economy at a time when the global economy doesn’t need more grief. But the economic pain Iran would experience from such a move could prove tolerable relative to the pain that would be experienced by the world’s major energy importers.

    Meanwhile, the Russians would be free to export oil at extraordinarily high prices.

    The Russians will clean up at the West’s expense.

    They have made it clear that they oppose sanctions against Iran. That pushes the region closer to war. Russia will win this game. The U.S. will not.

    When we speak to people in Tehran, Washington and Moscow, we get the sense that they are unaware that the current situation might spin out of control.

    In Moscow, the scenario is dismissed because the general view is that Obama is weak and inexperienced and is frightened of military confrontation; the assumption is that he will find a way to bring the Israelis under control.

    It isn’t clear that Obama can do that, however.

    The Israelis don’t trust him, and Iran is a core issue for them. The more Obama presses them on settlements the more they are convinced that Washington no longer cares about Israeli interests. And that means they are on their own, but free to act.

    If oil prices double, which would be a conservative result, the fragile recovery would abort. Oil prices would more than double.

    Everyone thinks we are on a known roadmap, when in reality, one of the players — Israel — has the ability and interest to redraw the roadmap.

    Netanyahu has been signaling in many ways that he intends to do just this. Everyone seems to believe he won’t. I would not be so sure.

    With Netanyahu as Prime Minister, Israel is likely to push a more confrontational foreign policy with respect to Iran.

    And, even if the US blocks Israel – what will the US do? Shoot down Israeli jets crossing Iraq? What will the fallout be after that? Who is thinking about this? No one other than me?

    This is why I think the clock is ticking.

    We are seeing the conventional media becoming more aware of this threat, but the topic is still secondary. There is no sense of urgency. Yet the magnitude of the economic risk is great.

    This is a Black Swan potential event. The likelihood is, admittedly, small.

    The fallout, if it happens, is massive.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      If Israel does strike Iran, there is at least some likelyhood of a world war – one in which the US would have to reluctantly side with Israel. We are certainly not going to side with the Persians and Arabs, but some in the current administration, and indeed, many people in this country, will be reluctant to side with Israel either.

      Failure to choose a side immediately will be seen by the middle east as supporting Israel. Immediately choosing the side of Israel will be seen by the middle east as proof that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are really a “war against Islam”

      Failure to choose a side immediately will be seen by the Israelis as a failure to support Israel, and choosing to side with Iran would be seen (of course) as complete abandonment of Israel. Either decision would lose the democratic party the support of Jews FOREVER.

      Israel holds pocket aces, Iran holds pocket queens, Obama hasn’t even looked at his cards and is thinking about going all in, not even knowing he holds the duece of clubs and the 7 of diamonds.

      If Israel does decide to act, we are well and truly screwed no matter which way we go (even if we decide to do nothing).

      • There is every likelyhood Obama would take no action, which puts the US on the sidelines. The complete control of the house by the Dem’s, with Pelosi in charge also makes US inaction the most likely
        outcome. One thing will be interesting to observe, can Obama really talk himself out of everything?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          In the eyes of Israel, inaction by the US is equivalent to direct action against Israel. Obama knows this, but will probably choose not to act anyway.

          • I believe he will shoot down the Israeli jets.

            The alternative is far too dangerous – war with Iran, Russia and China, while suffering the collapse of global economy.

            Dropping Israeli jets would tell the world (1) US is independent (2) Israel is no longer unconditionally supported in every thing they do

            Democrats probably will never get elected again – but, then again – who knows?

            • Surely not BF….that would be an act of war against a people who did no violence toward us. Standing back and keeping our mouth shut is more this Admins. style.

              • That would not be an act of war, Amazed1

                Israeli jets entering Iraqi airspace which is under the authority and administrative control of the USA, without permission – is an act of war.

                The US response of shooting them down would be wholly justified.

              • So the use of violent action against a group of people who have done no violent action to you is OK in this instance? Seems awful hypocritical given your stances in the past. As I recall you justified ZERO violence unless it was initiated towards you.

              • Armed military jets with bombs …. can only fly through a territory with PERMISSION.

                No more than an armed intruder walking through your house to shoot your neighbor … are YOU saying you’d think this is “ok”???

              • SK Trynosky Sr. says:

                How about an armed intruder walking through my house without my permission to shhoot the guy who wants to shoot me.

              • Then you would give him permission, not?

              • BF
                Israel will not use Iraq air space….someone has already given them the right to use their airspace for this purpose…and it was not Iraq

              • I look at the map.

                Who?

                There are fuel considerations….

              • It was in the news about 4 weeks ago,

    • “Who is thinking about this? No one other than me?”

      I think Iran could affect this situation by first stop being the largest sponsor of terrorism, the majority of that targeted at Israel. Second, stop calling for the destruction of Israel. Third, allow UN inspectors to show their pursuit of nuclear power is for peaceful means only.

      PS, I’m back in town today, gone Friday, back Sat. PM.
      Hate to heckle and run.

      Take the children and yourself
      And hide out in the cellar
      By now the fighting will be close at hand
      Don’t believe the church and state
      And everything they tell you
      Believe in me, I’m with the high command

      Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
      Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
      Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
      Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

      There’s a gun and ammunition
      Just inside the doorway
      Use it only in emergency
      Better you should pray to god
      The father and the spirit
      Will guide you and protect from up here

      Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
      Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
      Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
      Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

      Swear allegiance to the flag
      Whatever flag they offer
      Never hint at what you really feel
      Teach the children quietly
      For some day sons and daughters
      Will rise up and fight while we stood still

      Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
      Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
      Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
      Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

      Can you hear me running (can you hear me calling you? )
      (can you hear me) hear me calling you?
      (can you hear me running) hear me running babe?
      (can you hear me running) hear me running?
      Calling you, calling you

      Silent Running, Mike & the Mechanics

      • Iran could affect this situation by first stop being the largest sponsor of terrorism, the majority of that targeted at Israel.

        Obviously you do not believe dropping bombs on civilians is ‘terrorism’.

        Second, stop calling for the destruction of Israel.

        You repeat a lie – over and over again.

        Since they haven’t called for that – it is done.

        Third, allow UN inspectors to show their pursuit of nuclear power is for peaceful means only

        Since they have – and the IAEA have repeatedly ready- the Iranians are are compliant in all matters and have no nuclear weapons program.

        Let’s see them say that about Israel.

        • “You repeat a lie – over and over again.”

          By Israel News Agency Staff

          Tel Aviv —–July 10……. Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called again for all Islam states to “mobilize” to “remove” Israel, which he termed the main problem of the Islamic world.

          “The existence of this regime (Israel) will bring nothing but suffering and misery for people in the region and the increase of hatred towards the governments that support it,” Ahmadinejad said in a speech carried live on state television.

          Ahmadinejad was addressing a gathering of Iraq’s neighbors called by Tehran to review regional security measures as Iran’s neighbor descends into civil war. The anger of people in the region may soon “lead to a vast explosion that will know no boundaries”, the Iranian head of state said. Western governments should “stop the crimes” of Israel and open the way to a Palestinian government, he said.

          http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelnuclearterrorism500710.html

          Notice I found a completely un-biased source. LOL
          There were a few thousand I didn’t quote, let me know if you need help finding any.

          • And you -unashamedly- quote

            ..regime (Israel)

            You are embarrassed yet?

            This is akin to some editor in the USA doing this;

            …terminate the administration of Obama (USA)…

            Then yelling …See! See! They are seeking to destroy America!!…

            Are your pants on fire yet?

    • Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN today. Did anyone else see/hear the speech?

  25. A $4 billion bailout for the Postal Service

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27513.html#ixzz0S32lY21Q

    With little public warning, the language has now been attached to a must-pass spending bill to keep the government funded for the first month of the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

    To further shield that resolution from amendments on the floor, the House and Senate Appropriations negotiators voted Thursday to wrap it into an otherwise non-controversial $4.65 billion budget bill covering the operations of the Capitol and such agencies as the Library of Congress.

  26. More 9/11 Contradictions

    Testimony shows that the military was aware of Flight 93 – though the Commission report says they were not.

    http://www.dcdave.com/article5/Flight93.pdf

  27. The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies

    The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say… “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . “

    http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php

  28. Here ya go BF

    Jobless Man Uncovers Gold Hoard with Metal Detector

    Thursday, September 24, 2009

    An unemployed man has unearthed the largest hoard of Anglo-Saxon gold ever found with the help of his metal detector. Experts are now calculating its value—a process that could take more than a year because of its size.

    Terry Herbert from Burntwood, Staffordshire, stumbled on the hoard in a private field with his trusty 14-year-old metal detector. Over five days in July, the 55-year-old dug up a fortune on the farmland near to his home. The find was declared as treasure by coroner Andrew Haigh, which means the cache will be offered for sale after it is valued.

    More than 1,500 pieces of treasure—including around 11lbs of gold and 5.5lbs of silver—has now been uncovered. Archaeologists believe the hoard dates back to the seventh century and may have belonged to Saxon royalty. Among the riches are warfare paraphernalia, including sword pommel caps and hilt plates, often inlaid with precious stones.

    Leslie Webster, former keeper at the British Museum’s Department of Prehistory and Europe, said the find would “alter our perceptions of Anglo-Saxon England as radically, if not more so, as the Sutton Hoo discoveries.”

    “(It is) absolutely the equivalent of finding a new Lindisfarne Gospels or Book of Kells,” he said.

    Dr Kevin Leahy, national finds adviser from the Portable Antiquities Scheme, added that while the quantity of gold was amazing, the craftsmanship was “consummate. Its origins are clearly the very highest-levels of Saxon aristocracy or royalty,” he said. “It belonged to the elite.”

    For more information, read the full story on SkyNews.com.

    • I expect Europe to be loaded with such treasures – buried to protect from plunder – but sadly, America is simply too young and withoutexperience of the large plunder of hard assets.

      But after this crisis, maybe not so inexperienced…

      • Maybe people are not just looking in the right locations. Heck, my son and his friend found a few pieces of gold while out panning for it, and looking in old mines up around Virginia City. Granted, not very big pieces, but none the less found it.

        There still places around here and Placerville area that haven’t been touched I bet, just have to have the patience to look for it.

        What crisis, the gold crisis?

        • Judy,

          I got called for jury duty in Placerville a few years ago. The case was mining on state property without a license. I had to bite my lip to keep from laughing. Claim jumpung in Old Hangtown! Too bad the tree is gone.

          • Hey T-Ray

            Sorry I didn’t answer earlier, but our internet server has been down for quite awhile. Only been able to get a=back on a little while ago.

            Hey, I have a lot of history up through Placerville and Virginia City and Quincy.

            My dad lived in Placerville when he was a little boy. His mother did a lot of work for the miners up there. They also lived in Virginia City back in the 30’s, and he went to that old school that’s up there. My grandmother ran a boarding house for the miners, as well as doing other jobs for them to make extra money so she could put food on the table.

            My dad and his brother also did odd jobs for the people up there so they could earn some movie money or something. My aunt and uncle used to own the Bucket of Blood saloon there at the same time. That was like in 1932-34. But while living up there my dad’s younger brother Buster, got killed in a car accident. I think he was like 11 years old at the time.

            Just thought I’d share that with you.

            Have a good night T-Ray.

            Judy

            • The Hangman’s Tree Saloon is closed. They took down the dummy and noose. It is scheduled for demolition but the history buffs are fighting it. They expect to find the stump under the floorboards.

  29. A danger foreseen is half-avoided.

    Cheyenne Proverb

  30. A poor person isn’t he who has little, but he who needs a lot.

  31. Quote of the Day:

    A voter, confronted with two bad choices, chooses both.

  32. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    You don’t tug on Superman’s cape
    You don’t spit into the wind
    You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
    and you don’t mess around with Jim

    (Jim Croce)

  33. Richmond Spitfire says:

    Hi Ray,

    In response to your posting:

    So re-read the words and tell me where the danger lies that will initiate some argument back home.

    ***************************************
    Song 1:

    He said that all must lend a hand To make this country strong again

    This country is already strong — this sentence denotes that we are weak. This is not true…We are a strong nation, a nation to be admired. I totally resent this part!

    He said we must be fair today Equal work means equal pay

    If the message were that people should be paid equally for doing the EXACT same job with the EXACT same results, regardless of sex, color, religion then I’m okay with that. Here’s the big BUT…the entitlement that the last couple of generations of children are used to makes them feel as though they should get a job and get paid the same amount (not starting salary) as the employee next to them who has been doing the job for 40 years with excellent results. This just gives our children false expectations.

    He said that we must take a stand To make sure everyone gets a chance

    Hmmm…”MUST” “EVERYONE” “CHANCE”….What about celebrating the differences that do come with diversity…DUH…EVERYONE already gets a chance…They are born into the greatest country that there ever was! This is simply prep code for socialism.

    Song 2:

    Hello, Mr. President we honor you today! For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say “hooray!”

    Hello…what accomplishments? Brainwashing our children into believing that he accomplished great things — This is setting history before it has happened. How about the writers of that song cite the history to date with this president and change that to we honor you for enslaving our generation, our children’s generation, their children’s generation and so on.

    I’m stopping here…

    Best Regards,
    RS

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Haha – nice one RS – so – by you ‘reading into’ the meaning of the song – do I thus assume you oppose:

      Puff the Magic Dragon for supposed references to smoking weed?
      Jack and Jill for encouraging promiscuity in children
      Owl and the Pussycat for encouraging inter-species breeding?
      Humpty Dumpty for encouraging risky behavior and irresponsibility
      Old Mother Hubbard for encouraging animal neglect

      Need I go on?

      See how utterly ridiculous this becomes?

      Cheers….

      Ray

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Hi Ray,

        Puff the Magic Dragon – Not Real
        Jack and Jill – Not Real
        Owl and the Pussycat – Not Real
        Humpty Dumpty – Not Real
        Old Mother Hubbard – Not Real

        The nursery rhymes and songs have a purpose to teach morals. Usually, these are sung or read to children by parents, grandparents, babysitters, etc. when children are very young. I don’t remember being taught these in public school.

        Barack Hussein Obama – Real
        United States of America – Real
        Teachers – Real
        ABC’s – Real (song to learn the letters)
        One Two, Buckle my shoe – Real (song to learn how to count)

        ********************************

        I’m very glad Ray to see though that you agree that the songs are hogwash and have no business being taught in school.

        Best Regards,
        RS

        • So because he’s real and Puff isn’t, Puff (the song) has no power to influence young minds but the Obama Songs (for want of a better name) do?

          I think you’re just reading into this a bit too far, though I do agree these have no place in schools.

          That said, I’d be interested: do violent video games make children more likely to act violently? Does it make a difference if the game is realistic (ie WWII theme) or unrealistic (ie shooting aliens)?

        • Adding, I saw a few comments the other day and just wanted to say that I, too, am sorry for your loss.

          I wish you and yours the very best.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Most all the above I remember learning and singing in school. I didn’t have parents that typically sang to/with me. I don’t agree that they are all intended to share some morals – maybe there is a message, however obtuse, in some of them. Mostly they are simply songs that teach something practical (like abc’s and 123’s).

      • bottom line says:

        • Line,

          It would seem we were having the same thought.

          BTW Ray, I don’t want my kids singing about Bush or Reagan either.

          • But how would you feel about them singing about Washington or Lincoln?

            • Hi Matt

              I would agree that this is small potatoes. I paused and shook my head. I am a bit of a music lover, of all styles (except rap and most hip-hop). There are songs about many subjects, but to put any standing President to the same level as any Gospel song, seems to be unusual, if not off the wall.

              G!

              • Is it gospel style? I was having trouble figuring it out without watching the video (I’m at work so that’s a dicey proposition).

                Small potatoes, and stupid, and isolated. All in all, a resounding meh.

          • bottom line says:

            “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” – Sir Winston Churchill

    • How Did Hitler Control His Youth?

      Do you see this picture of children so strongly cheering their leader, Adolph Hitler? How did Hitler control these young people? Could this happen again today? If we learn how Hitler was able to control his youth, then perhaps we can help to prevent a repeat of such Nazi-style mind-control brainwashing in the future.

      How Did Hitler Control His Youth

      (1) Hitler used his image as a father figure

      In the traditional German home, the father was the one in control. The rest of the family was expected to always obey the father — to obey their father “without question”. By projecting such a “father” image before the children of Germany, Hitler was able to transfer power from the institution of the home to his own social and political institutions. Hitler also persuaded “his” children into thinking that, since Hitler was their “father”, this also meant that he also cared about them, and about their future. Of course, Hitler actually only cared about one man — himself. Hitler’s Youth were just his “pawns” in his great political and military scheme to take over the world.

      (2) Hitler extinguished dissent

      Children were only allowed to hear one view of Hitler – the positive view. This was especially true after 1933, when Hitler became the undisputed leader of Germany. After 1933, Hitler was able to silence all public opposition against him and thereby gain even more influence, (including more influence over the children). Anyone who disagreed with any of Hitler’s ideas was immediately considered to be “suspect” and might therefore get a knock on the door late at night and be “shown the door” to his or her own house, (or even worse, I might add).

      (3) Hitler used an organized program to keep his kids occupied

      Hitler used his now famous “Hitler Youth” program as a kind of “Boy Scouts” for the training of children to obediently follow him, and to prepare them to become his future soldiers. He learned that “youth’s loneliness” could be used as a powerful tool to influence (and then gain control) over these young, impressionable kids. Hitler therefore tried to keep these children busy, keeping them organized so that they would not be “lonely”. (By the way, the current Pope of Rome, Joseph Ratzinger, was also kept busy as a boy as a part of this same “Hitler Youth”.)

      (4) Hitler made certain that children were kept as ignorant as possible

      Generally, the more ignorant children are, (or adults for that matter), the less apt they are to question the validity of their leader’s claims of authority. Therefore, Hitler made sure that these children did not learn any information that was not “needed” by them. These kids were also instructed never to “think for themselves”. No, such thinking for one’s self was considered to be very “dangerous thinking” and therefore “suspect”.

      Such children were also not to read any books or listen to any radio programs that might “confuse them”, (i.e. anything other than Hitler’s propaganda programs.) Nevertheless, Hitler made sure that these children always had the “proper information” that they needed, (i.e. as little as possible, in order to always keep his children as ignorant as possible.)

      (5) Hitler gathered the children into frequent rallies

      Large groups of children congregating together in youth rallies can have a strong peer pressure effect in strengthening the grip of an authority figure. This is especially true when loud music and many standing ovations are made a central part of this control effort, (as in the picture above). In such rallies there would be strong peer pressure for children to conform to the “Hitler worship” which their peers exhibited. Winston Churchill once passed through one such Hitler rally while visiting Germany. Churchill was both shocked and quite dismayed by what he saw in this rally filled with loud music, and many standing-ovations.

      http://www.hitlercontrol.com/

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Was this posting intended to be in line with the idiocy of arguing nursery rhymes? You lost me LOI.

        Thanks.

  34. USW,

    A good article that I am viewing from a refreshed perspective. I have spent an
    evening discussing world events with an Canadian, Israelie and an Aussie. The gentleman from Israel had little to say about Obama, just observed, if his country is destroyed in ten years or fifty, it will not give any of us anything but a brief measure of peace.

    The Aussie said his daughter (7) knows about Obama, but not about their own Prime Minister, and he was happy with that. Obama is seen as the political rock star that is finally addressing the worlds concerns. He admitted they have high taxes, an welfare system with frequent abuse, and then compared my and an Kentuckians resistance to healthcare being racially based. Not hard to counter that with facts, there are more whites on welfare than blacks.

    He was very opinionated on climate change. He felt the drought they have been experiencing for several years must be due to global warming. The US has had droughts in California, Texas, even New York. Nearly every region has droughts at some time. It was not hard to counter his vague thoughts that something must be done with facts and figures. He did start by saying if China and India did nothing, the rest of us would accomplish little. Hopefully he left with a little more knowledge.

  35. For those that say “How can these smart guys be wrong about Man-made global warming”

    Here is a documented example of the impossibility of correcting an nefariously wrong published paper.

    It as funny as it is sad.

  36. Netanyahu Condemns U.N. for Allowing Ahmadinejad to Deliver Address
    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed astonishment that the United Nations would give Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “legitimacy” just six decades after the Holocaust.

    Thursday, September 24, 2009

    Holding aloft evidence of Hitler’s Final Solution, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday railed against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his denial of the Holocaust and scolded the United Nations for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak during its opening session of the 64th U.N. General Assembly.

    With detailed reminders in hand of the war that sent 6 million Jews to their deaths in concentration camps, including construction blueprints for Auschwitz, Netanyahu took his turn at the dais to recall the agreement within the world body to create the Jewish state and express astonishment at what he witnessed a day earlier in that organization’s great hall.

    He commended those who boycotted Ahmadinejad’s speech, but condemned those who allowed it.

    “To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. … Have you no shame? Have you no decency?” Netanyahu said.

    Netanyahu also scolded the United Nations for giving the Iranian president “legitimacy” just six decades after the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad addressed the body Wednesday, and in the run-up to the session repeated his belief that the Holocaust is a myth.

    “What a disgrace,” Netanyahu said. “What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations.”

    Netanyahu challenged the international community to step up and prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but expressed broad disappointment with the United Nations.

    He accused the United Nations of remaining silent on attacks on Israelis from Hamas, and blasted the U.N. Human Rights Council for its “twisted standards.”

    The Human Rights Council issued a recent report that condemned Israel for its offensive in the Gaza Strip last January. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice last week called the report, conducted by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, “unbalanced, one sided and basically unacceptable,” but the White House on Wednesday corrected a report that it would not allow the findings to reach the International Criminal Court.

    “What a travesty,” Netanyahu said. “Israel justly defended itself against terror.”

    He said the latest report presents a test to the international community: “Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?”

    Netanyahu drew applause only when he talked about the need for a Palestinian state and when he finished his speech.

    The day before, President Obama also drew heavy applause when he declared that “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” Obama called for Palestinians to end their “incitement of Israel” as well, but that line did not trigger a response from the audience.

    Obama earlier met with Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a bid to re-start peace talks. It’s unclear how Israel will respond to the U.S. president’s firm declaration on the settlements. Netanyahu, while suggesting Israel is open to a temporary freeze on West Bank settlements, told FOX News Tuesday that the settlers must be allowed to extend the “possibility of normal life.”

    He said the settlers need schools, health clinics and other buildings, and that he believes the issue should come at the end of negotiations — not the beginning.

    • Netanyahu drew applause only when he talked about the need for a Palestinian state and when he finished his speech

      The world spoke.

      1) Give Palestine their country back.

      2) Stop talking.

      • “91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip” offer rejected.

        According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, “most of the criticism for [the] failure [of the 2000 Camp David Summit] was leveled at Arafat.”[10]

        Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would crush all Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami was “we can’t accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation.”[11]

        Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, “I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace.” [4] The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[10][12][13] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

        • Arafat – who is not Palestinian but Egyptian – made a dangerous mistake.

          • That we can agree upon. Israel refuses to recognize Hamas, so there is no one who can negotiate for Palestine. The Palestinian people elected Hamas, which is funded by Iran, which will not allow peace except thru the total destruction of Israel.

            My new Israelie friend also told me the reason so many stay in Palestine, instead of moving to Syria
            or Egypt, is their living standard is much higher working in Israel, living in Palestine.

            • I’d expect an Israeli say that.

              However, you should ask a Palestinian.

              He’d say he stays because it is his country.

            • Re; Hamas recognition.

              Amazing how ‘democracy’ is mouthed by the West but perverted by the West when those that ‘we don’t like’ get elected.

              • The Aussie could not explain to me why the Palestinians chose to identify themselves with the name bestowed upon the region by the Romans, after they conquered it.

                BTW,
                “I’d expect an Israeli say that.”
                Do I detect a hint of bias there?

              • Did you ask him why he took the name after an empire that was obliterated by Assyrians?

                No bias.

                I have found more than a few Israelis who look upon the Palestinians with the same perspective as the Klan upon Blacks and US Calvary looked upon the Native Indians.
                have found that some israelis

              • I hate squissy – reposted below

  37. Thought I’d change the subject here for a minute.

    Good Lord, this would be like passing a mac truck through.

    AP/Andi Anshari

    A three-day-old baby boy weighing 19.2-pounds lies next to an average size newborn baby at a hospital in Kisaran, North Sumatra, on Thursday.

    A three-day-old baby boy weighing 19.2-pounds lies next to an average size newborn baby at a hospital in Kisaran, North Sumatra, on Thursday.

    A woman in Indonesia has given birth to the country’s biggest ever baby — tipping the scales at a whopping 19.2 pounds.

    The 24.4-inch baby boy, who has not yet been given a name, was born by Caesarean section at a hospital in North Sumatra province.

    A gynecologist who took part in the operation said the “special delivery” was no easy feat.

    “This heavy baby made the surgery really tough, especially the process of taking him out of his (mother’s) womb. His legs were so big,” Binsar Sitanggang said.

    The boy’s huge size was most likely the result of his 41-year-old mother having diabetes, Sitanggang said.

    When a diabetic mother’s glucose level is high during pregnancy, the baby can receive too much glucose and grow too large, gynecologists say.

    The boy’s mother had to be rushed to hospital because of complications with the pregnancy, which had reached nine months.
    Photo Essays

    The baby is the woman’s fourth child, but her only child not delivered by a midwife.

    The boy is said to be healthy despite having to initially be given oxygen to overcome breathing problems.

    Sitanggang described the baby as “extraordinary” in almost every way.

    “He’s got strong appetite, every minute, it’s almost nonstop feeding,” he said. “This baby boy is extraordinary, the way he’s crying is not like a usual baby. It’s really loud.”

  38. “The Department of Health and Human Services on Monday not only targeted Humana, but sent out a broad directive to all Medicare Advantage participants, telling them to “immediately discontinue all such mailings”

    Since when has Health & Human services had the authority to prevent anyone from writing or saying whatever they want? Freedom of speech does not apply?

    Republicans say the administration was essentially punishing Humana for questioning the plan and firing a warning shot at any other companies that might be thinking of doing the same. The Department of Health and Human Services on Monday not only targeted Humana, but sent out a broad directive to all Medicare Advantage participants, telling them to “immediately discontinue all such mailings” and remove any such material from their Web sites.

    Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said the order went out to about 200 companies Monday night, just as the Senate Finance Committee was about to start debate on its version of health care reform.

    “This is an effort to stifle any dissent,” he said.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/house-republicans-hearing-health-insurance-company-gag-order/

    And why does this sound familiar?
    “(2) Hitler extinguished dissent”

    • Republicans said Humana’s claim was accurate in the first place. But as proof its behavior was above board, they held up a Clinton-era letter from the Department of Health and Human Services offering guidance on mailers sent by insurers to customers.

      The 1997 letter, written by Center for Health Plans and Providers Director Bruce Fried to a law firm, addressed the question of whether HMOs could tell members about proposed legislation and urge them to express their opinions. The letter concluded that restrictions could violate free speech laws.

      “While it may be difficult for a reviewer to ascertain whether or not the information about legislation, for example contained in a member’s newsletter issued by an HMO, is accurate and without a slant or unrevealed self-interest, we believe that prohibiting such information would violate basic freedom of speech and other constitutional rights of the Medicare beneficiary as a citizen,” the letter reads.

      The letter noted that information about members’ and HMOs’ rights and responsibilities should not be “misrepresented,” but the general requirement for such mailers would be an attached disclaimer saying the information has not been reviewed for “accuracy or misrepresentation.”

      Humana attached a nearly identical disclaimer in its mailer.

      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/clinton-administration-guidance-proves-humana-acted-properly-republicans-say/

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      It also goes to show what scumbags companies like Humana are – they’ll take money from whatever hand will feed it to them and then turn heel and bite the opposite hand. Either way they make out.

  39. bottom line says:

    Q: What do you call a dog with no legs?

    A: Nothing, It won’t come to you anyway. It’s legless.

  40. LOI

    Did you ask him why he took the name after an empire that was obliterated by Assyrians?

    No bias.

    I have found more than a few Israelis who look upon the Palestinians with the same perspective as the Klan upon Blacks and US Calvary looked upon the Native Indians.

    • And you can correct your friend.

      The name “Palestine” comes from the “Land of the Philistines” with earliest known mention is thought to be in Ancient Egyptian texts of the temple at Medinet Habu which record a people called the P-r-s-t (conventionally Peleset) among the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in Ramesses III’s reign.

      He kinda missed 2,000 years of history.

      • Flag,

        I cannot correct my friend. He/we were in Detroit, I
        am not there now and do not know where he is. I met him once, so I do not have the honor to call him “friend”. My apologies if I come off shallow, but the term friend means something to me, so I don’t toss it around very casually.

        The mistake on the Palestine is mine alone, although it did give the Aussie pause. A good thing for me you were not in that group.

        “No bias.

        I have found more than a few Israelis who look upon the Palestinians with the same perspective as the Klan upon Blacks and US Calvary looked upon the Native Indians.”

        So what!!! I have found a “few” blacks to be racist towards whites. I have also found a few blacks to be better people than most whites. Take out the “Isralies” and insert any other minority and see how that sounds. That is bias my friend.

  41. bottom line says:

    “Daddy,” a little girl asked her father, “do all fairy tales begin with ‘Once upon a time’? ”

    “No, sweetheart,” he answered. “Some begin with ‘If I am elected.'”

  42. bottom line says:

    A man went in for a brain transplant operation and was offered a choice of two brains by the surgeon. He could choose either the Architect’s brain which would cost him $10,000 or the Politician’s which was $100,000.

    “Does that mean that the politician’s brain is much better than the Architect’s?” exclaimed the clearly puzzled man.

    “not exactly” replied the surgeon, “the politician’s has never been used.”

  43. I heard a song for the first time on the radio a few minutes ago, and kinda liked it. Kinda reminds me of me sometimes!

    Mainly the hippee/redneck part.

    I’m not so politacally correct, and don’t much gice a damn anyway, but heard a joke that is not politically correct. So if you don’t like these kinds of things, don’t read it.

    The Whitehouse gardener was walking past the Oval office, he turned and yelled to his assistant “where’s the spade and the hoe?” He got fired!

    G!

  44. From above!

    BF, I agree with you about the jets flying over without permission. I would not hesitate to blown them out of the sky.

    Judy, Your recipe for stuffed peppers was a big hit!

    Got a tude tonight, so alittle more music:

    G!

    • G!

      On dial up, so can’t watch or post as I would like. Hope this brings a little laugh.

      During a recent password audit, it was found that a blonde was using the following password:

      MickeyMinniePlutoHueyLouieDeweyDonaldGoofy

      When asked why such a big password, she said that it had to be at least 8 characters long.

      • Logic Two Rednecks, Larry and Doug, are sitting at their favorite bar, drinking beer.

        Larry turns to Doug and says, ‘You know, I’m tired of going through life without an education. Tomorrow I think I’ll go to the Community College and sign up for some classes.’

        Doug thinks it’s a good idea and the two leave.

        The next day, Larry goes down to the college and meets Dean of Admissions, who signs him up for the four basic classes: Math, English, History, and Logic.

        ‘Logic?’ Larry says. ‘What’s that?’

        The dean says, ‘I’ll give you an example. Do you own a weed eater?’

        ‘Yeah.’

        ‘Then logically speaking, because you own a weed eater, I think that you would have a yard.’

        ‘That’s true, I do have a yard.’

        ‘I’m not done,’ the dean says. ‘Because you have a yard, I think logically that you would have a house.’

        ‘Yes, I do have a house.’

        ‘And because you have a house, I think that you might logically have a family.’
        ‘Yes, I have a family.

        ‘I’m not done yet. Because you have a family, then logically you must have a wife. And because you have a wife, then logic tells me you must be a heterosexual.’

        ‘I am a heterosexual. That’s amazing, you were able to find out all of that because I have a weed eater.’

        Excited to take the class now, Larry shakes the Dean’s hand and leaves to go meet Doug at the bar. He tells Doug about his classes, how he is signed up for Math, English, History, and Logic.

        ‘Logic?’ Doug says, ‘What’s that?’
        Larry says, ‘I’ll give you an example. Do you have a weed eater?’

        ‘No.’

        ‘Then you’re a queer.

    • Hey G

      Thanks, glad to hear it.

      Got some bad news today. As of November 1st, I am out of a job. John sold the business, he wanted to retire, and because of that, Jim and I are kapootsie. He sold it to his cousin that works down there now, but he wants to do everything himself, but Jim and John will go down there a couple hours a day to make sure that Mike isn’t screwing up everything. He is getting all the clients and everything. So, in between working down there for the next 2 months, I’ll be looking for a new job, YEA!

      I really liked that job too. So anyway, Matthew said that there is always openings at the university, so maybe I can go up there and apply for an office job since that’s my main duties now. I also have cashiering experience as well, so maybe I can go apply for that somewhere. CRAP! Jim said he would stay with mom while I go look and if I get a job, otherwise I don’t know what we’ll do with her if I have to take her with me everywhere. This lab job was the only place I can take her with me.

      I’m sorry, didn’t mean to start this, just put a crimp in my mood that was bad enough today as is was.

      But thanks again for the compliment, I appreciate it.

      Judy

  45. This guy was getting into his car, when suddenly he noticed everything was taken. The radio, GPS, anything and everything, even the steering wheel was gone.

    He called the police, and told them that everything in his car was taken, even the steering wheel.

    The police told him that they will be right there.

    The guy called the police back and said, this is John Smith, and I just called about being robbed. He said, never mind, I got in the back seat.

  46. Good Night All

    Catch you all tomorrow.

    Judy

  47. “Our free market system allowed a country to go from “13 savage colonies” to one of the most powerful and successful countries in the world in less than two centuries. The key to that statement is that it was a FREE market that allowed this to happen.”

    I’m afraid I have to take issue with your statement here for I do not believe it to be supported by history. We all think of the 19th century as the ideal of the laissez-faire economy, and indeed while it was far closer to that than it now is today, it’s largely a myth and you should not forget what tariffs and other protectionist policies did for American industry. This allowed American manufacturing to not be undermined by cheaper products overseas from places such as Britain, whose manufacturing was already going (and once it goes, it’s easier to produce in large quantities and thus be cheaper). Tariffs, in other words, helped spur the growth of industry in the US during the late 19th century. There’s a big reason why the republicans of the 19th century supported strong tariffs, which the North generally supported (which would in turn benefit industry in the US, focused in the North). They were so high that the US government during the late 19th century drew most of its funds from tariffs.

    Of course, tariffs aren’t the solution to all economic woes for almost all economists are of the general consensus that high tariffs were the cause of the decline of world trade during the late 1920s and 1930s, and thus ultimately the cause of the Great Depression. But if you are looking to spur the growth of industry or protect jobs at home, some tariffs are necessary, and indeed many third world nations around the world are being screwed over through being indebted to international organizations such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank who won’t allow them to set up any tariffs or subsidize their industries (thus when food from the developed world, often subsidized, is imported into there at below the cost of production, those countries’ farmers go out of business and they become dependent on imports which fluctuate like crazy with the price of oil, as we saw during the international food crisis last year). A balance of protectionist policy and free trade policy, I believe, is best so as to not slip into the same dilemma which led us to the Depression of the 1930s.

    • Curtis

      It is supported by history.

      Before free market capitalism, humanity was incredibly poor and starving.

      With the advent of capitalism, humanity has never been so prosperous.

      Mercantilism does detract from the free market – and contrary to your claim – it harms all business.

      Tariffs do not solve any economic woe – they make it worse.

  48. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    Todd, ahh, this is better, I can stretch now!

    I see the problem in debate as no one is proposing an end to fraud, waste and abuse except me.

    I don’t know what it is about government that requires a constant stream of new bills or laws rather than tweaking to improve what we have. I spent 21 of my years working for NYC and just when we thought we had some constancy and got the damn thing working, boom, they threw it out the window and we had to start all over again.

    Part of the problem I think is that politicians want to have their name on something. Think McCain-Feingold, a lousy piece of legislation yet it must be mentioned on the news at least weekly.
    building up those old McCain and Feingold egos.

    So, I don’t see it so much as being attacked by extremists rather than just being ignored. Did you ever have the experience in a spirited debate among friends to propose something eminently reasonable and be ignored?

    As an example I give you the current bedbug/DDT/malaria debate. Bedbugs are evil, DDT is evil, malaria is an evil killer and yet DDT is the only thing that will stop them. Since DDT was misused in the past and completely banned, it is impossible to engage a supporter of the ban in debate to see if more moderate use of the pesticide could kill bedbugs and mosquito’s and not harm the environment. The opposite side says DDT is harmless and you can bathe in it. I repeatedly find myself standing between these two groups and being treated like I am not there.

    Come to think of it, I have just made your point. I guess then it is our job to scream loudest of all and bang them both over the head with 2 X 4’s until we get their attention.

    So, on healthcarereform (I like to just run the words out like that sort of like the mindless debate going on) we have to get the right on board with reforming the existing system first and not hoping still that they can overturn medicare/medicaid and the left to shut their damn mouths and make something workable instead of making something to feel good about which seems to be all they ever want to do.

    • SK,

      I see the problem in debate as no one is proposing an end to fraud, waste and abuse except me.

      You’re not alone! I work for a large insurance company (P&C, not healthcare), and fraud and abuse are a constant problem. I’m amazed at the amount of money we spend to stop it. We do not recover enough to pay for our expense, but the idea is that if people know we’re looking for it and we go after every case (no matter how small), there will be fewer attempts at fraud, so we come out ahead.

      And that really does work. I’m in IT and we’ve developed systems that look for patterns and trends that indicate fraud. While developing those systems, we ran them against our historical claim data and we found all kinds of fraud – some were pursued, some were too old. Eight years later, and fraud is down by about 90%, even though we’re getting better and better at finding it.

      The kicker is, it takes a huge out-lay upfront to design and redesign systems to stop fraud, and once you’re got fraud under control, some politician or bureaucrat or MSM is going to look at your budget, compare it to what you recover, and claim you’re not being effective, or it’s not worth the cost to try to stop the fraud. They don’t take into account all of the fraud that wasn’t committed because people learn they’ll get caught…

      I spent 21 of my years working for NYC and just when we thought we had some constancy and got the damn thing working, boom, they threw it out the window and we had to start all over again.

      I’m curious, what types of work did you do in NYC?

      Did you ever have the experience in a spirited debate among friends to propose something eminently reasonable and be ignored?

      Yes, but we can’t stoop to their level. We have to keep trying to lead the debate back to civilized discussions reasonable solutions!

      A while back, I read a story about using DDT…and I was thinking “are you nuts, that stuff kills EVERYTHING” but as I read more and then did a little research on my own, I found that what you and the article said is true – when used properly, DDT is effective and relatively safe, especially when compared to the threat posed by malaria.

      But how do you tell someone, especially someone from an impoverished area that has probably been mistreated (or at least ignored) in the past, that “DDT caused lots of problems in the past but we’ve got that all figured out now and it is safe to use around YOUR family, while it’s still illegal to use in the USA…”

      It’s a tough sell…I don’t think I’d want it used around my family…but I suppose if malaria were a problem, maybe I’d consider it…

      Come to think of it, I have just made your point. I guess then it is our job to scream loudest of all and bang them both over the head with 2 X 4’s until we get their attention.

      See, I’m not ALWAYS wrong, just usually… 😉

      But if you scream loudest and start swinging that 2X4 you’ll just seem like another one of the crazies out there! Civilized debate and eminently reasonable ideas will eventually win – at least I hope they will!

      I agree both sides are part of the problem. When did this all start? And how did it get so bad?

      This is as far back as I can remember details…I’m not trying to point blame, just the big things that I remember. Feel free to add to this or correct things…

      1960’s and 1970’s were quite trying times for the US and the world, but I was too young to really remember details or cause and affect.

      Reagan – he made “government” and “liberal” bad words, but no one really objected. He worked with a Dem Congress and got things done.

      Bush I – Willie Horton was a smear against Dukakis. Gulf War was a bipartisan effort.

      Clinton – pushed too hard for healthcarereform, then lost Congress to the Reps in 1994. After that he worked with a Rep Congress and got things done, but the impeachment was a joke.

      Bush II – with a Rep Congress went too far and lost Congress to the Dems. Not much happened in the 2 years the Dems had Congress (too narrow of a majority, too much bad blood). Liberals were screaming to impeach Bush for war crimes, but I’m glad that did not come about because it only would have elevated the craziness to a new level…

      Obama – pushing too hard with a Dem Congress.

      The pattern that I see is when one party controls the White House and Congress, they push things too far, and since the other party has very little say in matters and nothing ‘invested’ in the process (or nothing to gain by agreeing), they just become the opposition or the party of ‘No’.

      When the White House and Congress are split between the two parties (Reagan and Clinton), they have to work together to accomplish things, otherwise they both get blamed for the problems and doing nothing to fix them.

      But I don’t know how we can get back to civil debate. It might take a big turn-over in Congress (both parties) to get fresh leadership and hopefully that new leadership while put aside the bipartisanship and work together.

%d bloggers like this: